Not sure if this would be better here or \an\ but what realistically

>>1882119
This is a question for /sci/, and one in which you're going to have to specify the circumstances of this extinction with much more detail before you can get anything close to a non-general answer.

>>1882119

If humans went extinct they wouldn't go quietly. They'd burned the whole world down before letting go.

>>1882119
Back when history channel wasn't shit, they have an entire series dedicated to what would happen if man suddenly disappeared.

>>1882119
There is a human in that bottom picture.

Apparently the spent waste pools at nuclear facilities require attention to not blow up.

Ironically, the actual reactors would be fine.

And then you have the obvious problems when fire sprinklers stop working and everything catches fire, when the buildings collapse because buildings collapse when they're on fire and there's no sprinklers or firefighters, and a bunch of oil and gas accidents, chemical accidents in general.

Then presumably bears or elephants or some shit step forward to fill the evolutionary niche we left. Might be a while, given that animals existed for hundreds of millions of years before one of them became intelligent enough to use machines and fire and shit.

>>1882119

>muh nobel savage

nature is fascist

>>1882130
lol

>>1882136
Don't forget all the damage our domesticated animals would do to the surrounding ecosystem.

Pigs are vicious.

There's a sci-fi book about this from 1949 called Earth Abides, where a weaponized disease is accidentally released quickly killing 99.99% of humans, and most of the rest die in the anarchy that follows. It follows the life of one dude who miraculously survives, then goes on a trip across the entirely depopulated US noting how things have changed over the course of a few years, then he finds a few other survivors living in the ruins of San Francisco and helps to build a new society.

Pretty good read.

>>1882119
>what realistically would happen if man were to go extinct.
All the nuclear reactors melt down uncontrollably and reduce the Earth to a lifeless glowing ember.

>>1882608
fucking great novel
terrible how it depicts the return to tribal life in barely 2 generations

>>1882136

>Apparently the spent waste pools at nuclear facilities require attention to not blow up.

If the water in the pool stops circulating, it boils away and that's a very, very, very bad thing.

>>1882119
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy7Q6wazD_E

Nuclear reactors would eventually break down and spread radiation everywhere. I'd imagine all our old bombs would decay eventually and become dangerous too.

In general our refuse would continue to do damage long after we're gone.

Nature would adapt, given time, unless some cataclysmic event wiped out life.

>>1882119
Check out The World Without Us by Alan Weisman

>>1882119
Look at videos of Chernobyl
With no people there it is a paradise.

>>1882136
>Then presumably bears or elephants or some shit step forward to fill the evolutionary niche we left. Might be a while, given that animals existed for hundreds of millions of years before one of them became intelligent enough to use machines and fire and shit.
Future evolved animals is such a neat concept. There was an old online game called Savages where the setting was millions of years into the future after an apocalyptic collapse and evolved magic wielding animals warred with humans who started rediscovering old technology from the ancient civilizations. It's mostly fantasy but it's a cool scifi concept.

>>1882119
That would require hundreds of experts from various fields.
>>1882670
Awful video.

>>1882119
Many plants don't need bees to pollinate, you drooling retard. Go read a biology101 book, then tell your retard friends.

>>1883203
There's a Swedish rpg game about something like that but then it's right after a nuclear war and the animals are genetically modified by humans. They also use comics about anthromorphic animals like Donald Duck and Bamse as proof that they really weren't created by humans.

>>1883955
This thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_the_Bomb_(game)

>>1882119
The planet is not a person, therefor it doesn't really have a right to say no.

>>1882119
Nuclear reactors go kaboom and fuck up life on the land, after 40,000 years the radiation damage will be gone and life will begin anew, but it will most likely do absolutely nothing to the insects.

>>1884943
> after 40,000 years the radiation damage will be gone and life will begin anew
Look at Tchernobyl today, life didn't need 40,000 years to begin anew.

>>1884974
The radiation isnt gone you retard.

>>1882664
Would that be bad on a global scale or just for a large surrounding area?

>>1884991
But the life in Chernobyl is fine, actually it's now a nature preserve of sorts that formed itself.

>>1884928
this one actually
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutant_(role-playing_game)

We may be able to destroy life as we know it, but it will always return. Life already flourishes in areas unfit for human habitation. It's a shame since humans are the only animals capable of escaping the natural limitations of the Earth.