I often think about a scifi story where after X million years, somehow familiar humanity survives, and two plates containing land with VERY different natural flora and fauna approach each other - for example, california, home of many native plant defenders, and australia. As they get closer than 50 miles, news would start to mention making sure not to cross-transplant animals and plants. Under 20 miles, the wind and storms would do some work already, but people on both sides may still be resisting. But the moment they actually touch for the first time, some great treaty may shimmer into enforceable existence, changing the future of that whole world.
Or else, they'd just build fences, forbid anyone from living on the coast, and maintain this artificial continental boundary forever...?
There are two cycles that govern human social change: the generational ~10 year cycle and the lifetime ~80 year cycle. Each generation adopts new values, and once a generation dies their values disappear. Tectonic movement is so slow that I think reality will be much more boring than your scifi story. The hundred thousand years where the two regions are "close enough" is more than enough time for the two peoples to both integrate and experience conflict hundreds of times over.
True. Although most science fiction which would take place over such a long timespan might involve methods of locking things down more firmly, and putting at least part of the world into a kind of stasis. This is almost necessary to explain how humanity could still be at a similar tech level to us now yet still be around for such a time period.
This will change if technology is developed which greatly extends human lifespans. Such technology is going to become necessary soon because of plummeting birth rates.
> after X million years [...] two plates containing land with VERY different natural flora and fauna approach each other - for example, california [...] and australia.
Yeah, nah - the flora jumped the gap 150 years ago already . . .
That’s kind of misanthropic, talking in absolute terms. I could agree in terms of low possibilities but certainly not absolutes. I feel it does a disservice to the few who actually come up with genius solutions to problems humanity faces and the many who dedicate their lives to solving them too.
Is it, really?
With current progress I don't see humanity surviving even another 500 yrs, honestly.
The main intelligent race at that point is likely going to be something like a symbiont/cyborg that's part machine. At least nothing it'd consider human.
Millions of years is a long period of time. Humanity has only existed for roughly 200-300k. That's less then 1% of the projected time period here.
It's difficult to imagine human beings behaving in such a cautious way, when Australian trees have already been so widely transplanted across California that I grew up believing eucalyptus were native.
Or else, they'd just build fences, forbid anyone from living on the coast, and maintain this artificial continental boundary forever...?