> in a way that is still digestable to a hyper-advanced civilization
I don't think hyper-advanced civilization would have a problem with this - they would either have not lost the knowledge or be able to figure out the danger themselves by using their hyper-advanced sensors and stuff.
The problem is that if our civilization collapses and the Earth goes back to 2000 B.C., those folks will need some warning not to mess with a deadly force that is beyond their comprehention before they reach sufficient level of advancement to know what they're dealing with.
Re:Ten Thousand Years
by notahacker on Sunday July 27, 2014 @03:39PM
(#8093740)
In fairness, if the earth goes back to 2000BC then after the billions of premature deaths resulting from the causes of the collapse of civilization and the resulting loss of food and healthcare, the high death rates suffered by certain tribes locating themselves in the vicinity of certain ruins would be a footnote in history.
It's not about knowing the meaning of the site. It's about knowing the meaning of the site with little or no loss of critical information.
This may not seem like a big deal, but it actually is. Technology didn't improve that much between ten thousand years ago and 150 years ago. This is why we're able to examine ancient sites and kinda sorta make something out. But the rate of technological progress has been increasing, and this acceleration has no end in sight so far. What that means is that ten thousand years from now, our descendants may have no way of relating to the way we do things now. That's why we need to think really, really hard about how to make the information survive in a way that is still digestable to a hyper-advanced civilization.