• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

News Spaceship Earth Refurb - 2 Year Closure

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
In the concept art it showed a flying manta ray in the sky that resembled the scene with Moana's grandmother all lit up like that in the movie.
I'm aware, but there was some concern/disagreement as to whether or not that was the "Story Light" going over the Phoenicians scene or a new Moana sequence.
 

DDLand

Well-Known Member
Looks like it's projected on a wall, which means replacing the hunt of a woolly mammoth, a species we caused to go extinct.

BTW, first time I realized how horrific that tableau is.

Here, in this hostile world, is where our story begins.
We are alone, struggling to survive until we learn to communicate with one another.
Now we can hunt as a team and bring about the extinction of other species that aren't nearly as clever as ourselves.
For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t hold our Neolithic Ancestors completely responsible. While human contribution is a known factor, perhaps the more dramatic decline was from a warming climate. Ultimately, it’s hard to say with certain what fully did them in.

One question I would pose (and perhaps its been answered) is if hunting is what eliminated the Mammoths, why weren’t other Elephantidae eliminated? For example, if human hunters in Europe and America were efficient enough to decimate Mammoths, why weren’t African hunters efficient enough to eliminate the African Elephant? It seems logical that an African Neolithic hunter would be just as an effective as a American Neolithic hunter. The same would hold true for Wooly Rhinos and their cousins. This points to a more nuanced view. Perhaps humans were the straw that broke the camel’s back. But a whole lot of factors came together to end this beloved species.


This is in drastic contrast to the Elephants of today. If they die off, it will be our fault and ours alone. We have resources and information that our Neolithic ancestors could not fathom...
 

Mike S

Well-Known Member
Looks like it's projected on a wall, which means replacing the hunt of a woolly mammoth, a species we caused to go extinct.

BTW, first time I realized how horrific that tableau is.

Here, in this hostile world, is where our story begins.
We are alone, struggling to survive until we learn to communicate with one another.
Now we can hunt as a team and bring about the extinction of other species that aren't nearly as clever as ourselves.
I believe that’s called natural selection. Soon enough our time will come as well even if we don’t cause it ourselves. Tis’ the circle of life.

Adapt or die. Fairest law there is and no amount of corruption can interfere with it.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t hold our Neolithic Ancestors completely responsible. While human contribution is a known factor, perhaps the more dramatic decline was from a warming climate. Ultimately, it’s hard to say with certain what fully did them in.

One question I would pose (and perhaps its been answered) is if hunting is what eliminated the Mammoths, why weren’t other Elephantidae eliminated? For example, if human hunters in Europe and America were efficient enough to decimate Mammoths, why weren’t African hunters efficient enough to eliminate the African Elephant? It seems logical that an African Neolithic hunter would be just as an effective as a American Neolithic hunter. The same would hold true for Wooly Rhinos and their cousins. This points to a more nuanced view. Perhaps humans were the straw that broke the camel’s back. But a whole lot of factors came together to end this beloved species.


This is in drastic contrast to the Elephants of today. If they die off, it will be our fault and ours alone. We have resources and information that our Neolithic ancestors could not fathom...
It was likely a result of climate change disrupting their habitat and overhunting*.

African Elephants didn't experience a drastic climate change like the mammoths did, but humans are working real hard to work around that.

*cf bison
 

DDLand

Well-Known Member
It was likely a result of climate change disrupting their habitat and overhunting*.

African Elephants didn't experience a drastic climate change like the mammoths did, but humans are working real hard to work around that.

*cf bison
And this is exactly the conclusion I would reach. 4/5 climate 1/5 human hunting.

The American Bison are a radically different case. In 10,000 BC, there were fewer humans on the entire planet than there were Americans in the 1860s. Combined with speedy domesticated horses and long rage weapons, Americans could wipe out Bison with relative ease. A Paleo/Neolithic hunter would have had a far harder time on foot and using primitive close range weapons. And a Mammoth makes a Bison look like easy prey. Sport hunting was not something an early human would dream of or risk.

If it was hunting that eliminated Mammoth, it was only after they were already critically endangered. As other surviving Megafauna attest, humans could not solely wipe them out with their Stone Age technology. What was the difference between Elephants in Asia and Africa and the Mammoths? Not the ability or number of hunters, but an ill suited body for a warming climate.

In my opinion it’s simplistic at best, and inaccurate at worst to say we caused their extinction. But some could dispute that with me.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
It was likely a result of climate change disrupting their habitat and overhunting*.

African Elephants didn't experience a drastic climate change like the mammoths did, but humans are working real hard to work around that.

*cf bison
So the mammoths experienced drastic climate change that occurred without humans causing it but currently humans are the only cause of less drastic climate change? Just asking.

No, I don't doubt that there is some effect caused by humans. I do have a theory that the effect has more to do with development and urban sprawl paving over and building on top of dirt and plants than burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use had increased simultaneously with urban sprawl and deforestation. Part of the "solution" to climate change involves covering massive amounts of land with dark colored solar panels. I'm very skeptical about how much of a net improvement that will prove to be.

Wind turbines are hideous but at least they are white and don't physically cover that much land. It takes something around 6.5 acres of solar panels for the power output of 1 wind turbine.

My opinion is that solar panels should only be installed on roof tops and over land that has already been paved (parking lots) before considering solar farms on undeveloped land or farm land.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
So the mammoths experienced drastic climate change that occurred without humans causing it but currently humans are the only cause of less drastic climate change? Just asking.

No, I don't doubt that there is some effect caused by humans. I do have a theory that the effect has more to do with development and urban sprawl paving over and building on top of dirt and plants than burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use had increased simultaneously with urban sprawl and deforestation. Part of the "solution" to climate change involves covering massive amounts of land with dark colored solar panels. I'm very skeptical about how much of a net improvement that will prove to be.

Wind turbines are hideous but at least they are white and don't physically cover that much land. It takes something around 6.5 acres of solar panels for the power output of 1 wind turbine.

My opinion is that solar panels should only be installed on roof tops and over land that has already been paved (parking lots) before considering solar farms on undeveloped land or farm land.
Climate change as happened since the beginning of time. If it hadn't most of this country would still be a giant glacier. However, humans have now managed, by introducing things into the atmosphere, to contribute to the more rapid change in it. If we want our children's children to have a place to live in the future we have to slow it down. We have to use that FREE alternative energy source, "The Sun", to be able to continue on a little longer. Unless, of course, one believes that sight lines are more important then life lines.

Solar panels, installed to residence locations can drastically decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and also, over time, reduce individual costs. That said, we can also utilize those massive deserts of the world, that are basically uninhabitable to be out of sight solar panel locations. They also don't require huge amounts of water to make the desert productive. And as soon as the public grows up and stops being scared of their own shadows, individual nuclear power could run everything in ones household. Instead of making bombs perhaps we should redirect our monies to that project.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
So the mammoths experienced drastic climate change that occurred without humans causing it but currently humans are the only cause of less drastic climate change? Just asking.

No, I don't doubt that there is some effect caused by humans. I do have a theory that the effect has more to do with development and urban sprawl paving over and building on top of dirt and plants than burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use had increased simultaneously with urban sprawl and deforestation. Part of the "solution" to climate change involves covering massive amounts of land with dark colored solar panels. I'm very skeptical about how much of a net improvement that will prove to be.

Wind turbines are hideous but at least they are white and don't physically cover that much land. It takes something around 6.5 acres of solar panels for the power output of 1 wind turbine.

My opinion is that solar panels should only be installed on roof tops and over land that has already been paved (parking lots) before considering solar farms on undeveloped land or farm land.
Our town builds them in the empty spaces between on/off ramps for the highway and places like that. A local cranberry farmer has also started adding one to an area unsuitable for crops.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Climate change as happened since the beginning of time. If it hadn't most of this country would still be a giant glacier. However, humans have now managed, by introducing things into the atmosphere, to contribute to the more rapid change in it. If we want our children's children to have a place to live in the future we have to slow it down. We have to use that FREE alternative energy source, "The Sun", to be able to continue on a little longer. Unless, of course, one believes that sight lines are more important then life lines.

Solar panels, installed to residence locations can drastically decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and also, over time, reduce individual costs. That said, we can also utilize those massive deserts of the world, that are basically uninhabitable to be out of sight solar panel locations. They also don't require huge amounts of water to make the desert productive. And as soon as the public grows up and stops being scared of their own shadows, individual nuclear power could run everything in ones household. Instead of making bombs perhaps we should redirect our monies to that project.
I agree with you about nuclear power. We don't need individual nuclear power though (although I agree with you about it). If we doubled the nuclear generating capacity, that, combined with the current growth of wind and solar energy can drastically reduce fossil fuel use.

We don't have any reason to get down to zero use of fossil fuels. My "suggested plan" above would cut fossil fuel use at least in half and not have any detrimental effects on the economy.

The biggest issue with solar is the total area of land required. To generate the current electrical use of the state of Florida with solar would require well over a half a million acres of solar farms. That's before considering the needs of population growth. Long term, if you want to switch all vehicles to electric (which think more biofuel blends make more sense), that would require 20% or so more electricity.
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I agree with you about nuclear power. We don't need individual nuclear power though (although I agree with you about it). If we doubled the nuclear generating capacity, that, combined with the current growth of wind and solar energy can drastically reduce fossil fuel use.

We don't have any reason to get down to zero use of fossil fuels. My "suggested plan" above would cut fossil fuel use at least in half and not have any detrimental effects on the economy.

The biggest issue with solar is the total area of land required. To generate the current electrical use of the state of Florida with solar would require well over a half a million acres of solar farms. That's before considering the needs of population growth. Long term, if you want to switch all vehicles to electric (which think more biofuel blends make more sense), that would require 20% or so more electricity.
I'm not entirely sure about solar farms myself. Places like Disney with enough individual usage to warrant a farm, like they have, makes sense but, as you say, as a mass distribution it requires a crazy number of units to supply. However, if all houses built were to include solar roof panels that not only covered their requirements but also push excess out on the network, that would work.

Back in the 60's when a lot of discussions were happening concerning nuclear power was making a more public exposure, the talk was about that infamous little black box in everyone's basement running everything needed for any household. Lights, heat, hot water, meal prep. and entertainment all by localizing the process of splitting those atoms right in your home. At the time many people, including myself, felt that was going to be in use by now. Obviously, I am not a nuclear scientist, but now that I am old and jaded, it is obvious to me that the oil companies, power companies and others, would have had a very strong interest in not letting that happen. And so, it hasn't.
 

DisneyDreamerxyz

Well-Known Member
Back to the topic at hand (I realize I'm guilty for creating the side discussion), what is the current, best estimate for when SSE will close for this renovation?
sounds like "phase 2" will be in January when they start tearing down the other half of the building (where Art of Disney and Character Spot are) and take out Pin Central. This is also when Electric Umbrella and MouseGear will close. Makes sense the ride will close then too.
 

RobWDW1971

Well-Known Member
FWIW, I spoke with an Imagineer in the Parks pavilion at D23 and asked him what the Oct 1, 2019 was referencing. He said they were just keeping with the date from the parks opening and that its not indicative of anything significant.
Wow, if that last sentence doesn't speak volumes about today's WDI. Just shamelessly play off the nostalgia with nothing creative or unique to add.
 
Top Bottom