this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026
824 points (98.9% liked)
Funny
13073 readers
1069 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are groups of designers who have the job of making symbols and systems that can survive for an extremely long time. One of their tasks was to design “signage” that might let generations thousands of years in the future not go poking around in nuclear waste yards. But the more crazy deadly and dangerous you make an artifact look, the more those future scientists are going to want to get into them.
This is not a place of honor
I was thinking about this and their thinking was way too complicated. The symbol you need is bones. Bones are always associated with death and decay because after death, bones are the thing that's left.
And yes I know they thought of it but I think their dismissal of it is wrong. Their counter argument that it was once a symbol of something else by some culture, therefore. But again by its very nature it's associated with death. Any society capable of this excavation is also capable of thinking "hmm what did they mean? outside of our own culture of course" and will quickly figure out it's bad.
There was a conference about this and Carl Sagan was invited, but couldn't come. He sent a letter suggesting to do just that - skull and bones symbol.