There was a scenario something like that in a book called Earth Abides, by George R. Stewart (1951). I thought it was kind of stupid, as the "hero" was mostly just a philosopher, not the most productive member of a tiny society.

But the destructive capabilities of Man weren't quite as extensive then as they are now. The first nuclear power plant didn't exist until a few years later.

As whacked-out as I think the leaders of PETA are, they certainly aren't the cause of any of the hungry and suffering children of the world, who are more the victims of human politics than anything else, IMHO.

"Without humans to maintain the facilities, it will dump in the local enviroment in massive quantities, creating massive dead zones."

We've already created them. Chernobyl, Love Canal, previously fertile land that has been decimated by overgrazing, the application of thousands of tons of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides. That stuff doesn't just disappear like the stray bullets on TV; it's all still there. We've got genetically-modified crops that animals don't want to eat, and if they are forced to eat them or starve, their health seems to be deteriorating, but they are still feeding them to us. The human cancer rate is skyrocketing, but who cares?

Who knows? Maybe the scenario that Sherpadog offered is on its way.

Sue