Will we be extinct 1000 years from now?

[spywareonya 37,961]

I can testify unto you we won't extinguish

BUT we will go through population reduction one way or another

Enormous pain

 

Unless we chose to stop being blind

[Guest UnabashedUser]

Y'all are forgetting the elephant in the room:

A huge rock from outer space.

They all say it's inevitable -- just not predictable.

One just missed us two weeks ago. Apparently with all our technology we missed seeing it.

Watch the skies.

There is NO place to run and hide. 

 

[F.W 5,734]

I think mankind will face quite soon,problems caused by new pathogenic plagues.

The "black death",once prescribed to rat fleas,is now thought to be not so clear-cut.Rats were the carrier,but its the effect that is causing scientists to re-consider how they view its effects.Consider that across western Europe from about 1348,and for another 300 years or so,were mysterious outbreaks,that are thought to have killed about 40% of Europes entire population.That nowadays would be in the region of 250 million people,dropping dead all around and with no known cure.Imagine.

Perhaps,there may develop an STI,that will be fatal if caught.Then those alive will not dare breed.We will just fade out as a species within about 150 years.

But i feel a new lethal pathogen will develop that will obliterate billions.

[steve25805 126,021]

1 hour ago, F.W said:

But i feel a new lethal pathogen will develop that will obliterate billions.

I fear this is inevitable at some point.

We keep hearing of terrible diseases in parts of Africa which are virtually incurable, often fatal and require strict quarantine to eradicate.

At some point such a disease will mutate successfully into something airborne like the cold. Then it will spread unstoppably and wipe out billions.

Might happen next year. Or it might not happen for several hundred years. But at some point it will. A ticking time bomb.

[F.W 5,734]

Also,we forget natural disasters like earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.

About 80,000 years ago on Sumatra,a volcano called Toba blew up a massive hole in the island,which is still there today.This is part of the infamous "ring of fire",which is the pacific rim,including of course Krakatoa,which on 27/8/1883 was the most immense eruption in modern recorded history.

Toba,its thought,caused enough ecological damage to cause the near extinction of the then fledgling human race.Our ancestors populations crashed,luckily they managed to survive.Who can predict the next big literally earth-shattering disaster.

The Yellowstone national park in the USA,is basically atop a huge volcanic caldera,which is currently believed to be about due,its thought it erupts somehow every 700,000 years or something.This will cause a large part of the US midwest to evaporate,and throw billions of tons of rock into the atmosphere,the whole of the USA will be affected,and most of the world too.Who knows,this may cause the virtual extinction of mankind.

[speedy3471 10,655]

Mother nature has a way of balancing the books so to speak and controls the human population. The earth cannot support a rapidly climbing population. So she brings about Ebola, natural disasters and so on. I know it's a morbid thought but I believe it 

[likesToLick 10,216]

With our present rate of pollution and environmental destruction,  I estimate that the human race is on track for extinction in the next 200 years,  not 1000.

The majority of people either don't care,  or make whiney excuses about how they have to run an oil furnace instead of just insulating their damned house.

As pollution and the climate disaster destroy all our food producing lands, and all fish stocks in the oceans, it seems likely that the wars fought over the last remaining food supplies will escalate until nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are deployed.   Extinction is then the most likely outcome.  This could happen as early as 2100.

It's possible,  that instead of extinction, humanity may just be reduced to a few nomadic bands of brutish, ignorant savages.  Perhaps those people might rebuild another civilisation in 20,000 years or so. Perhaps they will not.   When I look at human history, it seems like a tremendous fluke that we ever put together a civilisation at all.

I have worked for most of my life to try to find ways to prevent these outcomes.  I have reduced my personal carbon footprint by 80% compared to other people in my country.  I generate twice as much solar power as I use,  and put the surplus into the grid for others.  I vote always for parties that have policies to address these problems.  It has all been in vain,  as greed and ignorance triumph always.  Our farmers vote for more droughts,  more floods, more frequent and worse wildfires.  Our trade unionists vote for more pollution,  and our businessmen vote for the right to steal, pollute and murder for profit.

So,  my response to the human race is a big, fat, FUCK YOU.  I have no children.  I have at most 25 more years to live.  It's YOUR grandchildren that you are murdering,  not mine, so FUCK YOU!  I GIVE UP!

 

 

[Guest UnabashedUser]

Until India and China stop polluting nothing will change as far as carbon is concerned.

Hello UN..do something. 

[steve25805 126,021]

1 hour ago, UnabashedUser said:

Until India and China stop polluting nothing will change as far as carbon is concerned.

Hello UN..do something. 

The USA abandoning it's obligations under that Neanderthal climate change denyer Trump, is hardly setting a shining example to the world either.

[Guest UnabashedUser]

████ █████ ████ is duly noted.

Edited February 2, 2020 by UnabashedUser
improve

[speedy3471 10,655]

3 hours ago, UnabashedUser said:

Until India and China stop polluting nothing will change as far as carbon is concerned.

Hello UN..do something. 

It takes China 25 days to emit the amount or carbon that Canada produces in a YEAR. They gotta figure out better ways of producing electricity. Hell you can burn coal efficiently. Nuclear power is the cleanest of all power generating plants

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by speedy3471

[steve25805 126,021]

55 minutes ago, speedy3471 said:

It takes China 25 days to emit the amount or carbon that Canada produces in a YEAR. 

 

It is only fair to point out that China's population is vastly larger than Canada's. Their per capita - per person - carbon footprint is therefore probably smaller than Canada's. We all need to reduce our carbon footprints per capita everywhere, rather than pointing accusatory fingers at each other. 

In this, population growth is the big unspoken factor. Fact is if we halve our per capita carbon footprints globally, we will still be producing just as much carbon if the population doubles.

Much of the increase in populations is occurring in poorer third world nations and the reasons for this are systemic. There are often no pensions or any form of state-guaranteed security in old age. Poorer nations simply cannot afford this. There is often also a very poor health service availability and mortality is much higher. Therefore, to guarantee any security at all in old age, people in these countries feel compelled to have children who can look after them later. The more children they have, the more secure their old age. Especially since they calculate that some might not survive.

Individually such choices make total common sense, but this results in large population growth in these countries which further impoverishes them. They cannot afford to resolve these systemic problems. The only real cure is to think big, for the wealthier mostly northern hemisphere nations to transfer cash south to help fund safety nets in the poorer nations, especially for old age and sickness. But this would be a difficult political sell in northern nations where a majority of most electorates tend to think along nationally selfish lines, and hate seeing their taxes go to foreign countries.

National selfishness is itself a part of the problem since it hinders any united global response to climate change. But this problem is an attitudinal one which I do not see changing anytime soon. Small, self interested thinking - both individually and nationally - will sadly probably doom us unless there can somehow be a step change in the ways we all think. Because when it comes to climate and our destruction of it, what happens in any part of the world is a global issue that concerns us all.

Worst case scenario is that we could - given enough time and enough carbon emissions, with feedback loops resulting from for example methane being released in large amounts - tip our climate past a point of no return and trigger a runaway, self-sustaining and self accelerating, greenhouse effect. Within a few centuries this will turn the Earth into another Venus. If that happens all life here, including us, are doomed. We will become extinct long before we reach Venus-like conditions. 

On our present trajectory, I'd be surprised if we have two more centuries as a highly civilised society. We probably have a lot less.

[speedy3471 10,655]

6 minutes ago, steve25805 said:

It is only fair to point out that China's population is vastly larger than Canada's. Their per capita - per person - carbon footprint is therefore probably smaller than Canada's. We all need to reduce our carbon footprints per capita everywhere, rather than pointing accusatory fingers at each other. 

In this, population growth is the big unspoken factor. Fact is if we halve our per capita carbon footprints globally, we will still be producing just as much carbon if the population doubles.

 

Canada is a huge carbon sink thanks to our boreal forest and crops that farmers like me grow every year to help feed the growing world population. We capture lots of carbon from  the air, probably some of China's as well lol. (My opinion)

[steve25805 126,021]

8 minutes ago, speedy3471 said:

Canada is a huge carbon sink thanks to our boreal forest and crops that farmers like me grow every year to help feed the growing world population. We capture lots of carbon from  the air, probably some of China's as well lol. (My opinion)

 

That is because you are a vast landmass with comparatively few people in it and lots of room for trees. The trees probably outnumber the people by a factor of many to one. But you need a large sparsely populated landmass to achieve that.

China is also a vast landmass, but it has over a billion people in it and less room for trees.

Fact is that whatever carbon sinks we have in our nations does not excuse us of the obligation to reduce our per capita carbon footprints everywhere. Saying that we take out more carbon than we put in simply because there are few of us but lots of trees, so our carbon footprints is more than cancelled out is thinking nationally, not globally.

Just my opinion. Am not looking for an argument. 

[speedy3471 10,655]

5 minutes ago, steve25805 said:

That is because you are a vast landmass with comparatively few people in it and lots of room for trees. The trees probably outnumber the people by a factor of many to one. But you need a large sparsely populated landmass to achieve that.

China is also a vast landmass, but it has over a billion people in it and less room for trees.

Fact is that whatever carbon sinks we have in our nations does not excuse us of the obligation to reduce our per capita carbon footprints everywhere. Saying that we take out more carbon than we put in simply because there are few of us but lots of trees, so our carbon footprints is more than cancelled out is thinking nationally, not globally.

Just my opinion. Am not looking for an argument. 

O iam not either. You make really valid points about reducing our carbon footprint, the world simply cannot support a growing population