How plausible or likely is human extinction, really?

[Reaper]

Just how likely is it in this day and age? Though I've read up on several possible scenarios, I find that most of them are at very best far fetched, and and most they seem more like doomsday prophesies or other kinds of baseless paranoia and nonsense.

 

The only scenarios that I have found that are plausible are either technological (e.g. nukes, maybe genetics, etc) or that of an asteroid impact, or the end of the universe. Environmental damage may pose some pretty hefty problems too.

 

But seriously, how critical is our condition really? Though, personally I do think there is a 100% chance that humanity will become extinct in some time in the future, but what I am wondering is is it anything to really worry about (other than asteroids or nukes). Or is it more along the lines of the belief that civilization is the end all and be all of the human species, because I know those usually collapse on a regular basis anyways...

[CDarwin]

But seriously, how critical is our condition really? Though, personally I do think there is a 100% chance that humanity will become extinct in some time in the future, but what I am wondering is is it anything to really worry about (other than asteroids or nukes). Or is it more along the lines of the belief that civilization is the end all and be all of the human species, because I know those usually collapse on a regular basis anyways...

 

There's more to worry about than extinction.The whole species doesn't have to be dead for us to have a problem.

[foodchain]

Just how likely is it in this day and age? Though I've read up on several possible scenarios, I find that most of them are at very best far fetched, and and most they seem more like doomsday prophesies or other kinds of baseless paranoia and nonsense.

 

The only scenarios that I have found that are plausible are either technological (e.g. nukes, maybe genetics, etc) or that of an asteroid impact, or the end of the universe. Environmental damage may pose some pretty hefty problems too.

 

But seriously, how critical is our condition really? Though, personally I do think there is a 100% chance that humanity will become extinct in some time in the future, but what I am wondering is is it anything to really worry about (other than asteroids or nukes). Or is it more along the lines of the belief that civilization is the end all and be all of the human species, because I know those usually collapse on a regular basis anyways...

 

Considering that we as a specie have only been around for a relatively short period of time in all reality I think we need to wake up. For the most part common mainstream philosophies have us as some almost magical unicorn like "race" of super beings, personally I think that is all bs.

 

I mean how many people can look at history and say wow, morality kills. Simply put it does. It may not be the subjective quasi metaphysical spirituality that is killing, it is indeed people, and of course anything beyond subjective thought on the issue really does not exist.

 

Its like social sciences. I do not think knowing the exact reality of biology down to the real time individual, but on that same note we lack so much understanding there really as in applied its kind of scary.

 

Then of course you have this "ignorance" for lack of better words executing in time as we as a species persist, and then when stuff happens to go bad you have a bunch of so called "intelligent" people that simply spew matter that typically has nothing to do with the reality of anything.

 

I look at the reality of environmental issues as something possibly of a blessing. It will reaffirm life I would hope in the minds of people and what we really happen to be. I think its utterly horrible that such a reality would have to come to pass, but I do not see such a tract ending now and it will be environmental pressures that causes us to "adapt" I think. I do think at this point, which will not be in my lifetime of course, will be very close if not an extinction event for humans, I think it will depend on how wide scale the change of the environment is, either abotic or biotic. To talk physics the amount of energy at work either in an aboitic of biotic tone that could be changed rapidly is something I think most do not think about all to often. Environmental pressures such as resource scarcity will only increase of course rate and magnitude of warfare. I guess to some extent really the future is in our hands at this point.

[iNow]

The one that strikes a chord with me is the warming of the planet causing a collapse far down toward the base of the food chain, then our food sources going away and us dying.

 

Alternatively, we run out of oil, and cannot tend the crops in any mass way (not a lot of farmers out there anymore, so we sure do count on the ones with big tractors and factories). We'd also struggle to transport any food supplies beyond a few miles were oil to go away. Also, water shortages and drought conditions would make crop growing extraordinarily difficult to sustain.

 

Those seem realistic enough to me to warrant a degree of concern.

[Reaper]

There's more to worry about than extinction.The whole species doesn't have to be dead for us to have a problem.

 

I'm well aware of that, but there is a difference between having problems and being extinct. Humans have had problems since the beginning of their existence.

[Fred56]

If you're talking about the impending climate situation, I would say humans will almost definitely survive (we're fairly resourceful). But we can't predict how long H. sapiens will persist before we get replaced by another species. This has been the pattern for a lot longer than we have been around (according to the paleaontologists). Or maybe we'll evolve into the subsequent species (but this doesn't always happen, usually a species or an entire genus goes extinct eventually).

[Les Knight]

Discover magazine made a list in 2000 of 20 ways the world, Homo sapiens, could end. http://www.ldolphin.org/twentyways.html

 

Although we may have already disrupted the food chain to the tipping point, it's worth trying to slow, stop, and reverse our direction. Unfortunately, this isn't likely to happen because of the massive efforts required.

 

For example, the gyre of plastic in the north Pacific, twice the size of Texas, breaks into smaller and smaller pieces, which enter aquatic life forms. How this will affect the food chain is unknown, but it's occurring at the base of the chain with implications all the way up.

 

To figure the odds of our extinction, I look at the probability we will cause a collapse of the biosphere if we continue as we are: 90%. Then I look at the probability we will make global efforts required to avoid this collapse: 10%. My estimates were pulled out of the air, so yours will have at least equal validity.

 

A collapse of global civilization before we succeed in causing a collapse of Earth's biosphere would serve to preserve our kind. If 99.99% of us were wiped out, enough of us would still be around to keep our species going. In the long run, this would again endanger the rest of Earth's biosphere.

 

Our extinction would benefit all other life forms on Earth, as shown in the thought experiment by Alan Weisman, _The World Without Us_.

[Mr Skeptic]

Our extinction would benefit all other life forms on Earth, as shown in the thought experiment by Alan Weisman, _The World Without Us_.

 

Really? Certainly we are causing much havoc in the earth's ecosystem. But we are also concerned about the extinction of species. We will try to preserve them even if only as frozen samples.

 

Also, our interests are intricately tied to the interests of some of the species. We will build meteor defense systems. We will try to prevent the global mass extinctions caused by climate change (even if we are responsible for one more, there have been natural climate changes and we will try to prevent them). When we go to the stars, we will take other life with us. What other species can anticipate the Sun turning into a red giant and take preventative measures?

[Fred56]

we are also concerned about the extinction of species

Sure we are. But lots of people want to get rid of the pesky critters who come onto their property looking for food (elephants, wolves, bears, anything that is a potential 'danger', birds, reptiles, ...).

So our concerns aren't really mirrored by our actions in general. There simply isn't enough room left for many wild animals, who are losing ground to us on a daily basis.

[CDarwin]

Really? Certainly we are causing much havoc in the earth's ecosystem. But we are also concerned about the extinction of species. We will try to preserve them even if only as frozen samples.

 

Also, our interests are intricately tied to the interests of some of the species. We will build meteor defense systems. We will try to prevent the global mass extinctions caused by climate change (even if we are responsible for one more, there have been natural climate changes and we will try to prevent them). When we go to the stars, we will take other life with us. What other species can anticipate the Sun turning into a red giant and take preventative measures?

 

That's certainly all true. In fact many species would suffer more immediately. The human hair and body lice, for example. There are a lot of tropical insects and plants that we've carried all over the world that wouldn't do very well without the artificial tropics of our homes as well as all the domestic varieties we've created.

 

I'm well aware of that, but there is a difference between having problems and being extinct. Humans have had problems since the beginning of their existence.

 

I guess my first response was a little unhelpful. I'll take the topic more seriously. I think the prognosis for the total annihilation of the human species without leaving any descendants is reasonably low. We're an adaptable and extremely wide-ranging species (arguably wider ranging than any other species in history), and our line has already survived 8 million years of pretty extreme climate shifts. It's not an absolute case, but if I were a betting man I'd take Homo sapiens over, say, Cercopithecus mitis.

[vampares]

The whole species doesn't have to be dead for us to have a problem.

Nothing worse than wallowing in mediocrity and pestilence.

 

Environmental pressures such as resource scarcity will only increase of course rate and magnitude of warfare. I guess to some extent really the future is in our hands at this point.

I think resource scarcity will have an impact on the biomass-rich under-culling of the population. I don't know what effects this will have on the population post-industrial revolution however. Seems as though much of the damage has been or will be done at that point.

 

The Asians are an untapped hotbed. I think they will play a large roll in the future of mankind.

[h2so4hurts]

I'd say there's approximately a 100% chance the human race will go extinct. We can't survive billions of years.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd say there's approximately a 100% chance the human race will go extinct. We can't survive billions of years.

 

Why not? What would kill us in a few billion years?

[CDarwin]

Why not? What would kill us in a few billion years?

 

Well at some point you change so much that you cease to be regarded as the same species (retrospectively). That's called pseudoextinction.

 

Obviously the sun is going to go kaput at some point. If we don't get out of the solar system by that time, then we're pretty much done for. The universe is going to end at some point too, theoretically. That's all a bit pedantic, though.

[vampares]

Well at some point you change so much that you cease to be regarded as the same species (retrospectively). That's called pseudoextinction.

 

OK let's set mark at when biological organisms of our genetic decent cease to be capable of posting on scienceforums.net.

 

So what's a reasonable outlook? 100 years? 1000? 10000? 100k?

 

Geneticly speaking, are we on our way out? We have the technology to sequence DNA and clone sheep, but also to keep less than healthy members of the population alive. If we are on our way out, at what point do we need to step in to reverse the trend? Is there a model we can use to predict these things?

[insane_alien]

it's difficult to set a mark, first you need to find the generic human, the most human human there is. sequence his/her DNA then grade everyone in genetic differnce from the 'gold standard' then you have to agree on what counts as sufficient genetic change. if you take something like 2% differnce then you'd have to class chimps as human and probably some other primates as well. take something like 0.0000001% and there would only be one human, the predefined gold standard human.

 

it would be an arbitrary thing.

[Luminal]

Just how likely is it in this day and age? Though I've read up on several possible scenarios, I find that most of them are at very best far fetched, and and most they seem more like doomsday prophesies or other kinds of baseless paranoia and nonsense.

 

The only scenarios that I have found that are plausible are either technological (e.g. nukes, maybe genetics, etc) or that of an asteroid impact, or the end of the universe. Environmental damage may pose some pretty hefty problems too.

 

But seriously, how critical is our condition really? Though, personally I do think there is a 100% chance that humanity will become extinct in some time in the future, but what I am wondering is is it anything to really worry about (other than asteroids or nukes). Or is it more along the lines of the belief that civilization is the end all and be all of the human species, because I know those usually collapse on a regular basis anyways...

 

The only plausible way for humans to become extinct that I could see: an engineered disease. I suppose all it would take is someone of a certain mindset with an academic background in microbiology or genetic engineering. Or military testing gone awry (think "The Stand" by Stephen King).

 

Anyway, within several centuries, humans might also use technology to put their "consciousness" into a longer lasting non-biological body, in which biological homo sapiens would in effect be extinct.

[vampares]

I hesitate to make a statement that could be ethnically or racially contrived, but there is no doubt that the demographic has changed in the US over the last 150 years. This is a phenomenon that has been observed near many urban areas.

 

Hearing, reading accounts of the conditions settlers went through, one gets the impression of a rather hearty group of disciplined men (and women) who very self-sufficient. But looking at photographs of the original settlers, they seem relatively, em, refined let's say. It could be photographic plates were to precious to waste on ugly people, I don't know.

 

Is it possible society has become too rich in just the past two centuries? We hear of starving children in Africa, is this for the best? Food itself -- the where-with-all to store and save it, know when to come up with more, self awareness in regards to nutrition etc. -- is this going to put us into a nosedive or is this the way things always were?

[Luminal]

Well at some point you change so much that you cease to be regarded as the same species (retrospectively). That's called pseudoextinction.

 

Obviously the sun is going to go kaput at some point. If we don't get out of the solar system by that time, then we're pretty much done for. The universe is going to end at some point too, theoretically. That's all a bit pedantic, though.

 

If human technology continues to progress at only a linear rate equal to that of the 20th century, I could not even imagine what a few billion years would result in.

 

Of course, technology increases exponentially the more humans there are, the more information there is accessible, the faster communication is, and (of course) as computers increase in intelligence and take over the repetitious and mundane activities, and even as computers move into the non-mundane areas of creativity eventually.

 

So, I'd say short of killing ourselves with our own technology or intelligent life elsewhere in the universe doing us in, we are almost certain to never go extinct.

 

In fact, I believe far distant humans will probably figure out how to prevent the universe from ending by its own accord.

[vampares]

it's difficult to set a mark, first you need to find the generic human, the most human human there is. sequence his/her DNA then grade everyone in genetic differnce from the 'gold standard' then you have to agree on what counts as sufficient genetic change. if you take something like 2% differnce then you'd have to class chimps as human and probably some other primates as well. take something like 0.0000001% and there would only be one human, the predefined gold standard human.

 

it would be an arbitrary thing.

 

I would say that "humans" of the future would have to come from humans of the present (or their ancestors). Otherwise we are replaced, and this is essentially extinct.

 

If some human genetic material makes it's way into a frog in a last ditch effort to save mankind -- I'd say that doesn't count. (there's prolly a farm full of mice and such somewhere muttering under it's breath) As much as I'd like to see people not become grotesque mutants, it's still not extinct.

 

Isn't species line usually drawn around reproducible populations?

 

If human technology continues to progress at only a linear rate equal to that of the 20th century, I could not even imagine what a few billion years would result in.

 

Of course, technology increases exponentially the more humans there are, the more information there is accessible, the faster communication is, and (of course) as computers increase in intelligence and take over the repetitious and mundane activities, and even as computers move into the non-mundane areas of creativity eventually.

 

So, I'd say short of killing ourselves with our own technology or intelligent life elsewhere in the universe doing us in, we are almost certain to never go extinct.

 

In fact, I believe far distant humans will probably figure out how to prevent the universe from ending by its own accord.

 

I thought Malthusian principle had technology leveling off with the population increasing. err is that not how it goes?...

 

I know I did see an article (I think they took it down sciammind.com or sciam.com) that had global figures showing reproductive rate and income being closely related. Industrialized nations were at sub-replacement levels anyways. It was all national averages though.

 

 

I don't think technology follows a binomial trend. And like cell size pays ohmage to surface area and volume ratio, so to will most "technological" advancements hit a cost effect and natural limition ratio ceiling -- and for the most part this is really what we are seeing, is gradual development of industrial resource and not technology skyrocketing.

[bombus]

Work undertaken using the Fossil Record 2 database suggests that we are in the middle of a mass extinction that started around 10,000 years ago.

 

It looks likely that regardless of global climate change we are going to lose all the large mammals.

 

The question is, are humans a large mammal?

 

I think probably.

 

I have it on good authority that we have around 400 years!

[vampares]

In fact, I believe far distant humans will probably figure out how to prevent the universe from ending by its own accord.

This is entirely a different subforum but when the Canadian Dark Matter Weaponization Program is finalized, I think we're all going to be eating a lot more pancakes.

 

Work undertaken using the Fossil Record 2 database suggests that we are in the middle of a mass extinction that started around 10,000 years ago.

 

It looks likely that regardless of global climate change we are going to lose all the large mammals.

I noticed North America seems kind of sparse.

 

I have somewhere a vegetation map, well here's a biomes map

we occupy most of the "good" space on earth. The equator is kind of low on this map.

[Fred56]

I personally think that the future human race will be a lot fewer people (there won't be enough arable land or potable water for tens of billions of us), and there will be something of a post-"post-industrial" technology. We won't need (or be able to maintain) as many vehicles or big machines (maybe some really big ones though), and we won't exploit things like rivers (with hydroelectric dams) or big engineering projects that ignore the presence of living things (most current engineers see "life" as an unwanted consideration, they tend to think of geology -rocks and soils-, not ecosystems). We will treat nature with a lot more respect, possibly (after getting kicked in the ass for ignoring her for so long).

 

The technology will be very different, we might have fusion and be able to extract all the energy we need from helium extracted from lunar regolith, or the sea. But there will probably be less than a billion of us, and life (and the planet) will probably look pretty different.

 

Eventually all the continents are going to join together again, so this is a pretty good probability, but we might not be around in 200-and-something million years either -as H. sapiens sapiens, anyway, maybe H. sapiens mechanensis (with an additional qubit-processing computer attached to their brains), or P. troglodytes.

[vampares]

You have a rather sour take on modern agricultural technology.

 

 

There are currently 6 billion or so. The figures I saw had Africa and Asia as major population points. Not rapid of growth or decline, however. Very moderate figures.

 

There will be an energy bump. We just started using fossil fuels and they are already almost gone. I think this is almost seen as a solution to unwanted problems. It's not going to bring the population down to a billion.

 

As "mechanized" as things are now, I think people are creatures of this earth. They are overwhelmingly the large mammal creatures of this earth but still of this earth. The more paving that needs to be done, the more motorized wheelchairs their will be. People do the same people things however, only with mobile assistance. It's not like anyone buys a car, three cases of Readi-Whip and builds a fusion reactor with his or her spare time. That's not the type of motivation an individual has.

[CDarwin]

OK let's set mark at when biological organisms of our genetic decent cease to be capable of posting on scienceforums.net.

 

I don't think that's quite the paleontological standard for defining a new phyletic species.

 

We are still changing genetically, and eventually if some observer ever looks back on the chain of human fossils leading from 200,000 years ago to that observer's present day, he'll feel the need to demarcate a line between the "humans" he sees then and the "humans" in the fossil record from now.

 

Or there could be a bona fide speciation event some time in the future, especially if the population collapses and people are isolated again or as a result of space-colonization. Big maybe, there.

 

it's difficult to set a mark, first you need to find the generic human, the most human human there is. sequence his/her DNA then grade everyone in genetic differnce from the 'gold standard' then you have to agree on what counts as sufficient genetic change. if you take something like 2% differnce then you'd have to class chimps as human and probably some other primates as well. take something like 0.0000001% and there would only be one human, the predefined gold standard human.

 

it would be an arbitrary thing.

 

And it always is. "We" wouldn't be making the distinction anyway. It would be some observer several million years in the future.

 

Anything beyond that, including quite a bit of what has been said in this thread, in my ever so humble opinion, is just empty speculation, and not very likely speculation at that.