How plausible or likely is human extinction, really?

[Edicius]

The population will grow; resources should be sustainable, reasonably, for the population to grow four or five times. We may also be able to utilize other energy sources; larger ones. But the power and influence balance is going to shift exponentially, not in favor of the common man or woman.

 

I don't care at all if we survive. We should be focusing on fixing the negative qualities of our species now, in consideration of our planet, as well as organisms living here, including ourselves. Do you realize how inadequate our species is? Even of our own awareness, we can't manage this supposed "potential" our species possesses.

 

And how are we going to control the population? We know it will have to be done. Secular genocides, I guess? Cultivating planets isn't a reaonable option.

 

It may not be avoidable, but your perspectives are too often based on optimism. We are, objectively, unnecessary. Most humans want to live, but I'm fairly certain that that irrational desire is going to kill us. Our selfishness won't assist our survival; but yeah, no one here needs to worry, because you'll probably die before we kill each other.

 

400 years is a sound estimate, but I'm unaware of the instance we began our debilitating behavior. I believe it was shortly after we became "sapiens".

 

Fortunately, none of this affects me at all.

[Fred56]

There does seem to be a bit of a contention here between the optimists and the pessimists. The optimists appear to think that unbridled growth (to 4 or 5 times 6 billion) is inevitable, or maybe necessary, the pessimists think we won't survive the damage our "success" has been doing.

I'm sort of in between, I guess. I don't see how 20-30 billions are going to have much room (or food), when sea-levels get high enough (assuming we ignore climate change, or do nothing effective about stopping it). Where are they all going to live, or grow food for starters? Most of the large cities will have to be abandoned at some stage, so it's "back to the land", wherever that might still be, I guess.

And none of this is going to be our problem? I don't think so, it's already happening. So unless you expect to shuffle off sometime in the next 20 odd years, then I would say it is your problem (and mine), and everyone else's who gets born from now on...

[Edicius]

Specifically, it's not my problem because I'm going to commit suicide long before then. I had just assumed people would be able to handle a small amount of change, but something will, or rather should happen that will shock a lot of people. That will be when peoples' lives might change, significantly, even in the powerful countries.

 

And of course, all of these are just guesses based on probability, which is based on more assumptions. The future of our species isn't an easy thing to predict, or someone would have done it. Maybe they have, but it's like... the future, so...

 

Aliens will shoot us all in the face?

[Fred56]

I'm going to commit suicide long before then

Seriously? What sort of contribution might this make (apart from the obvious one that you would no longer be a 'consumer', but something to be 'consumed', and therefore contribute to the world's biomass?).

You must be able to come up with something more useful than 'exit stage left', surely?

 

My pick also is that there is quite a bit of change on the way, there's going to be "trouble" in paradise for a bit (until the planet settles into its new equilibrium, which humans 'pushed' it to), but I doubt it will mean "the end". The end of what we have now, probably, but not the end of us (and there will still be progress, once we recover from the regress, no doubt).

 

We'll be around for a while yet, but I don't think we (or the planet) can progress without limit, not with just one world to play around with anyway. Possibly the next big step is severing the dependence we have on energy resources, by inventing something less damaging and more or less inexhaustible, say fusion, or something else exotic that we have yet to discover about the quantum world. The big problem we have is that we seem unable to avoid damaging things for other lifeforms, and although we like to think it's ok, it isn't, because we get affected too.

 

What sort of planet would it be with the only large animals around being humans and the handful of ungulates, avians, felines, canines, and rodents that survive our efforts to rid the planet of "unwanted interloper" species (the ones there isn't any room for any more)?

[CDarwin]

I'll just demonstrate my point of how speculative this all is with Edicius's point, since he seems to possibly be responding to me.

 

The population will grow; resources should be sustainable, reasonably, for the population to grow four or five times. We may also be able to utilize other energy sources; larger ones. But the power and influence balance is going to shift exponentially, not in favor of the common man or woman. [/Quote]

 

Totally speculative.

I don't care at all if we survive. We should be focusing on fixing the negative qualities of our species now, in consideration of our planet, as well as organisms living here, including ourselves. Do you realize how inadequate our species is? Even of our own awareness, we can't manage this supposed "potential" our species possesses.

 

I said that at first, too, and it's true, but it's not really on the topic of this thread.

 

And how are we going to control the population? We know it will have to be done. Secular genocides, I guess? Cultivating planets isn't a reaonable option.

 

Actually, as standard of living rises birth rates tend to fall. The UN estimates that earth's population will stabalize at 10 billion around at 2050 and then begin to fall. Of course, that too is speculative, but in general birth rates tend to fall as a society reaches a certain threshold of standard of living, and most all societies are experiencing drop-offs in birth rates today.

 

It may not be avoidable, but your perspectives are too often based on optimism. We are, objectively, unnecessary. Most humans want to live, but I'm fairly certain that that irrational desire is going to kill us. Our selfishness won't assist our survival; but yeah, no one here needs to worry, because you'll probably die before we kill each other.

 

Us killing each other is probably the only thing that could do us in, but how probable that will actually be at any point in the future is totally speculative.

 

400 years is a sound estimate, but I'm unaware of the instance we began our debilitating behavior. I believe it was shortly after we became "sapiens".

 

There is absolutely nothing to base that number on.

[Mr Skeptic]

We have not yet reached the limit of land usage, and we could always irrigate the desert, or expand to the oceans, or expand to space (yes, the first two will be horrible for the environment, but easier than space). Our biggest limit will be energy; if we do not solve that our civilization might collapse. If colonize space, it is very unlikely that we could go extinct.

[Edicius]

My actions aren't to help solve any problem. I've already determined that I've no reason to care what happens to anything or anyone. I know I can be rational, but I would rather be apathetic; which is why I will simply fall asleep for eternity, without dreaming. If I did care what happened to this planet or the organisms inhabiting it, I would have thought about my responses instead of being silly. I'm simply not interested.

 

The idea of millions of brains attempting to solve all these ridiculous problems amuses me. Emotionally, I'm hardly human. And truly, my existence is likely to be a negative force, rather than a positive one, to answer an earlier question.

 

I no longer have compassion, which would be a problem if I attempted to help people. At the very least, I'm unable to possess the desire to help people, or anything, including myself, and that alone makes me essentially useless for our species. I do know what needs to be done, but I don't want to do it, and won't do it. I dislike my human experiences and perceptions. So, that's why.

[Fred56]

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.

This coincides with the development of more structured groups of humans and the development of large-scale agriculture and husbandry.

We have not yet reached the limit of land usage

But we will. And we will have pruned the evolutionary tree a fair bit, I suppose.

[foodchain]

This coincides with the development of more structured groups of humans and the development of large-scale agriculture and husbandry.

 

But we will. And we will have pruned the evolutionary tree a fair bit, I suppose.

 

Well giving the reality of evolution and extinction in the first place its a possibility for our species too. I mean from the relationship plants have had on the course of evolution to mass extinctions say the dinosaurs for instance its simply not a far fetched question to ask.

 

Personally I think giving the reality of GW and other ecological destruction our species inflicts combined with growing population rates and stagnation from green behavior at any level this possibility is being greatly increased.

[Les Knight]

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

 

Advancing technology wasn't considered much in Malthus' argument. Population, he said, would increase until stopped by natural forces such as hunger and disease. Although he didn't foresee the advances which have allowed us to grow to 6.7 billion, he seems to be right that we will increase until stopped by natural forces. Lower birth rates in affluent regions may be exceptions, though crowding is a natural force.

 

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.

 

And comparing national averages further confuses things. When a couple's perception of future income improves, they tend to reproduce more, as new immigrants demonstrate. Improving living standards is worthwhile, but it's not a method of improving birth rates, no matter how much we might want it to be true.

 

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.

 

Comparing advances in the first half of the 20th century with the second half show this to be true in my opinion. This relative stagnation may be enhanced by entrenched economic interests which resist change.

 

The Green Revolution comes up against the limits of mechanization and fossil fuels, but our numbers continue to grow due to momentum -- an additional 50% before leveling off is the current extrapolation. As awful as this Malthusian situation may become, it won't cause our extinction.

[vampares]

The technology can also be our demise -- the H-bomb, chloro-fluorocarbons and the ozone layer, partial hydrogenation, methylbromide -- the list goes on.

 

I don't think we can rely upon secular genocide either. It is seen in the complete lack of hygiene in Kosovo; the European mentality is one of competitive domination and terrorism, which leaves nothing but a mess.

 

And the mainstream phobia prevents the media from so much as documenting just how unique things can become. There is a reluctance to recognize that man without mental faculties man is a naked piece of warm meat, often not fit for consumption. The "solution" the mainstream is comfortable with is bringing this to "the test" and after sufficient inconveniences have been bestowed upon an individual he or she has wholesomely graduated civil survival. Of course, all good people. So on and so forth.

 

And this is why my money is on the Asians. The Asians are not much different -- they all look the same. In a token society, you must be able to recognize the counterfeit. In the world to come, you must know who you are and you must like it.

[T man831]

yes i would have to agree with "CDarwin" extinction is not the main problem here... I honestly think we should be more worried about the meteor that hits us and only kills half of us. Simply because that would provoke a lot more fear and panic, than if we were to just all die...

[iNow]

And this is why my money is on the Asians. The Asians are not much different -- they all look the same.

Are you some sort of racist bigot, or are you just piss poor at conveying what you see as humor? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read online in a long time.

[foursixand2]

in one of dawkins books he did an amusing calculation, i dont remember the exact numbers, but something to the effect of if human reproduction maintained its current rate (which is needless to say impossible, but i said it anyway) within some hundred years (1,2 or 3?) every foot of the planet, including the oceans would be covered in humans, and we would be exploding into space, outward in all directions, at the speed of light.

 

i hope and believe that humans will surivive into the future and continue to evolve, but obviously a lot of us will die. Maybe all of us.

 

George Carlin has some interesting ideas on the subject

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=related

[bombus]

in one of dawkins books he did an amusing calculation, i dont remember the exact numbers, but something to the effect of if human reproduction maintained its current rate (which is needless to say impossible, but i said it anyway) within some hundred years (1,2 or 3?) every foot of the planet, including the oceans would be covered in humans, and we would be exploding into space, outward in all directions, at the speed of light.

 

i hope and believe that humans will surivive into the future and continue to evolve, but obviously a lot of us will die. Maybe all of us.

 

George Carlin has some interesting ideas on the subject

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=related

 

George Carlin doesn't seem to realise that most species that are going extinct today are doing so BECAUSE of mankinds meddling. They are not going extinct due to 'natural processes'.

 

He's not very funny, and just plain wrong!

[foursixand2]

George Carlin doesn't seem to realise that most species that are going extinct today are doing so BECAUSE of mankinds meddling. They are not going extinct due to 'natural processes'.

 

He's not very funny, and just plain wrong!

 

ok then

[Orbital]

I went to a very interesting seminar at uni (I study Environmental Science) which was run by an ecologist who had a fair background in stats. According to him, most large mammals are a lot closer to extinction than small mammals. i believe a lot of this has to do with long gestation periods and smaller 'litter' size. It was all kinda stats based and was 3rd year stats at that (I'm a first year who didn't have to go but did cause I thought it might be interesting) so I got a bit lost lol. I think the idea kind of was that everything will become extinct at some point and it is just a question of when. As far as humans go (and other large mammals) our timeline would not appear to be as long as smaller mammals. As far as non mammalian animals go, I have no idea.