Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've done research over time in possible extinction threats to humanity out of curiosity, and this article should be part of a series on why I've concluded that humanity will probably be around for a long time, at least in some form.
I was unable to find a survey on scientist consensus opinion, so I'll have to go with my impressions from reading a few articles: there isn't widespread agreement on whether humanity could initiate a runaway greenhouse effect at all, realistically speaking (where we're not trying to do it); this is predominantly due to difficulty in making accurate computer models for just what it'd take, due to lack of knowledge of all of what would happen when global temperatures get warm enough.
On the other hand, the good news is it's known for certain that past global temperatures have been predominantly warmer than they are today since the advent of complex life, and more importantly, have been as high as ~28 F./~17 C. degrees hotter than it is today at several points without RGE happening:
Here are the global warming projection possibilities for the next century:
At worst, it would take centuries to get up to the hottest temperatures in the first chart, and maybe it'd need to be a fair bit warmer even than that to trigger global warming for all scientists know... theoretically. Realistically, I don't think any time before the sun significantly warms millions of years from now, because:
The First World is predominantly aware of the concept of global warming, and we're already taking measures to deter it.
Effects will become more evident over time, bringing more awareness to the issue.
Technological advancement rate is only speeding up. All but the youngest of you remember talk of threats of a depleting ozone layer? That's no longer a problem because of technological advancements; the same thing will eventually happen with global warming. One of the Freakonomics books talks about very high smoke stacks that could be used to block out some sunlight worldwide as one possibility; hopefully we won't have to do that, but the point is if we really had to cool the planet down, we could do it, and it'll only become easier to do so over time.
Poorer societies will have their own industrial revolutions, further contributing to pollution and global warming, but then they'll get over the hump as well; I see the world having collectively clean technology within a couple hundred years, hopefully less.
This isn't to say that major damage to the environment couldn't happen with global temperature increases of more than a few degrees; this focus here is on the subject of what might wipe out humanity. On the plus side, some effects of global warming are good for us, namely warmer winters where it's most frigid, and no settlement-threatening glaciers.
Looking into the distant future, we may not be forced to move off the Earth as we might be able to invest technology to move the Earth's orbit further out; we only need to do it every so slightly over time.
I didn't read anything in the first thread that would address what I wrote, upon first skim. I can take a closer look if you cite me particular posts.
Second and third threads... mostly the same deal. I could debate a little of what you said, but I'll save it since you're predominantly alluding to the Sun's death, which is billions of years from now.
Humanity will not be around that long. Between the lack of food, climate change and the attitude of certain sects and governments I give us 100 years max.
I think that your "creator" has an answer to this. Every biological creature that lives on this planet end's up contributing to the planet. Ant farm scenario: ant farm grew to large, overpopulated itself and failed to move, ants died, what is left behind ? fertilizer ? Nitrogen enriched natural fertilizer that helps vegetation grow.
Here your ism does not matter, do you subscribe to creation or Darwinism, just like an ant farm can not undo creation/evolution we might not be able to as well
we will NOT destroy the earth of the Sun, we will destroy our-self's. Our children will inherit problems we create. It's only the pains that impose on our-selfs, nothing more
Pollution is linked to population, every spices has a natural population control. If we, (1st world, free world) spend as much resources on medicine and science as we spend on war, there would be no aids, cancer or hunger in the world.. In the first half of 1900th, we did have good population control with wars....
Humanity will not be around that long. Between the lack of food, climate change and the attitude of certain sects and governments I give us 100 years max.
Don't give up so easily
There were humans during the last ice age there were two species of humans, homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis. More than likely there will be humans around through the next ice age, which by the way, will probably start by the end of this global warming period.
Humanity will not be around that long. Between the lack of food, climate change and the attitude of certain sects and governments I give us 100 years max.
I disagree I think humanity will create a spacefaring civilization that will encompass tens of thousands of star systems and be ruled by a monarchy.
Humanity will not be around that long. Between the lack of food, climate change and the attitude of certain sects and governments I give us 100 years max.
If food was becoming so scarce, it'd be becoming much more expensive. Life expectancy is roughly the highest it's ever been and is generally still increasing: https://www.google.com/search?biw=10...d9scuvvKo_M%3A
On climate change, you apparently didn't read most of my original post? I went into good detail about why that's not a problem. If you disagree with any of it, get specific.
we will destroy our-self's. [...]
Pollution is linked to population, every spices has a natural population control. If we, (1st world, free world) spend as much resources on medicine and science as we spend on war, there would be no aids, cancer or hunger in the world.. In the first half of 1900th, we did have good population control with wars....
I think that human nature is unavoidable
We will destroy ourselves based on what? That's the kind of statement that often requires lots of explanation. I mean look at all the explanation I gave in my original post, where not only did I not even go into everything related to global warming but it's only about one of at least a handful of topics that affect humanity's future. It's faster if you reply to individual points of mine.
I disagree I think humanity will create a spacefaring civilization that will encompass tens of thousands of star systems and be ruled by a monarchy.
Curious, why so?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
