Always a good source of interesting questions, EarthDogg dropped this one on me in another thread:

Quote :

"EarthDogg: What will be our ultimate downfall? Another asteroid? Our ability to self-destruct?"

I'm going to say that I have no idea, but it could be a good number of scenarios.

Most of the ones I think reasonable involve interstellar phenomena. In my mind we either fail to notice it in time to stop it, or with most cases, are impotent to do anything about it anyway (like a planet colliding with Earth, or the Sun going Red Giant unexpectedly soon, etc.).

If stuff like this happened today, we'd have a few astronauts on space stations and in shuttles to survive the human race until their supplies ran out.

What do you guys think?

4/9/2008 12:42:06 AM

time travel...soon as someone goes back in time and fucks with something the whole space time continuum will be messed up therefore ending human kind

4/9/2008 12:45:03 AM

I don't know the exact odds of a nuclear holocaust, but it seems pretty unlikely. i think that even if an asteroid hit the earth, we still have the technology to generate enough power to survive long enough to go live in space or something.

I think the downfall of the human race will be when we evolve into something else.

4/9/2008 12:47:57 AM

Idiocy.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=upyewL0oaWA

4/9/2008 12:49:54 AM

I think we could survive an asteroid too, at least enough of us. The only thing that could really wipe us out would be disease or some type of biological pandemic.

4/9/2008 12:54:01 AM

Communism
or illegal immigration

4/9/2008 12:55:08 AM

An asteroid, yes.

A planet, no.

4/9/2008 12:57:00 AM

How in the hell is a planet going to sneak up on us though?

4/9/2008 12:57:31 AM

A planet won't have to be sneaky, given our complete and total inability to divert its path or ours.

4/9/2008 1:01:36 AM

We'd be able to see a planet on its way likely hundreds or thousands of years before it collides with us, if not more. That's plenty of time to put colonies elsewhere, or develop technology to divert or destroy a planet.

4/9/2008 1:05:05 AM

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 1:06 AM. Reason : great story BTW if you haven't read it. Don't necessarily agree, but it's quite interesting]

4/9/2008 1:05:47 AM

I do not doubt or underestimate the propensity for humans to cause destruction, but even if there was some kind of world-wide nuclear war or release of disease or something, I'm confident that a handful of people would survive at the very least. People will have built shelters and stockpiled supplies, there will be quarantines, etc. The ensuing climate change from global warming will probably result in massive droughts and famines and the like, but all that means is that we'll be able to grow food to support a much smaller population than is possible now. Humans are pretty good at killing each other, but they're also pretty good at adapting and surviving. It would take a significantly energetic event such as an asteroid to cause enough deaths to make sustaining the human species impossible.

And as much as I hate to admit it, a swift decrease in global population is something that the planet needs right now. Resources are scarce enough as it is, and climate change and rising ocean levels is only going to make it worse. We have enough difficulty as it is feeding 7 billion people right now, we certainly won't be able to do it once much of our arable land turns to desert. It will suck for those who do get the shaft and I don't pretend to have the authority to decide who lives and who dies, but the rest of us would benefit immensely if a few billion people would drop dead right now.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 1:13 AM. Reason : blah]

4/9/2008 1:08:29 AM

1. Nuclear holocaust
2. Environmental degradation to the point where Earth is uninhabitable
3. Evolving into something that isn't really human (robots taking over, androids or whatever)
4. Unstoppable virus or something

Honestly, I think that if humans can simply gain the ability to survive on other planets and travel quickly through space there isn't much that can stop us aside from some galactic catastrophe or war with aliens. If we can last another 150 years without destroying ourselves or making ourselves not human anymore we can last forever.

Also, backwards time travel is impossible. Only time travel to the future is possible.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 1:11 AM. Reason : ]

4/9/2008 1:11:02 AM

In decreasing order of probability


global epidemic, possibly from biological warfare that gets out of hand
asteroid that cannot be blown up by Bruce Willis
Gigantic volcanic eruption that blots out the sun for a decade or 2
nuclear holocaust
"grey goo" - self replicating nanobots that act like a cancer to the world
global warming spins out of control to the point where civilization collapses
air pollution that causes infertility in mankind like in "Children of Men"
CERN particle accelerator accidentally creates a mini black hole that swallows the earth
Evil aliens
killer robots
damn dirty apes
zombies


I might have missed a few

4/9/2008 1:18:08 AM

Quote :

""grey goo" - self replicating nanobots that act like a cancer to the world"

This wins for most original so far.

Quote :

"We'd be able to see a planet on its way likely hundreds or thousands of years before it collides with us, if not more. That's plenty of time to put colonies elsewhere, or develop technology to divert or destroy a planet."

Capability isn't a question. But again, it's not about what you can see. It's about what you do see.

What if it were a rogue planet? IOW, not a member of our normal system?

A body cast out of its original planetary system by a close pass with a comet or something?

We wouldn't expect it. Wouldn't have looked for it, either. So small we'd only have been able to detect it within the last few years. We'd be totally fucked if we found something like that just wandering on in to rendez-vous with us. But it's totally possible.

If I were a LOT better at math, I'd be able to tell you how likely or unlikely. As it is, I have no idea. But...could happen. :shrug:

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 1:28 AM. Reason : ...]

4/9/2008 1:23:11 AM

Quote :

"If we can last another 150 years without destroying ourselves or making ourselves not human anymore we can last forever."

I'm not sure about the time-frame, but I tend to agree with the premise.

I think mankind is in for one or two really big species challenges. The dinosaurs couldn't deflect a killer asteroid...perhaps we can.

A virus worries me though. We survived the Black Plague ...barely and its subsequent mini-plagues. We also outlasted the 1919 flu pandemic. But you just never know with these tricky viruses.

...Or we could do something really stupid. A radiation safety officer and a time-theory scientist are trying to stop the world's most powerful particle accelerator from starting up this summer. They fear it could trigger a black hole that would suck up our world. Now that would be the ultimate screw-up. Read about it here:
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/article/10134

4/9/2008 1:25:33 AM

BTW, I wasn't joking in my previous post. The following scene is powerfully illustrative of my point (and timely, too):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cmw6Jne0tAQ

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 1:27 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 1:25:58 AM

Good lord.

This thread makes me think we spend our money on dumb things.

4/9/2008 1:29:37 AM

^^^Yeah I've got that threat ranked just behind sterilizing pollution and just ahead of evil aliens in probability of occurrence.

I'm not saying that it won't happen, but I'll be pretty surprised if I get sucked into a black hole this summer.


In about a billion years the sun will have expanded to the point where the oceans boil off and Earth can no longer sustain life. I'm not convinced that mankind will be able to continue for long without Earth.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 1:31 AM. Reason : 2]

4/9/2008 1:31:36 AM

When Will the World End? New Theory Emerges
New Theory Emerges on How the World Will End

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97756&page=1

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, PhD, author of Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries (2007)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=h1iJXOUMJpg

Scientists discover 'city-sized black hole'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/02/2205777.htm?site=science&topic=latest

Listen to this while reading these:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qiSkyEyBczU



[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 2:49 AM. Reason : "Spaghettification"! ]

4/9/2008 2:47:05 AM

^Damn, I forgot about "exploding death star" as a possible source of the end of humanity. Apparently certain large stars emit massive amounts of gamma radiation in a directional beam when they explode into a supernova. This gamma radiation could burn off the majority of the ozone layer and most life on earth would likely be fucked.

Some astrophysicists have surmised that a large burst of gamma radiation from a neighboring star was responsible for the mass extinction of the dinasaurs.

Read up:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/03/03/1204402359576.html

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 3:06 AM. Reason : 2]

4/9/2008 3:04:17 AM

Kromaggs

4/9/2008 3:26:41 AM

Gamma ray burst?

4/9/2008 4:17:16 AM

^^^ and ^ Hey, we'll all be Hulks. Cool!

4/9/2008 4:39:20 AM

I think porn will end humankind :-/

4/9/2008 4:40:37 AM

not with a bang, but a whimper

4/9/2008 8:21:37 AM

Nothing will ever end humankind. You'll have just enough people in every scenario that can evolve to overcome death (just like insects and pesticides for example) or change how they live.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 8:23 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 8:23:11 AM

Quote :

"time travel...soon as someone goes back in time and fucks with something the whole space time continuum will be messed up therefore ending human kind"

if someone in the future has invented a time machine, wouldnt we know about it now as they travel back?

4/9/2008 8:23:14 AM

Good Intentions

4/9/2008 8:24:18 AM

Quote :

"And as much as I hate to admit it, a swift decrease in global population is something that the planet needs right now. Resources are scarce enough as it is, and climate change and rising ocean levels is only going to make it worse."

He said while chatting on the internet and enjoying a standard of living unheard of just a few decades ago. Do you have anything to back up the claim that resources are scarce? Prices for resources such as gasoline are not much higher than they were in either 1980 or 1880, so are you suggesting that we have needed a massive die-off since before the industrial revolution?

It seems to me that today's farmers and entrepreneurs are perfectly capable of keeping us fatter and more entertained than ever before in history.

4/9/2008 8:35:27 AM

I remember reading in a Popular Science many years ago the "Top 25 Ways for the World to End," or something similar. I don't claim to understand it and it may be just plain wrong, but one of the one's it listed was the development of a "more stable vacuum" somewhere in the universe that would then almost instantly spread everywhere else in the universe, fundamentally altering the laws of physics and therefore probably making us toast.

4/9/2008 9:08:06 AM

My world ended when Blink 182 broke up.
I don't know about y'all.

4/9/2008 9:21:25 AM

Quote :

"Good Intentions"

close, but I'm going with:


pride

4/9/2008 9:29:44 AM

I have a blog about this. Thanks for reminding me to update it once in awhile.

http://thefateoftheworld.blogspot.com/

Be sure to check out the posts.

4/9/2008 9:42:40 AM

Forget an asteroid hitting the Earth; one hitting the moon could, under the right circumstances, be just as bad, either knocking the moon into us or out of orbit and into space, which would remove a major factor in stabilizing the Earth.

Pandemics, too, would not have to merely affect us -- they could go after major food sources as well. If some bug, bacteria, or fungus came along could happily affect all grains, for instance, we'd be fucked.

Quote :

"We have enough difficulty as it is feeding 7 billion people right now, we certainly won't be able to do it once much of our arable land turns to desert."

We have difficulty feeding them because of stupid or corrupt governments, not because of a lack of food. And getting rid of a couple billion people isn't going to fix the stupidity or corruptness of those governments.

Quote :

"Resources are scarce enough as it is, and climate change and rising ocean levels is only going to make it worse."

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Tell me, what would be a level of scarcity that didn't require a die-off? There is no resource we need to survive that we are in dire need of running out of.

4/9/2008 9:44:44 AM

GRUMPY

GET A FUCKING CLUE

THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE AS IT IS

WE ARE ALREADY OVERPOPULATED

YOU ARE A STUPID FUCKING CHILD TO BELIEVE ANYTHING ELSE

OH WAIT, I WON'T DEBATE IT RATIONALLY SO I MUST BE WRONG

4/9/2008 9:52:32 AM

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT

I'm sorry, man, but unless you're going to give me something other than caps lock assertions and insults, I can't really do much with you...

4/9/2008 9:56:57 AM

Quote :

"they could go after major food sources as well."

I didn't even think about that one... thanks for more sleepless nights

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 10:30:32 AM

Raptor Jesus

4/9/2008 10:46:25 AM

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 10:55 AM. Reason : this thread hasn't been serious for a while]

4/9/2008 10:55:16 AM

Lonesnark

I don't think its a good idea to argue that resource will remain as abundant as they are given a population that doubles every 40 years.

A vast majority of the world lives in poverty, and to say 'prices have dropped/remained neutral' is accidentally ironic when you're an American.

I also recommend all of you to read this : http://qntm.org/?destroy to get an idea of how hard it is to actually destroy the planet.

4/9/2008 10:56:55 AM

^ hahaha

Quote :

"This is not a guide for wusses whose aim is merely to wipe out humanity. I (Sam Hughes) can in no way guarantee the complete extinction of the human race via any of these methods, real or imaginary. Humanity is wily and resourceful, and many of the methods outlined below will take many years to even become available, let alone implement, by which time mankind may well have spread to other planets; indeed, other star systems. If total human genocide is your ultimate goal, you are reading the wrong document. There are far more efficient ways of doing this, many which are available and feasible RIGHT NOW. Nor is this a guide for those wanting to annihilate everything from single-celled life upwards, render Earth uninhabitable or simply conquer it. These are trivial goals in comparison. This is a guide for those who do not want the Earth to be there anymore. "

4/9/2008 11:01:37 AM

^ I was going to post something to that extent. The Earth need not be destroyed, only suddenly uninhabitable.

Quote :

"Flyin Ryan: Nothing will ever end humankind. You'll have just enough people in every scenario that can evolve to overcome death (just like insects and pesticides for example) or change how they live."

Good bit of faith in that statement, no?

Let's just deal within the context of a rogue planet crashing directly into the Pacific Ocean.

How do humans make it out of that one?

Not that you have to be able to figure this out personally for it to be possible. I'm just curious what sort of survival guide the astronauts in space would have for that type of scenario. I'm sure it exists, but it may read something like:

Chapter 891.351-A Planet-to-Planet Impact During Mission
In the event of a catastrophic impact between a sufficiently sizeable body and the Earth while in space, fasten the shackles (pictured) to your wrists, then ankles, and kiss your primate ass goodbye. Write a love note for ET on toilet paper if they happen to find your ship sometime before it crashes into another star.

Quote :

"umbrellaman: I do not doubt or underestimate the propensity for humans to cause destruction, but even if there was some kind of world-wide nuclear war or release of disease or something, I'm confident that a handful of people would survive at the very least. People will have built shelters and stockpiled supplies, there will be quarantines, etc. The ensuing climate change from global warming will probably result in massive droughts and famines and the like, but all that means is that we'll be able to grow food to support a much smaller population than is possible now. Humans are pretty good at killing each other, but they're also pretty good at adapting and surviving. It would take a significantly energetic event such as an asteroid to cause enough deaths to make sustaining the human species impossible."

I agree. For similar reasons, I rule out most forms of human-initiated extinction.

I wholeheartedly reject the notion that our current growth rate is unsustainable. That's got more to do with distribution, as has been noted.

Quote :

"IMStoned420: I think that if humans can simply gain the ability to survive on other planets and travel quickly through space there isn't much that can stop us aside from some galactic catastrophe or war with aliens."

We have the ability to survive on other planets now. We haven't worked quickly on testing and perfecting it or faster methods of travel. But the technology to survive outside our own biosphere exists today.

Quote :

"EarthDogg: I think mankind is in for one or two really big species challenges. The dinosaurs couldn't deflect a killer asteroid...perhaps we can."

Everyone laments the dinosaurs.

What about a similar event to the Permian-Triassic Extinction?

A quarter of a billion years ago, 96% of marine species and 70% of land species vanished. Paleontonlogists stick speculate over what caused it and other major extinctions.

I'd argue a direct impact with a predominantly iron comet of sufficient mass would be a hell of a lot more severe than the asteroid that skimmed our surface and ended the reign of dinosaurs. We'd also be far less capable of doing anything about it in even the best of circumstances.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Forget an asteroid hitting the Earth; one hitting the moon could, under the right circumstances, be just as bad, either knocking the moon into us or out of orbit and into space, which would remove a major factor in stabilizing the Earth."

Indeed. All those scars on the moon's surface represent potential game-changing impacts for humanity. The moon's been an effective shield against foreign bodies ever since it was carved from our bedrock.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 11:44:20 AM

The overwhelming majority of animal species on Earth have become extinct, (over 99% of species that ever lived are now extinct). Knowing this, it can be suggested that all animal species will eventually die out. Therefore, human extinction may be inevitable due to the nature of nature itself. However, to be fair, humans are unlike other animal species in their ways to adapt, innovate, and provide technological solutions for earthly problems. So, it is not entirely fair to jump to conclusions about the chances of total human extinction based on the past extinctions of other non-human species. However, people like Albert Einstein believed that "We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive." I completely agree with this, and I believe that the fate of humanity rests upon the hope that humans can think our way out of a likely certain death.

4/9/2008 11:56:45 AM

While I agree FULLY with what Einstein said there, thinking will not stop a comet with our name on it. Or feed us in its aftermath.

It's the doing that will save us.

Species-wide preservation seems to provence of the Norwegians only.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6335899.stm

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 12:03 PM. Reason : ...]

4/9/2008 12:02:50 PM

That's semantical. You have to think up the plan to do it, and you have to plan based on your thoughts to provide solutions.

4/9/2008 12:05:20 PM

It's not semantic at all. Humans are notoriously excellent thinkers. We're rather awful at cooperation, though.

4/9/2008 12:16:58 PM

The point I'm making, and Einstein as well, is that the only hope for human survival resides solely inside the human head. It all boils down to the human ability to use our brains to save our own skin. Without that, nothing else would matter, because we would be no different from all of the other non-human species.

What you are talking about is different, and involves language and the interpretation of words. You were saying that "thinking" doesn't stop a comet, it's the "doing" that will save us. However, that's not true, based on the interpretation of the word; because by my definition, thinking is precisely the only thing that can stop a comet from destroying us all. Without the human brain's ability for complex and intricate thought processes, humanity would have no way to deal with a global catastrophy such as a comet hitting the earth. We must use our human brains to think of ways to cooperate and provide a unique course of action to survive such an monumental event. No one is saying that thinking alone solves the problem. Our brains are merely the only obvious difference that we have with the other 99% of the animals that have gone extinct on this planet.

4/9/2008 1:51:26 PM

I'd say that the earth is currently at less risk of death from a comment than it has ever been in the last 4 billion years, but greater risk for humans fucking up the atmosphere and killing all large life.

4/9/2008 2:06:10 PM

It would take one hell of a witty comment to put the whole earth at risk.

4/9/2008 2:09:52 PM