• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Humanity Will Not Last Another 1000 Years

I agree too. The trouble is, extinction risks are for the most part damned hard to quantify, and thus hard to reason about. We can quantify the risk of asteroid strikes, but biological or nuclear warfare? Or nanowarfare?
 
I think that Hawking is probably wrong. I'm sure that folks had a view that we were all pretty much doomed when the bubonic plague struck.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the human race being a lot less populous. It would, however, require a truly global catastrophe affecting everyone, no matter how isolated they may be, to completely wipe out the human race.

Mind you, I am sympathetic to his views on getting a population going in places other than Earth. People are used to environmental arguments about "what kind of world do you want to leave for your grand-children." What never seems to be argued is the "great-great-great-great...........great-grandchildren's" case. At some point our sun will enter a red giant phase, expanding until it encompasses the orbit of the earth. If we haven't left earth by then, the human race *will* become extinct.

Should *we* be worrying about this? Perhaps we should at least be starting to think about it. Space travel on that scale would probably be very resource hungry. I offer up for argument the idea that the period when a planetary civilisation is technologically advanced enough to design and conceive of this project, but also has sufficient remaing resources with which to carry it out, is relatively short. It may be that we have now entered this window of opportunity. If we leave the window of opportunity without completing the task, then we have sealed the fate of humanity.

Is it as immoral to say that we should leave this as problem for future generations, as it is to say that we needn't worry about the effects of global warming (for example) because it will only affect people in ~100 years.

What do you reckon?
 
The earth ain't gonna be there forever!

We shouldn't keep all our eggs in the same basket.

-J
 
Unfortunately we're driven by economics, so until space travel becomes affordable and less resource-hungry, colonisation ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. We only got to the moon in order to beat the Russians. Present funding for NASA is quite modest.

I don't think a nebulous threat of global extinction 'sometime in the next 1000 years' is the driver to make it happen anytime soon.

Assuming it does happen, how do we decide who goes? Those who can afford the ticket? If so, then surely earth becomes similar to that envisioned in Blade Runner, a ghetto populated by the underclass?
 
Another film version of a ghastly over-populated future is "Soylent Green" - recomended.

But over-population is not really the issue here. As we learn more about the history of the world it becomes apparent that major extinction events occur (almost) regularly. It's said that, rounding up the figures, every species that ever existed is extinct! The cause of these extinctions could be meteoroid impacts or more terrestrial factors, but if Earth is our only home then sooner or later our number will come up.

Other planets aren't the only alternative.
Giant artificial 'habitats', like overgrown space stations, could sustain populations of thousands. No-one will choose who will go - people will do that themselves, just as emigrants have always done throughout history. The financial cost of space travel is dropping all the time, and new technologies will accelerate the process. One hundred year ago people would have been amazed to hear that 'working class people' would FLY in big silver birds to exotic destinations just for a holiday....
 
I was going to send a long reply but Fortis says just about all I was going too. The only way is on and Upward. And if Hawking is right, well I am pretty sure in a few millions of years something "Inhuman" will be "typing" this same thing all over again.
 
But let's remember, humans excel at two things: killing and surviving.
 
Agree with xanatic. I've been reading a lot about recently extinct species (from within past 1000 years)and everyone of those poor creatures attests to the former human attribute. I think maybe it would be in the planets best interest for humans to become extinct. We're not particularly special and we're definitely not very good for the planet. Any thoughts?
 
There is an organisation that wants humans to stop breeding so we will be gone in about 100 years. Because they believe we have nothing to contribute to the world. Mind you, it is an organisation of humans, not racoons or such.

I think it is possible for humans to "live in pact with nature", so we should strive towards that. I don't think we should kill ourselves, what reason would there be in that? None of the animals serve any higher purpose either, they're just there. So they don't have any more right to being here than us. They may not be as efficient in hurting as us, but they still do it.
 
Lucifers advocate

Having recently watched David Attenboroughs (sp) new wild life series, I saw a pack of killer whales hunting an infant whale (sorry, can't remember the specific type) and drowning it slowly over an horrific six hour ordeal with its mother watching helplessly, only to eat its lower jaw.

I'd be genuinely interested whether people think the human species is outside nature in its 'barbarism'. And what is so disturbing about the way humans are turning out?
 
The Victorians spoke of "Nature red in tooth and claw", and it is true that the struggle for survival is often a brutal one. If one applied human 'moral standards' to animal behaviour, you'd have to say that many (if not most) creatures are killers, thieves, sexual cheats and bullies. Almost every aspect of bad human behaviour has its parallels in the animal world.

So humanity is just part of nature, no better, no worse - in fact such value judgements are almost meaningless. It's usually guilt laden religious types or power-drunk politicos who try to control other people's behaviour by setting standards of right and wrong.

What has all this to do with going into space? Well, most of the most intelligent creatures on Earth are predators of one sort or another - presumably intelligence is required to be a succesful predator. (The Elephant seems to be an exception.) If this applies elsewhere in the universe, other intelligent lifeforms are likely to be predatory and aggressive too...
 
With regard to our intelligence. I spose if it doesn't kill us it will save us.
 
rynner said:
Almost every aspect of bad human behaviour has its parallels in the animal world.

So humanity is just part of nature, no better, no worse - in fact such value judgements are almost meaningless. It's usually guilt laden religious types or power-drunk politicos who try to control other people's behaviour by setting standards of right and wrong.
Click to expand...


Ahh, ethics. The difference between us and animals in this regard is one of self-awareness. Take this one step further, and you see that we also have awareness of other's conciousness - empathy. We can concieve and understand the pain we may cause, which I think even other fairly intelligent animals such as dolphins and primates cannot.

While on the subject of intelligence and self-awareness, I personally think it is a matter of degree, not a yes/no issue. All animals are self-aware to some value.
 
I've read some stuff about chimps that make it seem they also have an idea of what goes on in the head of others. But in any case, I'd love to hear someone define being aware.

The difference between humans and animals to me is that when humans does cruel thing it often seem meaningless. The killer whales probably had some reason for what they did. But humans seem to do a lot of evil without any real motivation. Like serial killers for example.

Being a good predator might mean you had to be intelligent. But to avoid being eaten by a good predator, wouldn't that also mean you had to be intelligent?
 
I dont want to come across as some new age vegan "meat is murder" person (btw i am an omnivore). But the saddest thing i think i have ever seen was a program on Discovery animal planet about the project that taught gorillas to use sign language. there was a female (I think Koko was her name) and a male called michael. One of the researchers signed michael a question "What was your mother like?" or "do you remember your mother?" and what came next was a flurry of signs which were translated on screen. Its hard to verbally describe the impact seeing this has but he responded with "bad man, neck, cut, blood" and then most heart-wrenching of all "michael crying". It really was very, very sad.
Also
In my previous post i wasnt advocating we voluntarily go extinct (that in itself would be a shame) but that the planet would probably be a better place if there were less of us.
 
If this is the same project that I remember, the apes were shipped onto another project in cages. One of the researchers asked the apes if they wanted anything before they left. One of the apes asked for the key to the cage.

I don't know the exact definition of sentience but for me this demonstrated it.

This story inspired an X-Files episode with invisible elephants.
 
Koko and Michael are the gorillas you're thinking of - amazing and intelligent creatures.

Website here: http://www.koko.org
Koko has an IQ of 90 (whatever that proves)

The difference between humans and animals to me is that when humans does cruel thing it often seem meaningless. The killer whales probably had some reason for what they did. But humans seem to do a lot of evil without any real motivation. Like serial killers for example.
Click to expand...
Seem to... Is it just that the motivations are more complex. Human reasons and motivaions are often rooted in abstract notions rather than the concrete.

Maybe...
 
-M- said:
...Is it just that the motivations are more complex. Human reasons and motivaions are often rooted in abstract notions rather than the concrete...
Click to expand...

Indeed, like our nasty habit of fighting over who has the best imaginary friend (Holy war).I've always had my suspicions of any deity that is bothered if I'm greatful for creation, let alone one who expects me to do their dirty work when someone dares not to believe... Yuo can't get more abstract than that :D

8¬)
 
Xanatic said:
I've read some stuff about chimps that make it seem they also have an idea of what goes on in the head of others. But in any case, I'd love to hear someone define being aware.
Click to expand...
Me too!

But humans seem to do a lot of evil without any real motivation. Like serial killers for example.
Click to expand...
Perhaps there's a definition of being human that excludes serial killers.
Being a good predator might mean you had to be intelligent. But to avoid being eaten by a good predator, wouldn't that also mean you had to be intelligent?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Predators are always outnumbered by prey animals, otherwise they'd quickly run out of food, so prey species have safety in numbers. Also, running a large brain is expensive is terms of energy. Evolution won't produce large brains for creatures that don't need them.

It's also relevent in this context that flesh is high in energy, and so makes it easier for predators to grow larger brains.

The Aquatic Ape theory would have it that eating shell fish and other seafood, which are high in certain important nutrients, is part of the reason that humans grew large brains.

(Even Bertie Wooster knew that Jeeves was brainy because he ate a lot of fish!)
 
Organization for human depopulation

The organization that advocates that humans stop breeding is called Z.P.G. for Zero Population Growth.

An interesting point here is one raised by a fellow I ran across a year or so back whom , unfortunately I cannot recall the name of.

His thesis was, in short, that Global Industrial Civilization cannot sustain itself for more than about 100 years. At that point, overpopulation, pollution, eviromental degradation, and the ever-increasing cost of resource procurement makes it less and less efficent. Should any large-scale catastrophe cause said Global Industrial Civilization to fail, it cannot return to it's former level of development because all the readily accesablie resources that it needs, primarily mineral, to reesatblish it's former level of complexity are no longer usable.

The idea being...that much of the oil, coal, metal ores, etc. that lay close to the surface and obtainable using a lower level of technology than previously extant have been utilized..and , given the collapse of said G.I.C, remaining harder to reach resources are now out of reach.

I took something from this that he obviously did not realize..which is that a Global Industrial Civilization has essentially one chance to get off the planet and set up viable colonies elsewhere..miss your shot and your are stuck here.

I personally don't think we are going to make it. Our space programs consist primarily of research space probes, and a commercial orbital operation. The U.S. space program has become primarily a sattelite installation and repair service.

There is no serious interest in doing anything else. I would guess that the American involvement in the International Space Station is in order to assure we can watch what is going on..and with an eye towards commercial exploitation of orbital research, development and manufacturing.

Keep in mind we had a space station in orbit ..and we didn't keep it up there..so the entire effort of putting it up was wasted because it didn't come across to our legislators that it was worth putting any more money into outer space foolishness. I guess once it is off the planet, they can't use it as an excuse to win re-elections next term...after all...they don't have any constituents in outer space!
 
dead already

i have to agree we have already messed up so much that its true the earth is already dying. it will be like mad cows disease that we will only realise what we have done when its out there and too late to do anything. the air is polluted, the water is dirty we have messed with everything with out understanding how they worked to start with we cannot put it right but we will ignore it and bury our heads in the sand.

we are not going to escape into space, and where would we go we have not found any habitable planets yet
 
Until further notice, the light at the end of the tunnel will be turned off:D
 
light

the light went out a long time ago, the darkness is closing in:(
 
On the bright side

On the bright side we probably will not be around to see.;)

Wm.
 
I still think that as long as we're slaves to economics that we'll remain here on terra firma. Governments are more likely to invest in the least energy solutions to problems that may threaten mankind. Virus epidemics? Stockpile antidotes, and develop containment procedures. Asteroid collison? Develop projects like 'Spaceguard'. Environmental disaster? Tighten legislation. Colonisation is a long way down the list as long as the cost is prohibitive compared to the simpler solutions. It'll need someone to open that frontier up to regular people, maybe a nutty billionaire. Maybe someone like that bloke who intends to be the first private astronaut courtesy of his converted concrete mixer.

This topic reminds me of an essay written by former NASA scientist and sci fi writer Jerry Pournelle. His idea was a rudimentary type of terraforming of Venus. Take a hardy piece of plant life that can survive in harsh conditions, i.e. blue green algae, and load rockets with the stuff. Send these rockets to Venus and detonate them in the upper atmosphere. The algae starts munching away on the thick CO2, producing oxygen. As the CO2 levels diminsh (possibly taking decades/centuries I imagine) the heat trapped by the CO2 is steadily released, cooling the planet. As the planet cools, the water vapour in the atmosphere condenses and falls as rain. And it rains and rains and rains, forming lakes, oceans, rivers. Result - a planet far more hospitable than a barren dusty rock like Mars. It doesn't mean that you can walk around and breathe as you would on earth, but solves a multitude of problems. Of course, the resources needed would be enormous, but the point being made was that the technology required isn't some kind of Genesis device. The essay was called "The Big Rain."
 
I remember the doomsday predictions from the seventies and eighties which pretty much said we'd kill ourselves off by the year 2000. Basicly the theory was that we'd either nuke ourselves, use up all the petrochemicals, use up all the possible land which could be used to feed us, and have our population grow so much that we'd run out of room to move.

Ooops, we still appear to be here. This doomsaying fell apart because as human Human population grows it seems our technology improves to keep pace.

We still have petrochemicals because not only did our abilty to find oil reserves increase but we've become more efficient in how we use them.

We still have an over abundance of food (in the West) because not only have we developed strains of crop which are able to grow under harsher conditionsbut we've learnt how to improve said conditions to get bumper yields.

[rant]The thing which annoys me about the GM nay-sayers is that not only will the produce they're complaining about would not only allow us to feed the millions of starving arund the world but also because they're fundamentally hypocrites. If they weren't then they would be out foraging for nuts and berries in the wild since humanity has been Genetically Modifying foodstuffs from the moment we developed agriculture and animal husbandry[/rant]

We won't run out of room in the forseable future because we're now at the technological stage that we can build floating cities and biozones in space (if we'e so moved).

A friend of mine who works at JET fusion labs tells me that they're very close to getting it right (he also says they have an... undisclosed... Cold Fusion project running there which seems to work, but you didn't hear it from me;)) We can also seriously consider orbital power farms and the like.

All in all if we could just grow the [expletive deleted] up as a species then our future could look very rosy indeed.

Niles
 
A good post, Niles - I agree, in spades, squared, with knobs on.

I recently confused a local shopkeeper when I noticed all the cheese in his cool cabinet was 'GM free', so I said, "Oh that's no good for me, I like as much GM as I can get!" My thinking is that as omnivores we have evolved to live off a very wide range of animal and vegetable material, all of which is stuffed full of genes (commonsalt being being an exception!).

So if my tomatoes have one or two genes from a fish or a snake or anything else, I'm pretty sure my system can handle it. (Tomatoes themselves are artificial fruits, related to the deadly nightshade - there's a separate thread on that - which makes it really ironic that so much of this GM nonsense focusses on tomatoes!) If you eat a traditional Sunday roast dinner, think of all the different genes you are ingesting there! Anyone who eats a balanced diet is accepting genes from all over, so one or two artificially added genes (designed to improve the vitamen content or the keeping properties of the product) are no problem at all.

Practically all the plant and animal species we use for food are so artificial already (because of traditional selective breeding) that they mostly cannot even reproduce themselves now without human aid.

I feel better now. I think I'll go and havea lie down...
 
Humanity should live in space.

barndad said:
Agree with xanatic. I've been reading a lot about recently extinct species (from within past 1000 years)and everyone of those poor creatures attests to the former human attribute. I think maybe it would be in the planets best interest for humans to become extinct. We're not particularly special and we're definitely not very good for the planet. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think you should be world leader.

Nothing Pi**es me off more than people that state that Humans are special and some sort of Deity created us specifically. No self respecting deity would admit to a blunder like that.

We are not special. We have minds that don't care and hands that destroy.

Humans should go and live (and die) in space and leave the planet to live out the remains of its life without the parasite that is man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top