|
Post by schizophonic on Jul 28, 2009 12:18:21 GMT -5
Count up? When did it start - and when supposedly is it supposed to 'end'? See, that's the grand thing, it doesn't, so in the end, when it never happens, they can't be told they were wrong Yeah, they finally figured out what all those doomsday dates were doing wrong. So somewhere in their minds, doing the opposite makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jul 28, 2009 13:24:00 GMT -5
It's not that I find it incredibly likely, I just find other apocalypse scenarios equally unlikely. Or, rather, other scenarios that would produce the same results. Indeed. All the more likely scenarios that we discussed earlier would produce different results - they wouldn't kill off the entire species. At this point, I don't believe that anything can drive mankind to extinction unless it takes the entire planet with it. We're just too widespread and too good at adapting to new environments. And we know how to bomb the shit out of any spec of earth in existance aswell. Hell, a push of the button now will most likely wipe out the planet with all the retalliation Again, the nuclear blasts will not be distributed evenly over the entire surface of the planet. They'll be concentrated around the population centers of whichever two factions went shooting off nukes in the first place. A nuclear launch would not kill the entire species, nor would the ensuing nuclear winter.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 28, 2009 15:44:28 GMT -5
At this point, I don't believe that anything can drive mankind to extinction unless it takes the entire planet with it. We're just too widespread and too good at adapting to new environments. And we know how to bomb the shit out of any spec of earth in existance aswell. Hell, a push of the button now will most likely wipe out the planet with all the retalliation This. And you're assuming a nuclear winter wouldn't kill us. I'm not so convinced. Besides, let's say that all areas of good population density are destroyed. Well, the species is fundamentally extinct because we're too few & far between to continue breeding, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Jul 28, 2009 17:53:02 GMT -5
Although most humans are located in areas of large population density, there's plenty of people elsewhere. You can find plenty of partners without ever touching a city. Our chances of survival would be damaged, but we wouldn't be fundamentally extinct.
Of course, large scale nuclear warfare and the resulting nuclear winter can kill people outside large population centres.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 28, 2009 20:16:37 GMT -5
You're all thinking too short term. In the past, species don't die out from a single event, but from a long, slow, painful process and we humans are not immune. I think it will happen one day. But, we do have an advantage, we live all over the globe. Although, so did dinosaurs, and yeah, they're gone. The 'survivors' evolved into birds, changed to the point where they're not recognizable as what they used to be.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jul 29, 2009 1:40:57 GMT -5
You're all thinking too short term. In the past, species don't die out from a single event, but from a long, slow, painful process and we humans are not immune. What situation would set such a process in motion? The only one that's been suggested so far is a nuclear or impact winter, and I still maintain that we'd survive that. And you're assuming a nuclear winter wouldn't kill us. I'm not so convinced. I already went over my reasons for doing so - the K/T extinction took thousands of years, and we're far more adaptable than any of the species that died out. I believe that we'd be able to survive long enough for the global climate to get its shit back together. Besides, let's say that all areas of good population density are destroyed. Well, the species is fundamentally extinct because we're too few & far between to continue breeding, anyway. Again, you'd need a metric fuckton of nukes to target every population center. Anyone know what the radius of a nuclear blast is? I know that Hiroshima was ~4 miles, but nukes are more powerful these days. If I can find that out, I can run the actual math and find out how many nukes you'd need to destroy ever square inch of inhabited land. And that's with the assumption that someone respectable enough to get into power would a. be crazy enough to order the entire planet nuked and b. have the people who actually push the buttons follow said order.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 29, 2009 2:02:53 GMT -5
It's not that I find it incredibly likely, I just find other apocalypse scenarios equally unlikely. Or, rather, other scenarios that would produce the same results. Indeed. All the more likely scenarios that we discussed earlier would produce different results - they wouldn't kill off the entire species. And we know how to bomb the shit out of any spec of earth in existance aswell. Hell, a push of the button now will most likely wipe out the planet with all the retalliation Again, the nuclear blasts will not be distributed evenly over the entire surface of the planet. They'll be concentrated around the population centers of whichever two factions went shooting off nukes in the first place. A nuclear launch would not kill the entire species, nor would the ensuing nuclear winter. You think it's gonna be just two factions? And as previously stated, the nukes will do a shitton of damage, the fallout and nuke winter after will finish the rest. You can only saturate the planet with so much radiation before it becomes unliveable the problem with the k/t arguement is it was all natural, there was no motivation behind it, unlike if humans start causing our own planetary wipe out. Humans like to do things big and expressive. Once those high density areas are gone, how long will what's left behind last? You've just lost a lot of power producing centers, manufacturing centers, shipping centers, organization, etc. And not everyone is suited or knowledgeable to camp on their own for a 2 day weekend let alone years, decades, etc
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jul 29, 2009 2:08:11 GMT -5
You think it's gonna be just two factions? Please, elaborate on your scenario where not one, not two, but three or more people with access to nuclear weapons conspire together to kill off the human race.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 29, 2009 2:19:19 GMT -5
1. I do not think we are hardier than the dinosaurs. We have our technology. That's it. If that's not in effect, we are among the squishiest fucking animals inhabiting the planet right now.
2. What's this about a conspiracy? Wouldn't the domino effect be enough? The fact that we've compiled enough nukes to destroy the planet x times over should show that we're stupid enough to abuse them.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 29, 2009 2:34:52 GMT -5
1. I do not think we are hardier than the dinosaurs. We have our technology. That's it. If that's not in effect, we are among the squishiest fucking animals inhabiting the planet right now. 2. What's this about a conspiracy? Wouldn't the domino effect be enough? The fact that we've compiled enough nukes to destroy the planet x times over should show that we're stupid enough to abuse them. 2. for sure, add to that not only does the US and Russia have the abillity, but France, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea (somehow I think they'd be the first to 'retalliate' just for shits and giggles) with Iran closing in. Conspire to wipe out mankind is an iffy. World domination, because we hate dem brown people, cause North Korea looked at us funny or any other billion reasons for some nutball to kick it all off would be enough. Wiping out mankind might not be the original plan, but it will be the end result
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 29, 2009 3:00:50 GMT -5
You're all thinking too short term. In the past, species don't die out from a single event, but from a long, slow, painful process and we humans are not immune. What situation would set such a process in motion? The only one that's been suggested so far is a nuclear or impact winter, and I still maintain that we'd survive that. Initially survive, as Lithp said, we rely on our technology, with a massive change in the environment and without our technology, we can easily get overrun by other organisms. As for examples that could do it, warfare has been mentioned, climate change (warming or cooling, I'm thinking very long term), meteor impact, or evolution of a new disease (an example, if HIV mutates in such a way to be airborne). It's not the event itself that will do it, it's the fallout from the event. And if I had to put my money on something, I'd say disease. It is so easy for pathogens to spread between continents, our own technology could end up killing us. And with bacterial resistance the way it is, it's not a stretch to think that it would be immune to our drugs.
|
|
|
Post by Hades on Jul 29, 2009 6:06:32 GMT -5
1. I do not think we are hardier than the dinosaurs. We have our technology. That's it. If that's not in effect, we are among the squishiest fucking animals inhabiting the planet right now. This
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jul 29, 2009 8:08:10 GMT -5
1. I do not think we are hardier than the dinosaurs. We have our technology. That's it. If that's not in effect, we are among the squishiest fucking animals inhabiting the planet right now. Even if we take away everything steam or electric powered (and it's not like those technologies would just suddenly go poof) we still have a decent arsenal at our disposal. 2. What's this about a conspiracy? Wouldn't the domino effect be enough? The fact that we've compiled enough nukes to destroy the planet x times over should show that we're stupid enough to abuse them. 2. for sure, add to that not only does the US and Russia have the abillity, but France, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea (somehow I think they'd be the first to 'retalliate' just for shits and giggles) with Iran closing in. Conspire to wipe out mankind is an iffy. World domination, because we hate dem brown people, cause North Korea looked at us funny or any other billion reasons for some nutball to kick it all off would be enough. Wiping out mankind might not be the original plan, but it will be the end result And again, we'll be targeting population centers, not trying to carpet nuke the entire planet. Heck, the entire southern hemisphere would probably survive such a conflict pretty well intact. I'd say disease. It is so easy for pathogens to spread between continents, our own technology could end up killing us. And with bacterial resistance the way it is, it's not a stretch to think that it would be immune to our drugs. I already went over that. Even the worst disease doesn't have a 100% kill rate, and more rural (to say nothing of island) populations might even escape infection altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jul 29, 2009 8:30:25 GMT -5
According to this paper I found while researching nuclear winter, food production would completely cease for several years after a global nuclear war. I concede that such an event would have a fair chance of wiping out humanity.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 29, 2009 11:24:04 GMT -5
edited to say "okie doke then"
|
|