lol, why is natural pandemic so low? The most likely way for us to be wiped out is through natural means, either extraterrestrial or Earth-bound issues. A super volcano could fuck us up badly, the Earth could get hammered by gamma rays or a 1km asteroid. We might find some crazy virus with the perfect attributes to wipe out modern civilisation.
Nanotechnology is so far away from being weaponized in such a way that it could wipe out life, and an AI isn't really a realistic possibility is it?
lol, why is natural pandemic so low? The most likely way for us to be wiped out is through natural means, either extraterrestrial or Earth-bound issues.No it isn't. There can be no more pandemics. You only get pandemics when civilisations meet. All civilisations have now met. We aren't going to meet a new set of people who will give us a version of chicken pox that will kill us as happened to the aztecs. Or syphilis as happened to Europeans from the Native Americans. Or the plague which came from trade routes into the far East.
lol, why is natural pandemic so low? The most likely way for us to be wiped out is through natural means, either extraterrestrial or Earth-bound issues.No it isn't. There can be no more pandemics. You only get pandemics when civilisations meet. All civilisations have now met. We aren't going to meet a new set of people who will give us a version of chicken pox that will kill us as happened to the aztecs. Or syphilis as happened to Europeans from the Native Americans. Or the plague which came from trade routes into the far East.
Pandemic is dead. Ignore CNN and their Ebola bollocks. New diseases (bird flu or swine flu being examples) do not go pandemic.
I'd opt for starvation. The rich 0.01% owning everything until the poor cannot feed themselves and have little to offer as machines can do almost all jobs. Economic genocide.
Feminism.
According to the Future of Humanity Institute (http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/) there are a few ways that humanity could end. Some very sci-fi causes, some more realistic. I think this topic is pretty interesting for a few reasons. It's hard to imagine humanity simply ending, but it is seemingly inevitable according to this institute's 'research'. Also, everything has to end. While I think most of this has to do with theory-crafting and speculation, it's still pretty interesting to consider the ways we could go out (listed below according to FHI).(http://i.imgur.com/QqIqXXw.png)
Personally I'm a big fan of the super intelligent robots theory. I'm not sure how they got the percentage they did, especially considering the fact that we don't have anything close to super intelligent AI right now. It seems like they'd have to develop sentience, or at least artificial sentience to be able to pull something like this off. Also, molecular nanotech seems completely unrealistic as well, although I suppose it's possible.
The more realistic option, of course, is nuclear holocaust... which apparently has a lower chance of happening than super intelligent robots and nanotechnology taking over the world. I don't know how, considering that nuclear bombs exists while super smart AI does not. "Wars" is also a pretty vague one, but entirely possible and probably religiously or financially inspired. I'm surprised that meteorites or other external threats are not listed, because a meteorite could certainly cause human extinction. Basically, I think FHI is bullshit and that they don't really know what they're talking about. I'm not certain how they got these percentages, but I guess that's besides the point of the bigger picture.
Not really sure what the point of this is. I just think the topic is interesting. What do you think is going to kill off humanity?
Feminism.
Do you have a source for this? I'm trying to look it up, but I'm not finding anything. I have found some other lists, like this one (http://www.vox.com/2015/2/19/8069533/end-of-the-world), but none of them seem to be at all similar to the one in the OP.
Why does it look like this site more or less made up probabilities? You can't estimate the probability of something happening unless you know all (or at least most) of the possible outcomes. e.g. why is "molecular nanotechnology weapons" more prominent than nuclear warf when one exists and the other one doesn't? The same deal with AI? We can't be sure those things will even be real by 2100, much less be more likely to happen than nuclear war.
Wikipedia felt this was an accurate chart
Wikipedia felt this was an accurate chart
:-\
These numbers look like a "What COULD kill us all" rather than a "what WILL kill us all".
That's not what the OP implied.These numbers look like a "What COULD kill us all" rather than a "what WILL kill us all".
Yeah, that's kind of the entire point.
That's not what the OP implied.These numbers look like a "What COULD kill us all" rather than a "what WILL kill us all".
Yeah, that's kind of the entire point.
What do you think is going to kill off humanity?
A nanotech weapon is so sci-fi that we have no clue how to deal with it. And like the atom bomb, we'd likely make the weapon before we figured out how to stop it. And since our fleshy bodies are likely not able deal with a nanotech, it could wipe us out before we can deal with it. Remember, washing your hands won't stop the nanites.
Yeah but what I got is more of a "This is the most likely scenario" when the list really reads like "This is the most likely to kill humans if it happened."That's not what the OP implied.These numbers look like a "What COULD kill us all" rather than a "what WILL kill us all".
Yeah, that's kind of the entire point.What do you think is going to kill off humanity?
Kinda implies "could" and personal opinion.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a14381/this-nanoinjector-inserts-dna-into-cells/A nanotech weapon is so sci-fi that we have no clue how to deal with it. And like the atom bomb, we'd likely make the weapon before we figured out how to stop it. And since our fleshy bodies are likely not able deal with a nanotech, it could wipe us out before we can deal with it. Remember, washing your hands won't stop the nanites.
Do we have anything similar to nanotech at this time? I always thought nanomachines and the like were in the realm of sci-fi.
It would be impossible for humanity to be completely wiped out by a pandemic. Nuclear war would not kill everyone, but it would be highly devastating. Nano-bots and AI are completely unrealistic. I feel that the most likely cause of humanity's extinction will be a meteor impact like the one that happened 65 million years ago. Statistically it will happen again, but probably not within the next 100 years.
We'll be usurped by our successors, whether that's artificial intelligence, hyper-augmentation, a biologically superior speciesOr by sandpeople who breed like rabbits while our women won't give birth to more than about two children, if any at all.
Fuck this question. Humanity isn't ending. We are too resilient, too smart, and too goddamn stubborn to be killed. I refuse to let it happen.
Fuck this question. Humanity isn't ending. We are too resilient, too smart, and too goddamn stubborn to be killed. I refuse to let it happen.
Also, beardo may be horribly racist. Possibly.
Fuck this question. Humanity isn't ending. We are too resilient, too smart, and too goddamn stubborn to be killed. I refuse to let it happen.
Also, beardo may be horribly racist. Possibly.
Humanity will eventually end.
"When?" and "how?" are really the only questions. Humanity could potentially survive until the end of the universe itself if we played our cards right.
Humanity will eventually end.I see no reason to assume this. The possibility is certainly there, but it seems to be a foregone conclusion. We've dealt with some shit in the past, and we're working on dealing with out current issues. If our Flat Earth can no longer support us, we'll figure out a new home or fix the issue. We're pretty smart, collectively.
fuck yeah dude thats really epic and coolYou can die.
"When?" and "how?" are really the only questions. Humanity could potentially survive until the end of the universe itself if we played our cards right.
We could also survive far past that, assuming at least one multiverse theory is correct.
I see no reason to assume this. The possibility is certainly there, but it seems to be a foregone conclusion. We've dealt with some shit in the past, and we're working on dealing with out current issues. If our Flat Earth can no longer support us, we'll figure out a new home or fix the issue. We're pretty smart, collectively.
I dunno, but I figure this generation should focus on the more pressing issues like global warming and nuclear proliferation.I see no reason to assume this. The possibility is certainly there, but it seems to be a foregone conclusion. We've dealt with some shit in the past, and we're working on dealing with out current issues. If our Flat Earth can no longer support us, we'll figure out a new home or fix the issue. We're pretty smart, collectively.
So what will we do when each atom in existence is separated by trillions of light years?
I have serious doubts about the multiverse theory.
So what will we do when each atom in existence is separated by trillions of light years?
I dunno, but I figure this generation should focus on the more pressing issues like global warming and nuclear proliferation.I see no reason to assume this. The possibility is certainly there, but it seems to be a foregone conclusion. We've dealt with some shit in the past, and we're working on dealing with out current issues. If our Flat Earth can no longer support us, we'll figure out a new home or fix the issue. We're pretty smart, collectively.
So what will we do when each atom in existence is separated by trillions of light years?
Put them back together.
Also, beardo may be horribly racist. Possibly.I'm just concerned for the well being of the European people. Is that racist?
Fuck this question. Humanity isn't ending. We are too resilient, too smart, and too goddamn stubborn to be killed. I refuse to let it happen.
Also, beardo may be horribly racist. Possibly.
Humanity will eventually end.
"When?" and "how?" are really the only questions. Humanity could potentially survive until the end of the universe itself if we played our cards right.
Fuck this question. Humanity isn't ending. We are too resilient, too smart, and too goddamn stubborn to be killed. I refuse to let it happen.
Also, beardo may be horribly racist. Possibly.
Humanity will eventually end.
"When?" and "how?" are really the only questions. Humanity could potentially survive until the end of the universe itself if we played our cards right.
Whatever is around won't be human at that stage.
Are we really going to evolve past this point? We have no predators except ourselves. According to evolutionary theory, wouldn't we be stunted?
Are we really going to evolve past this point? We have no predators except ourselves. According to evolutionary theory, wouldn't we be stunted?
Non-sequitur. Predators are not the only way natural selection can progress.
A non-sequitur is anything that's irrelevant to its context.
A non-sequitur is anything that's irrelevant to its context.
The predatory-prey interaction is an important part of natural selection and evolutionary theory.
A non-sequitur is anything that's irrelevant to its context.
The predatory-prey interaction is an important part of natural selection and evolutionary theory.
Yes, that is a good example.
Fuck this question. Humanity isn't ending. We are too resilient, too smart, and too goddamn stubborn to be killed. I refuse to let it happen.
Also, beardo may be horribly racist. Possibly.
Humanity will eventually end.
"When?" and "how?" are really the only questions. Humanity could potentially survive until the end of the universe itself if we played our cards right.
Whatever is around won't be human at that stage.
Are we really going to evolve past this point? We have no predators except ourselves. According to evolutionary theory, wouldn't we be stunted?
By the time the universe is approaching whatever 'the end' is, if anything with sentience is still around, it will not be human. Even if we somehow maintained our biological bodies, they would certainly be much more suited to whatever environment we had up until that point spent billions of years in.
By the time the universe is approaching whatever 'the end' is, if anything with sentience is still around, it will not be human. Even if we somehow maintained our biological bodies, they would certainly be much more suited to whatever environment we had up until that point spent billions of years in.
That's not necessarily true. If we maintained our biological bodies without genetic engineering or other artificial intervention, natural selection would require a reproductive advantage for those better suited to their environment in order to progress. If we continue seeking out ways to provide equal opportunity and quality of life to all, that won't be the case and we won't continue to evolve.
I don't see how social constructs prevent evolutionary processes.
At the stage I was referring to, Earth will be long gone, so we'll have had plenty of time (like, 1085x longer than homo sapiens have been around already) to adapt to the new environment(s) we live in.
After all, we're evolving right now.
The time scales are just mind boggling. I don't see how we can stay static, or even remotely human, for that amount of time.
In the absence of a daily struggle for survival in this bubble of civilisation we've created, social constructs are one of the primary driving forces for evolution. For example, a society which is prejudiced against people with blue eyes would place blue-eyed people at a reproductive disadvantage by making it more difficult for them to find sexual partners.
However, social constructs aren't the only phenomenon I was referring to. There is also our rapidly advancing medical technology; once we inevitably discover methods for treating ailments associated with the change of environment, we artificially increase the lifespans of those least well suited to the environment, and with it the reproductive disadvantage required for evolution.
Time alone doesn't produce changes. The evolutionary process requires that each generation have some selection bias in producing the next; it is the cumulative result of these biases that results in evolution. In this hypothetical future spacefaring society, with the technology to keep humans alive in an environment very different from that on Earth, what would create selection bias?
I'd be interested to see a citation for this. Modern society has been greatly reshaped in the past two generations, opening up many new opportunities for people who would previously not have reproduced; I wouldn't expect that to be a sufficient sampling period to say that we are still evolving today.
There are a lot of other ways that evolutionary change will march on, no matter what. Those that survive may have a higher tolerance for drinking milk. Babies in industrialized societies have access to milk like no one before us. Maybe a genetic tolerance for milk will slowly help more of those babies survive until they have kids of their own. There is evidence that people with both especially high and especially low blood sugar levels have fewer offspring. So subtle changes at least will make their way into the human population’s gene pool. It’s going on right now.
So social constructs don't prevent us evolving? I'm confused now.
I don't think it's entirely realistic that we can treat every new sickness as it arises. We're still having trouble understanding some of the bigger names out there.
No, but we've come pretty far in just under 4 billion years. All it took was some simple organic molecules and enough time.
There's bound to be some influences at play, especially in an environment as inhospitable as space.
While you're right about the small time period, we are still evolving as the processes that drive evolution cannot be stopped by modern society. Taken from a pop-sci article:Quote from: Bill NyeThere are a lot of other ways that evolutionary change will march on, no matter what. Those that survive may have a higher tolerance for drinking milk. Babies in industrialized societies have access to milk like no one before us. Maybe a genetic tolerance for milk will slowly help more of those babies survive until they have kids of their own. There is evidence that people with both especially high and especially low blood sugar levels have fewer offspring. So subtle changes at least will make their way into the human population’s gene pool. It’s going on right now.
That's small speculation, sure, but what do you think will happen as we spend thousands of years in space?
1) The environment remains largely static. If we survive this current geological epoch that is unlikely. if we survive the death of this planet or star then that is impossible.
2) The population remains mixed and fluid. It's unlikely that we'll speciate if there are no pockets of humanity to divide. This is probably the biggest argument for non-speciation. The world is getting smaller, populations are mixing more easily. If we'd remained at the technology levels of two thousand years ago for a few more thousand years then it's fairly likely that some of the different races of humanity would have evolved to the point where interbreeeding became impossible.
However, if there is some global catastrophe that splits us up into pockets of survivors, or colonies are sent to new worlds without the means to easily mix, then it's likely that we'll see speciation of some description.
3) We don't evolve deliberately. The reason that domestic animals are so radically different to their wild cousins is because of dramatic artificial selection. With the development of advanced genetics, we could start to do something similar to ourselves deliberately, or technological augmentation could drive a dependence on technology.
If we maintained our biological bodies without genetic engineering or other artificial intervention