How will our world end?

[Simple Simon]

[FONT=&quot]Parson I'm curious about exactly what you mean by "fatally flawed". A flaw is a defect in something that hinders its purpose and as such I could understand your perspective if you believe humans are meant to be moral creatures and that we should oppose the more base/evil actions we have the capacity to commit.
Since you take a religious perspective and as such believe we are the construction of God does that mean we were created flawed? In my understanding of Christianity humans are given free will and this in turn allows for both good and bad deeds but this instills no flaw in us.

In my opinion our wide moral spectrum allows us to choose our own purpose and therefore create and overcome our own individual flaws. The very fact that these flaws so often involve greed and lust and a plethora of other of our less desirable attributes shows that these are not things that define us or that we choose to embody.
[/FONT]

 

[WJoseph]

Uh-oh. You mean lust is a less desirable attribute?

 

[Parson]

[FONT=&quot]Parson I'm curious about exactly what you mean by "fatally flawed". A flaw is a defect in something that hinders its purpose and as such I could understand your perspective if you believe humans are meant to be moral creatures and that we should oppose the more base/evil actions we have the capacity to commit.
Since you take a religious perspective and as such believe we are the construction of God does that mean we were created flawed? In my understanding of Christianity humans are given free will and this in turn allows for both good and bad deeds but this instills no flaw in us.

In my opinion our wide moral spectrum allows us to choose our own purpose and therefore create and overcome our own individual flaws. The very fact that these flaws so often involve greed and lust and a plethora of other of our less desirable attributes shows that these are not things that define us or that we choose to embody.
[/FONT]

Good question! and deep thinking. I believe that we humans are flawed. I believe that we are a construction of God, not in the "God created fully formed and functioning humans" form of that, but rather in the role of oversight of evolution. For me the main point of the Genesis account is that God was behind all that we see and experience, and that it was all good. But humanity, out of all the creation we know, was the only part of it which was given the freedom to choose. We have all chosen to be less than what we can be personally and corporately. So in the sense that God allowed us to develop free choice it is a flaw, but it is also our strength. We can choose something different by God's grace. (This largely lines up with what you are saying.)

But this is where the work of Jesus comes in. He restores to us the freedom to choose the right. As a part of corporate humanity we all share in humanity's flaw even before we make our own choices. But for those who trust Jesus the possibility exists to choose right and to be forgiven for those times we miss God's mark for us. And so we work against the flaw waiting for the time when the fullness of God's work is complete and our flaw has flown further than the East is from the West.

 

[LJonesy]

Good question! and deep thinking. I believe that we humans are flawed. I believe that we are a construction of God, not in the "God created fully formed and functioning humans" form of that, but rather in the role of oversight of evolution. For me the main point of the Genesis account is that God was behind all that we see and experience, and that it was all good. But humanity, out of all the creation we know, was the only part of it which was given the freedom to choose. We have all chosen to be less than what we can be personally and corporately. So in the sense that God allowed us to develop free choice it is a flaw, but it is also our strength. We can choose something different by God's grace. (This largely lines up with what you are saying.)

But this is where the work of Jesus comes in. He restores to us the freedom to choose the right. As a part of corporate humanity we all share in humanity's flaw even before we make our own choices. But for those who trust Jesus the possibility exists to choose right and to be forgiven for those times we miss God's mark for us. And so we work against the flaw waiting for the time when the fullness of God's work is complete and our flaw has flown further than the East is from the West.

I'm inclined to agree with you being a Christian as well...

But i don't know, something about the whole Eden thing still bugs me. Questions of humanity's flaws, strictly in Christian terms, boil down to the questions of "In what state were we made? Complete or Incomplete?" and "What did we actually 'gain' by taking the fruit from the tree?" Was it that by doing what Eve did we forfeited our connection with God? Or was it that we grew a level of consciousness which made us a third entity, in terms of there being God, Satan, then us? Because before that if you were to distinguish "sides" it would be something along the lines of "God vs. Satan" just for arguments sake. But then does our taking that fruit from the tree make us a third party in this whole thing?

Questions questions... I'm just discussing here...

 

[Parson]

I'm inclined to agree with you being a Christian as well...

But i don't know, something about the whole Eden thing still bugs me. Questions of humanity's flaws, strictly in Christian terms, boil down to the questions of "In what state were we made? Complete or Incomplete?" and "What did we actually 'gain' by taking the fruit from the tree?" Was it that by doing what Eve did we forfeited our connection with God? Or was it that we grew a level of consciousness which made us a third entity, in terms of there being God, Satan, then us? Because before that if you were to distinguish "sides" it would be something along the lines of "God vs. Satan" just for arguments sake. But then does our taking that fruit from the tree make us a third party in this whole thing?

Questions questions... I'm just discussing here...

You are right, "Questions, questions."

I believe that the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden tells us a deep truth about humanity. From the first humans onward we have chosen to rebel. We have not been satisfied letting God be God, but we have wanted to be God ourselves. In a sense you could say God is to blame, because God created us with the ability to choose. But it is that ability to choose that allows us to love purely. If I have no choice but to love, can that really be love? Is it not compulsion? So God's creation was perfect but we have chosen not to let the perfection be the last answer. But God too has chosen not to let our "No!" to his perfection be the last answer either. He sent Jesus into the world so that the possibility of a "yes" to God's perfect plan is again possible.

 

[LJonesy]

You are right, "Questions, questions."

I believe that the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden tells us a deep truth about humanity. From the first humans onward we have chosen to rebel. We have not been satisfied letting God be God, but we have wanted to be God ourselves. In a sense you could say God is to blame, because God created us with the ability to choose. But it is that ability to choose that allows us to love purely. If I have no choice but to love, can that really be love? Is it not compulsion? So God's creation was perfect but we have chosen not to let the perfection be the last answer. But God too has chosen not to let our "No!" to his perfection be the last answer either. He sent Jesus into the world so that the possibility of a "yes" to God's perfect plan is again possible.

But your entire premise works under the assumption we simply did not change when Eve took that fruit. Genesis 3:5 kind of supports this notion that something was gained by eating the fruit; For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Additionally, Genesis3:6-7 also backs up my premise; When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom,... Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realised that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

The entire notion that "Their eyes were opened" indicates change. What did they lack beforehand? Is it that we've become aware of the Good and Evil (Genesis 3:3) Or have we understood that there was more to life than what was once first thought, and as you said, vouched for autonomy.

My point is, is that something changed in that event in Eden, Adam and Eve gained something which changed the circumstances and thus separated them from God. When you say From the first humans onward we have chosen to rebel. We have not been satisfied letting God be God, but we have wanted to be God ourselves. You imply a level of consciousness on Adam and Eve's part which is simply not evident in the text. If we were aware of the circumstances, if we were truly aware that death, satan and sin were beyond the choice to eat the fruit, would we really have taken it? I think Eve would have been scared shitless if she truly knew. That is why people say that she was decieved. Your statements imply Adam and Eve's mind was as capable as ours currently is. But i feel they honestly didn't know any better. I am not saying it was Ultimately Satan's fault, for the choice was Eve's.

There is just more behind this than the simple notion that "We were rebelling against God" Saying that comes with certain implications which simply aren't there. Eve wasn't aware of her actions, and after she took the fruit, became aware of them. Something changed...

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

Sadly I have only just discovered this thread thanks to LJ - Ta


In answer to the original question

SOON.

Now getting down to the deep and dirty parts of the argument Herein, my six penneth.

Taking the Adam and Eve story first (since it's still fresh in our minds)

If we accept the premise that there is any grain of truth in the tale then surely what it shows us is one or all of the following (just as a start)

1. God is a weak creature that is unable to impose his will on even the most timid of creatures (here we have a lot to thank Eve and womankind for) Given the state of play, who among us would have defied the creator of all things when he said do not eat of the tree etc. Furthermore having been defied does he wipe the slate clean and start again with a new batch. No he allows us to use the knowledge we have gained and hasn't got the backbone to punish us, other than to take it out on poor Eve who's only fault was that she had not been given the ability to resist temptation.

2. God is a devious creature that deliberately placed the tree there knowing (as he would) what would happen and that Eve wouldn't be unable to resist the wiles of the snake. Yet he placed the tree there presumably so he could have the fun of casting us out. Seems a bit contrived to me.

3. God wanted us to eat of the tree. I can understand this. It must have been pretty boring back then in the garden. What was required was a new stimulus. Something random (oh wait, how can anything be random if there exist a creature that can know every outcome - damn - oh well sketching over that one). Something that would amuse and entertain. After all why create a universe if you can't have some fun with it.

4. God was a poor designer ( a given) since, if it was supposed to be the tree of all knowledge then it seems he left great chunks of information out. which would have been very handy to know especially at times like these. But no, did Adam and eve immediately invent the computer or develop industrial farming or space flight or the transmutation of matter. No - some tree.

As for the alien life question :-

Let us speculate that life exists out there and it has or will visit us it raises all sorts of imponderable questions for the religious (belief in god) among us.

Since they are more advanced than us, presumably, they are the more favoured by god since he has given them more knowledge and taken more care of their development and maybe we are intended just to be the just another creature that god has given dominion over to these new guys - In which case we are in for it, given what we do to what we have been given (Soylent Green springs to mind - Food for though).


If we visit them then again this poses a problem since it would appear that as they came second they must have been created after us, (and they are better and we are just prototypes with all those flaws) implying that god thought he had failed and has started a new batch and just abandoned us to our fate.

 

[bluerayarchangel]

Does it really matter??? There is no point being afraid of something out of your control.

"If you can change the sitution why worry, (just change it) if you can not change the sitution whats the use of worrying" ( it only make you ill so don't add to your problems.)

Take life as it comes, and when it ends

 

[Parson]

But your entire premise works under the assumption we simply did not change when Eve took that fruit. Genesis 3:5 kind of supports this notion that something was gained by eating the fruit; For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Additionally, Genesis3:6-7 also backs up my premise; When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom,... Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realised that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

The entire notion that "Their eyes were opened" indicates change. What did they lack beforehand? Is it that we've become aware of the Good and Evil (Genesis 3:3) Or have we understood that there was more to life than what was once first thought, and as you said, vouched for autonomy.

My point is, is that something changed in that event in Eden, Adam and Eve gained something which changed the circumstances and thus separated them from God. When you say From the first humans onward we have chosen to rebel. We have not been satisfied letting God be God, but we have wanted to be God ourselves. You imply a level of consciousness on Adam and Eve's part which is simply not evident in the text. If we were aware of the circumstances, if we were truly aware that death, satan and sin were beyond the choice to eat the fruit, would we really have taken it? I think Eve would have been scared shitless if she truly knew. That is why people say that she was decieved. Your statements imply Adam and Eve's mind was as capable as ours currently is. But i feel they honestly didn't know any better. I am not saying it was Ultimately Satan's fault, for the choice was Eve's.

There is just more behind this than the simple notion that "We were rebelling against God" Saying that comes with certain implications which simply aren't there. Eve wasn't aware of her actions, and after she took the fruit, became aware of them. Something changed...

Indeed there was a change when we chose to break relationship with God. Our eyes were opened to the meaning and true results of sin. We now "knew good and evil." The words of the temptation were true, and in some sense we did become like God, but in a much more important way we lost the perfection of our birth right. We lost the freedom to choose which was also our birth right, we were eternally separated from the intimate fellowship of God.

But God was not willing to let our rebellion be the final answer, and so in Jesus of Nazareth, the second person of the Trinity, the penalty of sin was paid, and all who accept the gift are restored to the birth right of choice to be in relationship with God, or outside of it. But there is an important difference. Now the default position is outside of relationship, not inside.

(This is getting to be deep theology. A pleasure to communicate!)

 

[ManTimeForgot]

No thread about destroying the world is complete without at least a shout out to "How to destroy earth" How to destroy the Earth @ Things Of Interest I've sent in a few suggestions to the place and gotten some feedback and am quite familiar with the ideas there. Simply put ending the earth is really difficult. The sun's end may not even do the job. Earth may very well get pushed out to a "safe" orbit by heightened solar wind (red giants are not entirely stable and thus throw out quite a bit of mass).

As far as the biblical/God situation goes: there is another option to consider.

God is like a gardener who cares about seeds/like a painter who cares about canvas. God contrived a situation wherein the seeds once sprouted/canvas once painted upon were weened from God's influence and allowed to act in accordance to their own dictates (free will). Consider for a moment if you will: If everything that anything did was only in accordance with God's will, then why should anyone sin? Assuming that God was both omniscient and omnipotent the only real option remaining is that God has willingly limited "his" own influence upon creation (something that only an omnipotent being could do).



And as far as how humanity and/or the current culture will end: that is going to depend on quite a few things.


First allow me to dispel many of the myths proposed in this thread by listing what will NOT end us. *Caveat* Individually none of these have a chance at doing the job, but in combination these could drop the human population below the termination point for reproductive viability

1)Nuclear war. Nuclear war and subsequent winter may end the current incarnation of our world/country's culture, but will not end humanity.

2)Bio-chemical warfare. Bio warfare is too random and resistances too wide-spread. Chemical warfare is too limited in scope (hard to produce enough quantity and hard to distribute effectively).

3)Satellites (??) I don't even know how to respond to this. An upper atmospheric event propagates EMP down to us via Compton scattering and upscattering, but this by itself won't kill us. It will only interfere with society. Neutrons "kill" by knocking hydrogens out of water (which is 70% of us). However, the atmosphere is also quite water rich and as such neutron bomb effectiveness is seriously diminished by large volumes of atmosphere buffering against the bomb's effects. It's entirely possible to knock out every satellite we have with certain weapons and it is entirely possible to scorch an area the size of Maine, but it is not even remotely plausible to knock out us.

4)Degenerative cultural/economic spiral. Humans are resilient little buggers. Someone somewhere will isolate themselves and form a remote community. And this is not an isolated phenomena. It will happen in quite a few places. Once the "crisis" is over humanity will re-establish contact and start anew (as a dark age it might set us back a thousand years, but it won't do us in... no chance).

5) Global Warming/ Next Ice Age. Global Warming won't even come close. And by the time the next Ice Age rolls around I will eat my laptop if we aren't easily able to hold out in space or other planets (possibly artificial ones) and wait it out. Heck we may even have the tech to avert the Ice Age by the time the next one hits.

*Note* Humanity's threshold for survival is something on the order of 50,000 people. With advancements in genetic engineering this number only drops as genetic diversity can be artificially introduced. We can build structures able to survive in shallow water (Water is a very good radiation soak, retains heat much better than air, and allows for making use of tidal forces for energy production). We can build green/hot houses that will allow for crop harvests in just about any climate imagineable and indefinitely sustainable artificial sunlight. Earth is a very good radiation soak (every 3 feet of earth reduces radiation by 1/10). So people who build themselves underground shelters will be almost like cockroaches in the degree of difficulty it takes to get rid of them. Hydroponic and fungus farming in combination with aforementioned greenhouses would make underground survival nearly indefinite.


Now for things that could actually work:

1)Humanity could get wiped out by a truly astoundingingly unlucky astronomic event of enormous proportions: stray fast moving black hole, extra-solar fast moving heavy object (something the size of mars going at a significant fraction of C), etc.

2A)Genetic engineering: with sufficiently advanced scientific knowledge and technical application we could change ourselves beyond the point of reproducibility with a "modern" human. At which point we cease to be homosapien sapien.

2B)Cybernetics/Organic-Chemistry: similar to above... sufficiently advanced scientific knowledge and technical ability we could create "perpetually regenerating" bodies that are mostly synthetic/semi-organic technology and cease to be human.

3)Aliens/God: Yeah. So what? God isn't happening. If reality was going to alter itself to get rid of us we either wouldn't have ever existed or it would have happened a long time ago. And as far as aliens with phenomenal cosmic powers... Why would they care? Anything that has been around and evolving (socially, biologically, mentally, academically, scientifically, technologically, politically, etc) for millions of years before us is so different from us as to harken to the difference between us and ants. (Remember body of knowledge doubles every 10 years. A few million years is a VERY large number: 2 ^ 100,000)

4)Humanity erases itself from spacetime... Timespace manipulation at high levels could potentially do a number on earth, humanity, even our solar system depending on what's going on. Time-travel could wreck humanity's historical progression. Opening up a new universe (something we may very well do some day as our current one cools down) and having it go awry (if you banish earth to a universe with weaker nuclear forces we would all very quickly decay into base particles and energy).


So in sum: its easy to disrupt society and end what is our current society. But ending humanity: that takes serious effort. It will either happen in a spectacular cosmic event/accident or, on our terms, as we advance ourselves beyond our current forms. And as far as earth goes: Earth is in it for the long-haul. She will almost certainly still be here even after humanity has left this corner of the universe for greener pastures.

MTF

 

[Parson]

MTF

Well thought out. A needed dose of realism in an overly pessimistic age.

 

[Moonbat]

1)Nuclear war. Nuclear war and subsequent winter may end the current incarnation of our world/country's culture, but will not end humanity.

2)Bio-chemical warfare. Bio warfare is too random and resistances too wide-spread. Chemical warfare is too limited in scope (hard to produce enough quantity and hard to distribute effectively).

MTF, how can you say that Nuclear war wont end humanity, if the war was big enough and widespread enough, then all densely populated areas could be targeted and hit, the resulting nuclear winter would make survival for any remaining people (not in a densely populated area) very difficult, difficult to the point where they do die. You must admit it is possible. I agree that Osama Bin Laden in his lead lined cave might survive the initial blast, but when most of the animals and plants die from lack of sunlight what will he live on?

How can you say that Bio-Chemical warfare wont destroy humanity, I'm not sure where you got your info on the diificulties of spreading chemicals, or even the wide spread resistance, but it wouldn't take too big a leap in imagination to see that an air-born bio-chemical could wipe out all of humanity.

As for God, well.....

Please explain,

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I got my information from weapons designers and from the Air Force. My dad is a nuclear weapon's designer and works with a fair number of individuals responsible for the United State's attack response and strategic planning, whom I have spoken with on occasion.



It doesn't take much of a leap of imagination because most people don't have the first clue just what nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are capable of. I'm not even going to bother invoking deterrence, since obviously the whole assumption of total war rather invalidates anyone holding back, but even if all the densely populated areas on earth were targeted and struck using every nuclear weapon currently on earth the chances of humanity going extinct are virtually nill.

For starters the types of weapons dropped are generally not made ideal with a ground burst and even presuming that blast focused weapons were used by the majority of nations nuclear blasts are more destructive as air bursts. Global, protracted nuclear winter is a fantasy constructed by doomsday fanatics and eco-sensitive extremists. Even if all the blasts were ground bursts you still won't get decades of nuclear winter; you get heavy fallout inside of a 20-30 miles radius depending on prevailing winds of the blast site. But heavy fallout doesn't necessitate disaster either. After six months your ground activation and most of the fallout will have settled and been rendered inert enough that outside will not be immediately lethal (as in if you send somebody out to scout or scavenge and they only spend 20 minutes inside of a radiated zone they aren't coming back dead man walking). After 2 years or so long distance travel will be available (fixing the electronics after the EMP pulse will take time, but will be doable by this point). Underground shelters, coastal areas (prevailing winds blow inward from the ocean/sea), and most large-scale farmlands will be almost completely untouched (shelters are basically immune to anything short of a direct hit), coastal areas will ensure that fallout will be landing elsewhere (thus short of being in the blast zone this will be fine), and most farmlands are so far from anything even resembling a target that somewhere large swaths of farmland will still be usable. If total war this is, then all the electronic information not hardened and shielded from EMP and radiation will be wiped out, but a dark age is not the same as human extinction. And killing humanity down below 50,000 people out of 6 billion is rather quite difficult when the above locations are all going to be relatively untouched. It may very well set humanity back 1,000 years, but we won't be down for the count.


Bio-weapons are more doomsday whack-job mythology that has permeated the American (and I assume many other first world countries) consciousness on account of games and movies like Dawn of the Dead and Resident Evil. The simple fact is that no natural born pathogen we are aware manages above a 50% kill ratio (HIV doesn't exactly count here, since as far as weaponization goes its about the opposite of what you want; you can't guarantee spread and it kills decades down the road). Designer pathogens might manage 90%, but the simple fact is that human immune systems are varied and genetics are widely disparate (some people will simply lack the receptor sites that your pathogen uses to attack the human body). A 90% lethality rate is certainly impressive and would set humanity back a hundred years or so while we rebuilt the world population, but 10% of 6 billion is 600 million at that is well above the threshold for human survival. The major problem with biological attack is that it is really only useful as a weapon of terror. Military installations and personnel all have decon procedures and equipment which will prevent infection. If you don't kill/neutralize a nations military with your pathogen, then a nuclear response is imminent. The fact that you screwed over the whole world with your designer pathogen means that nuclear annihilation for your country is probably imminent. Additionally, any biologicals with a useful rate of spread and vector of contamination will almost certainly come back and infect your own population. Biologicals are the weapon of choice of the suicidal and the desperate (and even then your desperation is usually a sign of your imminent downfall, not the windfalls of victory).


And as far as chemical attacks are concerned consider if you will the necessity of chemical exposure. You actually have to come into contact with the chemical in order to be affected. Winds, humidity, rain, and human demographics all interfere with the effectiveness of chemical attacks. Lets say that your chemical requires one gram of substance in order to be lethal to a human. That's 6 billion humans. So the best possible rate of destruction would require 6 billion grams of chemical. But winds, humidity, and rain will disperse and decrease the effectiveness/saturation of your chemical and thus require you to use more. Additionally with human populations spread out over large swaths of land you have to cover every bit of land with the lethal concentration in order to be sure. In the final analysis you need probably 10,000 (or more) times that "ideal" amount in order to guarantee human annihilation. And as I'm sure you are aware 60 billion kilograms of chemical is more than any agency or government on earth can produce let alone distribute in manner that would be effective. But the major problem with chemical weapons is that they too are a weapon of terror, not military action. Chemical weapons have greatly reduced effectiveness against modern militaries (there are still somewhat effective, but as I said greatly reduced) due to preventative measures and installation hardening. Any kind of major chemical attack provokes far greater nuclear/conventional responses and those will be effective against your military forces.



And as far as God is concerned: speculating on God's destroying humanity is an exercise in futility. If it's going to happen, then nothing we can do will stop it. Moreover if reality was supposed to be hostile to human existence, then why would a God create humans in the first place? Spontaneous reality alteration to end humanity is not something we should even concern ourselves with because it makes no sense. If we were to waste our time creating contingency measures for all the possible imaginary ways that our world could end or reality could change to make things hostile, then we would never be able to deal with all the every day problems that we encounter because all our resources are tied up in preventative measures again moon men, space slime, giant spaghetti monsters, extra-dimensional tentacles, spontaneous combustion, etc...

MTF

 

[Interference]

Even so, nulcear war is baaad.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

MTF:

And as far as God is concerned: speculating on God's destroying humanity is an exercise in futility. If it's going to happen, then nothing we can do will stop it. Moreover if reality was supposed to be hostile to human existence, then why would a God create humans in the first place? Spontaneous reality alteration to end humanity is not something we should even concern ourselves with because it makes no sense. If we were to waste our time creating contingency measures for all the possible imaginary ways that our world could end or reality could change to make things hostile, then we would never be able to deal with all the every day problems that we encounter because all our resources are tied up in preventative measures again moon men, space slime, giant spaghetti monsters, extra-dimensional tentacles, spontaneous combustion, etc...

On the contrary MTF there's plenty we can do about it. We could all fall to our knees and beg forgiveness and pray that he will not bring the flood the fire or the brimstone down on our heads.

As for why would he :- did you never build sand castles and play with them only to smash them down at the end of the holiday.

Also, it's all very well suggesting that prevention measures against the giant trans-dimentional spaghetti monsters should be dropped but I for one would prefer to spend a few trillion dollars on this than find myself, during the short time we all have left, being probed by one of their tentacles.

 

[matt-browne-sfw]

Supervolcanoes are often overlooked. I think homo sapiens would survive this, but lose all of its technology. The world could also end because of a virulent genetically engineered virus.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

The only super volcano that seems like it is still functional is the one under yellowstone and its magma pocket is slowly being shifted under the rocky mountains. The history of its effects has slowly gone down through time and that is because as more and more of it slides under the rockies, the less magma will actually reach the surface (and apparently the magma pocket is shrinking just a little bit each time). Super Volcanos are overlooked because they are not a world ending disaster.


And no, a virulent genetically virus will not end all of humanity. As I said before a small enough percentage of the population will be missing the receptor site, have a damaged one, or have an innate resistance to your disease. Even if 99.9% of humanity were wiped out (no disease we are capable of making nor one in the near foreseeable future can obtain any where near this level of lethality) it still would not take humanity below the roughly 50,000 person termination threshold for species survivability. That is also completely ignoring efforts to combat the disease and quarantine human beings away from its effects.

No, a disease could do a real number on human society (possibly starting a millennia long dark age), but it will not by itself end the human species.


Before anyone else posts here please go back and read my list of things that will not end humanity on the previous page.

MTF

 

[Interference]

A giant space donkey called Geoff. Don't ask me how I know -- I just know.

 

[Ursa major]

That must mean we end with a whimper and not a bang.

1)Nuclear war. Nuclear war and subsequent winter may end the current incarnation of our world/country's culture, but will not end humanity.

Those were the days: when all we had to worry about was nuclear war and "Going out with a Bang, then a Winter".



By the way, Interference, make an ass of yourself by all means, but leave the rest of us out of it.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

Oh no, not the giant space donkey again.

I thought we had put that one to bed long ago.

Trust me I now this isn't the way cos I've got a stick and a carrot and I'm not afraid to use them.