What is the probability that humanity will destroy itself?

Denerick

Many philosophers of science and cosmologists believe that one of the (many) possible reasons why earthlings have never had any encounters with extra-terrestrial life-forms (IE, radio/TV waves, etc.) is because there is a great probability that once a planet develops the capacity to destroy itself (As we have) that eventually, all things been equal, they will. Now obviously there are other factors, such as the unimaginable size of space, the 'lonely universe' hypothesis, the conservation hypothesis (That we are deliberately sheltered from external civilisations by some inter-galactic standard of non interference with emerging civilisations) etc. ad nauseum.

We survived the Cold War without destroying each other. But since nuclear weapons are still as abundant as ever, the risk will always remain. We are also progressively destroying our climate through excessive use of fossil fuels and a population explosion. Eventually, the probability of mutual annihilation will ensure that it will happen. Mostly because it can happen.

However, I like to believe in foolish fantasies such as that we are capable of controlling climate change by changing our behaviour* or that we won't resort to extremism of left and right when in economic peril** or that the planet will find a way of coping with the extra billions that insist on imposing itself upon it***

I personally believe that a nuclear holocaust will be swift and sudden. More like how it happened in the terminator that how it threatened to happen during the cuban missile crisis. We won't have time to ruminate about it or question the consequences - a few people in a musky room will make a first strike and that will be that.**** The lights will go off. If we're lucky, some of us will happen to be camping high up in the mountains with a ten year supply of canned food when it does happen, but then there will be the inevitable zombie wars to worry about.

Anyway, thought I could add a cheery sentiment to this otherwise downcast forum. Not sure what I'm looking for exactly. Perhaps I'm challenging somebody to prove me wrong?

*We are not.
**We will.
***It will, but it will be a very ugly sight.
****Granted, it was the robots who launched the nuclear holocaust in terminator, but you get my point.

vicwatson

Do a poll

Manach

Having an excellent grasp of history myself, I'd say the cold war dampened the military ardour of both sides and allowed them to work through various protocols to de-escalate issues before they when critical. This framework of connections still exists so the nuclear firestorm option is unlikely.
Saying that, give the advances in genetic engineering and the research into designer organisms, should one of those escape from a lab and mutate - and turn us in to bit players in a Steven King novel, my own pet doomsday scenario.

3ndahalfof6

I think its more what is the possibility we will save ourselves, what will it take to unite humans,

plague, super bug, something from space, super whooper sun flare,

it will be much easier to destroy ourselves than save ourselves.

apocalypseDG

I don't think overpopulation spells the end for mankind. We will stabilize at around ~10b I think.

The human race will die out due to something else. I'm thinking something health related like a biological/chemical/radioactive accident or the evolution of drug resistant microbes. War doesn't tend to kill everything, the victors carry on...This was true until M.A.D. of course. If we do die because of M.A.D. we probably wont even know - they say that WWII had complicated alliances but those alliances (much less complicated than right now) implicated the world in relatively local affairs, but imagine what a war in the western world would look like now; a world armed with so many nukes and massive, highly efficient armies, it would be a very ugly mess and the world would commence WWIII. Everyone would be involved.

The extinction of mankind will definitely happen because time is presumed to be infinite. Any risk, no matter how minute, the probability will eventually kill us, it is just a matter of time.
You might disagree about the infinite nature of time and the Universe will destroy itself in a Big Crunch, Big Rip, Heat Death or whatnot but lets not forget that that basically explains itself. Have fun living in a singularity!

golden lane

we will go beyond what the earth can provide........whether that destroys all or some, remains to be seen...

apocalypseDG

Golden lane, I don't think that 10b people will suddenly just die because of a shortage of a resource. Reproduction will just slow down and the population could take a massive plunge, but I think there will always be some that could survive with very little resources.

golden lane

apocalypseDG wrote: »

Golden lane, I don't think that 10b people will suddenly just die because of a shortage of a resource. Reproduction will just slow down and the population could take a massive plunge, but I think there will always be some that could survive with very little resources.

neither do i...it is the way we go about the shortages that will matter....

natural disasters will be more harmfull to so many people.....

it is said that all wars these days are about natural resources, how far will they go when the situation becomes dire....

there are a million thing that can happen, each one more serious when the population gets bigger.....

that is why i said i don't know what will happen....

population control...that is easier said than done.......

slowburner

Every major civilization preceding the one we live in now, has ultimately collapsed for a variety of reasons.
If you accept the concept of globalization - by which I mean the trend towards one capitalist culture - then the risk of global collapse is inevitable.
That's the lesson of history.

Are we witnessing the beginning of the end of the post industrial age/petrochemical civilization?
Probably.
Without a shadow of a doubt, our involuntary reliance on the labaryinthine financial system, combined with our reliance on petrochemicals, means that this civilization is poised on a knife edge.

But the most interesting question is; 'what will replace the current civilization'?
I'm optimistic. I believe that we'll 'revert' to simpler ways of life - ways of life that we are built for.
There simply won't be any choice.
Moreover, I'm optimistic that the essential goodness of people will win out.

Then again, an asteroid could hit tomorrow, which would make getting out of bed a bit difficult.

EchoO

The Doomsday Clock moved one minute closer to midnight in 2012.



The rational behind the change from 6 minutes to 5 minutes - "The challenges to rid the world of nuclear weapons, harness nuclear power, and meet the nearly inexorable climate disruptions from global warming are complex and interconnected. In the face of such complex problems, it is difficult to see where the capacity lies to address these challenges.” Political processes seem wholly inadequate; the potential for nuclear weapons use in regional conflicts in the Middle East, Northeast Asia, and South Asia are alarming; safer nuclear reactor designs need to be developed and built, and more stringent oversight, training, and attention are needed to prevent future disasters; the pace of technological solutions to address climate change may not be adequate to meet the hardships that large-scale disruption of the climate portends." (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)

http://www.thebulletin.org/content/doomsday-clock/timeline

christmas2012

we will overuse all of our natural resources,overbreed and what ecology will be left for future generations will not just be scant but dangeroulsy low,we have polluted the ozone layer for long enough,rubbish burning in china alone will see more significant damage to our ozone,its only a matter of time via destroying our enviornment and wars that we will most definately self destruct due to greed and overexpenditure of our earths natural resources,egos and wars,that we will not make it long before the sun dwarfs the earth ..

Boskowski

At the moment its very likely that this is whats in stock for us. Thats after killing almost all other species in the process.

Between overpopulation, the 'victory' of capitalism and its everlasting growth mantra and generally speaking 'our human nature' everything points that way.

slowburner

Then again, it might all be just a question of 'Millenarianism'. A phenomenon which usually coincides with the end of a millennium. We certainly had a good dose of it in 2000. Planes were expected to fall out of the sky, every computer was expected to crash - but we survived.

So there you have it. The apocalypse is the locomotive of capitalism, the inspiration for revolutionary socialism, the bedrock of America's manifest destiny and the undeclared religion of all those pseudo-rationalists who, like The Economist, champion the progress of liberal democracy. Perhaps, deep down, there is something inside everyone which yearns for the New Jerusalem, a place where, as a beautiful bit of Revelation puts it:
God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.
Yes, perhaps. But, to be sure, not everyone agrees that salvation, when it comes, will appear clothed in a shiny silver spacesuit.

http://www.economist.com/node/3490697

miec

Are we witnessing the beginning of the end of the post industrial age/petrochemical civilization?
Probably.
Without a shadow of a doubt, our involuntary reliance on the labaryinthine financial system, combined with our reliance on petrochemicals, means that this civilization is poised on a knife edge.

But the most interesting question is; 'what will replace the current civilization'?
I'm optimistic. I believe that we'll 'revert' to simpler ways of life - ways of life that we are built for.
There simply won't be any choice.

Pockets of this is already happening, a couple of year's back I watched BBC's Requiem for Detroit which detailed what you described above. Whole swathes of areas are being abandoned and later reclaimed with people growing their own crops.

I often think the more interesting question is given our sedentary lifestyle, reliance on technology, etc, would many of us survive a post industrial age? Would we have the mental and physical capacity to cope? Think about it, you would have to light a fire for heat / food, no forms of entertainment as we know it eg: computers, TV, etc. Having to scavenge for food, knowing what plants are edible, etc. Heck at the moment we really of written dates to tell us whether food is fresh or not rather than using our senses.

Two brilliant fiction books that address this issue is The Road by Cormac McCarthy (fricking depressing) and Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell (both depressing and redemptive).

If we do end up destroying ourselves my belief will be it will come from genetic modification that mutates horribly.

slowburner

miec wrote: »

Pockets of this is already happening, a couple of year's back I watched BBC's Requiem for Detroit which detailed what you described above. Whole swathes of areas are being abandoned and later reclaimed with people growing their own crops.

I often think the more interesting question is given our sedentary lifestyle, reliance on technology, etc, would many of us survive a post industrial age? Would we have the mental and physical capacity to cope? Think about it, you would have to light a fire for heat / food, no forms of entertainment as we know it eg: computers, TV, etc. Having to scavenge for food, knowing what plants are edible, etc. Heck at the moment we really of written dates to tell us whether food is fresh or not rather than using our senses.

Two brilliant fiction books that address this issue is The Road by Cormac McCarthy (fricking depressing) and Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell (both depressing and redemptive).

If we do end up destroying ourselves my belief will be it will come from genetic modification that mutates horribly.

Indeed.
In fact there's a Boards forum dedicated to just that sort of eventuality here.

fly_agaric

There's so many people on Earth now I find the idea that we could manage to wipe ourselves out completely a bit hard to believe.

We're definitely capable (by accident or design) of reducing ourselves all the way back to a sort of stone age state with small isolated no/low-technology groups surviving here and there.

At that point we'd really be just another species on Earth fighting our corner for survival (as we were in the 1st stone age) so maybe luck could go against us in this rerun and we would go extinct from there...

SuperInfinity

I give two possibilities of what's going to happen, neither of them pretty:

1) We will end up in a genetic soup mess of designer babies and genetically modified foods and organisms. Very little trace of the original human being is going to be left. People like you and I, with all our faults, will just cease to exist. There will be no such thing as natural food anymore because it will all have crossbred with genetically modified foods. What will be left will be a long way from being able to interbreed with current humans and so will not be human. Our time is nearly up, and it kills me every day.

2) There's no reason to believe that atomic bombs won't get easier and easier to produce, on the contrary it would be amazing if they didn't. It would be different if there was no such thing as nuclear weapons and no known ability to destroy the entire planet already.

Scientists and "science" are held in such high regard by so many but they are without question the ones who are going to destroy us all. No ifs, buts or maybes, we're all doomed. The idea most people have of "science" advancing us all is a joke. Our ancestors did much better than any of us did most of the time, in Sub-Saharan Africa with plenty of fresh fruit on the trees. The idea of them starving half the time is a complete myth, monkeys and great apes very rarely go hungry in their natural habitat.

Priori

I reckon what might happen is this:

• Humanity destroys itself, leaving only a tiny remnant population-wise.
• Eons pass, said humans regress to an outwardly primitive state, concerned only with basic survival and reproduction.
• History is lost, and all knowledge of the previous civilisation degenerates to legend.
• More eons pass. Population increases.
• Eventually a society springs up again, and in a relatively short period of time discovers agriculturte, electricity, the sciences etc.
• Humanity destroys itself.

Repeat the process.

slowburner

Priori wrote: »

I reckon what might happen is this:

• Humanity destroys itself, leaving only a tiny remnant population-wise.
• Eons pass, said humans regress to an outwardly primitive state, concerned only with basic survival and reproduction.
• History is lost, and all knowledge of the previous civilisation degenerates to legend.
• More eons pass. Population increases.
• Eventually a society springs up again, and in a relatively short period of time discovers agriculturte, electricity, the sciences etc.
• Humanity destroys itself.

Repeat the process.

It's hard to escape the Mad Max scenario.
Maybe there's something in us which actually wants that kind of situation.

Why would society 'discover' things like agriculture, science etc. - why would they be forgotten?

Priori

slowburner wrote: »

It's hard to escape the Mad Max scenario.
Maybe there's something in us which actually wants that kind of situation.

Why would society 'discover' things like agriculture, science etc. - why would they be forgotten?

I'm talking eons here. If society gets more or less completely wiped out, with only a few thousand humans left scattered across the globe, it's hard to imagine how humanity would retain its knowledge. No books, no computers, no surviving achives of knowledge. People would be back to basics, seeking out shelter in caves. Before they could reinvent paper, or the printing press (never mind a network of wireless machines powered by electricity, a mysterious power soon to become the stuff legend), they would be forced to master how to hunt, forage and defend themselves from predators. Any survivors from a pampered Western civilisation would probably be killed off fairly quickly.

Just one scenario I'm throwing out there.

slowburner

Priori wrote: »

I'm talking eons here. If society gets more or less completely wiped out, with only a few thousand humans left scattered across the globe, it's hard to imagine how humanity would retain its knowledge. No books, no computers, no surviving achives of knowledge. People would be back to basics, seeking out shelter in caves. Before they could reinvent paper, or the printing press (never mind a network of wireless machines powered by electricity, a mysterious power soon to become the stuff legend), they would be forced to master how to hunt, forage and defend themselves from predators. Any survivors from a pampered Western civilisation would probably be killed off fairly quickly.

Just one scenario I'm throwing out there.

Sure, but if any amount of humanity survives - surely some degree of the sum total of humanity's knowledge will survive with them?

Priori

slowburner wrote:

Sure, but if any amount of humanity survives - surely some degree of the sum total of humanity's knowledge will survive with them?

Well, I do hope so! But I guess it really depends on what actually brought about the end of civilization, i.e. how complete the destruction was (or rather, will be)...

SuperInfinity

slowburner wrote: »

Sure, but if any amount of humanity survives - surely some degree of the sum total of humanity's knowledge will survive with them?

I agree. There is no reason that would ever happen, all trace of humanity would mysteriously disappear? You should never let allegorical tomfoolery get in the way of an objective assessment.

Priori

SuperInfinity wrote:

I agree. There is no reason that would ever happen, all trace of humanity would mysteriously disappear? You should never let allegorical tomfoolery get in the way of an objective assessment.

Where exactly is the allegorical tomfoolery?

SuperInfinity

Priori wrote: »

Where exactly is the allegorical tomfoolery?

You can surely not believe there's the remotest chance of that happening? It's an aesthetic fabrication of your mind.

Have you not been studying the old chart lately...?

Priori

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Scientists and "science" are held in such high regard by so many but they are without question the ones who are going to destroy us all. No ifs, buts or maybes, we're all doomed. The idea most people have of "science" advancing us all is a joke.

I think it's quite clear who needs the chart.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tomk1

Denerick wrote: »

Many philosophers of science and cosmologists believe that one of the (many) possible reasons why earthlings have never had any encounters with extra-terrestrial life-forms (IE, radio/TV waves, etc.) is because there is a great probability that once a planet develops the capacity to destroy itself (As we have) that eventually, all things been equal, they will.

False assumption, most sci-fi based on science not fantasy, takes the fact that something like +90% of species on Earth have gone extinct, also the idea of the population becoming sterile, or the fact that a planet has a limited life span. ie natural extinction.

The idea of war for annihilation is incorrect, it has happened for survival, one country wants something another has, a natural resource, or their culture is treatened, a suicidal war makes no sense as no survival. I don't think any war has ever wiped out the otherside.

I can't see any reason for Humanity setting itself out for it's own distruction.

Indirect-annihaltion caused by Humanity:
Overpopulation, well parts of our planet are allready currently over populated, (no need to jump ahead in time), without the food source or resources to support the population, the method of survival is to produce more children as not all will survive to adults due to times of stavation and disease war over resourse. With humanities knowledge, one real solution is through the use of GM plants that will be increase food production by plants which will survive in those harsh environments also better medication.

So far any man-made dangers to survival has been brought to our attention and fear is used to get the overall population to cop-on, remember ozone distructive gases, or the fear of acid-rain (what ever happened to that), and the current one is rising sea levels as well as water shortages.

Basically if we've doing something stupid that endangers our continued existence, then we try to stop it, setting us apart from any other species we have the ability to change and rapidly adapt.

There is one concern (not 100% on facts) the theory that the use of plastics breaking down into our water supply is leading to an increase in men having lower sperm rates. See that doc 'Plastic Planet'

But I can't see indirect manmade annihilation succeeding in wiping us of the planet.

Other:
This Easter-island is interesting, what happened a plague of rats, eating all the food and contamination. In a way we are becoming a mono species, so other species adapt to us as their way to survive, makes sense this something would see us as an all you can eat buffet.

The cause of our downfall being our success

Setun

One of the most dangerous aspects of the Cold War military culture was the strong belief in systematic precognition - the idea that you could create a mathematical algorithm that could predict the military operations of the opponent. This over-reliance on systems theory gave the American's the illusion of control - look at their covert military operations in SE Asia in the 1960s for example, using networked sensors and drone-like aircrafts to attack areas where they assumed the vietcong to be in hiding. The same rhetoric was used right up to the top of the military hierarchy in the US - whereby a system that would decide a process of like-for-like retaliation was developed, e.g. if the Russians were to bomb New York, the system would weight the political, civil, and strategic importance of the city to the United States, and suggest a similar Russian city that could be bombed in retaliation. Frighteningly, I don't think we've moved on very much from this idea. While Mutually Assured Destruction seemed to provide some sort of tense stability to the Cold War, it was a fragile equilibrium that could easily have fallen asunder had a previously unaccounted-for external agent entered the into the system. With such ideologies dominant in the highest-up in the ruling classes during this time, and perhaps somewhat in the new generations too, I would have to say that the probability of self-destruction would be quite high.

fungun

A big danger for me would be the amount of religious fervour whereby some minorities are genuinely happy to kill themselves to kill others. All it takes is some of these crazies to get access to WMD and trouble begins!

I think at some point there will be a reckoning where the consequences will be severe enough to have a significant impact on life on Earth or else there will be the realisation that civilisation needs to work more closely together to ensure threats to humanity are dealt with. Either way, its a Stephen King book

randd1

Countries will be destroyed, Political entities will be destroyed and Religions will be destroyed. Human Civilization in any form will be destroyed.

But humanity, as a species will survive anything except the end of the earth through natural occurance or genocidal aliens (who, as you would expect, would have superior technology).

Nature, and the global eco-system is a balance. If the human population becomes to great and damages the eco-system with excess pollution and the extinction of species, then its fair to assume things that rely on nature to sustain us with, like food and water, would become scarce and that a lot of people will die as a result of these shortages.

But nature has an uncanny knack for balance and if we harm ourselves, through whatever means, the planet will remain and eventually recover. And the humans that survive will continue on.

SuperInfinity

randd1 wrote: »

But humanity, as a species will survive anything except the end of the earth through natural occurance or genocidal aliens (who, as you would expect, would have superior technology).

The only thing humans have to fear is their own technology. For example designer babies, which will start on a trend where the offspring taller and with a bigger brain and with more charisma and look more pleasing to the eye and need less sleep, and whatever other "ideal" there is now. What is left will no longer be human.

It won't stop it if the vast majority of people reject such stuff, all it takes is a small minority of people to do it who will eventually take the place of all normal humans. Want your child to be an amazing sports player? Just select whatever gene markers they find for hand-eye coordination. Of course that pretty much defeats the purpose of sport if someone has such an inherent unfair advantage over another. But the fact is that it could get to a stage where an ordinary individual just has no chance at all against these people. And obviously people are more likely to marry better-looking, smarter, more healthy individuals and have offspring with them.

I cannot see how to avoid the above scenario, unless all of those ideas are considered "cursed" like eugenics currently is. I mean, this genetic engineering and designer babies is for all intents and purposes just accelerated eugenics.

Catsmokinpot

3 possibilities,

1. We'll wipe ourselves out, because we'll have pushed the ecosystem to a point that it can no longer support us. then in a few million years or more historians of the next race of humanoids will look at the structures we left behind and wonder what happened.

2. We'll be thinned down to an extremely small population size, probably around 10,000 people in pockets around the globe (also because we destroyed the ecosystem), then in about 2000 years historians of the next race of humans will look at the structures we left behind and wonder what happened.

3. We'll learn to control our own population growth and not wipe ourselves out.

1 and 2 in my opinion are most likely, a fitting end IMHO if we dont cop on to ourselves.

3 is still possible though.