General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHumans will be extinct in 100 years says eminent scientist
http://m.phys.org/news/2010-06-humans-extinct-years-eminent-scientist.htmlEminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change.
Fenner, who is emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, said homo sapiens will not be able to survive the population explosion and “unbridled consumption,” and will become extinct, perhaps within a century, along with many other species. United Nations official figures from last year estimate the human population is 6.8 billion, and is predicted to pass seven billion next year.
Fenner told The Australian he tries not to express his pessimism because people are trying to do something, but keep putting it off. He said he believes the situation is irreversible, and it is too late because the effects we have had on Earth since industrialization (a period now known to scientists unofficially as the Anthropocene) rivals any effects of ice ages or comet impacts.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Renew Deal
(85,099 posts)
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)once we get our sex robots
longship
(40,416 posts)
geardaddy
(25,392 posts)
briv1016
(1,570 posts)$45 on Amazon.
patsimp
(915 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)
n2doc
(47,953 posts)The Earth is large and has many habitats. To cause all humans to go extinct would mean making the surface uninhabitable to all eukaryotic life. That's a tall task, even for us.
This isn't to say that the human population won't go down a lot. I do expect that to happen in the next few hundred years.
chalmers
(288 posts)Total surface area of earth: 510,072,000 sq km
Total water surface area: 70.8% (361,132,000 sq km)
Total land surface area: 29.2% (148,940,000 sq km)
Only 8.76% is farmable
Only 15% is dry land
n2doc
(47,953 posts)And 'farmable' is a fungible definition.
chalmers
(288 posts)that's not much, with the depletion of resources including freshwater and fisheries, it does not bode well for humans
lancer78
(1,495 posts)is created every time it rains.
ananda
(35,080 posts).. what do you mean by "fungible" when you say that "farmable" is a fungible definition?
n2doc
(47,953 posts)The Incan's were very good that this. So are many oner cultures.
Of course we are also turning farmland into toxic wastelands as well...
That makes sense.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,157 posts)not feeling really optimistic at the moment....
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)cost a lot of money but there will be a lot of survivors. Only thing that could take us out (rapidly) is an asteroid, supervolcano, or supernova/gamma ray burst.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The population will ebb and flow. The way to reduce the population is to bring more people out of poverty, out of the grind of manual labor, so they need fewer offspring to survive. Many countries, like Japan, aren't reproducing in sufficient numbers to replace themselves. They have to rely on immigrants to keep their population up.
That movie IDIOCRACY had a point....
MowCowWhoHow III
(2,103 posts)OK, then throw another shrimp on the barbie.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)who's gonna know.
earthside
(6,960 posts)It could be curtains within 30 or 40 years.
People still do not want to take global warming seriously.
Abrupt climate change could mean a five to six degree increase in temperature inside of a decade.
That will kill most humans and the subsequent collapse of civilization ... unattended nuclear power plants, for instance, could mean the destruction of most life on the Earth.
Climate-Change Summary and Update
http://guymcpherson.com/2014/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/
B2G
(9,766 posts)Really?
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)based on the reaction of my wife when the house is colder than 73 degrees or hotter than 76 degrees, it is possible that a 6 degree rise would be fatal to her... :p
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)
earthside
(6,960 posts)... I'm sure you've heard it before ...
If your temperature rises from 98 degrees to 103 degrees you are in real trouble. If you don't get your temperature down, you're dead.
http://ggweather.com/101/hi.htm
A global increase of that magnitude, in a relatively brief period of time, will not give most ecosystem on the planet time to adapt.
No one is talking about climate change just being a couple of years phenomena -- if it gets hot it is going to stay hot for a long time.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Time to get caught up on climate change ...
Here are a couple ...
Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036 - Michael E. Mann
Climate meltdown: Global Warming heading towards 6 degrees C warns World Bank
Of course, you could take a week long 103 degree sauna and then explain why the analogy is ridiculous.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Are climate control devices going to be extinct too?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)Look, I'm not saying there won't be severe impacts. I'm saying that alarmist shit like planetary extinction in the very near future is just as harmful as denial.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We are in the midst of the Sixth great extinction. There is no argument on this at all. We are an apex species. Apex species do not do well in mass extinction events.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)a cultural appetite for mineral resources. This makes us tremendously disruptive to natural ecosystems
Early on in my ecology training, I got the misguided notion that being generalists was good, because it protects against specific resource shortages. Likewise I had the notion that organisms living in mutualistic relationships with reciprocal benefits was a good thing since all members of the mutualism benefit.
I was dreadfully wrong. As I came to better understand the dynamics of community ecology I realized omnivory and mutualism are actually very DESTABILIZING to communities.
Humans exploit the biota at almost every level and we don't shift from one resource to another. We are the most omnivoric omnivore on the planet. We consume whatever is consumable at all levels and do it simultaneously. We not only exploit for food, but we exploit for shelter, clothing and cultural supports. We've even turned to consumption of minerals for energy and materials subsidies. Our vagility, ability to disperse, has spread our direct impacts globally. Just think about how a tiny nation in the nw pacific, exploits endangered populations of marine mammals in the extreme southern oceans. That consumption takes not only an appetite for something other than rice, that takes technology, mining/smelting, huge fossil fuel subsidies etc.
Through domestication we have developed a wide array of mutualisms which have expanded the 'footprint' of humans and their mutuals. And I am not talking about humans and their dogs and cats. I am talking about humans, livestock, and row-crops. Among the three greatest causes of extinction so far along this great extinction event are habitat alteration/destruction and desertification. Both are mostly a consequence of the impact of agriculture based on domesticated mutualisms. Modern maize basically can't survive without humans and we can't survive without it (although we'd be healthier without corn-syrup).
As a species with capacity to exploit minerals, we also consume geological features for energy and materials. Some for traditional needs like shelter, but also for tools, transportation and storage...we make an amazing array of plastic bottles and soft-metal containers. Our exploitation of minerals greatly disrupts habitat, exposes mineral toxins to erosion and surface contamination, and by providing energy and material subsidies helps us expand our search for further exploitable minerals to every corner of the planet and now we are eyeing off-planet opportunities.
Of course, all this human and agricultural activity impacts nutrient cycles and we are well aware of their local and even regional impacts. But because of the dysfunctional nature of our pro-growth prowess we're also overloading our human modified (mostly simplified and industrialized) global environment at a global level. Our planet's atmosphere and our oceans are changed because of humans collateral production of toxic detritus.
And we've done it -not- because we are an apex species at the top of a food-chain, or the top of a community pyramid shaped food web. Humans have done this because we are vagile mutualistic generalist consumers engaged in geotrophy (consuming minerals).
We are the most dangerous species on the planet because we -are- omnivores with an aptitude and a culture for consuming -everything- and making and leaving a global-sized mess as we do.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)for the species. All the technology we have developed will not stop the cascade environmental failure.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)at the end of the Permian 90% of ocean dwelling species that left fossils went extinct. It took 30 million years for the biota to recover.
We likely would be looking at the end of the anthropocene.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
LiberalArkie
(19,771 posts)period of time.
forsaken mortal
(112 posts)If you want to know what such a temperature change can do, go do some research.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Kills the eyes.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'm sure you'll discredit the premise with objective, peer-reviewed science, yes? Or (and I find this a wee bit more likely) your post is already at your maximum extent of doing as such.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Copying and pasting your subject line into the body of your message text is both redundant and annoying.
You're welcome.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)...before continuing on to the post because of this one poster's habit of doing that.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)I tend to scroll by responses due to the repetition. Why do responses even need subject lines? It's ridiculous.
Anyway, on topic, I can easily see the near extinction of all life on this planet. We're already pushing farming in some places, and if the climate becomes unsuitable in the so called "bread basket" areas, what happens then? Total disruption of the food chain, with massive expenditures needed to retool and relocate.
I would die without air conditioning. I don't sweat like most people, and get overheated quickly, even in the winter. If the grid went out in the summer, I likely wouldn't last long, and it wouldn't be a pleasant way to go.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I mean, who gives a fuck about climate change. Redundancy is occurring!!!!!
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)...elsewhere in this thread, right? And with post numbers that came before the one you're railing about.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Thanks.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)...I will just continue to post what I like and I'm sure B2G will also.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I am, however, entitled to my opinion, and I made it known with my original reply.
You are entitled to yours.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Ha!
B2G
(9,766 posts)but this was your lucky day I guess.
B2G
(9,766 posts)My responses are directed to the link that proports human extinction in 30-40 years, which is NOT going to happen.
It feeds the deniers a bunch of bullshit they can throw in our faces and does a disservice to the discussion.
And LW just annoys me. 
haele
(15,376 posts)Too warm a winter, we lose orchards (apples, cherries, nuts, peaches, etc...) because it's not cold enough to set blossoms. An warmer than normal or inconsistent late winter/spring, we can lose a high percentage of our grains, animal fodder and early vegetables as they start sprouting before the spring thaw is over or flooding can mess with fields. Not enough snowpack, drought - there's not enough water to take agriculture through to winter.
And you aren't going to get most American farmers and Agri-businesses to suddenly change their farming practices for more drought-compatible practices "overnight" because: 1) most American farmland is already tilled, which makes it more water dependent as the soil drains too quickly to keep the roots moist, 2) most American independent farmers can't wait out the three/four years it takes to properly restore their farmed soil for drought resistant farming, 3) Most agri-business pretend that their patented "drought resistant" seeds are truly drought resistant by themselves, and they don't have to change their farming practices as well as their crop rotation processes in America to maintain the level of production they have now, and 4) most farm animals aren't able to handle the physical stress of both temperature increases and climate change along with the current "cost effective" farming/ranching practices.
That means food shortages and high prices. Which means population stress which increases both social morbidity and general craziness.
We in the US are really very selfishly nasty when it comes to not being able to just get what we want when we want it, especially when the financial interest of those who control most of the resources for survival outweighs their social interests so all the mitigations we could put in place to correct the problems and make life better/easier for everyone become "just too expensive". Culturally, we tend to tell ourselves it's better to get rid of the weakest links in society, totally forgetting that as we start getting rid of the "dead-wood" beneath us, we're going to eventually find ourselves with nothing below us and those above us will cut us
out as dead-wood in their efforts to stay on sound footing.
Psychopaths (including organizational constructs that are now considered "people"
don't care what happens to anything or anyone so long they can survive in comfort one day longer than whatever is around them. If they're the last ones left standing before burning up the world, so be it.
And we as a species tend to put psychopaths in charge, because they're so damn impressive in their displays of wealth and confidence...they must be better than us, look how rich they are!
So yeah, if things keep going the way they are going - without a radical change happening right now - I can see humans and most species on earth as we know it going extinct. Maybe not in 100 years, but I still doubt the generation of my grand-daughter's grand children will have much of a world left for them to live in. And it'll be the collective "our" fault, because we prefer to just throw money at our "problems" and try to buy them off than spending time, curiosity, effort, and informed sacrifice.
Haele
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)or even individuals, above profit. This sums it up perfectly!
don't care what happens to anything or anyone so long they can survive in comfort one day longer than whatever is around them. If they're the last ones left standing before burning up the world, so be it.With all this evidence about climate change, we've had the most normal year in 2015 that we've had in nearly a decade. Now we're looking at an unusually warm winter (it's been in the 70s, in December, about 20 degrees above normal), and who knows what that's going to do for the crops next spring.
Javaman
(65,685 posts)the acidification of the oceans will kill us.
krill are responsible for the majority of the oxygen we breath.
if they die, we die.
and if we have a 6 degree rise in temps, the oceans will heat up, more CO2 dissolves the ocean, acidification sky rockets, krill die off, no more oxygen production.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)when I fully understood the implications of that.....it was a real eye opener.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)That fact either saddens me or makes me laugh hysterically, depending on the day.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,157 posts)Gonna be interesting to find out which is which.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Do you have links?
Rockyj
(538 posts)
Jeroen
(1,061 posts)The cons...
Exponential growth of the world population, climate change, pollution, scarce resources, nuclear arms, social injustice, poverty, religious polarization, the rise of religious extremism, perpetual war inflicted by the MIC and bankers
The pros...
Pink fluffy unicorns dancing on rainbows!
I am still hopeful though, nature is resourceful and so are human beings.
chalmers
(288 posts)They simply done just enough to survive, enough to scrap by.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Lets compare the life of the average human being in 1815 to the life of an average human being in 2015. And you think we haven't been resourceful as a species and have done just enough to "scrape by"?
chalmers
(288 posts)Humans can't tackle real problems like overpopulation and climate change.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)A rational civilization would have little difficulty addressing these issues. But greed and superstition currently rule the day thanks to unlimited propaganda and an educational system that refuses to teach critical thinking.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)You just changed the definition mid-argument.
earthside
(6,960 posts)All the banked solar energy from millions of years ago has given us the ability to be resourceful.
Unfortunately the few have done more than "scrape by". The western world has burned so much fossil fuels that we have, in effect, soiled our own nest.
Consequently (and ironically, I must say), we may very well have resourcefulled our way into oblivion.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)who have retained survival methods.
chalmers
(288 posts)hatrack
(64,831 posts)Might be hard for young people in traditional cultures to choose to spend 20 years mastering traditional knowledge of medicinal plants when Shiny! Sexy! New! Connected! Global! Rich! beckons just beyond the fringes of the forests.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)which is, I suppose, why they don't have any fucks to give about the problem(s)
haele
(15,376 posts)The ones that are fearful enough to buy their bunkers couldn't cope if they can't continue spend money and buy people they certainly wouldn't want to bring with them to fix their problems.
If they did bring enough worker-bees to maintain them at the level they think they deserve for the generation or so "until things settled down" underground or in a bio-containment area, the society they thought they were building would implode. People don't do well in isolated communities over a long period of time as it is; add the danger of rigid safety and social mobility rules to avoid environmental degradation or contamination in that isolated community is a recipe for disaster. If you can't "go outside" or get away occasionally just to let off steam, the society will go crazy.
(Look up what happened to those groups of scientists who planned to live in and maintain those Bio-Dome communities for just a couple of years...)
Haele
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Or dogs. Or any other of the various forms of animal life that will be driven to extinction in a very short time.
I guess they do up to the point where it stops buttressing the love they have for themselves.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)onenote
(46,135 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)... are coming around to Dr. Fenner's point of view from my reading and researching.
He left us six years ago, but his prediction looks uncomfortably prescient.
moondust
(21,284 posts)You know, the guys who wanted less birth control and more people/customers/followers to sell their stuff to so they could become rich and powerful.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Seems perfectly clearly that this is likely happening. Already fifty percent of animal species are predicted to become extinct within 50 years. Do you really think we are destined to last much longer than that?
On our current course of action, I'd say this might be longer than we have.
Time to take action now!
earthside
(6,960 posts)It seems that Pres. Obama's messages about the critical importance of the global warming issue have fallen on deaf ears.
Of course, as President, publicly he can't be anything but optimistic.
But the science is telling us a very dire future awaits us if we don't adopt crisis procedures now to mitigate climate change.
The belief that somehow, some way technology will miraculously pull us back from the brink at the very last moment is instilled pretty deep in 21st century Americans. We just cannot imagine any differently than that tomorrow will pretty much be the same as today -- our great flaw as an intelligent, thinking species.
ProfessorGAC
(76,635 posts)Or is it just reasonable disagreement with the time line proffered? Despite the warming of the atmosphere and the acknowledged effects of it on land, farming, and the human body, 100 years seems an awfully short amount of time to me too.
I don't doubt the science at all. But, i question where 100 years to EXTINCTION comes from. That means NOBODY survives, despite the broad genetic diversity sperad among 7 billion people. That defies credulity, whether i believe in the catastrophic effect of radiation absorbing gasses entering the atmosphere (and i do) or not.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But it not because they are rather conservative by the nature of the body. Population declines, even crashes in some areas are contemplated though.
So I do not think he is that nuts.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)But I would expect huge die-off events similar to what happens when any species exceeds the capacity of its environment.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)is pretty damn close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)The climate change could certainly cause a mass die-off... particularly of many species.
It could certainly end the global society as we know it and throw the most affluent areas into chaos and war.
It is debatable that in 100 years that could mean extinction unless we resort to nuclear warfare.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Because a decade ago...
A Planet Full of Hitlers
The world's billionaires, led by the Bush "madministration," are acting like a planet of full of Hitlers. They are willing to invade whatever region in the world has what the world needs most -- oil.
Black gold. Texas tea. Petrodollars.
They figure they have all the money. And basically, apart from a Soros here and a Gates there, they do.
And thus, the world’s billionaires and their hounds of the BFEE want to spend it all before they die. And they have the plan and cash on hand to do so.
Consider the Bush agenda: All War. All the Time. Government spending for the MI-Complex, transferring trillions to the wealthy corporate owners, war and all.
These are the likes of the “industrialists” Mussolini, Franco and Hitler so loved.
And like the fascist trifecta, the American fascists of the BFEE have bought all the political power. Don't just think Tom Roach Motel DeLay and Mr. Friskie Frist. Remember Prescott Bush and Averell Harriman and Allen Dulles and Rheinhard Gehlen and Igor Orlov.
What can we do about it? They’ve bought all the legal power, built law schools for Federalist Society AND Opus Dei judges. Think Bill Eagle Eye Rehnquist and Antonin Fat Tony Scalia.
These turds of the BFEE have worked all the tax breaks and bankrupty laws for the rich. Uncle Sam reverse-Robin Hoods wealth to the top 1-percent of country.
And what do these rich turds who prop up Bush use their tax savings on? They certainly haven't invested it in making America a better place to work or live; they've invested in "off-shoring."
Lots of the tax money goes to buy more vacation homes, yachts and jet planes. Most goes offshore to the Caymans and Switzerland.
And of course they want more without having to pay for the damage to the environment. Farmland depletion in the USA. Rain forest depletion around the globe. Oceans getting acidic. Fish stock depletion. Global air pollution and water shortages.
Well. OK. Maybe a case can be made it’s the rich folk’s money. They can do what they want. But they should pay their fair share of taxes! After all, the rest of society helps keep them in their position. And its our brothers and sisters in the armed forces who are giving their lives to keep their oil and power and privilege.
Budget red ink means no money for middle class. No money for schools. No money for cities and suburbs and farms. No money for roads. No money for science and R and D. No money for the future.
And the media? What media? What Fairness Doctrine?
They cover up their materialism and venality with all the talk about Faith-based this and Conservative-values that. But the reality is these are sinister wolves and satanic bed-wetting bastards in sheep's clothing we are dealing with.
Wasn’t that what Bush really meant when he told Bob Woodward “History? Who cares about history? In a hundred years we’ll all be dead.”
Just like Hitler. And just like Hitler, Bush wants to take us all with him.
-- Octafish
2005 OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3648867
Better we start now, then. I'm a Democrat: I don't mind hard work. And I don't want just the rich jerkoffs to survive.
Throd
(7,208 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)but an 80-90% reduction in population is more likely than not. This planet cannot sustain 6-7 billion people. Add capitalistic greed, religulous insanity/anti-science batshittery and climate change and a mass die-off of human beings is more or less inevitable within 50-100 years.
But homo sapiens is a tough and adaptive species, which is why I don't think extinction is inthe cards.
Maybe once the world is rebuilt and repopulated to a sane and sustainable of 2 billion people or so humanity can take another shot at civilization, but they will have to leave capitalism and religion on the ash heap of history.
Quixote1818
(31,155 posts)There will probably be a huge nuclear war in the next 50 to 75 years as cities start to get covered by the sea and tensions are high but pockets of humans will survive.
Hopefully scientists will lay down the groundwork for a better civilization that is purely reason based, next time around.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)but individually I think not so much. And the chaos that is coming could easily isolate and neutralize the geniuses.
I don't worry about rising sea levels and tensions so much as about disrupted agriculture and infrastructure. I remember an unusually big snowfall just a few years ago. Roads were closed for only 24-36 hrs in our area (a small city) right before Christmas. We could get around in our 4-wheel drive but suppliers couldn't. One day's disruption and the shelves were bare. One Day! It illustrated just how fragile our system is.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)It almost wiped out humanity once before, so it's possible again.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)premise as you said in your post. "but an 80-90% reduction in population is more likely than not. This planet cannot sustain 6-7 billion people. Add capitalistic greed, religious insanity/anti-science batshittery and climate change and a mass die-off of human beings is more or less inevitable within 50-100 years.
But homo sapiens is a tough and adaptive species, which is why I don't think extinction is in the cards.
Maybe once the world is rebuilt and repopulated to a sane and sustainable of 2 billion people or so humanity can take another shot at civilization, but they will have to leave capitalism and religion on the ash heap of history.
"
I don't think any amount of enlightenment would be able to allow us to overcome our basic selfish egotism. Face it, we are a poor design and will go down in history as the least successful mammal that ever lived, in terms of enduring. Our 200,000 to 300,000 year stand is laughable in evolutionary terms. We will be the "Short-Gevity" champions. (the opposite of "longevity".)
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)a bit extreme, although a massive population die-off could easily happen.
More and more I'm beginning to think that the reason we haven't found any alien civilizations out there is that perhaps any species that evolves intelligence and tools and all those things simply do themselves in before they can get to the stars.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I think there is a lot of truth init.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)galactic real estate in 1,000 cubic light years to not come here.
jmondine
(1,649 posts)Been hearing this all of my life.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Umm.
There's really nothing here to see, folks.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)The one most exceptional and un-extinguishable human trait, even more acute than the ability to adapt is the one of preparing way for the next generation. That it may be off kilter currently with a bit of self-aggrandizement, it's trajectory and rebound is obvious and predictable.
The ability and wherewithal to worry about the future is unmatched in our time and is only getting stronger. It might be or might not be conscious desire at any one time, but moreover it's a strong genetic trait many seem to miss.
malaise
(295,806 posts)PHEW!!!
briv1016
(1,570 posts)We may eventually see a massive die-off and lose our industrial society when fossil fuels run out, but short of a nuclear holocaust or some natural extinction event, it is very unlikely that humans will go extinct.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Not extinct...but our numbers will be far less.
The temp will catch up to the CO2 and when it does the food chain as we know it will collapse.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,457 posts)World population has doubled since I was a kid.
https://m.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)He's channeling Paul Ehrlich.
Xipe Totec
(44,554 posts)
Fla_Democrat
(2,622 posts)Pretty sure I will be too, so if he's right, or if he's wrong, I will not be able to call him out on it.
L. Coyote
(51,134 posts)Long after the industrial world collapses itself, life will be the same for those who haven't changed their adaptation for thousands of years. Even the most radical climate and environmental change will leave refugia areas. This happened 70 kya with the Tobas eruption, a major bottleneck in human population and evolution. We are 6 billion today because the few adapted before.