GLOBAL EXTINCTION WITHIN ONE HUMAN LIFETIME?

[NoOneMan]

78. And your biggest refutation is science fiction

Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)

The original claim is based on scientific observation; when habit rapidly changes and food supply dwindles, we observe species level extinction. Extrapolating on this, the author is assuming that extinction is inevitable for humans as well, who will be subject to a massive rapid disaster (I wouldn't go that far, but I acknowledge its definitely a high possibility).

The point you made was the term "extinction" was hyperbole. But you are optimistically thinking some science fiction scenario may save 1% of the population with technology. So, is it hyperbole to exaggerate the impact of an event by 1%, without figuring in science fiction? Does it make any difference in the magnitude of the event to the other 99% non Homo-Trumpsapiens? Not really.

The statement, while not 100% verifiably projectable, is possible and certainly not hyperbole by any means. For the majority of humans, between fresh water depletion, ocean acidification, climate change, mass species extinction, potash exhaustion, the next 100 years will result in the worst imaginable disaster that wipes out their entire immediate genetic line and the very reason for their existence. Does this tragedy seems any less intense to them if they know a few rich pricks might make it through (maybe, sorta)?

The possibility of extinction should be discussed openly and often if we are to motivate anyone to build resilience in the face of what is to come. Throwing garbage at people who don't use the language you like isn't going to do much to mitigate the disastrous consequences most people (those without vast means) will be subjected to.