I would likely do same but that’s because I’d be a drain on any post-collapse society and have nothing to offer it in exchange for any food/shelter/security it can provide. Just do myself in and leave a note saying “Free fishing bait”.My wife has made it abundantly clear that if civilisation collapses - global thermonuclear war, zombie apocalypse, etc. - then should she survive the initial collapse she can't be bothered and she's committing suicide.
Honestly, I sympathise, and I might voluntarily depart this mortal coil too. I like being alive, but only because I can do fun things. I'm not so attached to life that I have any interest in trying to eke out every last minute I can through a ton of hardships. When it's not really worth it any more, I'm out (preferably quickly and or painlessly). That said, I might give the post-apocalypse a go before calling it quits.
To clarify, it's not that I don't like people (although humanity does generally undeniably suck), it's more that I haven't developed normal social skills and I feel like a massive fraud and get neurotic anxiety when I try, so solitude is easier.To be fair...cannibalism. Just sayin', if you're hungry and don't like people, at least raw, there are solutions.
Cannibalism is a deeply depressing prospect. I suspect I might stomach a "one-off" for survival, assuming the meat came from someone who didn't have to be immorally murdered or maimed (e.g. roadkill).And cannibalism takes a lot of ambition and motivation to survive which I'm generally too lethargic for.
I mean, what's the point, really, in the end?
Firstly, I suspect in many post-apocalypses, insects are going to be very thin on the ground. Secondly, eating insects assumes a ready way of catching them in sufficient quantities to provide food. I am doubtful this is feasible in many places - I can't imagine running around with a net trying to catch bluebottles as energy efficient.Insects are easier protein anyway.
Eh, people say that the nuclear winter thing was based on severely flawed models, possibility deliberately as "just" wiping out millions of people wasn't scary enough to get people to care.Not an instant death for humanity but a bad enough solar storm could knock most of earth back so far we'd essentially be back to stone age, except all the easily accessible source of natural resource to tech up have now been tapped clean and we wouldn't have the technology required to extract the rest. We could end up stuck in the stone age forever and then one bad enough natural disaster could easily finish us off, which would be very likely to happen since we'd also have to deal with climate change without the technology to deal with it.
I dunno how bad full nuclear war would actually be, I guess the big danger is kicking up tons of dust and massively cooling the earth, but is that actually something that would happen? I feel like that's something we need to be asking ourselves seriously now since Putin is giving real "I'm taking you all down with me" vibe.
Grow a huge field of crops. When the locusts descend, eat the locusts. I have 'problem solver' written on my CV.Firstly, I suspect in many post-apocalypses, insects are going to be very thin on the ground. Secondly, eating insects assumes a ready way of catching them in sufficient quantities to provide food. I am doubtful this is feasible in many places - I can't imagine running around with a net trying to catch bluebottles as energy efficient.
Those expecting a swift end to humanity are indeed the unrealistically hopeful ones. Hence my black hole creation device will serve as the final merciful bullet left in the gun. We could even have a vote on it like Brexit!I suspect there's another issue with doomsday scenarios. Humans might survive them in the short term, but would they survive them in the long-term?
In many of these scenarios, some of the population survives. But civilisation is screwed: we're effectively back to the medieval era (or worse) with a heavily compromised environment. Bits of tech can be maintained for a while, but without spare parts, manufacturing capability etc. it gradually degrades and should the environmental stress continue, we're in trouble.There's massive systemic loss of knowledge - medicine, engineering, farming, etc. Sure, there might be books, but books don't teach a lot of know-how and there might be a serious shortage of people capable of learning complex material. No vaccines, no antibiotics? Is the population going to be knocked into small, isolated communities vulnerable to inbreeding?
This is often the pattern with many extinctions. Species don't suddenly go down in a blazing fireball: they take a big hit, and then gradually wither away over subsequent generations.
Just mass produce a load of fentanyl for everyone to OD on and go out on a high.Those expecting a swift end to humanity are indeed the unrealistically hopeful ones. Hence my black hole creation device will serve as the final merciful bullet left in the gun. We could even have a vote on it like Brexit!
Essentially.About the climate change thing -
Bill Gates says telling people they can't eat meat or have a 'nice house' won't solve the climate crisis (msn.com)
What would be nice is if we could find a way to power the CO2 extractors with the CO2 they extract, or at least the air that flows through it, the sunlight, something. Get that small enough and efficient enough and just place those extractors on the roof of every house. Maybe capture the C02 as it's leaving the smokestacks of factories and car engines and such while we're at it.Alternatively some miraculous way to suck much more CO2 out of the atmosphere than the amount of CO2 emitted to power it (ie the factory would suck up 100 ton of CO2 and require energy that even using fossil fuel would only produce 1 ton of CO2).
Some points about this.If humanity is to survive the death of the sun, it will either be by having moved to a different star system, or by creating artificial, sustainable habitats.
I'd add to that, the BBC TV drama "Supervolcano" actually does have a damned good representation how Yellowstone would erupt, if it did. Which is to say, much scarier than the sensationalized special effects bullshit-o-rama of films like, say, 2012. Specifically, it wouldn't be a single bomb-like "kaboom" we're used to seeing out of stratovolcanoes, but a series of rapid-fire VEI 6-7 events ramping up as the magma chamber destabilizes and vents, hitting a peak, then slowing down as the new caldera settles.No, actually