Human Extinction - How long can we survive?

[pffh]

I give us a couple of hundred thousand more years if we stay on this planet. A couple of million if we colonize the solar system and if we manage to start colonizing other system we'll survive indefinitely.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

I'm gonna go with Yahtzee's theory.

Something along the lines of, "...realistic virtual sex will wipe out the human race in a single generation."

In all seriousness, as long as the earth remains habitable, the human race will likely be fine. Even if major civilization collapses, societies that have formed a symbiotic relationship with their environment and minimal use of technology (such as certain tribes that live in the Amazon rainforest) will be perfectly fine.

Short of a geothermonuclear war (or some such similar catastrophic event, whether man-made or naturally-occurring) that renders the planet uninhabitable by humans, the human species will continue to exist in some form. Now, "How long can advanced human civilization survive?" that's a trickier question.

 

[Abedeus]

I like the Doctor Who version.

Year 100 trillion, humanity still exists in the depths of space, while last black holes are dying.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Barring a nuclear winter, humans will be around for a long time. Depending on how well we treat or climate however, we'll have radically different standards of living.

Nuclear winter is a myth, spread by anti-nuclear types and journalists looking for sales.

in my opinion we will start loosing natural resources (pretty soon) and this will cause global warfare (to get to those resources). a good example is drinkable water. you may not think about it, but we are runing out of it. and its not a millino years in future or anything. its happening here and now. im glad my country sits on worlds 3rd biggest water resources. that measn we will get invaded by something like USA and have acess to water.

Lack of drinkable water isn't going to be the cause of large scale wars between world powers (though, it might start them, the same way Franz Ferdinand getting shot was the spark for WW1).

In many areas, lack of drinkable water may be a concern, and start small wars, but the surface of the planet is covered with salt water, and it's not that hard to turn salt water into fresh water. If it was, a world war wouldn't be able to happen, as naval forces have to produce their own fresh water this way anyway.

...

I don't see humanity dying out any time soon, without a really, really impressive disaster. Mere nuclear warfare wouldn't do it, it'd "only" kill off the odd billion and send civilisation back a few hundred years.

 

[Esotera]

Barring a nuclear winter, humans will be around for a long time. Depending on how well we treat or climate however, we'll have radically different standards of living.

Nuclear winter is a myth, spread by anti-nuclear types and journalists looking for sales.

Could you explain that a bit further? By nuclear winter I mean that the majority of the world's nukes are fired & successfully hit most places.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

Something absolutely catastrophically apocalyptic would have to occur for us not to survive into the far, distant future. So long as Earth continues to support advanced lifeforms we will exist. And once we finally wean ourselves off oil, that should propel us into a bright future.

The law of accelerating returns should help us achieve sustainability before we incur some sort of permanent change in the Earth's atmosphere that pushes us towards wide-scale extinctions.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Barring a nuclear winter, humans will be around for a long time. Depending on how well we treat or climate however, we'll have radically different standards of living.

Nuclear winter is a myth, spread by anti-nuclear types and journalists looking for sales.

Could you explain that a bit further? By nuclear winter I mean that the majority of the world's nukes are fired & successfully hit most places.

Ah, well, "nuclear winter" is usually meant to mean during a full scale nuclear war, massive amounts of dust and debris is thrown into the atmosphere, obscuring the sun and causing temperatures to drop. This was put forward by Carl Sagan (and others) as part of his anti-nuclear stance.

The problem is, the model he used to get his results is rather unlike the real world. For example, it was a perfectyl featureless sphere, with no oceans or mountains. It also didn't have a day/night cycle caused by rotation, it was lit all over at all times by light at 1/3 daylight intensity.

If you just mean the successful use of all nuclear weapons, humanity would still survive...alot of people live in places that aren't worth targeting, and even those living in the dangerous regions have a chance of surviving, large numbers would survive. It'd be a very different world the day after, but the species would survive.

 

[Esotera]

Ah, well, "nuclear winter" is usually meant to mean during a full scale nuclear war, massive amounts of dust and debris is thrown into the atmosphere, obscuring the sun and causing temperatures to drop. This was put forward by Carl Sagan (and others) as part of his anti-nuclear stance.

The problem is, the model he used to get his results is rather unlike the real world. For example, it was a perfectyl featureless sphere, with no oceans or mountains. It also didn't have a day/night cycle caused by rotation, it was lit all over at all times by light at 1/3 daylight intensity.

If you just mean the successful use of all nuclear weapons, humanity would still survive...alot of people live in places that aren't worth targeting, and even those living in the dangerous regions have a chance of surviving, large numbers would survive. It'd be a very different world the day after, but the species would survive.

Well some of the species would probably survive initially, but the effect on ecosystems would be pretty devastating. I suppose we're probably resilient enough for at least some of us to survive pretty much anything.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well some of the species would probably survive initially, but the effect on ecosystems would be pretty devastating. I suppose we're probably resilient enough for at least some of us to survive pretty much anything.

I don't think the effect on ecosystems would be that bad.

The amount of land directly affected by nuclear devices would be quite small, compared to the planet in general. Smaller, more precise weapons have replaced the older multi-megaton ones for various reasons.

Most of the targets aren't going to be in environmentally sensitive areas (or rather, the environment goes through upheaval by whatever justifies nuclear attack long before it occurs).

 

[ToxicOranges]

Could we survive after the depletion of all hydrogen atoms from the universe?

What? How are all the atoms going to leave? Surely matter cant be permanently destroyed?

 

[spartan231490]

Humans are the cockroaches of advanced life. It would be very difficult to exterminate us. I forsee our civilization collapsing for one reason or another within the next century, but our species will be around for a long time. Maybe forever.

 

[Jodah]

Could we survive after the depletion of all hydrogen atoms from the universe?

What? How are all the atoms going to leave? Surely matter cant be permanently destroyed?

How a star works 101: Stars convert Hydrogen into heavier elements, usually Helium. Thus, eventually, after trillions of years, all hydrogen would be gone.

Also there's the whole anti matter thing but that gets into some silly math and science that I don't feel like explaining since the star thing is more likely.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

We clearly have the potential to survive anything the Universe could potentially throw at us. We've got plenty of ways to survive, but all we're missing is the will to do so. NASA is a shade of its former self and the other space programs aren't much more than orbital janitors at present, with most of what's keeping us from developing safe and clean sources of energy and solve our food problems being plain and simple greed.

We'd need to change as a society and evolve our scientific approach in order to qualify for a Type 1 civilization and frankly, I doubt that will ever happen. It's a lot more easier to sit on our laurels and further the current models of material wealth and comfort for a small percentile of the populace, while the rest lives in abhorrent conditions.

So honestly, what's keeping us from reaching Mars and from going beyond that is our inability to advance past navel-gazing. We're already shrugging space travel off to some other time and everyone knows how the oil magnates are rather leery at anything that threatens their monopoly. They killed the electric car once, and they're realizing only now that they can't postpone that development forever.

Will we survive the end of the universe? That's impossible for anyone to tell with certainty, since this is so far off it's still in the realm of science fiction. I think the real question is if we're going to be able to survive our own conservatism and our unwillingness at making the choices that need to be made.

Unless the social tissue changes dramatically and for the better - and I don't have any alternative to suggest - I think we're dooming ourselves for the sake of immediate wealth and comfort.

Oh - and it doesn't help that a lot of idiots are thinking that scientific advancement really doesn't matter, seeing as the Afterlife fixes everything! Yay! My apologies if there's any Mormons or JWs on the site, but this type of reasoning seems pretty prevalent in those few examples of both faiths I've had the dubious pleasure of interacting with.

 

[Sunrider]

Until the end of 2012. Duh!

For realz though, forever, I suppose, if we actually stop being retarded and make it out to space soon.

 

[Malyc]

Human life will end... when the last human is dead. There can be no other answer.

 

[Yopaz]

My bet is a loss of natural resources. That seems like the most imminent problem right now.

Yup this is the most likely cause.

Take the resources of phosphor. Right now phosphorus resources are estimated somewhere in between 50 and 100 years. Nitrogen is also running towards depletion even though it's the major atom in air. If nothing changes life on earth will end in 100 years at best.
Not just human life, any life based on the use of DNA, RAN or ATP. I wish I didn't know this stuff...

 

[viranimus]

Well problems I see here is anything that will take greater than five thousand years to occur considering that humanity expanded its knowledge to go from using black powder to propel a tiny piece of lead at high velocity, to using propellants to launch a human beyond the confines of this planet at high velocity in roughly one thousand years. So if we can survive the next couple hundred years to the point that space travel becomes not only viable but pervasive then we really have little to fear of human extinction as humanity will expand and colonize. Sure its possible the earth wont be there, but humanity will essentially be in tact.

As for pandemics, its been repeatedly shown that no contagion kills at a 100% percentage. Humanity will persist. And while we may be a war like people, we also have a certain degree of logic when we realize were starting to get too good at it. Even for the most fervent there always comes a time when war is impractical.

Part of what made humans the dominant species is our adaptability and our survival instincts. Honestly short of the entire planet being eradicated to the point of inhabitibilty and thus the extinction of most if not all species on the planet, there are very few scenarios that would result in human extinction.

 

[Biodeamon]

I thought the forums could use a little gloom, so lets discuss when we believe the human race will become extinct(if at all). *Following is stolen from Wikipedia*

Severe forms of known or recorded disasters

Warfare, whether nuclear or biological, or conventional (although nuclear weapons and biological agents are likely to be used); see World War III.
Pandemic involving an antibiotic-resistant bacterium, antifungal-resistant fungus, prion, or antiviral-resistant virus. In practical terms this is unlikely as not all individuals and communities are likely to be exposed to a disease, and not all individuals die when exposed to infections.

Environmental collapses

Loss of a breathable atmosphere, for example due to an anoxic event.
Occurrence of a large-scale volcanism, possibly a supervolcano (250 million years ago, after the Permian-Triassic extinction event life on land took 30 million years to recover).[1]
Extreme ice age leading to prolonged global drought. An ice age can be a result of a nuclear winter or natural forces.
Loss of natural resources, such as mass deforestation or contamination of all fresh water.

Long-term habitat threats

Within a million years, the hypergiant Eta Carinae, which is 7500 light years from the Sun, may go hypernova.
In 1.4 million years Gliese 710 will be only 1.1 light years from Earth and might catastrophically perturb the Oort cloud, possibly resulting in a comet shower.
In about 3 billion years, our Milky Way galaxy is expected to collide with the Andromeda galaxy. Collisions of individual bodies will likely be scarce; however, the consequences for orbits of stars and planets are unclear, and impossible to predict for individual stellar systems.
In 5 billion years hence the Sun's stellar evolution will reach the red giant stage, in which it will expand and possibly engulf Earth. But before this happens it will already have changed Earth's climate and its radiated spectrum may alter in ways Earth-bound humans could not survive.
*Stolen from Wikipedia*

So, many options for ending human life, what do you feel is going to cause the demise of our race? Or do you believe we'll survive for eternity. Imagine, we survive the eventual destruction of Earth, by moving to another planet or moon, we survive the dangers of long term space travel, we witness the destruction of The Milky Way, and many other galaxies. Could we survive after the depletion of all hydrogen atoms from the universe?

I'll save my opinion till I read some others, but I personally believe we're in it for the long haul.

Most of these events won't wipe out all of the life on the planet. as there's some sort some of lifeform alive on the planet i'll be happy. cause then we be forerunners to the new dominant life forms.
the only thing that really worries me is the sun exploding.

 

[HardkorSB]

So, many options for ending human life, what do you feel is going to cause the demise of our race? Or do you believe we'll survive for eternity. Imagine, we survive the eventual destruction of Earth, by moving to another planet or moon, we survive the dangers of long term space travel, we witness the destruction of The Milky Way, and many other galaxies. Could we survive after the depletion of all hydrogen atoms from the universe?

I think that that it will be one of 2 options:

1. We will either survive long enough that we will evolve part our current state (meaning that we will no longer be homo sapiens).
2. We will genetically "improve" ourselves and/or replace our bodies with mechanical ones, taking care of aging and death, so even if traveling to different solar systems would take us centuries or even millenia, it wouldn't really matter (especially if we would become cyborgs as time would be perceived in a different way than it is now)

Either way, I don't think there will be anything that could wipe us out while we're still on Earth. There certainly won't be a nuclear war. You hear everyone fearing "someone dumb enough to do it" but you never see such person. That's because there isn't one. It's a no win scenario and the people who are capable of doing it won't because they're in good positions as things are right now and a war like this would change that.
If there was a thing that could end us all, suddenly everyone would become friends, just for the time to stop the crisis.

I think that within the next 2000-3000 years, we will finally start to colonize other planets Maybe sooner, depending on how large the population number will be at that point. I think that we're definitely capable of sustaining a population at least 100 times as big as it is now, given the amount of land that is either unused (by us, that is). With genetic engineering food is no longer a problem. Fuel might be but I'm almost certain that we have alternatives prepared already, just not in use yet because who would want a sudden economy change and power shift. It's better to keep clinging to the old ways for as long as possible. People don't like change too much. Changing the fuel source would probably require to replace or rebuild everything running on oil and that's a lot of work, time and money. We may have to change the entire structure of our society to do that. The people who are in charge right now are too old and too wealthy to care but the next generation - OUR generation will have to take care of it eventually and I think we will. And when we're done with it (or maybe when our kids are done with it), it will probably be a lot better than everything we have now.

But that's just me writing science fiction right now

 

[Strazdas]

As for evolving into another being, we have done that in the past, so this is definitely possible. after all, we dont call our ancestors we evolved from humans. we only call homo sapiens sapiens humans.

Gross evolution in humans is pretty much gone. Humans tens of thousands of years into the future will pretty much look the same as the modern day human.

No. human evolution still exist. it hasnt stopped anywhere. It is true that we slowed it down by making nature adopt to us and not the other way around.humans tens of thousands of years ago looked the same too. ten thousand years is extremely short time period.

Lack of drinkable water isn't going to be the cause of large scale wars between world powers (though, it might start them, the same way Franz Ferdinand getting shot was the spark for WW1).

In many areas, lack of drinkable water may be a concern, and start small wars, but the surface of the planet is covered with salt water, and it's not that hard to turn salt water into fresh water. If it was, a world war wouldn't be able to happen, as naval forces have to produce their own fresh water this way anyway.

the process is hard enough not to be worth doing on global scale. military doing it is one thing while mass production is another. infact, this method already produces too much salt for us.

Ah, well, "nuclear winter" is usually meant to mean during a full scale nuclear war, massive amounts of dust and debris is thrown into the atmosphere, obscuring the sun and causing temperatures to drop. This was put forward by Carl Sagan (and others) as part of his anti-nuclear stance.

The problem is, the model he used to get his results is rather unlike the real world. For example, it was a perfectyl featureless sphere, with no oceans or mountains. It also didn't have a day/night cycle caused by rotation, it was lit all over at all times by light at 1/3 daylight intensity.

If you just mean the successful use of all nuclear weapons, humanity would still survive...alot of people live in places that aren't worth targeting, and even those living in the dangerous regions have a chance of surviving, large numbers would survive. It'd be a very different world the day after, but the species would survive.

most imagine nuclear winter to something similar what the movie "the road" has shown. this would lead to extinction of human race over extended period of time, due to ecosystem being fucked up. the radioactive rains dont help either. yes there would be some people that initially would survive massive nuclear exchange. but the atmosphere would be too over-contaminated for long term survival. and then there is the fact that if at least 1/3 of nukes would explode at once its likely our planet get massive reshaping.

We clearly have the potential to survive anything the Universe could potentially throw at us. We've got plenty of ways to survive, but all we're missing is the will to do so. NASA is a shade of its former self and the other space programs aren't much more than orbital janitors at present, with most of what's keeping us from developing safe and clean sources of energy and solve our food problems being plain and simple greed.

Well the chineese is trying real hard on that part. so far they are successful.

You hear everyone fearing "someone dumb enough to do it" but you never see such person. That's because there isn't one. It's a no win scenario and the people who are capable of doing it won't because they're in good positions as things are right now and a war like this would change that.
If there was a thing that could end us all, suddenly everyone would become friends, just for the time to stop the crisis.

tell that to the people who died in japan a-bomb explosions. there is ALWAYS somone dumb enough to do it. it is up to us to make sure he doesnt.

. I think that we're definitely capable of sustaining a population at least 100 times as big as it is now, given the amount of land that is either unused (by us, that is).

you must be joking. our land cant sustain what we have now and thats only 7 billion people. land all over the world is getting worse due to over-usage. sure we can cut out all the forest and grow stuff there. short term solution causing long term problems.

But that's just me writing science fiction right now

what you write is a fantasy, because science fiction requires you to make it scientifically plausible.