4 ms·

Very few things could actually make humans extinct at this point. It would take an impact like the one that produced the moon to finish us off. We're so adaptab

by eloff 6y ago

Very few things could actually make humans extinct at this point. It would take an impact like the one that produced the moon to finish us off. We're so adaptable that some of us will survive and rebuild. If we can ever get back to technological civilization without easily accessible fossil fuels is debatable, but I think we'd find a way - it would just be a lot harder and take longer. What worries me is not extinction, but societal collapse. We've seen how disruptive covid19 was, and it was a baby event compared to things that have happened in earth's history. Climate change and nuclear war both seem highly probable causes of societal collapse. Both are preventable if we can just find a way to not be collectively stupid. I don't how we do that, but it's insane we're not trying harder.

tachyonbeam 6y ago
Realistically, if there was a full-scale nuclear war, famine and violence would kill 90-95% of people. It would also destroy a lot of our technological capabilities. There are only a handful of silicon fabs in the world, and they have complex supply chains. It could bring us back to some kind of a technological middle age, except we'd have guns, electricity and radios.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  The ammo and electricity would not last long in most parts of the world. I think a lot of communities would have real trouble even feeding themselves and a few hard winters could wipe them out.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Some electricity is not that hard to generate with late middle-age manufacturing techniques. It won't be a nice stable grid, but you'd likely be able to run e.g. mining pumps with power generated from a nearby water mill. Similarly, some refrigeration is not super difficult to build once you know how it works. That would help quite a bit against starvation from bad harvests because it allows you to have bigger stores of food.
  - howlgarnish 6y ago
    Solar panels and diesel generators are pretty ubiquitous these days. Actually building more of either is more complicated, but bootstrapping the capability to do so before existing supplies of either run out (and we're talking years here) is quite feasible.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    You could scavenge electric motors, some metal sheets and a bunch of wood into a hydroelectric generator. So there would still be electricity.
    - jay_kyburz 6y ago
      Yeah, OK, I know how to wrap copper and spin it around magnets, and get _some_ electricity, but I don't know how to measure or manage the voltage and the current. I don't know how to make an inverter. I don't know how to make a light bulb or a battery (or really anything that "uses" the power). Exiting appliances only have only at most 20 years in them. With everybody struggling to raise crops and livestock, let along trying to reinvent the light bulb, it would a long slow climb back to civilization.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        > With everybody struggling to raise crops and livestock, let along trying to reinvent the light bulb, it would a long slow climb back to civilization. People aren’t going to forget how to trade. The people with that manufacturing and engineering knowledge aren’t going to be busy with livestock. They’ll be trading these valuable goods for food.
- goatlover 6y ago
  What if the Southern Hemisphere isn't targeted? Fallout will mostly effect the northern hemisphere, and if there isn't a nuclear winter (or a milder one than projected), then the damage will be largely economic to those nations. But their infrastructure and ability to grow food would remain intact. I suppose refugees and the political vacuum created would be significant problems.
  - tachyonbeam 6y ago
    IIRC the nuclear winter would not be as bad as once predicted, you could see a 10 celsius drop. That would still be enough to greatly reduce crop yields though. If you couple reduced crop yields with millions of hungry refugees, economic instability and general chaos... Who knows. Unlikely to result in human extinction, but very painful for everyone no doubt. I do think it seems unlikely that people would nuke Australia and South America. I honestly hope that if nukes are ever fired, as many countries as possible remain untouched.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
      Regarding at least Australia for not being nuked: Have you ever heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap ? While that is only one target, and in the middle of nowhere at that, do you still think so? For me that looks like a very valuable target to disrupt the operations of anyone who operates from there.
- int_19h 6y ago
  If 90% of the population dies, we're left with around 750 million people worldwide. Last time the world had that many people in it was around 1750. How fast could the people back in 1750 get to the present technological level, if they had all the science and engineering and exploration already figured out, and also got a bunch of machinery to kickstart things?
- flexie 6y ago
  Let's say 95 percent are killed. That still leaves around 400 million people. Let's say 95 of scientists are killed. That might still leave around 4-500,000 scientists worldwide and millions of engineers, millions of medical doctors, tens of millions of technicians of different kinds. Sure, many of them will be in odd places like New Zealand, South Africa or Argentina. But that's likely where most survivors would be as well. Just for comparison, until the 1940s the US and Europe produced around 10-20,000 doctorates per year. At no point back then did we have more scientists worldwide than we would have after 95 percent of scientists were killed today. And unlike back then, the surviving scientists would have knowledge of every scientific knowledge produced afterwards, either as personal memory or in books and databases. It's quite possible the internet would survive as well. After all, it's designed for that kind of events. Thousands of libraries would survive. Millions of machines, vehicles, airplanes, computers, components etc. would survive. Wikipedia, the 100 most important scientific journals, the US patent organization database can easily be on a laptop and libraries around the world are making copies all the time.
kortilla 6y ago
covid19 wasn’t that disruptive though beyond superficial shit. Nobody went hungry, water supplies kept going, electricity kept flowing, etc. We’re nowhere near the brink of any kind of regional societal collapse, let alone anything national or global.
gonzo41 6y ago
I think the same about about CC. Humans as an animal, will survive. Humanity may not.
leoedin 6y ago
Honestly Covid-19 was actually quite reassuring for me. There was a few brief blips of panic buying, and a bit of "flee to the countryside", but broadly things kept functioning. People and organisations stepped up and kept things moving. All those people who fled to the countryside eventually got bored and returned to the city, where things hadn't really changed much.

by eloff 6y ago

tachyonbeam 6y ago

Realistically, if there was a full-scale nuclear war, famine and violence would kill 90-95% of people. It would also destroy a lot of our technological capabilities. There are only a handful of silicon fabs in the world, and they have complex supply chains. It could bring us back to some kind of a technological middle age, except we'd have guns, electricity and radios.

jay_kyburz 6y ago
The ammo and electricity would not last long in most parts of the world. I think a lot of communities would have real trouble even feeding themselves and a few hard winters could wipe them out.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Some electricity is not that hard to generate with late middle-age manufacturing techniques. It won't be a nice stable grid, but you'd likely be able to run e.g. mining pumps with power generated from a nearby water mill. Similarly, some refrigeration is not super difficult to build once you know how it works. That would help quite a bit against starvation from bad harvests because it allows you to have bigger stores of food.
- howlgarnish 6y ago
  Solar panels and diesel generators are pretty ubiquitous these days. Actually building more of either is more complicated, but bootstrapping the capability to do so before existing supplies of either run out (and we're talking years here) is quite feasible.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  You could scavenge electric motors, some metal sheets and a bunch of wood into a hydroelectric generator. So there would still be electricity.
  - jay_kyburz 6y ago
    Yeah, OK, I know how to wrap copper and spin it around magnets, and get _some_ electricity, but I don't know how to measure or manage the voltage and the current. I don't know how to make an inverter. I don't know how to make a light bulb or a battery (or really anything that "uses" the power). Exiting appliances only have only at most 20 years in them. With everybody struggling to raise crops and livestock, let along trying to reinvent the light bulb, it would a long slow climb back to civilization.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      > With everybody struggling to raise crops and livestock, let along trying to reinvent the light bulb, it would a long slow climb back to civilization. People aren’t going to forget how to trade. The people with that manufacturing and engineering knowledge aren’t going to be busy with livestock. They’ll be trading these valuable goods for food.
goatlover 6y ago
What if the Southern Hemisphere isn't targeted? Fallout will mostly effect the northern hemisphere, and if there isn't a nuclear winter (or a milder one than projected), then the damage will be largely economic to those nations. But their infrastructure and ability to grow food would remain intact. I suppose refugees and the political vacuum created would be significant problems.
- tachyonbeam 6y ago
  IIRC the nuclear winter would not be as bad as once predicted, you could see a 10 celsius drop. That would still be enough to greatly reduce crop yields though. If you couple reduced crop yields with millions of hungry refugees, economic instability and general chaos... Who knows. Unlikely to result in human extinction, but very painful for everyone no doubt. I do think it seems unlikely that people would nuke Australia and South America. I honestly hope that if nukes are ever fired, as many countries as possible remain untouched.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    Regarding at least Australia for not being nuked: Have you ever heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap ? While that is only one target, and in the middle of nowhere at that, do you still think so? For me that looks like a very valuable target to disrupt the operations of anyone who operates from there.
int_19h 6y ago
If 90% of the population dies, we're left with around 750 million people worldwide. Last time the world had that many people in it was around 1750. How fast could the people back in 1750 get to the present technological level, if they had all the science and engineering and exploration already figured out, and also got a bunch of machinery to kickstart things?
flexie 6y ago
Let's say 95 percent are killed. That still leaves around 400 million people. Let's say 95 of scientists are killed. That might still leave around 4-500,000 scientists worldwide and millions of engineers, millions of medical doctors, tens of millions of technicians of different kinds. Sure, many of them will be in odd places like New Zealand, South Africa or Argentina. But that's likely where most survivors would be as well. Just for comparison, until the 1940s the US and Europe produced around 10-20,000 doctorates per year. At no point back then did we have more scientists worldwide than we would have after 95 percent of scientists were killed today. And unlike back then, the surviving scientists would have knowledge of every scientific knowledge produced afterwards, either as personal memory or in books and databases. It's quite possible the internet would survive as well. After all, it's designed for that kind of events. Thousands of libraries would survive. Millions of machines, vehicles, airplanes, computers, components etc. would survive. Wikipedia, the 100 most important scientific journals, the US patent organization database can easily be on a laptop and libraries around the world are making copies all the time.

kortilla 6y ago

covid19 wasn’t that disruptive though beyond superficial shit. Nobody went hungry, water supplies kept going, electricity kept flowing, etc. We’re nowhere near the brink of any kind of regional societal collapse, let alone anything national or global.

gonzo41 6y ago

I think the same about about CC. Humans as an animal, will survive. Humanity may not.

leoedin 6y ago

Honestly Covid-19 was actually quite reassuring for me. There was a few brief blips of panic buying, and a bit of "flee to the countryside", but broadly things kept functioning. People and organisations stepped up and kept things moving. All those people who fled to the countryside eventually got bored and returned to the city, where things hadn't really changed much.