5 ms·

Scenarios where humanity extinguishes itself are easy to come by: We are still living under the threat of accidental or intentional launch of a great number of

Scenarios where humanity extinguishes itself are easy to come by: We are still living under the threat of accidental or intentional launch of a great number of nuclear weapons. The remaining civilizations might be unable to survive or thrive with what's left. On the other hand speculating about the technological limits of humanity a million years in the future is difficult when we've only come up with nuclear energy a few decades ago, and while progress in some areas has been overdue, generally there seem to be quite a few "research trees" with potential for scifi-tech.

Retric 6y ago
Industrialization would be slower without fossil fuels, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Small scale wood smelting can eventually make way to hydro powered electric based smelting. We are used to a very energy extensive economy, but most of the world would be habitual without any home heating or cooling for example. Similarly, a network of street cars need something like 1% of the energy as individual cars for everyone in a city. Historically, rivers, streams, and canals where similarly quite efficient long distance transportation networks we have largely forgotten about.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  > We are used to a very energy extensive economy Like you say, there are enormous amounts of low-hanging fruit when it comes to energy efficiency across all of society. Take building insulation, for example. Where I'm from, triple glaze windows were made mandatory 30 years ago, every single existing apartment building was forced to retro-fit. Yet when I moved to the US less than ten years ago, apartment ads would regularly highlight "DOUBLE GLAZING" as if that was some incredibly expensive and luxurious feature. Also where I'm from, I used to own an apartment in a building from the 1940s. But a bit more than ten years ago, new strict energy efficiency requirements went into effect, so my building - and every building like it in the country - had to fix it, often by adding a thick layer of insulation on the outside. I still own an apartment there, it's newer, but the outside walls are 30cm thick and made of concrete for insulation purposes. And yet, here in the US, I regularly see new housing construction that's essentially just plywood for every single wall, inside and outside. The US is incredibly behind when it comes to insulation and energy efficiency, because the economics of it doesn't make sense. If energy were to become much more expensive, this would change pretty damn fast.
  - count 6y ago
    There's also a US approach to 'grandfathering' in existing structures as building codes are updated. The only time I will ever 'have' to bring something in my house up to date is if I voluntarily do something like open a wall or install a new HVAC unit. And then the only thing impacted is that item, nothing else even gets inspected for safety/compliance. I understand it to some extent: TONS of people can't afford to just...replace all of their windows, for example.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I live in an early 1800s farmhouse which has had a lot of work done on it over the years--to code--and has had new top-of-the-line windows put in as well. But if the whole house suddenly had to be fully compliant with modern code? You'd probably just need to tear it down and start from scratch. I'm sure that's true on tons of houses, especially in older areas of the country.
    - henrikschroder 6y ago
      As far as I understand it, retrofits were only forced on commercial landlords, co-ops, and condominium buildings. Private home owners weren't forced, but there's incentives and tax relief for improving the energy efficiency of your house instead. New construction, apartment buildings and single-family homes alike, all have to abide by the same updated rules.
  - yourapostasy 6y ago
    You might be interested in Lstiburek's Perfect Wall.
lumost 6y ago
It's really difficult to "extinguish" all human life. Even in a full nuclear exchange between all major nuclear powers, places such as patagonia, and new zealand will likely be unscathed. Particulate matter does not generally cross the border between the northern and southern hemisphere and the vast majority of weapons will be detonated in the northern hemisphere. This doesn't include the countless habitable islands with the potential to sustain reasonably sized villages. A similar story exists for bio-weapons and other means. It's definitely possible to end civilization today, but such technologies are unlikely to end humanity - worst case, rehabitation of the main continents takes 1-2 centuries for the worst fallout to decay and enable farming. While I don't subscribe to the view, there is modest evidence that scientific progress behaves like any other process of discovery - as a series of S curves where early progress is slow but speeding up every year, followed by a spike of progress and ultimately a steady period of diminishing returns.
- klyrs 6y ago
  The US has an interesting problem right now. Wild hogs are wreaking utter havoc and we don't have effective means to control their population. I'm fairly confident that humans will win that battle. But what if we nuked population centers? Most of the hogs would survive, but only a fraction of the humans. Who would win out in the decades to come? Hogs can eat all sorts of roughage, survive out in the elements, etc., humans are much more dependant on their technology. Want crops? Sorry, hogs ate 'em. Wanna eat hogs? They're smart, and after your ammo stores are depleted, you're back to the stone age. But the question isn't mere survival -- can intelligent life thrive to the point where we can achieve interstellar travel?
  - Retric 6y ago
    I think you’re underestimating Stone Age humans, we used to hunt freaking lions and other big cats with stone tools. We started causing mass extinctions long before industrialization.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      I'm not underestimating stone age humans -- I've spent much of my life learning and using stone age skills. Not enough that I can actually live as a stone age human, mind, and there's the rub. In that learning, I've met a very small number of folks (like [1]) who are actually equipped to survive a stone age. Judging by my experience, by watching other "good" students in those classes... with good training by masters, we still fail hard on our first few times out. And we're well-fed, moderately well-equipped, and not suffering from radiation poisoning. The real question isn't "how badass were stone age humans", it's "can the smartphone generation re-invent stone age technology quickly enough to survive"? https://www.outsideonline.com/2411125/lynx-vilden-stone-age-life https://www.outsideonline.com/2411125/lynx-vilden-stone-age-...

Retric 6y ago

Industrialization would be slower without fossil fuels, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Small scale wood smelting can eventually make way to hydro powered electric based smelting. We are used to a very energy extensive economy, but most of the world would be habitual without any home heating or cooling for example. Similarly, a network of street cars need something like 1% of the energy as individual cars for everyone in a city. Historically, rivers, streams, and canals where similarly quite efficient long distance transportation networks we have largely forgotten about.

henrikschroder 6y ago
> We are used to a very energy extensive economy Like you say, there are enormous amounts of low-hanging fruit when it comes to energy efficiency across all of society. Take building insulation, for example. Where I'm from, triple glaze windows were made mandatory 30 years ago, every single existing apartment building was forced to retro-fit. Yet when I moved to the US less than ten years ago, apartment ads would regularly highlight "DOUBLE GLAZING" as if that was some incredibly expensive and luxurious feature. Also where I'm from, I used to own an apartment in a building from the 1940s. But a bit more than ten years ago, new strict energy efficiency requirements went into effect, so my building - and every building like it in the country - had to fix it, often by adding a thick layer of insulation on the outside. I still own an apartment there, it's newer, but the outside walls are 30cm thick and made of concrete for insulation purposes. And yet, here in the US, I regularly see new housing construction that's essentially just plywood for every single wall, inside and outside. The US is incredibly behind when it comes to insulation and energy efficiency, because the economics of it doesn't make sense. If energy were to become much more expensive, this would change pretty damn fast.
- count 6y ago
  There's also a US approach to 'grandfathering' in existing structures as building codes are updated. The only time I will ever 'have' to bring something in my house up to date is if I voluntarily do something like open a wall or install a new HVAC unit. And then the only thing impacted is that item, nothing else even gets inspected for safety/compliance. I understand it to some extent: TONS of people can't afford to just...replace all of their windows, for example.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I live in an early 1800s farmhouse which has had a lot of work done on it over the years--to code--and has had new top-of-the-line windows put in as well. But if the whole house suddenly had to be fully compliant with modern code? You'd probably just need to tear it down and start from scratch. I'm sure that's true on tons of houses, especially in older areas of the country.
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    As far as I understand it, retrofits were only forced on commercial landlords, co-ops, and condominium buildings. Private home owners weren't forced, but there's incentives and tax relief for improving the energy efficiency of your house instead. New construction, apartment buildings and single-family homes alike, all have to abide by the same updated rules.
- yourapostasy 6y ago
  You might be interested in Lstiburek's Perfect Wall.

lumost 6y ago

It's really difficult to "extinguish" all human life. Even in a full nuclear exchange between all major nuclear powers, places such as patagonia, and new zealand will likely be unscathed. Particulate matter does not generally cross the border between the northern and southern hemisphere and the vast majority of weapons will be detonated in the northern hemisphere. This doesn't include the countless habitable islands with the potential to sustain reasonably sized villages. A similar story exists for bio-weapons and other means. It's definitely possible to end civilization today, but such technologies are unlikely to end humanity - worst case, rehabitation of the main continents takes 1-2 centuries for the worst fallout to decay and enable farming. While I don't subscribe to the view, there is modest evidence that scientific progress behaves like any other process of discovery - as a series of S curves where early progress is slow but speeding up every year, followed by a spike of progress and ultimately a steady period of diminishing returns.

klyrs 6y ago
The US has an interesting problem right now. Wild hogs are wreaking utter havoc and we don't have effective means to control their population. I'm fairly confident that humans will win that battle. But what if we nuked population centers? Most of the hogs would survive, but only a fraction of the humans. Who would win out in the decades to come? Hogs can eat all sorts of roughage, survive out in the elements, etc., humans are much more dependant on their technology. Want crops? Sorry, hogs ate 'em. Wanna eat hogs? They're smart, and after your ammo stores are depleted, you're back to the stone age. But the question isn't mere survival -- can intelligent life thrive to the point where we can achieve interstellar travel?
- Retric 6y ago
  I think you’re underestimating Stone Age humans, we used to hunt freaking lions and other big cats with stone tools. We started causing mass extinctions long before industrialization.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    I'm not underestimating stone age humans -- I've spent much of my life learning and using stone age skills. Not enough that I can actually live as a stone age human, mind, and there's the rub. In that learning, I've met a very small number of folks (like [1]) who are actually equipped to survive a stone age. Judging by my experience, by watching other "good" students in those classes... with good training by masters, we still fail hard on our first few times out. And we're well-fed, moderately well-equipped, and not suffering from radiation poisoning. The real question isn't "how badass were stone age humans", it's "can the smartphone generation re-invent stone age technology quickly enough to survive"? https://www.outsideonline.com/2411125/lynx-vilden-stone-age-life https://www.outsideonline.com/2411125/lynx-vilden-stone-age-...