4 ms·

I see this kind of negativity all the time, usually over climate change and environmental destruction. Those things definitely can impact the human population.

I see this kind of negativity all the time, usually over climate change and environmental destruction. Those things definitely can impact the human population. They can even end our current civilization as we know it, which is somewhat fragile. But humans will survive, we’re extremely adaptable and hard to exterminate. We live in every terrestrial biome. There are two things that could actually end us. One is a celestial disaster powerful enough to sterilize the terrestrial part of the planet. That’s very unlikely, but not imposible. The other is we replace ourselves with a competing organism, either biological or mechanical that’s not human, doesn’t need us, but is so much better than us at life that we can’t compete. Like general AI with a physical presence, or a genetically or cyberneticly modified super-human that lacks humanity, that we wouldn’t consider human. Those are highly possible scenarios over the next 200 years.

Pxtl 3y ago
Yes, the annihilation of humanity is basically impossible in the near-term without a celestial disaster, but the functionally-permanent end of modern civilization is not. Like, reasonable scenario: Climate change causes mass starvation and environmental inhospitability. Mass-deaths and some very violent migration happens. The last few years have showed us how fragile our infrastructure is, right? Between covid-shutdown supply-chain problems and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we're seeing how fragile civilization is. It's not crazy to imagine privation leading to violence leading to destroyed infrastructure leading to more privation in a vicious cycle. This ultimately could lead to a return to a comparatively primitive society where anything that relies on sophisticated supply-chains is out of reach. Like moving 100 years back in time. But the tech of the day depended on far easier mining, sources which are now mined out. So we've destroyed the bottom rungs of the ladder that we no longer need... until we do. And also, industrial-age tech is carbon-intensive. Is it possible to build decent solar cells and wind power without a global supply chain? Or will we burn down the world for power, causing even more climate change, which will create another vicious cycle? So we could be looking at a technological and civilization-level regression that wouldn't be remedied until another geological era.
- slashdev 3y ago
  This is quite possible. Not easy, but possible. What you say about us destroying the bottom rungs of the ladder behind us is very true. Civilization, as we know it, is much more fragile than humanity.
slv77 3y ago
Salted nuclear weapons would be a third scenario which could effectively sterilize the planet.
- slashdev 3y ago
  I don’t think anyone is dumb enough to make those in large numbers. But even then it would be difficult to achieve.
  - slv77 3y ago
    A long time ago I dated someone whose Dad worked with nuclear weapons before the nuclear test ban was in place and at the height of the Cold War. At the time there was a saying that it would take less than a dozen nuclear weapons to destroy life on earth if detonated in the right location. Her Dad had told her that the number was more than a dozen but less than a hundred and was pleased to be one of the few that knew the exact number. As for people dumb enough to make the weapons in large numbers (https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-doomsday-status-6-nuclear-weapon-2018-3?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-doomsday-status-6-nucl...)
LorenPechtel 3y ago
Disagree--a disaster doesn't need to kill all humans in order to take us out. All it needs to do is kill enough of the population that what's left can't survive. We've already seen localized extirpation of humanity this way--many areas of the New World were depopulated by disease. It was probably not a 100% kill but if the survivors don't have the right skills (and note that most people do not have the right skills to survive in a collapse scenario) they'll die anyway. Survivalists always are about maintaining existence at a lower tech level--but that's relying on things they can't replace. That's not going to be viable in the long term. Not to mention the problem that sufficiently hungry people will go after any stores of food they're aware of.
- slashdev 3y ago
  > All it needs to do is kill enough of the population that what's left can't survive. Obviously. That’s very low though. From history we know we survived a near extinction event where the human population declined to the neighborhood of ten thousand. It would be extremely unlikely.
  - LorenPechtel 3y ago
    10,000 in a favorable area--quite survivable. 10,000 spread over the planet--extinction.

Pxtl 3y ago

Yes, the annihilation of humanity is basically impossible in the near-term without a celestial disaster, but the functionally-permanent end of modern civilization is not. Like, reasonable scenario: Climate change causes mass starvation and environmental inhospitability. Mass-deaths and some very violent migration happens. The last few years have showed us how fragile our infrastructure is, right? Between covid-shutdown supply-chain problems and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we're seeing how fragile civilization is. It's not crazy to imagine privation leading to violence leading to destroyed infrastructure leading to more privation in a vicious cycle. This ultimately could lead to a return to a comparatively primitive society where anything that relies on sophisticated supply-chains is out of reach. Like moving 100 years back in time. But the tech of the day depended on far easier mining, sources which are now mined out. So we've destroyed the bottom rungs of the ladder that we no longer need... until we do. And also, industrial-age tech is carbon-intensive. Is it possible to build decent solar cells and wind power without a global supply chain? Or will we burn down the world for power, causing even more climate change, which will create another vicious cycle? So we could be looking at a technological and civilization-level regression that wouldn't be remedied until another geological era.

slashdev 3y ago
This is quite possible. Not easy, but possible. What you say about us destroying the bottom rungs of the ladder behind us is very true. Civilization, as we know it, is much more fragile than humanity.

slv77 3y ago

Salted nuclear weapons would be a third scenario which could effectively sterilize the planet.

slashdev 3y ago
I don’t think anyone is dumb enough to make those in large numbers. But even then it would be difficult to achieve.
- slv77 3y ago
  A long time ago I dated someone whose Dad worked with nuclear weapons before the nuclear test ban was in place and at the height of the Cold War. At the time there was a saying that it would take less than a dozen nuclear weapons to destroy life on earth if detonated in the right location. Her Dad had told her that the number was more than a dozen but less than a hundred and was pleased to be one of the few that knew the exact number. As for people dumb enough to make the weapons in large numbers (https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-doomsday-status-6-nuclear-weapon-2018-3?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-doomsday-status-6-nucl...)

LorenPechtel 3y ago

Disagree--a disaster doesn't need to kill all humans in order to take us out. All it needs to do is kill enough of the population that what's left can't survive. We've already seen localized extirpation of humanity this way--many areas of the New World were depopulated by disease. It was probably not a 100% kill but if the survivors don't have the right skills (and note that most people do not have the right skills to survive in a collapse scenario) they'll die anyway. Survivalists always are about maintaining existence at a lower tech level--but that's relying on things they can't replace. That's not going to be viable in the long term. Not to mention the problem that sufficiently hungry people will go after any stores of food they're aware of.

slashdev 3y ago
> All it needs to do is kill enough of the population that what's left can't survive. Obviously. That’s very low though. From history we know we survived a near extinction event where the human population declined to the neighborhood of ten thousand. It would be extremely unlikely.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  10,000 in a favorable area--quite survivable. 10,000 spread over the planet--extinction.