4 ms·
If you run it on defaults for longest possible time (500 years), the outputs will reach the equilibrium state. It is very simplified simulation, of course. But
by d_silin 2y ago
If you run it on defaults for longest possible time (500 years), the outputs will reach the equilibrium state.
It is very simplified simulation, of course. But seems to indicate that even in the absence of expansion beyond our home planet, humanity will not go extinct, but rather settle into some ground state .
- vouaobrasil 2y agoIt seems unlikely that humanity will go extinct. Even in the case of a massive population crash, there would be many "islands" of communities and all of them would still have quite a few local technologies such as knives and whatever else they can make like basic wheels.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- psychoslave 2y ago>It seems unlikely that humanity will go extinct. From what our geological archives tell us, this seems rather the most likely scenario, even if we all managed to transform ourselves into wise people whose main trait would be temperance and judicious anticipation driven by efficient peaceful communication leading to the whole humanity living in harmony. Having a species that reach a stable form over million of years is not that easy.
- cryptonector 2y agoAt some point the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will irreparably drop below plant starvation levels, then humans on Earth will go extinct. Even if not, at some point the atmosphere will thin too much, then humans on Earth will go extinct. Even if not, at some point the Sun will go red giant, and then for sure humans on Earth will go extinct.
- vouaobrasil 2y agoOf course, all creatures will eventually. I just meant in the next 10,000 years.
- cryptonector 2y agoAt the rate at which CO2 is disappearing from the atmosphere -or rather at the rate it was disappearing before the Industrial Revolution- we might only have one or two million years left. That's rather soon. The IR may well have added millions of years to the remaining lifetime of photosynthetic and aerobic life on Earth.
- vouaobrasil 2y agoWell, even if that's the case, I don't think it's a big loss. All things live and die, and our time will come too.
- cryptonector 2y agoSo why not right now then? What number of years or days or hours would concern you? Are you not concerned about other life besides human life on Earth?
- vouaobrasil 2y agoOf course, I want to protect nonhuman life with all my heart. I just don't think it's a big deal if humans go extinct in some thousands or millions of years. I feel much differently about nonhuman life. From the perspective of nonhuman life, we are a disease.
- cryptonector 2y agoIf we're a disease, don't you want to exterminate us? But then, if all other life is so much better than human life, and if by adding 220ppm of CO2 we extended the time left for that life on Earth by a few million years, didn't our intervention save non-human life from a worse fate[0] than merely having to deal with us? So we can be both, disease and cure. [0] All life on Earth will go extinct eventually, but if we've added a few million years to its story so far, and we could add more millions later, then maybe saying we've "saved" that life is fair.
- dTal 2y agoI will bet anything at all, on any odds ratio you name, that humans will go extinct. It's simply a question of when, and how. (Of course I'm cheating - the bet stays open until I win. On the other hand I will struggle to collect my winnings)
- pfdietz 2y agoI'm not sure how a simplified simulation indicates anything. You have to assume it represents reality, but how is that assumption justified?