The “problem” with superbugs is that it moves humanity back to around 1930. Hardly a time of hunter-gatherers. We didn’t have most antibiotics then but we were developing the knowledge necessary. Except that now we have a) far more knowledge and b) recent experience at being able to live without disease. The pressure and the ability to solve the problem would be tremendous. Of course nothing is certain, but I really can’t imagine a global pandemic actually happening. Look at recent examples. Ebola in the west became a social media circus but the number of actual deaths was tiny. Even in Africa it is institutionalized to the point that societies can safely start making political theater out of it.
Within the next 100 years, quite possibly sooner. Human-caused planetary ecosystem collapse is close upon us.
I’ve been watching this happening for fifty years now. I had some hope for awhile, I don’t have any now.
Humanity/humans or civilization? I believe the former are like roaches; we’ll be around in some form for tens of thousands of years. It is the second that I believe with get the fail first and by a huge margin.
I think you are absolutely right about ecosystem collapse. Many species will be lost forever. I don’t see humanity being among them though. It may set civilization back to early agricultural times, or even back to hunter-gatherer times. We’ll bounce back from climate collapse and probably do the same damn thing again 10,000 years from now.
You mean those fundamentalists who believe that the end of times can come at any moment and hope fervently that it will be very soon?
What if it’s engineered?
Ecosystem collapse would mean the end of civilization and one party is trying to bring it on as quickly as possible. But it certainly won’t mean extinction or even close. The population could be reduced to mere millions.
We will surely go extinct–along with all life on earth–within the next billion years. The sun will simply grow too hot for life to be sustained. Would a full-on nuclear war drive us to extinction? Dunno, but it wouldn’t be pretty.
I don’t think we will go extinct. Even if you kill 99.9% of humans that still leaves 8 million people, which is about the world’s population in 4000 BC.
I think humanities problem-solving abilities will continue to grow, and we will become an interstellar species as well as move beyond biology. Perhaps we will even figure out how to travel within the potential multiverse someday.
If we were stuck on earth and stuck in human biology, I’m guessing we go extinct when a massive meteor hits. But even with that, we may have the technology to redirect asteroids within a century or two.
I hope you aren’t right. Homo sapiens is the worst blight on the planet ever to exist.
On the event that a meteor or suoervolcano blocks out the sun couldn’t we use artificial lights to grow crops?
Jackfruit, corn, wheat, potatoes, etc all produce a high number of calories per acre. In theory we could use nuclear power to power fields of artificial lights to grow these crops and keep people on starvation diets of 1200 calories a day until the environment cleared.
Two hundred yeas is nothing. In two hundred years people will still be a lot like people today. We aren’t much different from people in the year 1819.
Human being are exceptionally adaptable, by far the most adaptable large animal to ever exist. There is no realistic chance humanity will go extinct for thousands and thousands of years unless the planet is struck by a very large comet or asteroid. Oh, lots of things could kill many of us, even most of us, but that’s not extinction.
It’s so easy to wish death on other people.
Human beings are not a “blight” on the planet in any sense outside of your opinion. The concept of a “blight” is inherently human-centric. There is nothing objectively better or worse about the planet in 2019 as opposed to 2019BC or 1417 or 190 MY BC or how it’ll be 500,000 years from now. In one or two billion years, no matter what we do, there will be no life as we understand it on Earth; the increased radiation from the Sun will at that point have ended the carbon cycle. But that won’t be a blight, either; it’s just nature. Things are “bad” only in the sense that they affect us, because we’re the ones who define “bad.” Global warming and species extinction is bad because WE think it’s bad. Those things will be very bad indeed for us. To the Earth, whatever. Everything will be totally different on the Earth in the future anyway.
I sure hope you’re wrong about that. Because I think the best hope we’ve got is that we manage to survive long enough to evolve into something more sensible.
And I think it’s a delusion to suppose that we’ve somehow become immune to evolutionary pressure; or that we know so much that we’re utterly in control of our situation; or that we’ll continue on, just as we are, for billions of years. At lots of different moments of time, there seem to be humans who think that we’re at the apex of everything, and going to stay there forever. Looks more to me like we’re balanced on a point; and are sooner or later either going to fall or slide off of there. I’m hoping for the slide, and for it to be in some interesting and cheering direction. Not confident of that, though.
Certainly we could grow crops under artificial lighting. And we could also live for a few years on preserved food while we waited for the atmosphere to clear up enough to grow things outside again. Those are both reasons why we wouldn’t be killed off by any “nuclear winter” scenario. But both would also take time to get up and running, which is why we’d still lose a lot (but not all) of people in such an event.
And regardless of whether humans are a “blight” on the planet, we’re certainly not the worst. That title goes to the blue-green algae, who managed to convert a fifth of the atmosphere into one of the most dangerous, hostile gases known to chemistry. It caused the biggest mass extinction in the planet’s history, and billions of years later, and the Earth still hasn’t recovered from that one.
Disagree. While what you say is technically true–the planet itself doesn’t care what happens to it–there is more life on Earth than just us humans. Our effect on other forms of life is very much a blight–we exploit everything we see and poison everything else with the byproducts of that exploitation.
Humans are pretty adaptable. We can eat a lot of different things, stay warm where it’s cold and cool where it’s hot. We can figure out when a storm is coming, or get to higher ground faster than most other land animals. We’ve figured out how to use tools to do things we can’t do ourselves. My guess is humans will be around longer than anything but the most primitive organisms.
The last sound that is sounded by anything that can make a sound will be the last human on earth saying, “Goddamn cockroaches!”
You might find this work interesting: The Sixth Extinction.
Just what i thought. Now THAT was a blight upon the Earth
interesting topic to focus on
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But again, you are looking at it from our eyes. Why is it important that Bengal tigers exist? It’s not. It sucks for Bengal tigers if they don’t but their ecological niche will simply be occupied by something else.
As has already been pointed out, simple algae changed the Earth in a far more dramatic way than we ever could. That is, from the Earth’s point of view, a neutral thing. This species died, and that species arose. All I personally care about is humans; I care about animals and plants and stuff but only insofar as it affects us. Our damaging the environment is relevant insofar as if will hurt us.
Imagine if we could terraform Mars. We can’t, but suppose we could turn it into a lush place with happy animals and growing plants. **That would destroy the existing environment of Mars. **So is that a blight? I don’t think so. I think it’d be fine.