Not the one with the Messiah; go back to sleep. 
If the end of the world was known for sure and it was something like 5000 years in the future, my guess is that it would set some people off, but overall no one would be particularly worried about it right now. They’d just assume that the folks between now and then would figure something out. 5000 years is an almost unimaginably long period of time in human history.
500 years though…that’s a bit closer. Not that anyone on this message board or their kids or their kids kids, etc etc will be alive then, but it would seem a bit more immediate. But not enough to really cause a wide spread panic. Again, I think most people would just assume that in that time span someone would come up with something…or, if they didn’t, it wouldn’t really matter since no one alive today will be alive then. Heck, some people might actually feel vindicated, since there are lots of folks who believe in an apocalypse…this would just reinforce their beliefs.
The only way I can see people getting seriously riled is if the end of the world would un-equivalently happen in our lifetimes, well…THAT would probably cause a lot of wide spread panic and societal collapse. Lots of denial as well I should imagine, especially if there was literally nothing we could do about it and it was inevitable.
-XT
Don’t forget Saran Wrap!
We’d send out a probe to find a distant alien and teach it to play the flute.
I hate to be this way, but I go back to something my late father said in response to a politician’s plea about something or other affecting “your grandchildren’s grandchildren.” My dad heard this and said, “Why would I care? I won’t know them.” Logically, it’s a pretty decent argument.
My argument is somewhat similar: I won’t be here to see it, so it’s nothing worth worrying about. Even if the world ended tomorrow, the world will be gone, not just me - I won’t be missing anything. And then there’s all sorts of stuff involving God…
I wonder about this… In particular the claim “that’s what we do”. Has there been any event in human history that was truly species-threatening that we overcame? One could point at anthropogenic climate change as evidence that we really aren’t that good at addressing potentially catastrophic events.
[QUOTE=Jas09]
I wonder about this… In particular the claim “that’s what we do”. Has there been any event in human history that was truly species-threatening that we overcame? One could point at anthropogenic climate change as evidence that we really aren’t that good at addressing potentially catastrophic events.
[/QUOTE]
Well, our ancestors survived fairly massive climate change in the past, including ice ages and whatever the hell pushed us out of Africa in the first place (drying up of North Africa and turning it into the Sahara).
I’d say that we’ve been pretty good about surviving climate change up to this point, since we’ve managed to not only survive for the last few hundred thousand years with the same basic hardware we have today but to thrive and expand to just about ever ecological niche that exists on this mud ball.
Of course, if a black hole were hurtling down on the solar system it’s not really going to matter too much how good we are at surviving climate change…
-XT
It’s very much not what we do. We solve immediate problems, sometimes. The history of human invention and technology has never been about always solving distant problems.
Here is the definitive certain date for the world to end:
February 30th!
Population bottleneck - Wikipedia We have had population bottlenecks in the past. It will likely happen again. The idea that we exist now, proves we will continue in the future is flawed. We could get smeared by a asteroid or get wiped out by global warming . We have been close to extinction before.
We’ve never had 5000 years advance notice of possible extinction before, either. With that much time, we can do damn near anything. The cutting edge of technology today will look like caveman tools to people in 7011. I say again, humans will not just rollover and die. We will fight.
If we can put a man on the moon in a decade, what can we do in 500 decades?
Also, when your population bottlenecked in the past we were relatively concentrated (instead of having spread out across the globe) with a small population (a few thousand or maybe a few 10’s of thousands). Neither factor exists today, so I’m seriously doubting that global warming is going to wipe us out. Now, a huge rock from space…yeah, that could do us in, no doubt, especially if it came in really fast and without a lot of warning.
-XT
Well, did you ever!
We can, but we probably wont. We’ll deal with more immediate concerns. Some might plan for longer-term goals, but they will find it hard to get support and funding etc, assuming there is even widespread acceptance of the reality of the problem (skepticism is more fashionable and popular, if it means you can carry on doing what you want).
If we get to a solution, it would only be because the individual steps were goals we happened to be pursuing anyway. Cavemen didn’t plan to go to the moon - all the progress between cavemen and spacemen was focused on short term goals.
Put 500 men on the moon.
Regards,
Shodan
Especially comsidering that right now we work on solving the problem of a new place man can live, without any certain date whatsoever, except that so far distant it is meaningless.
Someone’s math is wrong we put three men on the moon in a decade. That’s 1500 in five hindred years.:smack: