Why shouldn't humanity last for billions of years?

[WinkAllKerb'']

may be because with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitosis you shall not mess ... *shrug*

Edited May 27, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''
or you should, not sure in fact ; )

[DeepOdyssey]

So many pessimists here. What if we are unique? What if we are the race who are most technologically advanced in this entire universe? What if we end up in such a desolate universe, only for ourselves?

The problem with asteroid collision will be quickly resolved in a mere few hundred years, using thrusters to move them from collision course, long before they can hit earth.

Natural catastrophes won't be much of a problem when we establish a self sufficient colony.

[baggers]

So many pessimists here. What if we are unique? What if we are the race who are most technologically advanced in this entire universe? What if we end up in such a desolate universe, only for ourselves?

The problem with asteroid collision will be quickly resolved in a mere few hundred years, using thrusters to move them from collision course, long before they can hit earth.

Natural catastrophes won't be much of a problem when we establish a self sufficient colony.

If we are the first and only, it mean our sun system is absolutely "unique" in the galaxy. So, maybe the conditions for a self-suffisent colony elsewhere can be never be done.

[Fel]

If we are the first and only, it mean our sun system is absolutely "unique" in the galaxy. So, maybe the conditions for a self-suffisent colony elsewhere can be never be done.

I... would have to agree with you here. Terraforming makes perfect sense on paper... until we actually start talking about the magnitude of the operation and the costs involved. This is all resolved "over time" but how much time is the question. Will the robots that terraform our first planet be all that remains of us a few millennium later? Will the planet they terraformed grow new life that eventually becomes intelligent beings, and our legacy continue on?

It is rather lonely to think that we are the only ones... or that the universe may never see a creation like us again.

[YNM]

For the "last a billion more years" part, then I'd say as long as you have stars, there should be life. Somewhere...

Complex life is not guaranteed - interesting chemistry possibilities are confined to a (fairly) very narrow gap of temperature, notably near the range of Earth's temperature. Other than that, hard surface is very likely needed, and abundances of heavier elements. While the truth today (or, as far as we can see), conditions like Earth are hard - most star systems are either lots of hot Jupiters, or lots of barren rocks and/or super-Earths (source). Not to mention thing like "galactic habitable zone", or the problem with star spectral types (too late-type and it's bad for life as well - 80% of stars are red dwarfs which implies late-K or M class). So, yeah, we (and complex life in general) are somewhat special.

Earth life ? Why, you have a thought that we will leave Earth faster than a few other millennia ? What about fuels and such ?

Edited May 27, 2015 by YNM

[DarkGravity]

Humans might well be too stoopid to last another century. Regarding a weaponized world, Carl Sagan warned of "the ultimate mistake" and rated humanity's chances of surviving the next century around 1%. On climate change, Stephen Hawking said "I'm worried Earth is going to end up like Venus." But their voices aren't heard by the masses. Instead we choose to have politicians and corporations run the world, making decisions based on short-term profits. How many reading this forum (an elite bunch, I would argue) are even aware that 100 Nobel Laureates signed a document warning mankind of the twin threats of climate change and a weaponized world? When the most important people on the planet all come together and sign what is arguably the most important document in human history and no one even seems to know about it, yeah, a hundred years sounds about right. If we make it past that bottleneck, then who knows? Maybe another billion.

If YOU want to step into the light, I urge you to keep your eye on ocean acidity and phytoplankton. They make the oxygen you breathe. Good thing to care about.

Edited May 27, 2015 by DarkGravity

[WinkAllKerb'']

the flow (liquid and/or gaz) is most porbably the main key ... (@dark in the light)

Edited May 27, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[LN400]

We "remember" that we evolved mainly in Africa, and that we shared a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos about 6 million years ago.

My point is that it is nearly impossible to forget- at least permanently- because of science and archaeology. If anyone in the distant future really wants to figure it out, they can.

Not sure about this one. Right up until the last couple of centuries, the idea that we all had one origin would be met with a barrage of laughter, and anger. It was much thanks to archaeology (alongside other sciences) that we now have a better clue. Now there is no doubt the generation that left their homeland knew they were moving out. Generations later, recorded history tells us we no longer had any idea we once had moved out.

Now imagine human descendents on another planet 9,000,000,000 years from now. Any reason to think they will still remember the same way our ancestors forgot, to put it slightly Douglas Adams-y? Archaeology they can outright forget about seeing Earth ceased to exist almost 1000,000,000 years before when this one average star snuffed it, grew and evaporated Earth. What evidence will be left? Written evidence? Like Linear A, a written language noone can read anymore? There is also a growing concern that our recorded data at one point into the future will be lost forever or at least be completely indechipherable. And we're not talking that much into the future.

Then again, it is perfectly plausible to think that someone, somewhere into the future, discovers a way to keep recorded history available and comprehensible forall future generations. It's just that we have no indication what that method will be or if it is even possible so we can't really conclude anything.

[baggers]

Then again, it is perfectly plausible to think that someone, somewhere into the future, discovers a way to keep recorded history available and comprehensible forall future generations. It's just that we have no indication what that method will be or if it is even possible so we can't really conclude anything.

Engraving stones in caverns work well on the long-term conservation. (true story)

[LN400]

True, but one, we can't say we understand all those carvings and two, when Earth is gone, so are the carvings.

[magnemoe]

Humans might well be too stoopid to last another century. Regarding a weaponized world, Carl Sagan warned of "the ultimate mistake" and rated humanity's chances of surviving the next century around 1%. On climate change, Stephen Hawking said "I'm worried Earth is going to end up like Venus." But their voices aren't heard by the masses. Instead we choose to have politicians and corporations run the world, making decisions based on short-term profits. How many reading this forum (an elite bunch, I would argue) are even aware that 100 Nobel Laureates signed a document warning mankind of the twin threats of climate change and a weaponized world? When the most important people on the planet all come together and sign what is arguably the most important document in human history and no one even seems to know about it, yeah, a hundred years sounds about right. If we make it past that bottleneck, then who knows? Maybe another billion.

If YOU want to step into the light, I urge you to keep your eye on ocean acidity and phytoplankton. They make the oxygen you breathe. Good thing to care about.

Regarding weapons, its far less nukes now than under the cold war and the conflict level is totally different. Not an civilization conflict but great power conflicts.

Still an war in the future is an plausible end of the world scenario, who know who conflicts who will pop up the next thousand years and who weapons will be used.

None of the established climate scientists ala IPCC believe its an realistic risk that earth end up as Venus.

However if you have an name and scream that the world will end because of this decades favorite scenario you get publicity.

Previously it was nuclear war who would kill us because of radiation, then it was overpopulation, then we would run out of resources: no not only oil but also iron and aluminum. then nuclear war returned, this time with nuclear winter, and yes the calculations was wrong. Then it was an lack of clear end of the world threat before global warming took over.

Note that even if an threat is not an end of the world level it can still be extremely serious as in most people dies

[m4v]

None of the established climate scientists ala IPCC believe its an realistic risk that earth end up as Venus.

True, but climate doesn't need to go that far for be civilization ending though.

[Rocketfeline]

One of the fears I have is that im going to be the generation to be in doomsday. I would hate if some global disaster to happen during my life-time. I rather be dead before the time comes. Honestly. Because I wouldnt need to deal with the stress and pain of seeing some doom-day event. A nuclear war is EXTREMELY unlikey. Because the 60's already told us that people are in constant fear of nukes. Plently of people deny global warming. But I belive in a decade. We can go to mars. We just need a proper education system. Radiation is such a boogieman.

[DeepOdyssey]

Even if an all-out nuclear war will occur, where all nuclear countries launch their nukes humanity will still exist. Why? Lot of Africa and South America will be unaffected, and there still will be 3 billions people left alive. That's more than enough to survive. Fears of nuclear winter are groundless -the studies were inconclusive, as of what will happen, and the magnitude of that event. Burning few hundred big cities will probably have meagre effect on the whole globe.

[DarkGravity]

None of the established climate scientists ala IPCC believe its an realistic risk that earth end up as Venus.

It is pretty easy to take a large group of people and speak for every single one of them. You know that none of the IPCC scientists believe this? It almost sounds like you are taking what you believe and making up data to agree with it. How could you possibly know that none of them believe it is a realistic risk? Also, who is screaming? You are making up behaviors and falsely attaching them to the people with whom you disagree. These are people who consider their words very carefully and speak in hushed tones.

A second point: "realistic risk" is an intrinsically flawed concept. Whether a risk is large, small or tiny is often not the most useful concept. What is useful is the concept of expected outcome, a term statisticians use. Expected outcome is the product of the magnitude of the risk multiplied by the magnitude of the outcome. And when the risk of something happening is absolutely tiny, but the magnitude of that thing is beyond huge, the resulting product can still be something important to watch. A social scientist I know once said (at the end of a lifetime of research on the subject): "it is human nature to underestimate the importance of low-probability disasters."

The people whose words I cite are some of the brightest among us. Even if I disagreed with them, I would hope to have the humility and wisdom not to dismiss them out of hand. Hawking, Sagan, and the hundred laureates: The Dixie Chicks these are not.

Edited May 27, 2015 by DarkGravity

[Mister Kerman]

Humanity has a tendancy to assault itself. I feel like civilization is bound to collapse once industry can no longer sustain itself on a practical level. Unless we develop technology to deal with our need for our dwindling resources and deteriorating ecosystems, eventually the quality of life for a vast majority of Earth's population will be so poor that society will no longer have a need for it's government and anarchy will be the new world order. I don't think government will go away. It will operate in the backround seizing whichever it values and providing stability for the elite. But at that point corruption in the government will be unchecked and the very small percentage of people belonging to that system will be the only educated people left on earth capable of progressing humanity on a scientific level. They might be capable of colonization and planting the seeds of humanity on other planets, but seeing as the exploding population is earth's current most serious unchecked problem, there might not be a point to colonization once humanity is reduced to a state where the government no longer has omnipotent control over it's population. The most immediate objective will be controlling and protecting what population that it still governs.

That's my uneducated predition of the fate of the planet. All that's left is horrible terrorism while humanity slowly tries to rebuild itself, and possibly an extinction event. I don't see us lasting billions of years.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Mister Kerman

[baggers]

there might not be a point to colonization once humanity is reduced to a state where the government no longer has omnipotent control over it's population. The most immediate objective will be controlling and protecting what population that it still governs.

I'm not sure about that. We have, today, some examples of extremely hard life for humans, still in the total control of their tyrans.

And some of our "best" science and space stuff were made by that sort of governements in "cold war" ^^

Humanity is ressourceful, once a objective is designed.

Edited May 28, 2015 by baggers

[magnemoe]

It is pretty easy to take a large group of people and speak for every single one of them. You know that none of the IPCC scientists believe this? It almost sounds like you are taking what you believe and making up data to agree with it. How could you possibly know that none of them believe it is a realistic risk? Also, who is screaming? You are making up behaviors and falsely attaching them to the people with whom you disagree. These are people who consider their words very carefully and speak in hushed tones.

A second point: "realistic risk" is an intrinsically flawed concept. Whether a risk is large, small or tiny is often not the most useful concept. What is useful is the concept of expected outcome, a term statisticians use. Expected outcome is the product of the magnitude of the risk multiplied by the magnitude of the outcome. And when the risk of something happening is absolutely tiny, but the magnitude of that thing is beyond huge, the resulting product can still be something important to watch. A social scientist I know once said (at the end of a lifetime of research on the subject): "it is human nature to underestimate the importance of low-probability disasters."

The people whose words I cite are some of the brightest among us. Even if I disagreed with them, I would hope to have the humility and wisdom not to dismiss them out of hand. Hawking, Sagan, and the hundred laureates: The Dixie Chicks these are not.

How can I know? I don't know them. The report is based on consensus.

The same way you can find some pretty oddball US congressmen or senators however this has very little impact on US policy.

With realistic risk I was a bit careful about saying impossible, geological processes in earlier time especially the Siberian traps would have caused this effect long ago.

I'm well aware of how risk calculation is done.

I'm also well aware that an unstable system will collapse, it will not last, something very old and have taken lots of hits is fundamental stable, it will take an hit larger than the previous ones to change this.

Note I'm here talking about turning earth into venus, other climate effects like weather patterns is unstable and can change drastically with an tiny change.

Hawking like to come with doomsday predictions, two of his previous was the danger of trying to contact alien civilizations and the danger of AI.

The first is pretty weird, the second is an real issue but not something we need to worry about until we get far better AI systems.

[GreeningGalaxy]

We've got a track record for pulling through.

Yes, turbulent times are ahead. Our current behavior is not sustainable by any means, and we're going to learn that the rough way, but I think we're persistent enough that the chances of us all being wiped out are pretty low. Most apocalypse scenarios are exceedingly unlikely in the first place, and we're already so excited about them as a society that we'll probably be able to prevent and prepare for them.

I could be wrong, but at least no one will be around to judge me if I am, right?

[Windspren]

Well, the Dinosaurs lasted quite a few million years, and they didn't have all the technology we have today. If an asteroid comes around in a few hundred years, it's pretty safe to say we can redirect it. I don't know about a billion years, but we should last a few million at the very least.

[Camacha]

Well, the Dinosaurs lasted quite a few million years, and they didn't have all the technology we have today. If an asteroid comes around in a few hundred years, it's pretty safe to say we can redirect it. I don't know about a billion years, but we should last a few million at the very least.

That technology is a double edged sword and a major disadvantage. Never before has a species had the means to eradicate itself within hours.

[Vanamonde]

Well, the Dinosaurs lasted quite a few million years...

But they were two taxonomical classes, each composed of many different species, which arose and went extinct during that time. I read somewhere that the average lifespan for a species is 10 million years, but I have no idea how reliable that figure is, or how it was derived. But the point is, billions of years is a span several orders of magnitude longer than species normally last.

[Charzy]

Two orders of magnitude.

[Camacha]

Two orders of magnitude.

Between two and three

[adsii1970]

Mankind could, with the aid of technology. Let me start by debunking Malthus, the person who came up with the equation that many use today to claim the world is overpopulated. Malthus never calculated into his equation a variable for technology. He did not see the use of GMOs, hydroponic farming techniques, the experimentation being done on edible lichens, plankton, and algae by American, Israeli, German and Swiss scientists, archologies, or synthetic meats. Hydroponic farming could essentially change farming landscape from its current horizontal model to a vertical one - think of a farm constructed like a parking garage with multiple levels. Archologies are self-sufficient structures which contain an entire community and because of its enclosed environment, could theoretically be constructed in any climate or on any body within the solar system.

There are several factors that would keep humankind from achieving a billion year organism span and many of those factors is man himself. Our current use of technology has created some health obstacles - obesity, diabetes, etc., which are nature's way of trying to get our attention as a species. We also have a war-like violent tendency - and look at the number of KSP players that arm their vessels to the teeth with weaponry (not trying to offend:P). We also have the age-old problem of power - while many of us are "live and let live", there are others that are not. It is for these reasons we see man's propensity for war. As a species, we would also need to have a common vision; man has the ability to do this and we have seen the results - the American space program in the 1950s through 1970s are a prime example. We would have to share the common vision of exporting humanity to the stars - space colonization - and begin within our own solar system. The Moon, larger asteroids, and Mars are just the beginning points of colonization.

If humankind is going to be a species that lasts a billion years, then space colonization and the ability to create self-sustainable colonies on all types of planetary bodies are going to be two of the most important developments that will allow this.

Edited June 1, 2015 by adsii1970