What would be humanity's likeliest demise?

[RocketSquid]

8 hours ago, fredinno said:

The oil has been in the ground for Millions of years. I don't think you will outlive it

Outlive it as in die after it. I won't actually live longer than it... although there are many who would try to change that.

[fredinno]

12 hours ago, RocketSquid said:

Outlive it as in die after it. I won't actually live longer than it... although there are many who would try to change that.

What's the difference?

[fredinno]

15 hours ago, Atlas2342 said:

*cough*

*cough* 

OK, I changed my mind when it didn't get locked, stop it, seriously!

15 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

I'm not claiming that overpopulation is solely an environmental issue. The "pie" analogy is primarily an economical issue. Constant growth in a finite world is impossible, and our governments who keep on striving for growth are delusional. There comes a point where the only possible growth is at the expense of others.

The only possible path is in sustainability, not constant growth. The problem is that to sustain an economy without growth while the population grows, you need to share the wealth more equally, which requires that the richest give up some of their wealth (which is why there is so much resistance against global thinking in the US, while the rest of the world is pretty much in a consensus).

It's a situation that can only lead to tensions between rich (who legitimately want to preserve their lifestyle) and poor countries (who legitimately want a piece of the pie). The symptoms of those tensions will be massive migrations and wars, which incidentally is what we are seeing today... 

It's unlikely to change soon, capitalism is the only form of economy that has been shown to be able to work over extended periods of time.

15 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

I really can't understand how you can disagree that our civilization makes a huge impact on biodiversity. It's an undeniable fact. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it is happening at a rate of several thousand times the natural extinction rate, and those extinctions that we do record are primarily due to human activity. 

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

We do, just not as bad as you are making out to be.

15 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Increasing the surface of mining zones only makes the biodiversity problem worse.

One could argue that the last agricultural revolution was due to pesticides and weed killers, which has pretty much ruined farmland. The increase in productivity is only due to artificial fertilization, but if you look at any modern farmland these days in Europe or the US, it's mostly just sterile substrate. Without chemical fertilization, nothing would grow on it naturally.

Again, hoping that a 4th industrial revolution will come along and save the day is wishful thinking. We can't simply rely on hope that technology will save us, because the productivity increase is bound to plateau too.

And when we are already overpopulated and overexpending resources, expecting population growth to slow down is simply not enough.

It was also due to mechanization of farming. Either way, farmland productivity has grown in spite of topsoil loss. It is a major problem, however, regulations involving adding cover crops can slow this down enough until vertical farming becomes more economical and can replace regular farming. I honestly think that we need to treat topsoil loss the same as climate change- as a bigger problem than we are now

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsoil#Erosion

The UN also shows that the population should peak at around 9 billion, in which afterwards, the problem will be maintaining a level population level. And I'm going by the medium-case here.

15 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

 

Again, hoping that a 4th industrial revolution will come along and save the day is wishful thinking. We can't simply rely on hope that technology will save us, because the productivity increase is bound to plateau too.

How is a 'hope' of a 4th industrial revolution wishful when it is happening right now? http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2016/02/19/what-is-the-4th-industrial-revolution/#2b7889bd6ff8

And productivity increase has plenty of space in increase. I'm more worried about the demand side, though that can be mitigated enormously by false meat products.

14 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Yummy! Sounds like a great future.

I'd rather we have less children and grand children, but allow them to live in better conditions, than have to rely on synthetic protein sources and rationing just so that 10 billion people can barely survive on the planet.

Actually, the fake meat is necessary if a significant fraction of the world wants to eat meat. Considering that fake chicken is now almost unrecognizable from real stuff, and that it's also being made for Beef too, it's probably going to become a viable (and cheaper) alternative. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/business/meat-alternatives-on-the-plate-and-in-the-portfolio.html?_r=0

Also, a large amount of starvation is due to lack of infrastructure, not actual lack of food.

[magnemoe]

18 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

It's also due to pollution. And overpopulation only makes that lack of infrastructure worse.

I'm not claiming that overpopulation is solely an environmental issue. The "pie" analogy is primarily an economical issue. Constant growth in a finite world is impossible, and our governments who keep on striving for growth are delusional. There comes a point where the only possible growth is at the expense of others.

However the pie has been getting larger, its that is called industrialization and efficiency.
The last 20 years has seen an growth of an global milde class, most people on earth has an mobile phone today. 

An zero growth setting will just be using the resources to fight over the same pie, rather than making it larger. Not an pleasant setting, so many war has been about land is that you don't get more of it
 

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

OK, I changed my mind when it didn't get locked, stop it, seriously!

It's unlikely to change soon, capitalism is the only form of economy that has been shown to be able to work over extended periods of time.

We do, just not as bad as you are making out to be.

On larger than tribal units yes. 
Other models has not worked very well. 
Note that an setting with vastly increased production  is likely to change this. 

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

It was also due to mechanization of farming. Either way, farmland productivity has grown in spite of topsoil loss. It is a major problem, however, regulations involving adding cover crops can slow this down enough until vertical farming becomes more economical and can replace regular farming. I honestly think that we need to treat topsoil loss the same as climate change- as a bigger problem than we are now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsoil#Erosion

 

Note that some of the production losses might simply be change of produksjon often to less intensive farming. 
Vertical farming is not an solution for for stock crops as its to capital and labor intensive, might work out for some fruits and vegetables  

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

And productivity increase has plenty of space in increase. I'm more worried about the demand side, though that can be mitigated enormously by false meat products.

Actually, the fake meat is necessary if a significant fraction of the world wants to eat meat. Considering that fake chicken is now almost unrecognizable from real stuff, and that it's also being made for Beef too, it's probably going to become a viable (and cheaper) alternative. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/business/meat-alternatives-on-the-plate-and-in-the-portfolio.html?_r=0

Also, a large amount of starvation is due to lack of infrastructure, not actual lack of food.

Vat grown meat is also an option should work very well for burgers and stuff. 

[fredinno]

13 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Note that an setting with vastly increased production  is likely to change this. 

Human nature won't change, and capitalism feeds off human nature.

13 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Vertical farming is not an solution for for stock crops as its to capital and labor intensive, might work out for some fruits and vegetables  

It's currently only used for lettuce and dwarf crops, basically things you would grown on the ISS. It's only really taking off in Signapore (where almost 100% of food is imported, so it's a very extreme situation). However, robotics and better building techniques involving nanotech could make it more viable in the future.

Also, vertical farming today is limited to 4-story greenhouses. So there's that.

13 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Vat grown meat is also an option should work very well for burgers and stuff. 

Too immature to be a near-term solution. Good fake veggie meat is already on store shelves. Vat meat is still in the lab.

[kiwi1960]

What will kill us..... we will kill us, the method doesn't matter, nukes? inaction? bad hygiene?

It is already too late, we have already passed the point of no return on Climate Change... starvation, pandemics... pollution...

But rejoice, we are a cancer living on a planet, the cancer will be dead, the planet will live on.

 

[Servo]

1 hour ago, kiwi1960 said:

What will kill us..... we will kill us, the method doesn't matter, nukes? inaction? bad hygiene?

It is already too late, we have already passed the point of no return on Climate Change... starvation, pandemics... pollution...

But rejoice, we are a cancer living on a planet, the cancer will be dead, the planet will live on.

 

Unless the cancer outlives the planet. If we can get out stuff together, I see humans expanding well out of the solar system, with or without Earth. Exoplanetary impact is a Sword of Democles here, and the only really effective way to mitigate it is to go off-planet.

[kiwi1960]

1 hour ago, Servo said:

Unless the cancer outlives the planet. If we can get out stuff together, I see humans expanding well out of the solar system, with or without Earth. Exoplanetary impact is a Sword of Democles here, and the only really effective way to mitigate it is to go off-planet.

I said its already too late.... scientists are now predicting that all life will cease on this Planet within 100 years, but even if they made the effort, then ... life will sort of be like a Fallout New Vegas or F.O.4 kind of existence.... survival.... meaning, exploration and expansion of space will be science fiction again.

[fredinno]

26 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

scientists are now predicting that all life will cease on this Planet within 100 years

What conspiracy theory website did you get that from? I saw humans dying in 100 years, not all life. That'd be pretty much impossible, unless we were to melt the Earth's surface on an asteroid impact.

2 hours ago, kiwi1960 said:

What will kill us..... we will kill us, the method doesn't matter, nukes? inaction? bad hygiene?

It is already too late, we have already passed the point of no return on Climate Change... starvation, pandemics... pollution...

But rejoice, we are a cancer living on a planet, the cancer will be dead, the planet will live on.

 

Damn, someone more pessimistic than Nibb31?

[Bill Phil]

Water. Or rather the lack of it. Pretty soon we're gonna hit some big water issues. California is getting some pretty big issues but still has a huge amount of water usage per capita.

Beyond that.... Time. Nothing stands the test of time. Not even the stars themselves.

[kiwi1960]

18 hours ago, fredinno said:

What conspiracy theory website did you get that from? I saw humans dying in 100 years, not all life. That'd be pretty much impossible, unless we were to melt the Earth's surface on an asteroid impact.

Damn, someone more pessimistic than Nibb31?

Oh, that is what I meant, come on,. cut an old man some slack, I left out one word... "...all HUMAN life....."

Thank you!

[fredinno]

14 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Water. Or rather the lack of it. Pretty soon we're gonna hit some big water issues. California is getting some pretty big issues but still has a huge amount of water usage per capita.

Beyond that.... Time. Nothing stands the test of time. Not even the stars themselves.

Most water is used for agriculture, so new watering techniques and low- water crops can help us. However, this reduces food production, so

1 minute ago, kiwi1960 said:

Oh, that is what I meant, come on,. cut an old man some slack, I left out one word... "...all HUMAN life....."

Thank you!

Even then, it seems too pessimistic. Humans are like Cockroaches, they're very difficult to get rid of. Even civilization probably won't collapse entirely under the "worst case" +6 C scenario.

[magnemoe]

On 5.4.2016 at 5:49 AM, Bill Phil said:

Water. Or rather the lack of it. Pretty soon we're gonna hit some big water issues. California is getting some pretty big issues but still has a huge amount of water usage per capita.

Beyond that.... Time. Nothing stands the test of time. Not even the stars themselves.

main problem with water is that the supply depend on weather, in dry areas there water is scare you will use all and get problem in dry years as you get less than average.
Using up all the ground water is an more long term problem, 

[Darnok]

41 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

main problem with water is that the supply depend on weather, in dry areas there water is scare you will use all and get problem in dry years as you get less than average.
Using up all the ground water is an more long term problem, 

Main problem with water supply is that in cities you have no control over that is in it, just single attack and you can cause pandemic in few cities.

[GoSlash27]

I don't think it's possible to end humanity with nukes. A nuclear war would be calamitous, but not an extinction event.

My money is on either the S.M.O.D. https://twitter.com/smod2016?lang=en

or a weaponized superbug.

 

[magnemoe]

9 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Main problem with water supply is that in cities you have no control over that is in it, just single attack and you can cause pandemic in few cities.

This would kill lots of people, not make humans extinct. 
To make humans extinct you must kill all humans, or mostly all as in no breathing population left, this is hard, harder than most other mammals as we are all over world. 
Perhaps the extinction event 250 million years ago would have done it, pretty sure some would have survived the dinosaur killer. 
This is rare events as the last was 250 million years ago. 

Most likely we get replaced by something non human, yes human 2.0 is till human but AI is not, does not have to be an terminator war, more like an gradual change to more and more brain to computer interface until you drop the fragile and slow brain part or at least are clearly not human anymore. 

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

main problem with water is that the supply depend on weather, in dry areas there water is scare you will use all and get problem in dry years as you get less than average.
Using up all the ground water is an more long term problem, 

Well, we're also wasting quite a bit of it.

The main issue is that water shortages and droughts less to less food, and with a population of over 9 billion around the time it becomes a serious issue (2050s), we're not likely to be able to do much. In fact, 50% of the worlds population in 2025 won't have access to inexpensive fresh water.

[astrokerb]

I imagine it will go something like one of these two scenarios:

1. Ice caps melt, people in positions of power do nothing. Scientists go to Mars, start new civilization.

2. Asteroid will hit earth but aliens offer to help, people in positions of power try to kill aliens, fail. Scientists explain to aliens what happened, go to Mars.

Edited April 8, 2016 by astrokerb

[lobe]

I think the human race's earthly demise is all dependent on population versus arable land. I think the current estimate is 10 billion people assuming those of us in the first world are willing to take a hit (less (not none) meat consumption, lower tolerance of slightly spoiled foods). This is also assuming we don't go for the rainforests or other valuable forests for crop growth. So you missed the most obvious of all collapses in your poll: Malthusian collapse. 

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, astrokerb said:

1. Ice caps melt, people in positions of power do nothing. Scientists go to Mars, start new civilization.

Yeah, as if Mars will be viable as an escape, when you are dependent on the equipment an earthly supplies to survive...

2 hours ago, astrokerb said:

 

2. Asteroid will hit earth but aliens offer to help, people in positions of power try to kill aliens, fail. Scientists explain what happened to the aliens, go to Mars.

The Fermi Paradox came knocking on the door...

On 4/6/2016 at 5:26 AM, Bill Phil said:

Well, we're also wasting quite a bit of it.

The main issue is that water shortages and droughts less to less food, and with a population of over 9 billion around the time it becomes a serious issue (2050s), we're not likely to be able to do much. In fact, 50% of the worlds population in 2025 won't have access to inexpensive fresh water.

Yeah, and iceberg tugs and desalination can help bridge that gap, along with better farming techiques.

27 minutes ago, lobe said:

I think the human race's earthly demise is all dependent on population versus arable land. I think the current estimate is 10 billion people assuming those of us in the first world are willing to take a hit (less (not none) meat consumption, lower tolerance of slightly spoiled foods). This is also assuming we don't go for the rainforests or other valuable forests for crop growth. So you missed the most obvious of all collapses in your poll: Malthusian collapse. 

But that can;t cause extinction.

[lobe]

59 minutes ago, fredinno said:

But that can;t cause extinction.

Yes it can, but I don't think we have the imagination in ways that it might cause the extinction of the human species. Maybe we have evolved into extremely decadent sexual desires, or reproductive sex no longer interests us yet we have not produced artificial wombs or effective reproductive legislature? I mean, it is hard to imagine humanity not wanting sex that would lead to offspring, but each year I think that is closer to happening.

I think I missed the meaning of your post. A malthusian collapse can happen once our tech milks the soil for all its woth and then some. Once that happens the collapse begins.

Edited April 8, 2016 by lobe
clarification, maybe?

[Bill Phil]

6 hours ago, lobe said:

Yes it can, but I don't think we have the imagination in ways that it might cause the extinction of the human species. Maybe we have evolved into extremely decadent sexual desires, or reproductive sex no longer interests us yet we have not produced artificial wombs or effective reproductive legislature? I mean, it is hard to imagine humanity not wanting sex that would lead to offspring, but each year I think that is closer to happening.

I think I missed the meaning of your post. A malthusian collapse can happen once our tech milks the soil for all its woth and then some. Once that happens the collapse begins.

People already don't want offspring producing sex. Birth control has become pretty common. But there are less hormonal ways of doing that.

[RainDreamer]

There are many ways humanity may possibly ends. There is the possibilities of human evolving to an entirely new species, thus effectively ends the human race on Earth. Or perhaps we all digitalized our minds and live as non-organic life forms, and thus effectively ends the human race on Earth. Or we move away from earth to space, leaving no human behind, and thus, again, effectively ends the human race on Earth. We could find a way to transcend to a higher dimension, and... well, you get the gist.

Well, that, or we all die, how we die barely matters by that point.

[T.A.P.O.R.]

Even if we transcend(whatever that means), there's always the heat death of the universe to contend with.

Time.

Time will be our ultimate undoing.

Higher dimensions would be bound to the lower ones wouldn't they?

I don't know. Just asking.