Do you think there is a "real" (>1% over the next century) risk for humanity to wipe itself out, or just that the hostile-alien risk is way beyond negligible in comparison?
Because all current climate doom-erism notwithstanding--
humanity extinction seems impossible to achieve to me via climate change or nuclear war; rogue autonomous self-replicating systems might be a danger, but are too far beyound current tech to estimate risk IMO...
We don't need to go extinct. Our global economy is very fragile, relatively speaking and it's not at all clear we could sustain the economy necessary to perform space exploration if bad things happen.
To avoid an extended argument about all the ways in which climate change will screw things up, let's focus on nuclear war: a nuclear war between, say, India and China would not only wipe out huge swaths of the human population but also ruin the global economy because industries in Europe and the US depend on these countries. And that's without going into the ecological effects of a nuclear war.
The economy relies on layers and layers of extremely convoluted supply chains and can't sustain a loss of even 1% of the human population, let alone 10% or more. The US has only seen a death of around 0.2% of its population due to COVID and is already facing labor shortages in retail. The blockade of the Suez canal was a big concern but imagine the Suez canal is simply gone.
> The economy relies on layers and layers of extremely convoluted supply chains and can't sustain a loss of even 1% of the human population
I think you are underestimating the ability of humanity to adjust and innovate, especially over time. I mean we literally essentially lose 1% of the human population to old age every year.
Those convoluted supply chains are a recent phenomena. Some international trade is necessary but large countries like the United States are capable of producing almost everything they require domestically. Trade is only preferable if you can import something for less money than you can manufacture it locally.
If civilization as we know it ends but humanity survives it would be very difficult for future generations to reestablish because we've used up all the easy to access hydrocarbons. Without easy to reach coal there won't be another industrial revolution and humanity would be stuck for millions of years until the hydrocarbons reform.
That is some kind of Oil centric thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. Renewables and fusion can do the much better better job at any point.
By the way coal will not form ever again, only reason why coal/oil formed is because bacteria has not learned how to decompose cellulose at the time.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-fanta...
I believe that theory is no longer valid. It was supposedly fungus that feeds on woody plants that resulted in a drop in lignin rich coal but that doesn't seem to quite work out. Coal is formed when there's a lot of organic matter that gets trapped in an oxygen poor environment and then buried and compressed over time. That process is certainly still happening though not at the same rate it has in the past. This article has some good details https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-was-most-of-the-...
I disagree on this, because biofuels are a viable substitute in almost every situation.
I'm fairly certain that our accumulated knowledge would make a second industrial happen even faster in spite of fossil-fuel-lack (but it might play out slightly differently, because of higher fuel costs...)
Doubtful that there's enough biofuels to produce high quality steel in large quantities and that's a pre-requisite to a post-apocalyptic neo-Industrial Revolution. Only coal burns hot enough and was available the huge quantities necessary.
Sure, producing iron without coal sucks; but there is already enough scrap metal around to power several additional industrial revolutions, and an arc furnace is really simple, especially if already know how electricity works beforehand.
Long term, there are alternative routes that could be taken (capable of processing fresh ore) but using scrap metal just seems easier/more likely to me.
That is not true methane, propylene, hydrogen can be easily produced and they have temperature >2800C while burning of coal can produce combustion gases as hot as 2,500 °C (4,500 °F).
https://www.thoughtco.com/flame-temperatures-table-607307
That general AI going rogue if it gets conscious is small, more probable is narrow AI that has mistake in setting goals, given too much power by either military or corporations.
Global Warming is highly probable but we still have chance if we find energy to cooperate around mutual goal.
Key points:
- Siberian permafrost and releasing huge amount of CH4 topping up all efforts.
- Amazon forest now release more CO2 than sequester (this week news)
- Species are being extinct on a rapid rate
- Wildfires/droughts continue to increase devastation
- Floods and heatwaves are stronger (losing ice caps will increase this to Equatorial heats once planet albedo of caps is lost )
Now, critical is next 10 years That does not mean that humanity will be wipe out in 10 years, but will set course for final destination. As no technology or amount of money will help us past that point, weather pastern and issues will be out of our hands. In bad scenario 99% reduction of population till 2100. Again guess. Underground pocket of sparse scientific communities could survive bit longer past this point, using geothermal energy and nuclear power.
Nuclear war is quite probable, I think critical is next 20 years:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41421/pentagon-warns-o...
If all weapons are fired, simply put, some people may survive, but they would wish they are dead. Let me put this way, we all have romantic dreams of surviving, go to Hiroshima, ground zero, then straight to museum, and then imagine something 2000 times more powerful multiplied by 16000. And of course everyone forgets Nuclear power plants, ~450 with similar yield. If you do not have Cheyenne Mountain complex at your disposal, your life expectancy is between 0 and 3 years. (acid rains, nuclear winter, no food, no medications, no drinking water, no animals ...). Even if someone survives it would be back to stone age - killing each other for basic necessities (even human meat), as there is nothing else to eat.
China vs US, US vs Russia, India vs Pakistan, rogues nation getting a weapon on some black market ...
Anyhow, if our civilization was cooperative society with higher goals, it would be fine, but from my experience, and from what I saw during my life, all governments are nothing but aristocratic mafia organisation sponsored by big business having one goal to increase wealth of their share holders justifying all means by what ever ends they have.
But regardless what I wrote or how many arguments I give as Friedrich Nietzsche "Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man." many especially those in power to do something, will have tendency not to believe in the final outcome until it happens, so instead of taking actions they will continue business as usual.
When I was young I lived in different country there one post WW2 leader used to say "Work and enjoy like we will live in peace 100 of years, and at the same time prepare like there will be a war tomorrow", personally I think it is a good policy for Global Warming or WW3, we should imagine the worst and then work as hard as possible so it never happens, employing all possible strategies at our disposal to save all life on planet, (DNA bank, 5d crystals, space travel, multi-planet, multi-suns ... whatever).
Similar like in IT we protect systems, for me who ever uses "doom-erisam" and similar shaming terms is nothing better than those person. Ostrich burying head in the sand like will not save you from the lion. In IT good network security guys imagine all possible scenarios, and they are not afraid that by the so called "new-age quantum vibration field" if they imagine bad scenarios they will attract it just by the power of thought. Admins/devs frequently must imagine and test all bad scenarios, even play roles of bad actors, so they can employ protective techniques.
In the similar way we should explore bad scenarios and see is it possible to do anything, but unfortunately, we who talk about it and comment a lot, our circle of concern is significantly bigger then our influence, and those who have huge circle of influence (money) the do not give two dimes about our concerns, and that is the reason my friend I am not optimist about our future in next 10 years...
> "doom-erisam" and similar shaming terms is nothing better than those person
First: I use the term because I see NO factual basis for assuming that humankind is going extinct. Your post did not change my view on that:
1) I fully agree that global warming is a massive problem.
But assuming that it's going to lead to human extinction is IMO straight up delusional.
The only plausible mechanism is full-runaway "hot-venus" greenhouse effect (evaporating our oceans), and that is a scenario that--pretty much all scientists agree--we are NOT going to reach no matter how much fossil fuel we burn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Eart...).
Rising sea levels and climate change might lead to international crises and cost countless human lifes, but there is simply NO WAY for this to kill ALL humans by itself.
2) With nuclear threats it's a similar situation: There are simply not enough nukes to cover the inhabited surface (even assuming worst-case full escalation!):
The highest estimates I found were between 1.6 and 3 billion victims, assuming that every last nuke was used on the most effective target and killing every person there (which are both completely unrealistic assumptions).
Both fallout and nuclear winter are completely insufficient for extinction purposes, because there is not enough radioactive material for the fallout and not enough dust in the atmosphere for nuclear winter to kill all (we had somewhat comparable volcanic events in the past).
3) Corrupt leadership is something humankind has survived with since leaders exist; there is simply no reason to assume that they are suddenly going to cause our all extinction.
> I use the term because I see NO factual basis for assuming that humankind is going extinct. Your post did not change my view on that:
There is a huge difference between I do NOT want to see, and there is NO factual basis.
From https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities only 1170 cities have population of 2,179,929,822, RS-28 Sarmat yield is 10 heavy warheads, each yield of 1.5Mt. Currently there is 3,700 nukes deployed and 13,132 nukes total. We do not know what China has so those number are without it. With the new hyper-sonic weapons time to react and go to shelter which in London practically does not exist except underground transport, so to get to nearest station you would need 30 min but nuke needs 15 min to arrive. Let's suppose that one Sarmat is enough to level town size of London or Paris. So only with firstly deployed there would be 2200 nukes to spare.
But what about heavier nukes those 10Mt yields, what about revamping Tsar Bomba with 50Mt (8km fireball, 68 km mushroom cloud and shock waves circling Earth 3 times). So, what exactly will intercept hyper-sonic? So when you say estimate 1.6 to 3bn I would rather say it is very optimistic, and that only from the blasts. Next goes fallout... are you saying no one will die out cancer in full exchange? It will be all ok after 5 years?
EMP would wiped out grid and internet, what will exactly pump water? What are you going to drink? Quickly made filter from charcoal and that will do?
And to what hospital are you going to go if you scratch on rusty nail for instance?
Next, what are you going to eat, 80% of food in UK is imported, https://www.businessinsider.com/no-deal-brexit-percentage-br... there is no more ships with food and oil?
Where are you going to get money banks are out, no plastic cards, cash does not worth anything? do you have silver or gold? How many will die out of hunger in next 10 years?
And what about nuclear power plants 450 of them? They are not the same like nukes, nukes burn their fission material, but as we know from Fukushima Daiichi Accident and Chernobyl disaster, they were quite tricky, and there we managed to do something about it. Who will go to "fix" nuclear power planets after exchange, so plenty of fallout there?
As I said it would not be extinction but 99% reduction, and those who survive would wish they have not. By the way I am not trying to convince anyone people have had too many video survival games with happy ending, and to test reality you just need to go to near by woods for 7 days without food and water, and what ever experience you have just multiply by 300 times.
Going back to first line,
> your post did not change my view
I somehow find more frighting and delusional that way of thinking, as it leaves possibility to use mentioned as solution for fixing problem as people optimistically believe they are the one that will survive.
There is a reason why "Mutually assured destruction" and "nuclear deterrence" exist as such, as no one will ever attempt any such idiotic thing. As what we model usually does not correspond with reality. And when you know that everyone will loose like in the move "War games" then only way to win is not to play a game. And if current narrow AI can do it today I hope you as far superior intelligence can come to the same conclusion.
> I somehow find more frighting and delusional that way of thinking, as it leaves possibility to use mentioned as solution for fixing problem as people optimistically believe they are the one that will survive.
I'll give you the other perspective on the doom-erism:
People preaching about the inevitable extinction of humankind just provide ammunition/"strawmans" against progressive climate policies because these doom-prophecies are obvious bullshit and everyone not in an echo bubble knows it.
Just consider how easy it was to dismiss your "humankind is going extinct because of climate change" points-- because it IS BULLSHIT. Climate change is NOT going to lead to human extinction, and preaching this just steals credibility and hinders much more than it helps by polarizing society/preventing consensus.
As for the nuclear threat:
> only 1170 cities have population of 2,179,929,822
First: These are metropolitan areas, not cities. One warhead per area is not even going to kill a fraction of the people.
Consider: Tokyo metro region is 14000 km^2. Fireball size for a 10Mt warhead is <20km^2 (no larger warheads are in use and there would be no point). The highest estimate I found (3E9 victims) assumed 3 warheads per region I think, which is pretty similar to the numbers you came up with.
Taking all the aftereffects into account, you'll maybe get past the 50% population mark, but that is still not human extinction.
> Just consider how easy it was to dismiss your "humankind is going extinct because of climate change" points-
You have to understand that you have not dismissed anything, you do not have knowledge you have beliefs, judging by the angry typing. There is no point discussing with believes.
Regarding full fledged nuclear exchange I would ask you to write a paper and make computer model, I do not know what is your field of work do you have a sufficient knowledge to do it?
Regarding Global Warming it is fairly uncharted territory, now we know that models from 10 years ago were overly optimistic and that things are happening at much faster rate than expected.
Anyhow, to cut the long unfruitful story short, lets remember this and check in 5 and 10 years what happens.
> You have to understand that you have not dismissed anything, you do not have knowledge you have beliefs, judging by the angry typing. There is no point discussing with believes.
I'm not a believer.
Show me scientific papers that credibly warn about human extinction because of climate change, and I will change my view immediately (hint: the IPCC reports DONT, and those pretty much mirror the current scientific consensus).
But what would it take to change your belief that humankind is likely to go extinct because of climate change?
> Regarding Global Warming it is fairly uncharted territory, now we know that models from 10 years ago were overly optimistic and that things are happening at much faster rate than expected.
Maybe. But projected outcomes have not really changed. Hansen et al (in "Science", 1981) alluded to potential flooding of ~25% of Lousiana/Florida, given the total loss of the west-antarctic ice shield (= +5m sea level). This is WAAAAYYYYY worse than what any current model predicts for even the absolute worst case in 2100, but even this scenario would not lead to human extinction, not by a long shot.
> Regarding full fledged nuclear exchange I would ask you to write a paper and make computer model, I do not know what is your field of work do you have a sufficient knowledge to do it?
There is no point: We agree on the facts, basically that there are not enought nukes to blast even half of humankind and fallout/nuclear winter won't suffice to kill the rest.
Yes, you are equally believer as I am, and everyone on the planet, scientific paper do not mean much (don't get me wrong continue reading), that was the thing I was trying to say, in papers, we have estimates and models, we do not know what will happen exactly in real events. (and that is the point if you are scared enough, you never attempt to attack your enemy) You asked me for an opinion, not the knowledge about the outcome - therefore, I believe that your estimate is low, and you believe my estimate is too high - but neither of us knows what will happen.
> There is no point: We agree on the facts
No, we have not. I just listed the initial blast losses and ask you bunch a of questions on what would follow, on which you have not gave any answers. Regarding the map, I know about it, and it is not a model. It is more of a joke. I can list all the things you need to include, and you build a model; again I do not know your field of work? What do you do?
Humanity can survive in multiple ways, and let say, if we build an artificial womb and save DNA samples, and then after waiting for 100000 years, AI restores humanity and the animal/bio world - is that a real survival?
Also, if we lose 99% and 1% continues, is that acceptable? For me, "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." does not really work and it is not acceptable in any case or capacity.
How long will those need to get back on track? What about the amount of suffering they will go through? And after 10000 thousand years, will they repeat the same mistake, but this time with more powerful weapons? According to Mahabharata Indian legend, we already had a similar war with similar weapons a very long time ago, ok it is a story, not a real history as we know, it is more of as Science Fiction of old age in which weapons described are just amazing (self-navigated weapons, explosives, flying ships...)... anyhow I went sideways, I am trying to say the cycle of repetition is boring and at the end can get us extinct due to multiple other causes/agents.
Also while thinking about nuclear exchange we have not even touch that govs will not stop with nukes, there will be plenty of chemical and biological weapons exchange to finish what is left enhanced Ebola, black death and everything else you can and you cannot imagine currently at the military of the world disposal.
If humanity would drop to 100 million (1%) (population approximately 2000 years ago), how spread the population would be? How many gangs? How many tribal wars? Again, what with 450 nuclear power plants around the world? Surrounding of the Chernobyl will not be habitable for 20000 years. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment/2019/05/che...
Now, in the time we need to recover, let say in all best conditions where people will not get hugely religious, and instead they turn to science, start learning as much as possible, that there will be no wars for resources, and gangs and criminals, that they will be very cooperative and not repeat same mistakes of the human nature as greed and lust for money, how many years would we need to recover from ashes and radioactive waste? 1000 years, 500, 100, 10 years? Damage would not be comparable to WW2 recovery, as scale of damage would be much bigger. And how would you organize society and make them do any work? How would you secure leader, aristocracy and politicians that caused this issue in the first place? Would they become primary target?
So, let say those 100 million left would need 100 years to recover, fairly optimistic time as nuclear winter would play a good part in the recovery time. During that recovery period, just a bit larger space rock can end the story, the same way like with the dinosaurs.
You could say that even now we do not have the technology, but current state + 50 years of new technology, we could have protection in the future.
But set back of just 100 years + same space rock few miles wide we would not have any protection, and it would be a game over.
All these scenario are hypothetical and we do not know really, but I would rather choose those probable scenarios that will increase our chance. As I know one thing for certain, I do not know where you live and what are your survival skills, but here in London my survival chances in the case of event are equal to zero and I have to admit I love internet even when we do not agree on things we do not have any influence whatsoever. :)
Because all current climate doom-erism notwithstanding-- humanity extinction seems impossible to achieve to me via climate change or nuclear war; rogue autonomous self-replicating systems might be a danger, but are too far beyound current tech to estimate risk IMO...
Very curious if/how/why you disagree on this!