Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MaxCathedral

Will Man ever become extinct??

Recommended Posts

Yes, yes..its time to think about our own species. Are we destined for the big check out soon?

 

Will an asteroid do us in, like one did for the dinos.

 

(Whispers:) They say the big one is coming in 2014.

 

Or will some super Virus, like Captain Trips in King's The Stand, do us all in or a super Alien Invasion for our precious metals or maybe just water be our demise?

 

Will one day we be nothing more than a gigantic archelogical dig for some aliens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing about Stark was the music (although not in the book, obviously).

 

And the camel too.

 

Ps - I agree with MrL. All indications point to a non-glamorous, non-dramatic end to humanity. "Not with a bang, but with a whimper" and so on.

 

Bottom line though is that unless we can colonise the galaxy, we will always be at risk of complete extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose there were a crew aboard the ISS at the time an asteroid wiped us out like the one due in 2014, would it effect their orbit in anyway? or would here (Earth) just be a not so place to come back down to?

the one in 2014 will miss us (not by much) but it will :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'd be screwed either way. Nobody to supply them, and no hospitable planet to land on even assuming they could get back down here safely with no shuttle and no ground crews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably be better to die in the 1`st blast I guess :(

I`m a survivalist sure, but I`m a realist also and faced with the options, I wanna be right under it with my base ball glove and a beer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that nuclear war has been supplanted as the greatest threat to the planet. The current greatest threat is population itself. We are fastly outgrowing what the planet can sustain. Societal classes will change from 3 to 2 tiers. The middle class will disappear leaving us with only a large lower class, and a small upper class.

Disease will flourish in the slums of the poverty stricken lower class. Hunger will be the meal of the day. Lawlessness will pervade. The elitist upper class will attempt to control the minions, in order to segregate themselves from them, but will ultimately be crushed. Some would say that this is a paranoid expectation. Others would say it is already happening, today, all over the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i belive that, as said earlier, mans greatest threat is himself.

 

greed will tear up this planet.

there will never be a perfect society, or utopia.

there will be some that are close, but there will never be the perfect place.

me, i dont think that we will die from an astroid or whatever.

its this policy of dominance which will wipe our population out.

there will be advanced countries looking to harness the resources of the world. to ensure they gain what they need, puppet governments will be established. a war behind the scenes.

but there will be resistance, there always is. wiether good or bad.

 

if only people recognized themselves, and stopped biegn so pompous.

im tired of people killing people who kill people to teach people not to kill people.

 

 

how does a country sending soldiers to kill other soildiers solve anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cannot say that there will never be a utopia or perfect society without acknowledging that we are discounting the possibility that mankind's drives and behaviour will ever change.

 

Since we know that man's ability to adapt (and indeed react) to the environment around him is one of the major evolutionary advantages we have, and the reason we pretty much dominate the planet, that is not a reasonable assumption to make.

 

 

"there will be advanced countries looking to harness the resources of the world. to ensure they gain what they need, puppet governments will be established."

 

You mean like Bush's administration? Yes, have to say I agree with you on that one.

 

 

"how does a country sending soldiers to kill other soildiers solve anything?"

 

It creates a real-terms cost and a genetic cost for the country under attack, and reduces their capacity to defend their ideology. This has massive knock-on effects in the way that the country manages its resources and makes its decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People don't have to join the armed forces.

 

People don't have to live in strategically important cities.

 

People don't even have to live in the country they were born in.

 

 

If humans were more inclined to take the responsibility for their actions and choices seriously, and recognise that every country is part of the same population, we would not be the puppets of a few men in suits.

 

It is perfectly possible to manage the planet and its resources properly without people killing each other off - the reason that this does not happen is not because of the fact that different people rarely agree, but more in the way that we react to that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if they're not forced to join wouldn't that mean they want to join? Isn't that part of human nature? Wanting to kill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For many people the attraction of the armed forces is a balance between education and finances, nothing more. I'm sure there are people who join the army in order to kill other people, but fortunately these kinds of people are the ones who are most likely to die first in a conflict and find it difficult to successfully mate.

 

Every single person I have known who has joined any of the armed forces - and there have been quite a few - has done it because they wanted to, but the major factors involved were that (i) they would be accepted into that occupation with less qualifications than required by other jobs offering the same salary, and (ii) overheads will be reduced due to provided clothing and accomodations, even for immediate family - therefore the salary can be more efficiently utilised.

 

The fact that these attractive factors influence their decision does not mean that they have no choice to begin with. If people took a longer view of their lives, and accepted the fact that even one person's single decision in a single moment affects outcomes for everyone around them, then they would not join the armed forces.

 

Because if there is no armed forces, there is no war.

 

However, because of the way we are taught to think by our "cultures", this is as far as most people bother to take it:

 

"They pay well, and I can get out after three years, and I'm not likely to actually fight anyone, and it's not like I am the one declaring war on people even if I do have to fight anyone..."

 

Most people you see are programmed to believe that their actions and moral obligations are just a drop in ocean, so they don't need to take responsibility for the evils and horrors around them because it's society's problem.

 

The 'longer view' dictates that this may well be so, but just as ultimately an ocean is made only of drops, so is society ultimately made only of individuals making choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok....heres hows its going to happen...We're going to create a black hole...Its going to fall through the ground till it orbits the center and eats up all the dirt and magma and we die.......Thank you David Brin.................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it fall through the ground? Wouldn't the ground fall through it?

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were no militaries there would certainly still be wars! In fact, maybe more. A strong, well armed, well trained, military is a deterrent to war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMI said in post #17 :

If there were no militaries there would certainly still be wars! In fact, maybe more. A strong, well armed, well trained, military is a deterrent to war.

There would still be war?

 

Really? How would this happen (bearing in mind that I already know what your answer will be and have formulated a response :P).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on what you define as a "Soldier"

if there were no .Gov military, then no maybe there wouldn`t be WORLD wars.

but look at street gangs? or terrorists?

maybe even just neighbor against neighbor in a battle over who uses the hose pipe during a ban, or whose dog craps where and what side of the fence :)

so long as there are 2 men alive on this planet, there is always that potential for "War" sad but true :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you define war as other than how it has already been defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As opposed to defining "soldier" other than how it has already been defined?

 

That's inferred in the question :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant that two people fighting could be called a war.

 

"A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."

 

Sounds kinda like the Hatfields and McCoys.

 

Doesn't take soldiers or an army, though it would probably help the cause :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.