<<<We're on the edge.
>>7983999
When? Within the year.
Why? Global warming.
T H I N K A B O U T I T
>>7983999
The day after we create true Ai. We're fucked dude...
I hope it's not tomorrow lol !
I have a date haha !
>>7983999
>>7984000
Check'd
>>7983999
Completely unpredictable desu. The only sure estimate is when a cataclysmic event occurs in the Solar system and other nearby star systems.
Unless you consider the genetic engineering of superior humans in the future an extinction of our current species, in which case our 'extinction' will happen in the next century or so.
>>7984010
>Completely unpredictable
gotta lurk more on /pol/ friendo
>TFW will not be around to see the ultimate fate of humanity
This really bothers me. I really want to know. Will we die when the oceans evaporate or get swallowed by the sun, if we make it that long? Will we make it to another planet, only to die there in millions of years? Will we keep going until the heat death of the universe?
>>7983999
either 300 or 100000 years
>>7983999
It was yesterday, it is that nobody noticed?
>>7983999
Supervillian-style acts of terrorism ("Single individual, massively destructive" or SIMAD is becoming the accepted term, if you want to find actual scholarship on this) are going to be a real problem in our time.
We have no real knowledge about the resilience of the global ecosystem and we are pushing our luck with regards to ecological collapse.
Some voices in defense have been arguing that the risk of nuclear catastrophe is now greater than during the cold war, in large part because so little attention is directed toward it these days. William J. Perry has been pretty vocal about that lately.
On the whole, I am inclined to think we won't make it out of this century.
I think we'll last a really long time.
There will be lots of large depopulation events; probably one soon caused by global warming.
But think of how many we are, and how resourceful we are. If 99.9% of the current world's population died, there'd still be 7m left - more people left than there are in my country.
Then the question is, do we ever colonise other planets, and how far do we go? What if we got really good at it?
So I can't narrow my guess more than that I think it will be more than 100,000 years. Contraversial I know. I just think it would be harder than people think to kill *all* of us.
Unless there's a major event which makes the planet unlivable.
it would take a true cataclysm (like the sun going supernova or the earth's atmosphere becoming like Venus') to make humans go extinct. At this point we are like cockroaches in our ability to survive -- we just rely our intelligence and the technology we already have, rather than our biology.
>Some apocalypse scenarios that wouldn't actually make us go extinct:
-Full scale nuclear war is not as devastating as people think. Dropping megaton-sized nuclear warheads is unfeasible, and even when we do test them most of the energy is simply blasted into space. The countryside in many places would be largely unscathed.
-The ash produced by a supervolcano would cause mass starvation and death from its blocking of the sun, but that still would never kill off *everyone*. Pockets of humanity could build isolated self-sustaining environments (like the ones they're planning for mars, with their own food production) and live in them for however long it takes until the sky clears up.
-Even a massive impact-event like the one that killed the dinosaurs could be survived. Most of the damage done in such an impact is caused by all the tons of debris that the explosion launches into a sub-orbital trajectory: it all comes crashing back to earth at the same time and burns up in re-entry, superheating the atmosphere to the point of making dry things spontaneously-combust all over the world. It would also temporarily cause blacked-out skies from ash, but all these effects could be survived through bunkers and self-sustaining environments (like with surviving the supervolcano)
>tl;dr
it would take a LOT to make humans go extinct at this stage
>>7984105
> Dropping megaton-sized nuclear warheads is unfeasible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83_nuclear_bomb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B41_nuclear_bomb
They're out there, what exactly makes dropping them unfeasible?
>>7984131
The *really* big ones like Castle Bravo and Tsar Bomba are unfeasible to use in a real nuclear exchange. They were just created in the cold war for the purpose of bomb-yield dick-measuring. Here's a better explanation of why a nuclear war wouldn't destroy our species:
>Weapons over a few megatons are impractical. They're too heavy to launch on reasonably-sized rockets, and past a certain size, most of the energy just blasts into space.
>The flash effect of light around the visible range is largely unaffected by the atmosphere and only falls off with the square of the distance, but is easily shielded against since it only affects things in direct line of sight, aside from the fires it starts. The shockwave, fireball, and hard radiation effects are absorbed and reduced much more effectively by the , so they have a more or less fixed maximum range which isn't increased much with larger yields.
>The area of total destruction by nuclear weapons is pretty small, and there's a fairly small number of strategic nukes. Most of their area of effect is the flash and its fire-starting effects.
>If people have made reasonable preparation for nuclear war (as people used to be concerned with doing, but no longer seem to bother with), an all-out nuclear strike would kill a minority of the population in pretty much any major city on Earth, let alone the countryside, which would be largely untouched. The fallout would also be less troublesome than is usually presumed. Modern strategic nukes are much cleaner than the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the populations of those cities had no understanding and no preparation to help them avoid the hazards.
Additionally, there are plenty of places (such as remote islands) that no government would have any reason to nuke whatsoever. Humans could easily survive the exchange in these places.
>>7984226
> The *really* big ones like Castle Bravo and Tsar Bomba are unfeasible to use in a real nuclear exchange
The *really* big ones are much bigger than megaton. B41, the largest US bomb to enter service, was up to 25 megaton and still conveniently deliverable by bomber.
I do agree that the total blast area is usually overestimated.
If I were the president, I would commission a gigaton salted nuke.
