Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Things that could kill all humans


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,514 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Once we have an ASI, it wouldn't matter if humans survived or not. There will always be an intelligence on Earth until, for obscure reasons, it's no longer sustainable.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#22
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Like I said, as long as internet is alive and some people that are able to keep it alive survive, we wont lose all knowledgement. After 3d printers become widespread, it would be even easier to survive with few people left, because you could print almost anything you need.

 

As for fermi paradox big filter, I really dont think the great filter is the advanced tecnology. This makes no sense. There could be many "smaller filters" that make this big filter. 

 

If advanced tecnology civilizatios all die, its much more likely due to alliens than due to themselves. If you think for a while, especies that compete for the same things kill each other. Lions , hyenas , leopards compete for meat. They kill each other. Humans and insects compete for vegetables, so humans develop ways of killing insects. 

 

A type II or III civilization would be of an especies that has a desire to expand, and to expand, they need to kill other species that compete with them. Even if a species that refuses to kill other species because they compete with them manages to go to space , and finds a type 2 civilization that kills competitors on other star, this agressive civilization would kill the peacefull civilization because they would compete for energy . Agressive civilizations would have weapons and experience in battle. They would spread more easily through galaxy. So, if we send signals of tecnology to the space, they could just kill us before we advance enough to compete with them, just like lions kill hyena cubs.

 

So, aliens are a likely way we face extinction.We should stop to send signals to the space and hope aliens doesnt exist or didnt pay attention to our signals, or dont come here for any other reason.


  • Jakob likes this

#23
Whereas

Whereas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts

Once we have an ASI, it wouldn't matter if humans survived or not. There will always be an intelligence on Earth until, for obscure reasons, it's no longer sustainable.

Depends on how much you value humanity as opposed to intelligence. As long as they keep the good traits they may as well be our spiritual descendants.

 

We wouldn't drop straight back to hunter gatherer tribes in 1 generation, the % of the population left would contain at least some people who understand the scientific method, which, coupled with all the remains of today's civilization, all the buildings, old machines, books etc. would mean that we would be very unlikely to plunge back into a medieval tech level.

Modern civilization is highly interconnected, so there would be no real way to limit a big enough collapse. If 50% of people died from a disease, there wouldn't be enough people left at work in order to operate the various power plants, oil drilling stations, etc. Communications and power grids would go down, so would fuel distribution and consequently food transportation ... everything falls apart. If your IT and heating are gone, you have no more medicine or means of transportation and you have to produce your own food? Of the remaining 50% of people, the number of "survivors" would first drop precipitously, then inexorably. Far from ideal conditions for any sort of rebound. Two generations later, things would not be looking so rosy on the education front either.

 

Like I said, as long as internet is alive and some people that are able to keep it alive survive, we wont lose all knowledgement. After 3d printers become widespread, it would be even easier to survive with few people left, because you could print almost anything you need.

 

As for fermi paradox big filter, I really dont think the great filter is the advanced tecnology. This makes no sense. There could be many "smaller filters" that make this big filter. 

 

If advanced tecnology civilizatios all die, its much more likely due to alliens than due to themselves.

Except the internet would be one of the things we'd lose early in my above scenario.

 

As for advanced technologies not being a likely candidate for the Big Filter, imagine a technology that would allow any average individual to build a civilization-ending device in their basement in a day. We'd be screwed. Maybe such a technology exists, and we merely haven't discovered it - yet. Gene editing tech *could* be it. Or maybe every civilization kills itself off when they ruin their environments with combustion engines ...


If you're wrong, how would you know it?


#24
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

The knowledgement to end civilization shouldnt go widespread, we just have to be cautious about it. We shouldnt develop a way to make lethal virus on any lab, it has to be always a difficult thing, it has to be top secret.  Why would anyone want to end their own species? And why would it ALWAYS happen with EVERY species?

 

Also, why would we lose internet earlier? Also, for the disese that kills 50% of the population, it all depends on who it kills. If it kills everyone equaly, then, even if there are less people producing fuels , there are also less people consuming fuel and food. There would be less doctors, but also less sick people( after the disease went out). For the colapse of civilization, the disease would have to kill mostly  people working with fuel extraction and people that work with comunication. But why would a disease behave like that? Even if terrorists target these people, they will only do it with a country, not everywhere.



#25
Whereas

Whereas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts

The knowledgement to end civilization shouldnt go widespread, we just have to be cautious about it. We shouldnt develop a way to make lethal virus on any lab, it has to be always a difficult thing, it has to be top secret.

That cat's already out of the bag. Much like instructions on how to build explosive devices, it's something one can dig up on the right parts of internet. The spanish flu, for instance, has been studied intensively, and the complete genomic data for it is probably still out there. Mind you, when such studies were written, the technology to reproduce a genome in a small lab didn't exist (and seemed sci-fi). More generally, the main features that divide your typical virus from a lethal super plague are laid out in general terms in many articles on killer flues - and I'm not even talking about scientific articles here.
 

And why would it ALWAYS happen with EVERY species?

As you mentioned there might be several smaller filters. This *is* the sort of thing that *can* wipe out a civilization, even though that is not guaranteed to occur. We can't assume that equivalents to viruses and bacteria exist on every inhabited planet, though they seem almost a certainty for any biochemistry even remotely similar to our own. Attacking via such a vector would also be easier than defending there, so unless they're some sort of hive-mind, they'd have the same problem: at some point, all it takes is a single vengeful fool.
 

Also, why would we lose internet earlier? Also, for the disese that kills 50% of the population, it all depends on who it kills. If it kills everyone equaly, then, even if there are less people producing fuels , there are also less people consuming fuel and food. There would be less doctors, but also less sick people( after the disease went out). For the colapse of civilization, the disease would have to kill mostly  people working with fuel extraction and people that work with comunication.

Power grid goes down -> no power -> no computers.

There's an issue with everything being interconnected: for instance if the power grids go down, then many drilling stations *can't* continue to operate. Not having fuel equally stops several types of powerplants from operating. A fuel shortage further stops people from getting to work. (as do fears of catching the disease or perhaps actually *having* the disease - the 50% that survive aren't necessarily unaffected) Fewer people at work also means fewer response teams than what typically would be able to handle e.g. a blackout problem. Problems with water treatment facilities are *not* ok just because there are fewer people left alive. Problems with telecommunications severely limit any and all coordination in an area. Festering bodies everywhere are also a breeding ground for further diseases. In case of a natural disaster, help always comes *from outside*. But in the case of a global pandemic, *everyone* would be caught in the disaster zone - so there would be no place left for help to come from. We have disaster response scenarios for this kind of stuff, but I'm pretty sure that "50% of people die" is far outside of the "reasonable parameters" for which such plans get made. Typically, they'd attempt to limit deaths to far below that, but in the case of an engineered super plague that might not be feasible. The more people die, the greater the stress on the vital systems that keep our civilization running. Any shock may spread from one to several others, and any failure may take the rest with them. We have *some* redundancies, which are lawfully mandated, but in today's capitalist, profit-maximizing world, I'd be hugely surprised if the regulations are universally observed - and mind that those regulations were determined with "typical" disaster scenarios in mind.

 

Why would anyone want to end their own species?
[...]
But why would a disease behave like that? Even if terrorists target these people, they will only do it with a country, not everywhere.

A pandemic doesn't "behave", it just spreads. Not to say that terrorist groups aren't a threat for this, but another psychological profile that fits for this is that of a school shooter. Their goal is apparently to kill themselves and as many others as possible. Fortunately, creating a super plague is still outside of such an individual's reach today, but in 20 years? Who knows.


If you're wrong, how would you know it?


#26
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Even if we have the spanish flu genome on internet, We dont have the tecnology to make a genome easily avaiable. So, it shouldnt be  easily avaiable. 

In 20 years we can also have nanobots to cure all diseases. Like I said before, diseases that kill people too fast usually dont spread that much. The most dangerous viruses are the ones who have a long assimptomatic preriod, so the people spend a lot of time spreading the disease. School shotters want a fast death in front of them, they are angry with something and dont think too much. 

 

If the 50% people left are unaffected, just half of the power would go out. They would have to go to work

 

If engeneering a virus becomes such an easy thing, government people should always wear masks that prevent virus from going in. Same for soldiers. So, if 50% of the people die, govnerment people would be still alive, and assure people from power plants and comunications goes to work. Robot soldiers and robot workers will be a thing soon, so if there are mostly robots working at power plants, power wont go out. 



#27
techchic22

techchic22

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • LocationDublin

I agree that climate change would kill all of us, and that's very likely to happen. Like one night while we're sleeping, all iceberg and permanent ice ice in North Pole melt and the world is flooded, then we all die. I say this not because I don't like people (well I do sometimes), but it's a painful truth that we have to face.


'The statement below is true.
The statement above is false'

:girlcrazy: :girlcrazy:


#28
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,155 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

That's not how it'd work, though. In order for all ice to melt and cause such extreme sea level rise overnight, the temperature of the planet would have to be Venus-hot (i.e. 900°F or 480°C). Otherwise, it'd be a prolonged and damaging timeline of chaos.

 

Unless that was your joke, in which case how did I miss that?


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#29
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

That prolonged time would last decades, and it would give time for people to adapt. They can move to higher places or build dicks, develop genetic enhanced vegetables and animals to survive the new climate, build greenhouses, etc. 



#30
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts
  • LocationLondon

Obviously a societal collapse would be terrible but even if it killed 95% of people all over the world, the 5% are not going to suddenly forget how to read, they're going to rig up wind turbines and scavenge solar panels etc. and get power back on for their small communities of survivors, in developed nations, even after decades (when all the computers and phones and tablets etc. have all broken down) they'd be back to maybe 1920s level technology at worst.

 

Getting back to medieval tech would need both the killing of everyone with a highschool level education (or better) and the total destruction of every big town or city in the world and all the small towns and villages in the developed world. And either everyone who was literate would have to die, or all the books about anything remotely useful would need to be destroyed. 

 

Climate change is not going to happen fast enough to kill humanity, it might kill billions, but there will be plenty of time for people to build vertical farms and secret apocalypse bunkers etc. so humanity would survive.


  • rennerpetey likes this

#31
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

If this tecnology goes widespread, we would never run out of computers: http://www.telegraph...ted-laptop.html



#32
MrDusk

MrDusk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • LocationVariable

Rick and Morty



#33
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • LocationInside some convoluted formula I don't actually understand.

That's not how it'd work, though. In order for all ice to melt and cause such extreme sea level rise overnight, the temperature of the planet would have to be Venus-hot (i.e. 900°F or 480°C). Otherwise, it'd be a prolonged and damaging timeline of chaos.

 

Unless that was your joke, in which case how did I miss that?

Out of curiosity would a string of powerful nuclear blasts be capable of melting the ice caps?


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#34
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,514 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

 

That's not how it'd work, though. In order for all ice to melt and cause such extreme sea level rise overnight, the temperature of the planet would have to be Venus-hot (i.e. 900°F or 480°C). Otherwise, it'd be a prolonged and damaging timeline of chaos.

 

Unless that was your joke, in which case how did I miss that?

Out of curiosity would a string of powerful nuclear blasts be capable of melting the ice caps?

 

 

But that would defeat the purpose. With the amount of nukes it takes to literally vaporize most of the ice caps, you'll start a nuclear winter and welcomed new ice age - totally the opposite of what you intended.


  • Erowind likes this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#35
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts
  • LocationLondon

Rick and Morty

Rick is definitely a potential existential threat to humanity, but Morty?



#36
MrDusk

MrDusk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • LocationVariable

 

Rick and Morty

Rick is definitely a potential existential threat to humanity, but Morty?

 

 

You're forgetting there's an evil morty


  • Alislaws likes this

#37
Ewolf20

Ewolf20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • LocationColumbia,sc

 

 

That's not how it'd work, though. In order for all ice to melt and cause such extreme sea level rise overnight, the temperature of the planet would have to be Venus-hot (i.e. 900°F or 480°C). Otherwise, it'd be a prolonged and damaging timeline of chaos.

 

Unless that was your joke, in which case how did I miss that?

Out of curiosity would a string of powerful nuclear blasts be capable of melting the ice caps?

 

 

But that would defeat the purpose. With the amount of nukes it takes to literally vaporize most of the ice caps, you'll start a nuclear winter and welcomed new ice age - totally the opposite of what you intended.

 

i heard the nuclear winter is a myth apparently. 



#38
Ewolf20

Ewolf20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • LocationColumbia,sc

i accepted the fact humans are going extinct, bees are going extinct, just about everything is going extinct.



#39
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

I dont think we are going extinct because of bees. We can engineer bees to resist  global warming, diseases  or whatever is killing them. If we fail, we can make robot bees to do their work. I guess they wont do honey , but they can reproduce vegetables. 


  • Jakob likes this

#40
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,244 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

I dont think we are going extinct because of bees. We can engineer bees to resist  global warming, diseases  or whatever is killing them. If we fail, we can make robot bees to do their work. I guess they wont do honey , but they can reproduce vegetables. 

Honey is just a bunch of sugar, though, we can easily make it on our own. Agree with everything else.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users