Your best guess - how will the world end?

How will the world end?

  • Contagious fatal virus of which there is no cure

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • Nuclear war

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Limited resources, and we simply run out

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Natural disasters / climate change

    Votes: 5 55.6%
  • Alien attack

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .

wegs

Matter and Pixie Dust
Valued Senior Member
If it were to ever end, how do you see it ending? You can only pick from the choices, and only a maximum of two choices. I hope you choose to share your choice in the open, not just vote, and elaborate on your answer as to the details surrounding how you'd envision the world ending. :leaf:

*Note: I meant the end of humankind (or close to it) not the world. Tried to modify the title of the thread and the poll, but there's no edit feature after the fact.
 
Last edited:
I vote fatal virus... an my second choice woud be alien attack.!!!

Edit:::

A side note... my world will likely end from old age sinse im alredy old.!!!
 
Last edited:
None of your options will end the world. The world will end when the sun becomes a red giant.
 
None of your options will end the world. The world will end when the sun becomes a red giant.
You have to pick one of my choices for the thread. Oops, I meant the end to humankind, not necessarily the world. :oops: Oh well, I tried to change the title of the poll but there's no edit feature for it. lol
 
Even if it's only humankind, I stand by natural disasters - because you didn't include protracted global warfare.
Whether my second choice is nuclear war or resource depletion depends to a large extent on who becomes president of the US, so I'll hold off for now.
Pandemic is okay, but we seem to cope better with medical emergencies than economic or political ones.
 
Even if it's only humankind, I stand by natural disasters - because you didn't include protracted global warfare.
Whether my second choice is nuclear war or resource depletion depends to a large extent on who becomes president of the US, so I'll hold off for now.
Pandemic is okay, but we seem to cope better with medical emergencies than economic or political ones.

But as we continue to grow across the globe in numbers, I wonder if we're going to exhaust our medical resources should a crisis ever take place. Natural disasters, I could see that crippling us. A combination of several different types transpiring around the globe at the same time. The movie The Day After Tomorrow comes to mind. Obviously far fetched, but it made me more of a believer in the world going under from natural disasters, and global warming.
 
I chose natural disaster. Unless we can successfully develop technologies to prevent it, we will eventually be wiped about by a meteor. Other calamities could set us back but not likely end the human race. However a meteor could wipe us out completely.
 
As has already been cleared up, none of those will end the world. As pointed out that will be when the sun burns through its hydrogen and starts fuse helium.

Most of the choices wouldn't wipe out mankind either. Certainly not a nuclear war. I chose natural disaster/climate change just for the climate change part. If another ice age comes along that would do it as has happened several times in the past.

A large scale nuclear war would not be a good thing but it wouldn't wipe out mankind.
 
There's no guarantee that humankind will end on Earth.

It is unlikely that any virus or nuclear war would wipe out everybody. A natural disaster might just about do the trick, with a good bet being the kind of meteor impact that wiped out the dinosaurs, although even there we might not all die.

If we hang around long enough, eventually the Sun will become a red giant and obliterate the Earth. But at least some human beings should be at a safe distance before that happens.

As long as the Sun is there, we're unlikely to run out of resources. And once it's gone we'll be getting our resources elsewhere.
 
Earth will survive until its accepted "use by date" [3 to 5 billion years] when our Sun becomes a red giant, unless we are unfortunate enough to encounter a largish asteroid/comet that could well obliterate all life before then.
If we are able to make it to the accepted "use by date" then anyway our desendants will be spread far and wide by then I would imagine.
 
Not with a bang but a whimper.

That's not a choice, mister.

Earth will survive until its accepted "use by date" [3 to 5 billion years] when our Sun becomes a red giant, unless we are unfortunate enough to encounter a largish asteroid/comet that could well obliterate all life before then.
If we are able to make it to the accepted "use by date" then anyway our desendants will be spread far and wide by then I would imagine.
Good theory, what is your choice from those given here?

There's no guarantee that humankind will end on Earth.

It is unlikely that any virus or nuclear war would wipe out everybody.
But, why?

A natural disaster might just about do the trick, with a good bet being the kind of meteor impact that wiped out the dinosaurs, although even there we might not all die.

If we hang around long enough, eventually the Sun will become a red giant and obliterate the Earth. But at least some human beings should be at a safe distance before that happens.

As long as the Sun is there, we're unlikely to run out of resources. And once it's gone we'll be getting our resources elsewhere.
So natural disaster is one you feel is closest, given the choices?

As has already been cleared up, none of those will end the world. As pointed out that will be when the sun burns through its hydrogen and starts fuse helium.

Most of the choices wouldn't wipe out mankind either. Certainly not a nuclear war. I chose natural disaster/climate change just for the climate change part. If another ice age comes along that would do it as has happened several times in the past.

A large scale nuclear war would not be a good thing but it wouldn't wipe out mankind.

I should clarify again lol *note to self, take more time in constructing a poll and OP next time*

When I say 'an end to humankind' I mean it in the way we know it now. That we wouldn't have running water, electricity, the human population will be incredibly diminished from 'x' disaster that would have happened. So a complete obliteration doesn't need to be the focus point of the thread, but life as we know it would be far different than it is now.

So you chose an ice age, interesting. Would it be categorized as an actual ''natural'' disaster, or would some of the changes that would bring it about be caused directly or indirectly by humankind?
 
  1. Contagious fatal virus of which there is no cure
    2 vote(s)
    40.0%

  2. Nuclear war
    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  3. Limited resources, and we simply run out
    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  4. Natural disasters / climate change
    3 vote(s)
    60.0%

  5. Alien attack
6.
None of the above.
1 vote

1: All lifeforms on this earth are related, including viruses. That is why we evolve.
2: highly unlikely
3: this will never happen. We adapt, and will continue to do so.
4: climate is not now and never has been stable.
5: Highly unlikely
6:
Are you confusing the end of our species with the end of the world?
In the last million years alone, there have been at least 4 distinct forms of human beings alive on this planet, within this shared co-evolutionary biome. As the biom changes, we have changed, and are most likely to continue to do so. The ice and cold of the times of glaciation may have been our species greatest challenge, and it fostered mutation. We are a product of those mutations. God bless us everyone.
 
  1. Contagious fatal virus of which there is no cure
    2 vote(s)
    40.0%

  2. Nuclear war
    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  3. Limited resources, and we simply run out
    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  4. Natural disasters / climate change
    3 vote(s)
    60.0%

  5. Alien attack
6.
None of the above.
1 vote

1: All lifeforms on this earth are related, including viruses. That is why we evolve.
2: highly unlikely
3: this will never happen. We adapt, and will continue to do so.
4: climate is not now and never has been stable.
5: Highly unlikely
6:
Are you confusing the end of our species with the end of the world?
In the last million years alone, there have been at least 4 distinct forms of human beings alive on this planet, within this shared co-evolutionary biome. As the biom changes, we have changed, and are most likely to continue to do so. The ice and cold of the times of glaciation may have been our species greatest challenge, and it fostered mutation. We are a product of those mutations. God bless us everyone.

You have to choose from the options I provided. :)

For example, if I offered you two beverages, one is chocolate milk, and the other is water, and you say 'neither, I'll have a beer,' that's not an option that I'm offering. So you must choose. lol

If you scroll up, I clarify what I meant, and I didn't mean 'end of the world,' I meant more of an end to humankind's existence as we know it, or an end to it in general. Not an end to the earth.

You bring up an excellent point, for all intents and purposes, we should be extinct as a species, but we have survived for a very long time! Thank you for your reasoned points.
 
Back
Top