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 .
An observation: As people get old, they tend to think the worst for the future of humanity. I finally realized that this is probably a coping mechanism. It is too painful to imagine the world going on without us.
 
I'm not old, though. lol I think that we receive a lot of data (some true, some based on paranoia) that suggests some of the things being mentioned here.
 
What woud be on top of you'r list of natural disasters.???
Heat. The most obvious effect is drought, causing famine. Water is running out everywhere as the temperature is rising. The dryness also encourages wildfires in forest and grassland.
Floods, tornadoes and snowstorms will continue to do some dramatic damage, but nothing compared to the scale of heat-killed crops. Of course, in rich countries, the relatively minor destruction of these local events, one after another, will exhaust their economies, because they're accustomed to lavish compensation and expensive rebuilding. They count the dead and injured, and the $ cost, but not the the long-term depletion of vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, etc., which all contribute the mass extinctions coming along behind.
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.
Certainly, if the drug cartels - er I mean Pharmaceutical corporations - keep their hold on profits. But it doesn't matter, because no epidemic wipes out entire populations. If we're allowed a cynical, realistic moment, we'll admit that a reduction of the overpopulation would be good for the species and the planet. Furthermore, if this reduction is done by a neutral outside agent, it would promote co-operation among nations which is currently lacking.
Natural disasters, I could see that crippling us. A combination of several different types transpiring around the globe at the same time.
The worst part is that countries with very large populations are most threatened by drought. This will cause mass migration on an unprecedented scale https://letterpile.com/books/Climate-Wars-A-Review
and rancorous armed conflicts, and refugee camps and outbreaks of not one but many contagious diseases, in conditions where they are impossible to treat or contain. No natural disaster due to climate change will stay local very much longer.
 
Heat. The most obvious effect is drought, causing famine. Water is running out everywhere as the temperature is rising. The dryness also encourages wildfires in forest and grassland.
Floods, tornadoes and snowstorms will continue to do some dramatic damage, but nothing compared to the scale of heat-killed crops. Of course, in rich countries, the relatively minor destruction of these local events, one after another, will exhaust their economies, because they're accustomed to lavish compensation and expensive rebuilding. They count the dead and injured, and the $ cost, but not the the long-term depletion of vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, etc., which all contribute the mass extinctions coming along behind.
Good points.

Certainly, if the drug cartels - er I mean Pharmaceutical corporations - keep their hold on profits. But it doesn't matter, because no epidemic wipes out entire populations. If we're allowed a cynical, realistic moment, we'll admit that a reduction of the overpopulation would be good for the species and the planet. Furthermore, if this reduction is done by a neutral outside agent, it would promote co-operation among nations which is currently lacking.
My reasoning behind the contagious deadly virus comes from my fascination with the series The Walking Dead. Obviously, the zombie effect is far fetched, but it just makes me wonder, could a deadly virus sweep across the globe and take out a substantial amount of people? And if that happened, everything else would be taken out, there'd be no people to control electricity, water, computers, police force, government, etc. Also, I think to the plagues of the past.

The worst part is that countries with very large populations are most threatened by drought. This will cause mass migration on an unprecedented scale https://letterpile.com/books/Climate-Wars-A-Review
and rancorous armed conflicts, and refugee camps and outbreaks of not one but many contagious diseases, in conditions where they are impossible to treat or contain. No natural disaster due to climate change will stay local very much longer.
Hadn't considered mass migration, that would be a scary thing!
 
I'm not old, though. lol I think that we receive a lot of data (some true, some based on paranoia) that suggests some of the things being mentioned here.

I know.

I like the Grey Goo scenario. Self-replicating nanobots get out of control and convert the entire face of the plant to grey goo.
 
I know.

I like the Grey Goo scenario. Self-replicating nanobots get out of control and convert the entire face of the plant to grey goo.
LOL

I should've added that to my list of choices. Next time. :D
 
... could a deadly virus sweep across the globe and take out a substantial amount of people? And if that happened, everything else would be taken out, there'd be no people to control electricity, water, computers, police force, government, etc. Also, I think to the plagues of the past.
Absolutely. A substantial die-off in any population not only strains their resources, it disrupts essential functions, curtails services and devastates the economy.
Some other catastrophes can have the same or similar consequences. The way your mind works, you'd probably like this book http://www.viennareview.net/vienna-...iews/john-casti-an-optimist-of-the-apocalypse
http://www.viennareview.net/vienna-...iews/john-casti-an-optimist-of-the-apocalypse
Big problem: too many people, interconnected, interdependent, on a fragile network of aging and contested infrastructures.

Hadn't considered mass migration, that would be a scary thing!
You're seeing a preview - a trailer, as it were - with the troubles in the Middle East. The people in hot countries, like Brazil, have no southward destination to head for: they're all coming here, pushing the migrants from the deserts of Mexico, California, Texas, Oklahoma ahead of them. China and the ex-USSR republics have India in their lap; Europe has Africa. It's not going to be pretty!
 
That's not a choice, mister.




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?
Natural.
 
Cold = drought=famine=disease due to weakened immune system.

We are most likely still in an ice age. We don't know why it started nor why nor when it will end.
Unless this holocene is a superinterglacial(see julie brigham grette), it should end within a few generations.
The onset of the glaciers will be long and slow with sudden drops which will destroy crops and kill the weak.
Then, about 90,000 years of poor productivity.....
wild guess
This will drop the human population by over 90%.
The survivors will simply have to learn how to play well together.............or die.
Assuming partial survival:
This shrinking of the population will most likely lead to the next evolutionary step.
 
I think one of the plagues in London was credited with improving the economy.

It funny that some are arguing that overpopulation might end the world and others are worried that thinning out the population would be a problem. :)
 
Good theory, what is your choice from those given here?
:) OK, number one.
Reason? Just had a good friend leave hospital after radical prostate surgery, 4 days after the operation and as fit as one could hope for, only to be returned to hospital after 3 days with incredible pain all over his body: Diagnosis? He had caught "a form of Staph bacteria that resulted in another months stay in hospital with continuous anti biotics, then released and under treatment for another month at home with the same continuous automatic anti biotic treatment with a nurse calling every day.
His release from hospital was I imagine brought about due to his hate for such confinement, and his threat that if they did not let him go home, he would turn into the Hulk! :)
He is fine now and we often have a beer together.
 
It funny that some are arguing that overpopulation might end the world and others are worried that thinning out the population would be a problem. :)
The growing population, eating up and using up and messing up the world would end it with no other cataclysmic intervention. A sudden, massive die-off would cause the collapse of civilization and result in ill-prepared survivors scrambling and clawing for resources in a disease-ridden environment. (Even if the cause of the die-off wasn't contagion, bodies lying around always breed disease and usually contaminate the water supply.)
And, yes, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are a serious threat.
 
:) OK, number one.
Reason? Just had a good friend leave hospital after radical prostate surgery, 4 days after the operation and as fit as one could hope for, only to be returned to hospital after 3 days with incredible pain all over his body: Diagnosis? He had caught "a form of Staph bacteria that resulted in another months stay in hospital with continuous anti biotics, then released and under treatment for another month at home with the same continuous automatic anti biotic treatment with a nurse calling every day.
His release from hospital was I imagine brought about due to his hate for such confinement, and his threat that if they did not let him go home, he would turn into the Hulk! :)
He is fine now and we often have a beer together.

Happy to hear he is doing okay now! Hospitals are a hot mess for spreading infection, it's crazy. That should be the last place we all head for if the end of the world is coming. :D
 
....Hospitals are a hot mess for spreading infection, it's crazy. That should be the last place we all head for if the end of the world is coming. :D

It ain't the germs' fault, they just go along with the sick people, then stay awhile looking for a new host.

When you are opened, you are open, and the germs love it.
Better the common germs one might find in a woodland?
 
The growing population, eating up and using up and messing up the world would end it with no other cataclysmic intervention. A sudden, massive die-off would cause the collapse of civilization and result in ill-prepared survivors scrambling and clawing for resources in a disease-ridden environment. (Even if the cause of the die-off wasn't contagion, bodies lying around always breed disease and usually contaminate the water supply.)
And, yes, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are a serious threat.
What is going to cause this sudden die-off of most of the population?
 
What is going to cause this sudden die-off of most of the population?
A number of things might, but we were talking about pandemic. This wasn't my prediction; I merely tried to show how the two funny things you mentioned - overpopulation and culling - are not necessarily contradictory: either one alone could cause catastrophic results, and both in conjunction could also lead to catastrophic results.
 
Back
Top