# How will humanity end?



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2013)

There are many things which might decimate humanity or worse.  But what do you think will be the thing to actually end us?  The point where we go extinct?

I'm not counting transhumanism as extinction - while we might well turn ourselves into something else eventually, for the purposes of this poll we still exist.

As an added bonus, how do you think we'll survive the things you think _won't_ kill us?  Do you think asteroid deflection will become easy; that we'll move the Earth away from the sun as it expands; that we'll spread throughout the galaxy; that we'll eventually defeat disease completely?

I think that by the tmie the sun engulfs Earth, some of us will be elsewhere; maybe we'll have settled somewhere, maybe we'll have built arks to live on, maybe it'll just be a couple of little colonies eking out a harsh existence, but we will have people elsewhere.  I don't think mass galactic colonization will happen, though - at least not unless we find out that Einstein was wrong.


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 18, 2013)

The cats will lose patience with their incompetent human servants, and will decide to get rid of us all.


----------



## Janx (Oct 18, 2013)

I forget what the kill rate was on the black plague, but I suspect any given infectious outbreak doesn't have a 100% kill rate, either by imperfect distribution or by inherent immunity.

So, I doubt a pandemic will kill us all, even if it takes out most of humanity.  There will be clumps that rebuild and come back.

I also doubt the efficacy of mutually assured destruction.  While the Russians and US might be launching their nukes at each other, there are some regions that will be left alone (after all, the 2 warring parties are mostly limited to the northern hemisphere).

No doubt, the offending parties will be hosed, as they were shooting big bullets at each other.  And nuclear winter, radioactive clouds do have a far reach, there are going to be pockets of the world less affected by matters that happened in the Northern Hemisphere of the planet.  It's going to take time before bad effects reaches Argentina for example.

So, I suspect our biggest risk is on the order of a planet killer event, most likely natural, if we haven't managed to move out by then.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2013)

Janx said:


> I forget what the kill rate was on the black plague, but I suspect any given infectious outbreak doesn't have a 100% kill rate, either by imperfect distribution or by inherent immunity.




Well, certainly none have had a 100% kill rate yet, as evidenced by our posting!



> I also doubt the efficacy of mutually assured destruction.  While the Russians and US might be launching their nukes at each other, there are some regions that will be left alone (after all, the 2 warring parties are mostly limited to the northern hemisphere).
> 
> No doubt, the offending parties will be hosed, as they were shooting big bullets at each other.  And nuclear winter, radioactive clouds do have a far reach, there are going to be pockets of the world less affected by matters that happened in the Northern Hemisphere of the planet.  It's going to take time before bad effects reaches Argentina for example.




I agree.  Nuclear war would be terrible, but some would survive.


----------



## Nytmare (Oct 18, 2013)

I think (hope) that we've managed to make it past the most dangerous threats of mutually assured destruction, and that humanity (for the most part) understands that we need to start focusing on the next series of baby steps to get ourselves off of the planet.  I consider myself to be an optimist, and realize that there's still plenty of time for the numerous threats that are out there to wreak some serious havoc, but I think we'll manage to claw our way through and survive.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 18, 2013)

I chose 'Other' cuz I want a zombie-apocalypse.  Like, yeah.  I thought we were gonna have one when Fukushima happened but _nooooo_, we didn't get one.  Anyhoo, since I had a SyFy original idea because of that but never wrote it (radiation zombifies drowned peeps, they walk the bottom of the Pacific over to Cali and start chompin' brains - don't steal it!!!) I'd like to actually see it happen.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I chose 'Other' cuz I want a zombie-apocalypse.  Like, yeah.  I thought we were gonna have one when Fukushima happened but _nooooo_, we didn't get one.  Anyhoo, since I had a SyFy original idea because of that but never wrote it (radiation zombifies drowned peeps, they walk the bottom of the Pacific over to Cali and start chompin' brains - don't steal it!!!) I'd like to actually see it happen.




Ah, no, "how do you _want_ the world to end?" is another poll.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2013)

So we've got a couple of people who say we'll never be extinct - that we'll survive the end of the universe.  I'm curious as to the thoughts there - are we talking multiverse theories, or universe models which support life indefinitely?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 18, 2013)

I don't know of any solid argument for us outliving the Universe.

While my sci-fi loving heart wants to believe otherwise, in our culture I'm not seeing anything like the will required to get out of our solar system, so that limits us to the life of Sol.

Mass-extinction events are clearly identifiable in the geologic record.  We have to be off the planet in order to avoid them.

At the moment, we seem to be on a path to creating our own mass-extinction event.  Again, we seem to lack the will to really act on the danger.  

So, right now, if I were forced to bet, I'd say climate change, a big rock slamming into the Earth, or the gradual brightening of the Sun boiling away our water.


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 18, 2013)

I voted Rogue Black Hole, but that would really suck.


----------



## Nytmare (Oct 18, 2013)

Morrus said:


> So we've got a couple of people who say we'll never be extinct - that we'll survive the end of the universe.  I'm curious as to the thoughts there - are we talking multiverse theories, or universe models which support life indefinitely?




Ah, I wasn't thinking of the life of the universe itself being a bound.  Amending my vote.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I don't know of any solid argument for us outliving the Universe.




Yeah, that involves us discovering the universe works significantly differently to the way we thought.  A stretch; but a fun idea.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 18, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Ah, no, "how do you _want_ the world to end?" is another poll.




Ah!  But I want it badly enough that my desire has turned into expectation!


----------



## Nytmare (Oct 18, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I don't know of any solid argument for us outliving the Universe.




Ah, but if the universe ends, and there's nobody around to see it, does it make a sound?


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 18, 2013)

No "we won't have the resources"?


----------



## Serendipity (Oct 18, 2013)

Failure to adapt.  Like 99% of all species really.  
Most likely, I think eventually peak oil or some other critical resource necessity will come along that we have chosen not to avoid dependency on and that's it.   Wars will arise from scarce resources and deteriorating infrastructure and eventually someone will start throwing the dumb stuff around (nukes, plague, etc.).  The ultimate outcome likely being (as I see it) mass starvation and die offs following a general regression in technology and learning.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 18, 2013)

Serendipity said:


> Most likely, I think eventually peak oil or some other critical resource necessity will come along that we have chosen not to avoid dependency on and that's it.   Wars will arise from scarce resources and deteriorating infrastructure and eventually someone will start throwing the dumb stuff around (nukes, plague, etc.).  The ultimate outcome likely being (as I see it) mass starvation and die offs following a general regression in technology and learning.




What you describe there is death of civilization, but not actual extinction of the species.


----------



## Serendipity (Oct 18, 2013)

Umbran said:


> What you describe there is death of civilization, but not actual extinction of the species.




Unless it's something catastrophic like an impact scenario, the one precedes the other.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Oct 18, 2013)

Pure, unadulterated stupidity on humanity's part.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Oct 18, 2013)

I voted "other".
Man will become extinct only after Jesus returns and decides to end the world.

(Well, you asked. And conveniently left that possibility out of the options.)
And please don't ridicule me for being a believer. Contrary to popular liberal thinking, many people do still believe in God.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 19, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> And please don't ridicule me for being a believer. Contrary to popular liberal thinking, many people do still believe in God.




Contrary to the thinking of many believers, most folks are quite comfortable with you having your beliefs, and feel no need at all to ridicule you for them.  Unfortunately, your presumption that we would be jerks means we can't prove to you that we aren't.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 19, 2013)

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

- Robert Frost


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Oct 19, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Contrary to the thinking of many believers, most folks are quite comfortable with you having your beliefs, and feel no need at all to ridicule you for them.  Unfortunately, your presumption that we would be jerks means we can't prove to you that we aren't.




It isn't so much about you guys, but rather some clowns I know from WotC. They just love being jerks and baiting and ridiculing believers, or get upset every time someone mentions Jesus or their belief in Him.
No offense towards you guys here.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 19, 2013)

Also:


----------



## Klirshon (Oct 19, 2013)

We machines will be your "huckleberry".


----------



## Nellisir (Oct 19, 2013)

Optimistically, I went with galactic collision.  Realistically, I'd lean towards major impact, but it'd have to be a doozy.  _Homo sapiens_ survived for tens of thousands of years without modern civilization; related species survived for hundreds of thousands of years. If you get a 99% human die-off event, the species would still be just fine afterwards. 

The big question is if we're going to plateau around our current level of science or if it'll jump forward, probably through genetics, and then plateau.  If the former, we'll probably regress at some point (pandemic, impact) and then rediscover; if the latter, all bets are off.  Eventually we'll try engineering aquatic humans, space humans, etc, etc.  Technologically I suspect our theory will outstrip our practice; we might find a theory that allows wormhole traffic, but requires the mass of Jupiter to create.

Then again...I dunno.  I am pretty pleased to be alive at this point in time.  It's interesting.


----------



## PigKnight (Oct 19, 2013)

Random Gamma Ray burst. Wham bam.


----------



## Orius (Oct 19, 2013)

Morrus said:


> So we've got a couple of people who say we'll never be extinct - that we'll survive the end of the universe.  I'm curious as to the thoughts there - are we talking multiverse theories, or universe models which support life indefinitely?




I selected it because to me it is the only result I like, though it's a somewhat limited answer in terms of the poll's scope.

Basically in terms of ethical priorities, preventing human extinction is pretty much at the top for me.  Scientifically, humans probably won't last forever, but the only acceptable outcome to me is the evolution of _H. sapiens_ into a species that is better suited towards long term survival in the universe at large and which doesn't forget the accomplishments of human culture.  So right now the main thing is start mastering the techniques for offworld settlement, because the Earth's biosphere won't last forever.  Farther out than that, there is the possibility of heat death, but that's too far into the future for us to be able to do anything about.


----------



## Jet Shield (Oct 19, 2013)

Given the number of stupid people I meet on a daily basis, I have to believe that humans will eventually breed themselves into a state of fatal stupidity. In a few generations, the stupid people will rampage across the world killing off anyone with an IQ higher than 60 through sheer numbers. Following that, they'll enter an unstoppable spiral to ultimate stupidity until they're too stupid to even feed themselves.


----------



## freyar (Oct 19, 2013)

Hard question; not sure I can decide if climate change would get everyone or if a few people might squeak through.

But I do find some of the options a bit puzzling.  Wouldn't a rogue black hole be a major impact event?  And the missing option of a nearby supernova would probably act similarly to a gamma ray burst but be a lot more likely.  All in fun, of course, and the list can't be comprehensive, so I'm just throwing some thoughts out there.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 19, 2013)

freyar said:


> But I do find some of the options a bit puzzling.  Wouldn't a rogue black hole be a major impact event?




You may label it such if it gives you pleasure! 



> And the missing option of a nearby supernova would probably act similarly to a gamma ray burst but be a lot more likely.  All in fun, of course, and the list can't be comprehensive, so I'm just throwing some thoughts out there.




Yeah, supernova's one I should have on there.  I'll add it!


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 21, 2013)

Umbran said:


> What you describe there is death of civilization, but not actual extinction of the species.



Extinction will follow shortly after, though, caused by a lack of crucial resources (as in, losing the ability to grow crops or any other kind of food). Earth will lose the ability to sustain life and it will happen well before we're able to colonize other planets or transport the lacking resources from elsewhere (i.e. rest of the solar system or beyond). 

A good example is phosphorus: It's essential for life, but we will probably run out of it well before we run out of e.g. oil. According to wikipedia: 







> Recent reports suggest that production of phosphorus may have peaked, leading to the possibility of global shortages by 2040.



By comparison, oil production is currently expected to peak in 2038 (again according to wikipedia).

While it's true that new methods of extracting such non-renewable resources are developed all the time, allowing us to tap deposits that are currently beyond our ability to exploit, and thus extending our time, a world-wide crisis followed by war and the death of civilization would also mean we lose the ability to apply these high-tech methods of extraction, eventually resulting in extinction.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 21, 2013)

freyar said:


> But I do find some of the options a bit puzzling.  Wouldn't a rogue black hole be a major impact event?




Only if it actually hit the planet.  The more likely scenario is that it flies by the Solar System, wreaking orbital perturbations that lead to all sorts of fun - including, but not limited to, major impact events.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 21, 2013)

Jhaelen said:


> Extinction will follow shortly after, though, caused by a lack of crucial resources (as in, losing the ability to grow crops or any other kind of food).




Except that humans, as a species, existed as hunter-gatherers for some hundreds of thousands of years without agriculture.  Loss of civilization as we know it does not doom us to extinction. 



> A good example is phosphorus: It's essential for life, but we will probably run out of it well before we run out of e.g. oil. According to wikipedia: By comparison, oil production is currently expected to peak in 2038 (again according to wikipedia).




The worries of hitting peak production are important for modern industry, and thus modern civilization, but not for life.  In a dietary sense, we are in no danger of running out of phosphorus - it has been necessary for life since DNA arose, but only in the past few hundred years has it been "produced" in an industrial sense. 

Loss of industrial levels of phosphorus, fossil fuels, or just about anything else, merely means we are limited to somewhere between stone-age and iron-age technology - what you can manage with hand-tools and charcoal.  That puts a limit on the maximum population of the planet, to be sure.  But, it is akin to the world stuck in the Renaissance period.  That's hardly extinction.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 21, 2013)

I don't quite see it. If we don't make it off the planet or evolve in some weird transhuman form, then the end of Earth as a viable biosphere guarantees the end of human life, I suppose. 

If we can no longer sustain our current industrial and medical standards, maybe it can happen earlier, but I am not sure. One thing to consider - if we can't fuel our planes any more, international travel comes to a halt, and thus many diseases cannot be spread across the globe.

How many life forms do we know that died off purely due to diseases? Maybe if we accidentally narrow down or genetic diversity (selective breeding, gene manipulation), we might finally encounter such a disease.


----------



## Nagol (Oct 21, 2013)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I don't quite see it. If we don't make it off the planet or evolve in some weird transhuman form, then the end of Earth as a viable biosphere guarantees the end of human life, I suppose.
> 
> If we can no longer sustain our current industrial and medical standards, maybe it can happen earlier, but I am not sure. One thing to consider - if we can't fuel our planes any more, international travel comes to a halt, and thus many diseases cannot be spread across the globe.
> 
> How many life forms do we know that died off purely due to diseases? Maybe if we accidentally narrow down or genetic diversity (selective breeding, gene manipulation), we might finally encounter such a disease.




Last I checked, the Tasmanian devil was headed for extinction from a communicable form of cancer, but I haven't looked recently to see is the prognosis has changed.  So it does happen.

Humans are somewhat protected themselves from that by covering the land surface of the planet -- it's hard for any terrestrial event to hit all of us -- sort of like cockroaches.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 21, 2013)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> One thing to consider - if we can't fuel our planes any more, international travel comes to a halt, and thus many diseases cannot be spread across the globe.




Tell that to the Native Americans, who were decimated by smallpox from Europe not just before airplanes, but before the invention of the internal combustion engine.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 21, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Except that humans, as a species, existed as hunter-gatherers for some hundreds of thousands of years without agriculture.  Loss of civilization as we know it does not doom us to extinction.




Except that those humans had a long tradition of functioning in a world of that nature.  We do not.  Er, well most of us.  Even someone like myself who does have quite a few skills in that arena wouldn't last because of a lack of modern devices.  Once my contacts ran out and my glasses were broken all of my hunting skills become moot.  Like it or not modern convenience and, especially, modern medicine, have removed quite a bit of humanity's survival ability.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 21, 2013)

They weren't decimated: they were borderline wiped out!
Only things I can see is humans being stupid enough to use over-powered WMDs, or evolving into a different species.
Maybe we'll get lucky, and a disease will arrive on a meteorite that we will have no defense against. That could be good.


----------



## tomBitonti (Oct 21, 2013)

Curious.

Would diversifying into nearby but still rather different forms count?

Also, what about a split (e.g., Morlock vs Eloi)?  Or, changes to the social infrastructure which render independent thought more or less impossible?  The physical form might be retained, but the capacity for thought might be destroyed or hamstrung by peculiar effects.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 21, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Tell that to the Native Americans, who were decimated by smallpox from Europe not just before airplanes, but before the invention of the internal combustion engine.




And what I read on the topic suggests that we find the greatest genetic diversity on the African continent, and losing the American and European continent wouldn't affect genetic diversity much.
The way smallpox was differently effective across the world is tied to this, or at least that's what I read.

And the Native Americans are still just a part of humanity, they are not its own species. 




> Except that those humans had a long tradition of functioning in a world  of that nature.  We do not.  Er, well most of us.  Even someone like  myself who does have quite a few skills in that arena wouldn't last  because of a lack of modern devices.  Once my contacts ran out and my  glasses were broken all of my hunting skills become moot.  Like it or  not modern convenience and, especially, modern medicine, have removed  quite a bit of humanity's survival ability.
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6205099#ixzz2iNage2Rc
> ​




Unless someone suddenly takes away all technology we have in an instant, this won't be a problem. You'll have an acclimiation phase that won't be nice.

And not to forget under what kind of conditions a vast majority of humanity actually lives in China and India. So what, I as pampered European citizen might not be able to survive the hardships of not being able to go online to order a video game on Amazon and drive the car to the nearest convenience store (because neither do I have fuel for my car, nor does the convenience store still get deliveries, nor could Amazon still get deliveries to me, and I might not even get the electricity to run my computer...), but some peasant in China won't notice such a big difference. 
​


----------



## Umbran (Oct 21, 2013)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And what I read on the topic suggests that we find the greatest genetic diversity on the African continent, and losing the American and European continent wouldn't affect genetic diversity much.




The point, which you seemed to have either missed or ignored, is that you don't need air travel to spread disease.  Deadly disease can and will spread between continents, even at wind-power speeds.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 21, 2013)

Umbran said:


> The point, which you seemed to have either missed or ignored, is that you don't need air travel to spread disease.  Deadly disease can and will spread between continents, even at wind-power speeds.




You are right, I missed your point.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 21, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Except that those humans had a long tradition of functioning in a world of that nature.  We do not.  Er, well most of us.  Even someone like myself who does have quite a few skills in that arena wouldn't last because of a lack of modern devices.  Once my contacts ran out and my glasses were broken all of my hunting skills become moot.  Like it or not modern convenience and, especially, modern medicine, have removed quite a bit of humanity's survival ability.




No, it hasn't removed humanity's survivability.  It has removed the ability of some specific humans to survive without technological support.  So, in a major disaster (say, a large impact) that kills civilization in an immediate stroke, a lot of people will die.   But, those are only some of the scenarios.  Most of the likely scenarios (say, running out of fossil fuels without finding another energy source) are slow-decline.  They take a generation or two.  And yes, again, a lot of people will die.  But not everyone.

Those who aren't killed outright do this thing we call "learning".  Humans are actually pretty good at it, when we aren't too comfortable.  

You don't have eyesight good enough to hunt?  That's okay.  Those hunters need someone at home to chip flint to make arrowheads, and that doesn't take good distance vision.  Neither does making pottery, or tanning skins, or subsistence-level farming.  They'll find something useful for you to do, don't worry.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 21, 2013)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Unless someone suddenly takes away all technology we have in an instant, this won't be a problem. You'll have an acclimiation phase that won't be nice.




Umm ... yes it will.  Do you know how to grow crops on a scale large enough to keep you alive?  Do you know how to hunt?  Hell, can you sew well enough to keep yourself clothed?  Technology != skill.  In a world like the one we're talking about ones' skills will be paramount.  My point is that the vast, vast majority of human beings today have no such skills.  They simply don't need them.



> And not to forget under what kind of conditions a vast majority of humanity actually lives in China and India. So what, I as pampered European citizen might not be able to survive the hardships of not being able to go online to order a video game on Amazon and drive the car to the nearest convenience store (because neither do I have fuel for my car, nor does the convenience store still get deliveries, nor could Amazon still get deliveries to me, and I might not even get the electricity to run my computer...), but some peasant in China won't notice such a big difference.




True.  Some people will feel a lot less pain.



Umbran said:


> No, it hasn't removed humanity's survivability.  It has removed the ability of some specific humans to survive without technological support.  So, in a major disaster (say, a large impact) that kills civilization in an immediate stroke, a lot of people will die.   But, those are only some of the scenarios.  Most of the likely scenarios (say, running out of fossil fuels without finding another energy source) are slow-decline.  They take a generation or two.  And yes, again, a lot of people will die.  But not everyone.
> 
> Those who aren't killed outright do this thing we call "learning".  Humans are actually pretty good at it, when we aren't too comfortable.
> 
> You don't have eyesight good enough to hunt?  That's okay.  Those hunters need someone at home to chip flint to make arrowheads, and that doesn't take good distance vision.  Neither does making pottery, or tanning skins, or subsistence-level farming.  They'll find something useful for you to do, don't worry.




Again, do you know how to hunt, fish, farm, sew, etc?  Do you think you're a, well, appealing enough personality to find others to support you while you learn how to do all of those things for yourself - especially when these people will be struggling to support themselves?  What, exactly, could you offer them?  And even if you do have something to offer them - maybe you're a doctor, maybe you really do have a winning personality - what about the millions that aren't/don't?  If it's you scrambling and using your skills to keep you and yours alive, are you really going to find busywork for someone?  I don't think so.  Simply put, if I can make arrowheads and use them I don't need someone who can't use them to make them for me.  I can't guarantee food for myself - let alone you.  

In short, most people will not have what it takes to make it and most of the people that will won't bother saving those that don't because the people that do have the skills know that they can't afford to.  Life won't be a hippy commune where each works according to his ability to earn resources according to his need.


----------



## Nellisir (Oct 22, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> My point is that the vast, vast majority of human beings today have no such skills.  They simply don't need them.



It doesn't matter.  We're talking about the survival of the human race, not the survival of you or me or cousin Billy Joe Bob.  If we lost 99% of the human race today because they had poor skilz, there would still be 60 million humans to do the Adam & Eve.

(personally, I think the survival rate would be much higher if we lost technology.  The skills aren't that long gone. And people can get by on a lot less than they expect.)


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Oct 22, 2013)

*Cthulhu will rise and teach us new kinds of fear...* and eat us.

(Less jokey, war and loss of easily usable resources and food)


----------



## Nellisir (Oct 22, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Hell, can you sew well enough to keep yourself clothed?



Gotta admit, I find this a strange one.  The bar for creating "clothing" is pretty low.  Asking if you can make thread from catgut, or tan a hide, that would be more challenging. (Tanning hides would be tough, but I know a lot of people that work with wool, from sheep to sweater. And I've had some experience with tanning, so I wouldn't be starting from zero....)  None of that is really "required" skills, though....


----------



## Jet Shield (Oct 22, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Do you know how to grow crops on a scale large enough to keep you alive?  Do you know how to hunt?  Hell, can you sew well enough to keep yourself clothed?
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Again, do you know how to hunt, fish, farm, sew, etc?




Yes. I can also make charcoal, do some (very basic) blacksmithing, knap flint (poorly, but I can make some useable tools), breed/raise/butcher animals, tan hides, make soap, churn butter, make cheese, and start a fire with sticks. I can do all those things well enough, in fact, that I would be able to make room for a half-blind janitor to help with the grunt work (like cleaning animal pens, turning compost, and general clean-up). Actually, I would almost _need_ someone (or several someones) to help with the unskilled grunt work in order to maximize my output and live well rather than just survive.

There are plenty of people even in the US and Europe that would be able to survive the loss of modern technology. It might not be a lot of _fun_ at first, but it's certainly survivable. Sure, a lot of people would probably die, but millions just in the US would live.

In short, loss of modern technology would not lead to the extinction of humanity.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 22, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Umm ... yes it will.  Do you know how to grow crops on a scale large enough to keep you alive?




Yes, I do, actually.  And learned how to do canning for winter storage as well.  



> Do you know how to hunt?




Personally, no.  But I do know of to make a fire without matches, how to build a shelter, and how to chop down a tree without having it fall on me.



> Hell, can you sew well enough to keep yourself clothed?




Yes, I can - my mother didn't want a son who couldn't mend clothes.  They won't be fancy, but they'll stay on my person.  And while I don't weave, my wife does spin fiber into yarn.



> In a world like the one we're talking about ones' skills will be paramount.  My point is that the vast, vast majority of human beings today have no such skills.  They simply don't need them.




And my point is that most of them are not nearly so difficult as you make them out to be.  What you don't know can be learned.   None of what I know was picked up because I'm some sort of manic survivalist.  I'm just interested in things, and picked them up as part of hobbies. 

Oh, and my wife is a veterinarian, and therefore knows how to keep sheep, goats, chickens, cows, horses, and a number of other animals healthy.  And that's not a rare skill - every veterinarian in the country gets trained on food animals.  

And, in the end, whether *I* know things isn't relevant.  We are talking not about what will kill off lots of people in urban America, but the world.  In order for humankind to go extinct, you have to kill every human on the planet.  And lots and lots of the world is not like urban America.  A great many people in third world countries have the skills required to live without modern tech - because they already do!  



> In short, most people will not have what it takes to make it...




See above.  Remember that the USA is only 300 million on a planet of seven billion.


----------



## tomBitonti (Oct 22, 2013)

One should _probably_ put some parameters on the failure.

A flare which fried all electronics but left the world otherwise about the same is different than an asteroid driven nuclear winter is different than a plague which kills 90-99.99% of folks but leaves the rest, which is different than all out nuclear war.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 22, 2013)

Morrus said:


> There are many things which might decimate humanity or worse.  But what do you think will be the thing to actually end us?  The point where we go extinct?



Your poll conveniently left out the choice "When Homicidal_Squirrel, and his legion of squirrels, decides it." I'm sure you'll argue that can fit under "Other," but such an obvious choice deserves it's own sport, preferably the first sport, on this poll.


----------



## delericho (Oct 22, 2013)

You know the bit in Firefly where it says "we used up the Earth, so we found a new one"?

Well, that... except without the "finding a new one" bit. As Umbran says, we seem to be charting a path to our own destruction.

(That said, I do have my doubts - an asteroid might get us first.)


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 22, 2013)

I went with WAR but kind of think, we will just stop, that our DNA will just say; hey you had a good run, time to die.  A lot of things to be blamed for this but it is just we reach our evolutionary end, which we have not improved on in the last 10000 odd years.   

Now with Asteroid 2013.TV135 (one in 48,000 chance of hitting Earth in 2032), just don't think it is big enough to take all of our out.


----------



## Janx (Oct 22, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> One should _probably_ put some parameters on the failure.
> 
> A flare which fried all electronics but left the world otherwise about the same is different than an asteroid driven nuclear winter is different than a plague which kills 90-99.99% of folks but leaves the rest, which is different than all out nuclear war.
> 
> ...




Which is why I figure that many of the listed  catastrophes won't wipe us out 100%, and thus won't be the thing that kills us.

War and disease are certainly bad things, but humans are slippery critters and it is darn hard to get them all.  Heck, we can't even perform a human vs. human genocide to 100% efficiency.  There are always people getting away with the clothes on their back to warn others.

It's gonna take a planet killer event to wipe out all life on earth to do us in.

Even climate change (as in the real world stuff, not the sci fi stuff where the temperature rises +100 degrees and we all die) isn't sufficient.  So what if the earth gets hotter and the oceans rise.  Africa's been like that forever, and people still live there.  There are going to places that remain habitable (ex. northern canada), and lots of people will suffer and die.  But that's not the same as EVERYBODY being wiped out.  The most adapting the Canadians will need to do is to buy a swimsuit and mothball their parkas.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 22, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> I went with WAR but kind of think, we will just stop, that our DNA will just say; hey you had a good run, time to die.  A lot of things to be blamed for this but it is just we reach our evolutionary end, which we have not improved on in the last 10000 odd years.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Is there any evidence this has ever happened to any species, or that it can happen?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 22, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Hand of Evil said:
> 
> 
> > I went with WAR but kind of think, we will just stop, that our DNA will just say; hey you had a good run, time to die.  A lot of things to be blamed for this but it is just we reach our evolutionary end, which we have not improved on in the last 10000 odd years.
> ...


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 22, 2013)

Regardless of how humanity goes extinct, some conservative guesses indicate that there's a 95% chance that humans will be gone in just over 9,100 years.

I find that thought oddly comforting.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 22, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Hand of Evil said:
> 
> 
> > I went with WAR but kind of think, we will just stop, that our DNA will just say; hey you had a good run, time to die.  A lot of things to be blamed for this but it is just we reach our evolutionary end, which we have not improved on in the last 10000 odd years.
> ...




I do not think so, but 90% of all life on earth in the history of the earth has become extinct, some we know of as being climate, floods, volcanic, etc but a number seem to have just ended.  If we become another species are we still humans or do we need up like the Neanderthal and just fade away.


----------



## Nellisir (Oct 22, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> I do not think so, but 90% of all life on earth in the history of the earth has become extinct, some we know of as being climate, floods, volcanic, etc but a number seem to have just ended.  If we become another species are we still humans or do we need up like the Neanderthal and just fade away.



As mustrum points out, a lot of that can be attributed to over-specialization.  That is...not really a problem for us.

Humans have one special adaptation.  We have big brains that let us talk to one another.  We use that talking to transmit knowledge on how to make things.  The things we make either adapt us to an environment, or adapt an environment to us.

Humans and closely related species (Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo denisovan) were all capable of surviving outside of Africa, sometimes in extremely adverse environments.  Homo erectus likely used fire as long as 1 million years ago.  Sapiens, neandertals, denisovans, and floresiens almost certainly all used clothing.  Homo erectus as a species lasted more than 1.5 million years.

I think more often what happens is a generalized species (ie homo erectus) eventually becomes either a more advanced generalized species (heidelbergensis) and/or more specialized species (neandertals, denisovans?).  Specialized species are vulnerable to habitat loss & competition; generalized species are not optimal at utilizing their environments and, while having a wider range, lack the numbers of more specialized species (ie herds of bison, antelope, etc, etc.)  The original species is seen to have "gone extinct", but that's only true in the sense that your great-great-grandparents have "gone extinct".


----------



## Nellisir (Oct 22, 2013)

Our DNA doesn't "tell" us anything, btw.


----------



## megamania (Oct 23, 2013)

Nothing that "we" do will wipe out 100% of the populance  and I suspect we would survive certain asteroid strikes and the such.    Its more- will we have the ability and the TIME after knowing the planet itself is about to be wiped out in some cosmic pool game bank shot to get off it?

Time will tell......


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Oct 28, 2013)

I am amending my answer to "Not sooner enough."


----------



## Bedrockgames (Oct 28, 2013)

Mount Toba supposedly came close to doing us in before (though from what i gather the theory may be losing steam), so i am going to go with a volcano.


----------



## Ragnar_Lodbrok (Oct 28, 2013)

Nothing lasts forever. However, we've proven to be very adaptable because of extensive tool use and the ability to develop and reproduce much more complex and effective tools than other species. There are only a handful of regions we haven't been able to colonize thoroughly, and many we have are very different from East Africa. When we go, it will have to be a variety of factors, simply because most of these are either not thorough enough to kill _everyone_ or are so far off that it's not likely humanity will even be recognizable. Whatever caused the Permian Mass Extinction could do it, and a large enough impact event would, but drastic, rapid climate change seems more likely right now.


----------

