|
mattnunn
4,208 posts
31 months
|
Just read on BBC news scientists are worried about Seal flu (that's not a chimney part but a virus).
Let's go clubbing!
|
|
|
Frimley111R
4,301 posts
104 months
|
steviegunn said: Dinosaurs roamed for millions of years, still do if the theory that they evolved into birds is correct, fish, sharks, reptiles, amphibians, insects and arachnids have been around as long and in many cases longer than the Dinosaurs. Mammals have been on Earth for millions of years, individual species don't tend to last that long though, after 200,000 years homo sapiens are probably close to outliving their welcome. But there is a huge difference between animals that eat and reproduce all their lives to humans. We are massively move advanced life forms, 'game changer' in evolution. We have the ability to control the earth in many ways.
|
|
|
T S Magnum
255 posts
72 months
|
Frimley111R said: But there is a huge difference between animals that eat and reproduce all their lives to humans. We are massively move advanced life forms, 'game changer' in evolution. We have the ability to control the earth in many ways. Our unique intelligence will prove more of a liability than an asset to longevity IMO. We've spent the last 200 years in a mass delusion, believing that finite natural resources can support ever increasing numbers, shafting every other species in the process. Christ I'm depressing!
|
|
|
Boydie88
871 posts
19 months
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSYPretty interesting talk about population increase... the planet will be unlivable for the masses very soon. As for extinction, I think it will come down to the sun. Edit - For those that cba to watch the video - when it was filmed, population growth was 1.3% per year. If that continues, there will be 1 person per square meter of DRY-LAND in just 780 years.
|
|
|
T S Magnum
255 posts
72 months
|
|
|
sunbeam alpine
2,058 posts
58 months
|
im said: ....Earth should easily survive what will be a 1.2 million mile per hour galactic merger. Even at that speed, the event would take about 2 billion years.... I won't cancel the milk just yet 
|
|
|
R300will
3,622 posts
21 months
|
T S Magnum said: Frimley111R said: But there is a huge difference between animals that eat and reproduce all their lives to humans. We are massively move advanced life forms, 'game changer' in evolution. We have the ability to control the earth in many ways. Our unique intelligence will prove more of a liability than an asset to longevity IMO. We've spent the last 200 years in a mass delusion, believing that finite natural resources can support ever increasing numbers, shafting every other species in the process. Christ I'm depressing! We're not that intelligent.
|
|
|
T S Magnum
255 posts
72 months
|
R300will said: We're not that intelligent. Yes, quite! We've been 'intelligent' enough to create a system which has allowed our numbers to swell to 7 billion by the very rapid combustion of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon deposits. Without these resources the best we could manage was 1 billion (population in 1800). The intelligent thing would have been to leave well alone I suppose, but then we'd not have cars to play with!
|
|
|
R300will
3,622 posts
21 months
|
T S Magnum said: R300will said: We're not that intelligent. Yes, quite! We've been 'intelligent' enough to create a system which has allowed our numbers to swell to 7 billion by the very rapid combustion of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon deposits. Without these resources the best we could manage was 1 billion (population in 1800). The intelligent thing would have been to leave well alone I suppose, but then we'd not have cars to play with! We are governed by our DNA if it wants to keep on replicating itself it will make us keep on humping regardless of the consequences. Chemicals aren't too smart tbh.
|
|
|
ben_h100
1,008 posts
49 months
|
We may end up with two 'classes of civilisation'; those who decide to live within their means and limit the population wrt the resources available, and the others who decide 'f  k it we'll carry on as before'. Maybe a new type of cold war? West v East? Of course this would mean that the UK (and any other countries in our 'pact') would have to entirely self sufficient. It's scary how much we rely on fossil fuels.
|
|
|
goldblum
7,000 posts
37 months
|
We'll carry on for millions of years,eventually finding a realistic form of space travel in which the acceleration won't crush us and the journey doesn't take 1000s of years.We'll colonise other planets and star systems,be best friends with different alien races and carry on for millions more years.
It'll be great.
|
|
|
BS75
1,491 posts
36 months
|
It wouldn't take much of a sun-fart to burn away our atmosphere. I reckon that'll be the end game and we won't even see it coming.
|
|
|
merc_man
1,917 posts
72 months
|
Mattygooner said: As soon a Skynet becomes self sufficient... Do you mean like in The Good Life? In that case will we see a lot of mechanised Margot Leadbetters (The Surbiton-1000 model) arranging Bridge nights where a robot Jerry will wipe out the remains of humanity by wafting toxic curry fumes in their direction? Will a future Felicity Kendall be sent back in time to save us?
|
|
|
Nick M
3,148 posts
93 months
|
My guess is that future global conflicts will be around key resources, such as the ability to produce food.
While countries may be able to generate enough money to be able to buy in food they cannot produce themselves, there is likely to be the equivalent of 'peak oil' where there isn't enough food producing capacity to cope with the global population. Unless synthetic foods are available I wonder what will happen in such a situation, particularly if the cost of transportation increases due to the scarcity of fossil fuels (or no cheap alternative to them).
I can also see certain parts of the world becoming either very isolated (if they are, or can be, self sufficient) or uninhabited (if they can't) because the cost of getting to / from those places is too high to make it viable to bring in food or other essentials.
Eventually I think the planet will get back to some sort of equilibrium, but only after a globally devasting effect such as famine, war or disease wipes out a significant percentage of the global population. And more importantly, that we're intelligent enough to learn from that (though I suspect as long as there are politicians on the planet, we won't...).
|
|
