-deleted-

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[patches70]

Open question(s) for anyone to answer. It is sort of a two-part question, to be exact.

a) Is the world ending? no
Will it ever come to an end?Most definitely
Will the human species come to an end, but not necessarily the world?If history in any indication, human beings will be long since extinct when the Earth is consumed in Sol's eventual supernova.
b) If yes, will this happen in the foreseeable future, perhaps at the commencement of war, what are your theories?
It's no theory, the sun will super nova one day and when it does that's all she wrote for the Earth. You'd be surprised how hard it is to actually destroy a planet, and by destroy I mean complete obliteration, nothing left. Not even enough scattered mass that can eventually condense and reform the planet again. It's probably quite easy, relative to how hard it is to actually destroy a planet, to get rid of everything that may live on a planet. It's easier to make a planet a lifeless rock than to actually destroy the planet.
As to the how human extinction eventually comes about, one need only use their imagination. That's just as good an answer as any I guess. Although, there is now for the first time in human history, that we human beings can actually stave off complete extinction. Even if the Earth becomes completely uninhabitable, human beings could still survive by simply migrating into space. We aren't quite there yet in technology, but there is a chance that our species will spread out among the stars and in doing so insure our continued existence somewhere in the galaxy.
What's that story about keeping all of one's eggs in a basket? Yeah, that's the one, and one day (hopefully) we will move from not only our own planet but even move out beyond our own solar system. That is the only actually chance that we'll survive until the final collapse of the entire universe. I don't see any way out of that event. But it would be right nice if human beings (in some shape or form) would still be around to see it all go down.

What do you all think?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[mrswdk]

inb4 God

[chang50]

Open question(s) for anyone to answer. It is sort of a two-part question, to be exact.

a) Is the world ending? Will it ever come to an end? Will the human species come to an end, but not necessarily the world?
b) If yes, will this happen in the foreseeable future, perhaps at the commencement of war, what are your theories?

What do you all think?

The world is ending in the sense that a newborn baby is dying.Of course it will come to an end,probably after humans.
Depends what you call foreseeable,certainly one mammalian species has developed the technology to kill all his fellows..

[Falkomagno]

Well, I've been reading something about trans-humanism lately, and these people says that we are advancing in technology at exponential rate, therefore, in a reasonable period of time we will be able to "evolve" further, and then be able to inhabit other planets. If that theory is true, then the world can ends but humanity not.

Its not hard to see that we as a human specie had keystones of development, at certain level biological (developed brain, the opposition movement of the thumb) then social and cultural (language) and technological (agriculture, the wheel, electrical power). You can therefore theorize about the next kind of keystone development; spiritual? conscious? a supra-mind, made of all humanity? in transportation? Who knows...

[PLAYER57832]

Open question(s) for anyone to answer. It is sort of a two-part question, to be exact.

a) Is the world ending? Will it ever come to an end? Will the human species come to an end, but not necessarily the world?
b) If yes, will this happen in the foreseeable future, perhaps at the commencement of war, what are your theories?

What do you all think?

a. of course.. some day.
b. depends on our immediate actions. Right now we have the ability to destroy ourselves many times over with various weapons, plus the more remote potential to do so through accidental release of anything from destructive chemical agents to biological entities. These events are not very likely, just possible.

For the longer term.. our lifetimes, the lifetimes of our children, it really depends on what happens with the climate and how people react to the coming changes. I hope we can quickly move from this idea of somehow "debating" the scientific fact that our Earth is warming and go on to debating how to fix the problems we already know exist. Sadly, too many would rather ignore problems than work to fix them, particularly if the fix means any real effort on their part. In that scenario, its likely that some humanity would survive, but not civilization as we know it now. Whether a "good" society will emerge again or not is debatable.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, I've been reading something about trans-humanism lately, and these people says that we are advancing in technology at exponential rate, therefore, in a reasonable period of time we will be able to "evolve" further, and then be able to inhabit other planets. If that theory is true, then the world can ends but humanity not.

Its not hard to see that we as a human specie had keystones of development, at certain level biological (developed brain, the opposition movement of the thumb) then social and cultural (language) and technological (agriculture, the wheel, electrical power). You can therefore theorize about the next kind of keystone development; spiritual? conscious? a supra-mind, made of all humanity? in transportation? Who knows...

Except, despite all that technological advancement, we have seen very little, almost no, biological change to humanity in that time.

[oVo]

in a reasonable period of time we will be able to "evolve" further

People on this planet have not evolved far enough to co-exist in a civil manner or be caring stewards of the ecosystem we share with other living things. So pushing technology towards dreams of inhabiting other regions of the galaxy is kind of silly. The basic global issues of hunger, habitat, equality and fair government won't even be resolved in our lifetime. The "intelligent beings" of this planet still have a lot of evolving to do.

[BigBallinStalin]

in a reasonable period of time we will be able to "evolve" further

People on this planet have not evolved far enough to co-exist in a civil manner or be caring stewards of the ecosystem we share with other living things. So pushing technology towards dreams of inhabiting other regions of the galaxy is kind of silly. The basic global issues of hunger, habitat, equality and fair government won't even be resolved in our lifetime. The "intelligent beings" of this planet still have a lot of evolving to do.

Don't you think allowing people to travel beyond Earth enables them to establish their own trial-and-errors of governance? I'd expect so, and with it, I'd expect better outcomes. It's difficult to reform for the better here because of the special interest groups, politicians, bureaucrats, and uninformed voters.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, I've been reading something about trans-humanism lately, and these people says that we are advancing in technology at exponential rate, therefore, in a reasonable period of time we will be able to "evolve" further, and then be able to inhabit other planets. If that theory is true, then the world can ends but humanity not.

Its not hard to see that we as a human specie had keystones of development, at certain level biological (developed brain, the opposition movement of the thumb) then social and cultural (language) and technological (agriculture, the wheel, electrical power). You can therefore theorize about the next kind of keystone development; spiritual? conscious? a supra-mind, made of all humanity? in transportation? Who knows...

You'd be interested in Tyler Cowen's Average is Over and The Great Stagnation. He's basically arguing in the TGS that the low-hanging fruit of technological advancement have practically been picked already, so we'll be experiencing greater costs of advancing technologically (which slows down growth), thus obtaining less and less great breakthroughs.

On the other hand, the problem lies in education--in that people are being educated in the wrong areas, e.g. the waiter with the Master's degree---hell, even an undergrad degree.

There's also the problem of regulation, which unsurprisingly will be ineffectively produced and enforced, but will have no problem expanding and imposing its burdens on others. There's a long list of how easily governments can mess it up for everyone. There's also climate change which may hamper growth in some areas while increasing it in others (who knows). etc. etc.

[mrswdk]

Is it actually possible to totally rid the world of hunger with this planet's population and this planet's resources?

[_sabotage_]

Is it actually possible to totally rid the world of hunger with this planet's population and this planet's resources?

Yes.

[muy_thaiguy]

It's the end of the world as we know it.

[mrswdk]

I see a lot of gasbaggin' in the media about hungry Africans, but aren't Darwinists being morally hypocritical to try and solve world hunger?

[PLAYER57832]

I see a lot of gasbaggin' in the media about hungry Africans, but aren't Darwinists being morally hypocritical to try and solve world hunger?

What would make you believe that Darwin had anything to do with our views on hunger?
Darwin wrote about biological processes. He never made claims such as you are trying to attribute to him.

[oVo]

Is it actually possible to totally rid the world of hunger with this planet's population and this planet's resources?

The food production is there, more empathy with less corruption
and greed is the first hurdle. No person on the planet should have
to go to sleep hungry at night.

aren't Darwinists being morally hypocritical to try and solve world hunger?

Do you mean this as a form of natural selection with nature taking
it's course? Not sure if it's hypocritical for human intelligence to inject
feelings into the equation by trying to assist and preserve our species
and not be so self centered to only consider our own existence.

People already depend on others to provide food, clothes and all sorts
of other basic needs. If community life already bucks Darwinism, is it
hypocritical to extend those same comforts beyond existing borders
and share with the less fortunate inhabitants of this world?

[BigBallinStalin]

Is it actually possible to totally rid the world of hunger with this planet's population and this planet's resources?

The food production is there, more empathy with less corruption
and greed is the first hurdle. No person on the planet should have
to go to sleep hungry at night?

Greed is what drives people to provide for others through two very different means (voluntary exchange and coercive exchange). If you desire more wealth in exchange for whatever, then there's two ways of acquiring more wealth: voluntary exchange or coercive exchange. The farmer who produces a surplus can be labelled 'greedy' by trading his surplus for other goods. Through trade his surplus goes to others, and others trade him whatever he's looking for. The politician and voters can be labelled 'greedy' when they demand wealth transfers from others to themselves.

In short, 'greed' is usually employed as moral rhetoric for beating down anyone who obtains a profit through voluntary exchange. 'Greed' arguments muddle clear thinking.

Also, if you wanted to expand people's opportunities to increase their wealth (thus acquire more food and other goods), then you'd be opposed to tariffs and any barriers to trade with foreign countries. Are you opposed to such barriers to trade?

[_sabotage_]

I'm righter than them, better than them and so should have more than them is what drives greed. And the only way to fulfill that drive is by making more than others or having better toys then others.

And then once you have one-upped your old peers, you take a look at your new peers and say; I'm better than them too, I should have more than them. And in deny the equality of man, they make themselves unequal.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

in a reasonable period of time we will be able to "evolve" further

People on this planet have not evolved far enough to co-exist in a civil manner or be caring stewards of the ecosystem we share with other living things. So pushing technology towards dreams of inhabiting other regions of the galaxy is kind of silly. The basic global issues of hunger, habitat, equality and fair government won't even be resolved in our lifetime. The "intelligent beings" of this planet still have a lot of evolving to do.

Don't you think allowing people to travel beyond Earth enables them to establish their own trial-and-errors of governance? I'd expect so, and with it, I'd expect better outcomes. It's difficult to reform for the better here because of the special interest groups, politicians, bureaucrats, and uninformed voters.

Somewhat off-topic, but in the Night's Dawn trilogy by Peter F. Hamilton (which takes place some 600 years in the future), mankind has spread throughout the galaxy, and each planet is generally populated by one culture, and usually everybody gets along fine. It's a space opera novel, so take it for what it's worth, but I thought it was interesting.

On topic... 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, so the question is whether H. sapien's intelligence and innovation are enough to stave off the inevitable.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

in a reasonable period of time we will be able to "evolve" further

People on this planet have not evolved far enough to co-exist in a civil manner or be caring stewards of the ecosystem we share with other living things. So pushing technology towards dreams of inhabiting other regions of the galaxy is kind of silly. The basic global issues of hunger, habitat, equality and fair government won't even be resolved in our lifetime. The "intelligent beings" of this planet still have a lot of evolving to do.

Don't you think allowing people to travel beyond Earth enables them to establish their own trial-and-errors of governance? I'd expect so, and with it, I'd expect better outcomes. It's difficult to reform for the better here because of the special interest groups, politicians, bureaucrats, and uninformed voters.

Somewhat off-topic, but in the Night's Dawn trilogy by Peter F. Hamilton (which takes place some 600 years in the future), mankind has spread throughout the galaxy, and each planet is generally populated by one culture, and usually everybody gets along fine. It's a space opera novel, so take it for what it's worth, but I thought it was interesting.

On topic... 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, so the question is whether H. sapien's intelligence and innovation are enough to stave off the inevitable.

-TG

If we can keep can trading and at lesser costs, then sure. Barriers over the mobility of labor and capital have been decreasing over the centuries--well, not so much with immigration (labor mobility), but we'll see.

That story reminds me of what happened to the Maori and Mioriri. I get 'em mixed up, but one was constantly fighting other groups while the other was isolated, and with the costs of leaving so high, the Mioriri decided to settle disputes peacefully amongst themselves. One day, the Maori came along and killed all the peaceful Mioriri, who had no experience nor appropriate tech for dealing with the Maori.


This applies to the story analogously---assuming no trade exists between planets (not just trade in goods, but trade in information). In the future with space colonization, I see humans developing more market-based means of security, which has been a trending upward. With more exchanges based on voluntary means, I'd expect more conflicts to be resolved by courts instead of in the streets or interstellar space 'streets'.

A bit more off-topic. I'd expect experiments toward greater political centralization (e.g. world government theories) to lead to more failures--assuming the government exerts more control over more economic arenas of production and exchange--which historically they've done. I'm hoping more and more people get tired of their unhealthy obsessions of democracy and their irrational hatred toward markets; otherwise, we'll quickly lead ourselves to our own demise (unless of course you can get outta Earth before then). That would be great. Let all the Marxists, socialists, and statists have their own planets to mess up.

[clangfield]

To answer the OP:
We are, simply, a bad species. Even if we could colonise another planet, we're a long way from the point where we should.
Anyone sent to space will have an agenda - be it political, moral, religious or scientific, and will fight (not necessarily with weapons) to defend their view of how things should be; there will also be those who try to subvert, and those who see shortcuts to their success at the expense of others. It's an unfortunate paradox that those who would be best placed to survive on an alien world are those least likely to produce a perfect colony - whatever that may be - and vice-versa.
As an example of what can happen, I give you - Australia.

[AAFitz]

Is it actually possible to totally rid the world of hunger with this planet's population and this planet's resources?

Yes. Just switching to plant based would probably generate enough food right there to do it. Unfortunately, with such a dependence on animal protein, the resources are spent...essentially, for taste.

[AAFitz]

in a reasonable period of time we will be able to "evolve" further

People on this planet have not evolved far enough to co-exist in a civil manner or be caring stewards of the ecosystem we share with other living things. So pushing technology towards dreams of inhabiting other regions of the galaxy is kind of silly. The basic global issues of hunger, habitat, equality and fair government won't even be resolved in our lifetime. The "intelligent beings" of this planet still have a lot of evolving to do.

Don't you think allowing people to travel beyond Earth enables them to establish their own trial-and-errors of governance? I'd expect so, and with it, I'd expect better outcomes. It's difficult to reform for the better here because of the special interest groups, politicians, bureaucrats, and uninformed voters.

Somewhat off-topic, but in the Night's Dawn trilogy by Peter F. Hamilton (which takes place some 600 years in the future), mankind has spread throughout the galaxy, and each planet is generally populated by one culture, and usually everybody gets along fine. It's a space opera novel, so take it for what it's worth, but I thought it was interesting.

On topic... 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, so the question is whether H. sapien's intelligence and innovation are enough to stave off the inevitable.

-TG

If we can keep can trading and at lesser costs, then sure. Barriers over the mobility of labor and capital have been decreasing over the centuries--well, not so much with immigration (labor mobility), but we'll see.

That story reminds me of what happened to the Maori and Mioriri. I get 'em mixed up, but one was constantly fighting other groups while the other was isolated, and with the costs of leaving so high, the Mioriri decided to settle disputes peacefully amongst themselves. One day, the Maori came along and killed all the peaceful Mioriri, who had no experience nor appropriate tech for dealing with the Maori.


This applies to the story analogously---assuming no trade exists between planets (not just trade in goods, but trade in information). In the future with space colonization, I see humans developing more market-based means of security, which has been a trending upward. With more exchanges based on voluntary means, I'd expect more conflicts to be resolved by courts instead of in the streets or interstellar space 'streets'.

A bit more off-topic. I'd expect experiments toward greater political centralization (e.g. world government theories) to lead to more failures--assuming the government exerts more control over more economic arenas of production and exchange--which historically they've done. I'm hoping more and more people get tired of their unhealthy obsessions of democracy and their irrational hatred toward markets; otherwise, we'll quickly lead ourselves to our own demise (unless of course you can get outta Earth before then). That would be great. Let all the Marxists, socialists, and statists have their own planets to mess up.

Chuckle...you said unhealthy obsession and irrational...chuckle

[BigBallinStalin]

You can chuckle self-assuredly to yourself as much as you like, but it's true.

Many people don't understand the interplay between markets and politics, so they'll largely blame or only blame markets (which ironically, casts blame upon themselves--but anyway). This view is reinforced by their faith in greater centralization, thus power and what not, of democratic government (namely, the national government). Thus, that style of government becomes the seemingly best option to fix any problem, but they've forgotten (a) the role and impact of political capitalism/crony capitalism, (b) the increasing limits of increasing centralization of a democratic government, and (c) better alternatives (voluntary exchange, i.e. pure market).


It's interesting. Even if you get them to admit that politicians are self-interested, or aren't the best planners for the nation, many will still think deep down, "but my politician is altruistic and knows what's best" (e.g. Obama). Maybe this illusion should be called: "the Obama Effect."

• One very minor change: "Irrational" should be replaced with "ignorant." I call it 'irrational' because their means for attaining their goals does not best attain their goals, thus is irrational. But if they don't know any better (because they're ignorant), then to themselves they're acting rationally.