Ending The Earths Lifespan

[Sephiroth_unite]

When do you think the earth will end?

Me how I think the world will end is by it being flooded with the greenhouse gas emitions, or blown to pieces by our "Weapons of mass destruction"

But if the world ends in a few centuries or more then I think that we will be able to assimilate another planet to call home.

Or at least I hope so :(

[Gelgoog Pilot]

I think the earth has a limited time of use...and of course a lifespan...though the things you listed wouldn't have an effect like killing the world more like us. Anyway lol...I believe we'll run dry of resources forcing us to leave for more material..actually people have speculated on mining operations on the moon...meh good enough for me..I like advances in space travel.

[Patronus]

The world will end with a big boom.

The end.

[Fall]

We'll most likely have the technology to stop the end of the world by the time it actually happens.

Some mad machine that can freeze time and stop the core of the Earth from over-heating and detonating a huge heatwave burning the planet to ash... however the Earth is gonna end, we'll have something bigger and badder than we've ever imagined yet that'll be able to stop it.

[Semjaza]

Who cares? I won't be alive to see it and that's all I need to know.

[Sephiroth_unite]

Well you never know the world could end in a matterr of seconds for all we know. So the next time you substanciate that you won't be alive you could also end up being the only one alive.

[Semjaza]

Eh, when I die, I die. I've had a good run. It's not like I'm running around helping destroy the earth by not recycling and using dozens of aerosol cans. Whatever would happen would be unavoidable on my part.

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]To imagine that the earth can be destroyed by anything that human beings would do is laughable and rather arrogant. Hypoythetical;ly, if we really put our minds to it, we could make it go bomb, but I don't really see why anyone would try to do that.

Human beings, through the course of our daily little struggles, only posess the power to change the Earth, not destroy it. We can kill a lot of other things, and certainly kill ourselves, but the Earth would still be here, and life would continue on with or without us.

Let's look at the possibilities listed that could 'destroy' the Earth.

Flood -Wouldn't destroy the earth, or even a whole lot of life, since the vast majority of life on Earth is aquatic anyway. Next!

Nuked- A single nuclear device wouldn't 'destroy' the Earth, just a relativly large area. If you're talking nuclear war, or nuclear winter, that wouldn't 'destroy' the Eath either, and it certainly would'nt destroy life on Earth. Radiation is a known factor in the development of cellular life; we'd be gone, but there'd be brand new critters around eventually. Viva la revolucion de la cucarachas!

Asteroid- Hmmm....okay, hypothetically, a large enough asteroid could split the Eath into pieces. It's have to be just the right mass, and hit at just the right time, so even though the odds are infinatly low, I'll grant that an asteroid could possibly completely destroy the Earth.

Raw Meterial all used up- Yet again, this would kill us, and take a lot of other species down with us, but the earth and lifeforms would survive.

The Earth will be destroyed when the Sun enters a red giant phase and expands to the point where the Earth is engulfed. That's really all that needs to be said.[/color][/size][/font]

[Chaos]

[size=1]VERY nicely said, DeathBug. I've always wondered where most people got the idea that we, mere sprinkles of genetic crap, have the power to blow up an [b]entire planet.[/b] Hell, the most dangerous thing that the world has to worry about is something the size of Pluto ramming straight into it.

We, on the other hand, are nothings. Don't feed me all this crap about nuclear war and global warming and this and that; it's a threat to US, not the world. This planet has been around for four and a half [i]billion[/i] years. Please, everyone, try to wrap your brains around a million years, much less a billion, or four more billion. It's unfathomable. We, as recognizable human beings, have been around for maybe ten thousand years as we stand now. And we, in fact, are just creatures of circumstances. Some monkey in Africa was walking on the ground and couldn't see over the grass, and got eaten by a lion. Another monkey saw this, had the wonderful idea of standing straight up, and boom. Evolution kicked in. This radical new thought promoted brain growth, and with more and more ideas, body structures began to change, and, after about a million years since that innovative motion, we find ourselves today.

Look at everything we do. We burn fossil fuels that later eat holes in the ozone layer, letting more UV light in. We all get skin cancer and die. Plants, however, flourish because UV light is healthy for developmental growth in almost all cellular actives. It warms the entire system up, reducing the need for enzymes to act as catalysts for chemical reactions. So plants photosynthesize more often and easier, and they get more nutrients because they no longer need to work as hard as to get the proper nourishment. More plants means more insects, who would also thrive on more UV. More insects, more lower-class carnivores. And so on.

And all the while we are gone.

You seem to think the "ending" of the world will be in our hands. No. We will be our own end, eventually, but the earth will survive us. It has, in the span of it's life, been struck by outer space debris, the constant eruptions of lava flows, the shift of entire continents, violent upheavals of mountains and disastrous erosions of valleys. Seas have flowed and ebbed, and entire races of animals have been wiped out. All over the courses of billions of years.

We are just a blink of the eye to Earth. We are nothing in comparison. To say that any human can destroy the world is completely and totally moronic.[/size]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]By my incredibly precise calculations, I have determined that all life on Earth will cease to exist in:

3

2

1

...

You still there? Guess they weren't that precise then, were they? And thats the point. You can't give any kind of reliable calculation as to how or when the Earth will 'end'.

And by Earth ending, it is obviously not referring to the disintegration of the entire planet into smithereens, but the time where we cause so much damage to it and to ourselves that most of the population dies. Duh.[/size]

[Drix D'Zanth]

The worlds ending? My God. I should probably go inhale some "greenhouse gas" that sephiroth_unite was talking about, maybe that'll anethstetize me enough so I'll die peacefully.

I love this talk of ozone destruction and the using of natural resources. The gigantic hole in the ozone is shrinking, and was found in the mid 70's (so we saw how friggin huge it was in the first place, instead of it "growing"). There are more trees in the United States today than in 1900 AD. If we use up all of the earth's Oil, so what? We have to (and will) develop alternate energy means and the Mideast will lose their trump card. The endangered species list? A tiny fraction of those species are mammals, larger creatures that have to do with anything. Instead, our donations go to save some sort of crustacean or insect (which make up over 70% of the list, last time I checked).

The world's going to outlast us unless we surgically annihilated the entire surface, and somehow made entire oceans un-inhabitable. What exactly does the Moon have that we could ever care to mine? Metals? High density rock? *Sigh* No, the only reason we'll go to space is for corporations to hang their billboards for all the world to see (a la fight club).

I believe in Revelations.. the world will end when God wants it to.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

When the Sun burns up the rest of its hydrogen fuel and starts to expand into a red giant, the Earth will eventually become engulfed in the star itself. If not during the initial expansion, then during the later, more extreme fluctuations. That's the most definite END that the Earth is going to have. And we're not gonna stop it.

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']And by Earth ending, it is obviously not referring to the disintegration of the entire planet into smithereens, but the time where we cause so much damage to it and to ourselves that most of the population dies. Duh.[/size][/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "We are the world", eh? Sorry, but i make distinctions between the Earth and Life on Earth and us. To Earth and it's Life, we're not that super special.[/color][/size][/font]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "We are the world", eh? Sorry, but i make distinctions between the Earth and Life on Earth and us. To Earth and it's Life, we're not that super special.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]

Really? Consider this: In nature, everything has a balance, something required to maintain it's survival and be maintained. Even the highest planes of the food chains fail to run rampant because of defense mechanisms in their prey. (Lions, even if they wanted to , could not destroy the gazelle population).

Humans are different. We are the single species on earth that has no evolutionary check and balance. We could theoretically engineer the destruction of anything we please, species or whatnot. Now, I doubt we'd be able to engineer the destruction of our entire planet... still. We are unique in that respect.

[Zidargh]

The Earth'll end with something to do with '42'. For example, the Earth could end 42,000 years after 'the meaning of life' was calculated.

I have no clue but I'm just going to stick naively with the Scientist's theory that we have millions of years left.

I agree with Tony's view in the sense that we won't be alive to see it. Even if we were, we couldn't stop it.

The view that we'll have the power and technology to stop it is ridiculous. No technology can compete with mother nature, or fate, if you believe in that. The creator holds the rights to begin and to end, simple as that. I'm not even religious!

I have better things to worry about. Such as getting clean underwear.

[Chaos]

[size=1][quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']And by Earth ending, it is obviously not referring to the disintegration of the entire planet into smithereens, but the time where we cause so much damage to it and to ourselves that most of the population dies. Duh.[/size][/quote]


It's that obvious? Gee, I assume by the phrase "the end of the world" that means that all life on Earth vaporizes and the planet no longer exist. There is a very distinct difference between the end of the world and the end of life, Baron. *stabstabstab*


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I love this talk of ozone destruction and the using of natural resources. The gigantic hole in the ozone is shrinking, and was found in the mid 70's (so we saw how friggin huge it was in the first place, instead of it "growing"). There are more trees in the United States today than in 1900 AD. If we use up all of the earth's Oil, so what? We have to (and will) develop alternate energy means and the Mideast will lose their trump card. The endangered species list? A tiny fraction of those species are mammals, larger creatures that have to do with anything. Instead, our donations go to save some sort of crustacean or insect (which make up over 70% of the list, last time I checked).[/quote]

I'm glad you brought up endangered species. Throughout the history of Earth, more than ninety-nine percent of all organisms have died out over time. And we still cling to some hundred-odd of them because we ourselves caused their destruction. Which brings around my next point...

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']The world's going to outlast us unless we surgically annihilated the entire surface, and somehow made entire oceans un-inhabitable.[/quote]


Even then, by the time we COMPLETELY eradicate the surface and poison the seas, lifeforms will adapt. Viral "pests", essential links to all life, though deadly to a lot of organisms, would surface, change minutely in mRNA and DNA structures, and short of the entire Earth freezing to absolute zero, we would not be able to stop that. Same for in the oceans. Adaptation. Survival of the fittest. Those that can resist change will make it to the next day. Those that cannot will be the food of the ones that can.


[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]Really? Consider this: In nature, everything has a balance, something required to maintain it's survival and be maintained. Even the highest planes of the food chains fail to run rampant because of defense mechanisms in their prey. (Lions, even if they wanted to , could not destroy the gazelle population).

Humans are different. We are the single species on earth that has no evolutionary check and balance. We could theoretically engineer the destruction of anything we please, species or whatnot. Now, I doubt we'd be able to engineer the destruction of our entire planet... still. We are unique in that respect.[/QUOTE]


Which is also why we will be the makers of our own doom. We are too unstable to maintain any type of firm balance with our settings, as shown that we change everything when we migrate to a new area. Our species, being united, will soon cease due to a lack of innovation. It's a behavior problem and I will not get into a chaos theory-spawned developmental quote.

Just know that we, as a whole, are slowly undergoing a form of cultural apoptosis.[/size]

[Roxie Faye]

[color=#9933ff]In referring to Drix's quote, humans are not only different and unique, but because there is no system and check and balance for us, we are an anomaly. I guess if you want to be a pessimist, you could say that were are a cosmic mistake, but in any case, I agree with Chaos - we will be the makers of our own destruction, and the Earth will out live us.

I mean, think about it - We are delicate creatures that die so quickly. If I'm not mistaken, a few other members of the genus [i]homo[/i] out lived us by a couple more thousand years, before dying out. Homo sapiens will eventually die out, and the creatures of the earth will go on without us until either an asteroid or the sun engulfs it. Woo.[/color]

[Dan L]

[quote name='MistressRoxie][color=#9933ff]I mean, think about it - We are delicate creatures that die so quickly. If I'm not mistaken, a few other members of the genus [i]homo[/i'] out lived us by a couple more thousand years, before dying out. Homo sapiens will eventually die out, and the creatures of the earth will go on without us until either an asteroid or the sun engulfs it. Woo.[/color][/quote]

Problem with what you're saying there is that it's to do with evolution. Homo sapiens may well have disappeared in a few thousand years, but the bloodline itself will continue, but a little further down the evolutionary line. So we won't have died out so much as we will have evolved out of our current state

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]I disagree with the assertion that humnans are frail. As individuals, yes, but as a species, we're highly adaptable; if there's a place humans can live, we've lived there. We're rather hardy for pink hairless monkies.

It's for this reason that I'm not really sold on the whole "humanity kills itself" angle. Humanity can shoot itself in the foot, and we can easily destroy our civilization, but the fact is, the human survival instinct is very great; it's what got us where we are today.

Oh, and if we're going to go down the old "humans alter our enviornment" path, I'd like to point out that we are far from the only species to alter the Earth and the enviornmemnt. The fact is, all this discussion on human damage to the enviornment is narrassistic, because it assumes that the enviornment is static in a state that is ideal for human life, and it only focuses on our actions. rather then taking the actions of other species into account.

The most enviornmental damage ever committed by a species was done by a prehistoric species of plankton that excreted a poisonous, corrosive gas into the atmosphere, permanatly altering Earth's ecological makeup.

That gas was oxygen. Interesting, neh?[/color][/size][/font]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]As has been mentioned, the chances of Earth being destroyed by anything less than a supernova are, shall we say... limited?

If we say that 'The End of the Earth' refers exclusively to the utter annihilation of the actual planet, than what kind of discussion is this? We'll be fried by the sun, and thats that.

I know humans aren't the be all and end all. I never claimed they were. But ending the Earth's lifespan is a ridiculous subject, if taken without saying that the end of life on Earth is probably the main subject at hand here. The end of human, sentient life anyway.[/size]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I'd say a bigger threat to humans than nuclear war or pollution or running out of cheap fuel or other common concerns is a pandemic of some sort. Some deadly airborne virus that replicates itself so crappily that it mutates beyond the control of any vaccine. It can happen, and we certainly won't be prepared for it if it does.

...But it's not something we really CAN prepare for, so who cares?

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']I'd say a bigger threat to humans than nuclear war or pollution or running out of cheap fuel or other common concerns is a pandemic of some sort. [/quote]
Actually, I'd say there's an even bigger threat than that, and going back to what Drix has said regarding Revelations, Revelations is just a hallucination. The real threat to the world, the thing that will bring about our ultimate destruction is none other than...

[img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20763&stc=1[/img]

Phil Collins. Think about it. He's the ultimate evil. There is no other person in the world as capable of the violence he's able to inflict on humanity. And when he begins his ascent to power, we won't be able to stop him, because Rick James died. Yes, that's right. Rick James would have been our savior, but cocaine was one hell of a drug.

---

As you can probably tell, I view the End of the World as more of an entertainment than anything else. I mean, human beings have a lifespan of 85 years on average, give or take 10. Unless some dumb n00b on some random messageboard magically unlocks the way to utterly destroy every living being on Earth, I'm not terribly concerned with the End of the World on any serious level.

When you think about it, it really is just an entertainment to ourselves to muse over what may happen. It's pretty much fantasizing, and if we're going to fantasize about how the world is going to end, at least make it fun. Write up a Gospel that prophesies Rick James' death and resurrection, and how he comes to realize that he is the Chosen One, and now will face Phil Collins for control of the Earth.

I think that's a hell of a lot more entertaining and worthwhile than saying "OMG liek thers an astrid!11 its coimng our way11!!!!"

[Chaos]

[size=1][quote name='Dan L']Problem with what you're saying there is that it's to do with evolution. Homo sapiens may well have disappeared in a few thousand years, but the bloodline itself will continue, but a little further down the evolutionary line. So we won't have died out so much as we will have evolved out of our current state[/quote]


That, generally, is the same thing as saying we died out. Our current forms were not fit for current lifestyles, so we changed. Thus, [i]Homo sapians[/i] as we know them no longer exist.


[quote name='DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]I disagree with the assertion that humans are frail. As individuals, yes, but as a species, we're highly adaptable; if there's a place humans can live, we've lived there. We're rather hardy for pink hairless monkies.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]


No, wrong. We do not adapt to the environment. We adapt the environment to us. We go into a place and change it, clearing the land of structural barriers and wildlife. Even inhospitable places have been gutted and irrigated to make for villages in the middle of deserts and civilization in the midst of deadly rain forests. There is a very big line between us adapting and us defacing.


[quote name='DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]It's for this reason that I'm not really sold on the whole "humanity kills itself" angle. Humanity can shoot itself in the foot, and we can easily destroy our civilization, but the fact is, the human survival instinct is very great; it's what got us where we are today.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]

Two things will happen; 1) we will start some sort of disaster that will kill all humans and most wildlife on the planet, or 2) we will evolve out of this current state. And how does evolution occur? Through behavioral changes and physical necessity. Meaning we WILL eventually cause the downfall of ourselves. It nay not be for another three hundred years and it may not happen in a giant explosion, but it will happen.


[quote name='DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Oh, and if we're going to go down the old "humans alter our environment" path, I'd like to point out that we are far from the only species to alter the Earth and the environment. The fact is, all this discussion on human damage to the environment is narcissistic, because it assumes that the environment is static in a state that is ideal for human life, and it only focuses on our actions. rather then taking the actions of other species into account.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]

No, it's a pure fact. While we are not so much as killing the Earth, we are physically [i]changing[/i] the content of items of Earth. The sound of a passing train scares off two adult birds from their nests, and the eggs fall out from the sudden motion. The environment is then changed, however insignificantly, but enough to say that it happened. Like I said before, we have no power to destroy the planet, but we can affect it.


[QUOTE=DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]The most environmental damage ever committed by a species was done by a prehistoric species of plankton that excreted a poisonous, corrosive gas into the atmosphere, permanently altering Earth's ecological makeup.

That gas was oxygen. Interesting, neh?[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE]


Yes, oxygen, and the scientific term is "metabolic poison." So, yes, people, we are slowly killing ourselves by inhaling an otherwise deadly gas. But if we do not take in oxygen [and nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, etc.], we die. Crappy situation, eh? :D

PS It was a very simple version of algae that first released oxygen during cellular respiration and all that crap. The Krebs Cycle and that **** I forgot from Biology. =X


[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']I know humans aren't the be all and end all. I never claimed they were. But ending the Earth's lifespan is a ridiculous subject, if taken without saying that the end of life on Earth is probably the main subject at hand here. The end of human, sentient life anyway.[/size][/quote]


Of course it's ridiculous. But there are people stupid enough to believe that someone can send a nuke to the core of the planet and blow it up from the inside out.

[To that point, you foolish few that believe this, first of all, the core of the Earth would melt any radioactive core or lead casing that would protect a little hydrogen atom. Also, the sheer magnetic force would not only fry any onboard detonation computer system, but it would crush the bomb to the size of a skin cell with the density of an oil tanker.][/size]

[Dan L]

[quote name='Chaos][size=1]That, generally, is the same thing as saying we died out. Our current forms were not fit for current lifestyles, so we changed. Thus, [i]Homo sapians[/i'] as we know them no longer exist.[/size][/quote]

I class "dying out" and evolving into something new as two seperate things. Assuming evolution to be absolutely correct, the forms of man which came before homo sapiens never died out, but they became homo sapiens- their previous form was no more, but the bloodline itself has carried on.

Whereas "dying out" itself is something I'd only really associate with complete extinction, not just the "extinction" of a particular species because another evolved out of it, but the extinction of a species which prevents a further one from doing so.

[Chaos]

[QUOTE=Dan L]I class "dying out" and evolving into something new as two seperate things. Assuming evolution to be absolutely correct, the forms of man which came before homo sapiens never died out, but they became homo sapiens- their previous form was no more, but the bloodline itself has carried on.

Whereas "dying out" itself is something I'd only really associate with complete extinction, not just the "extinction" of a particular species because another evolved out of it, but the extinction of a species which prevents a further one from doing so.[/QUOTE]


Eh, I see your point, but the thing of it is, if it evolves, the previous form no longer exists. We come from [i]Homo erectus[/i], but is it not considered extinct, even though we share the same bloodline?