Ending The Earths Lifespan

[Dan L]

[quote name='Chaos]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?[/quote]

Although I consider homo erectus to be extinct, the bloodline itself continued, so although I [i]would[/i] say that homo erectus, as a particular form of human life is "extinct", I would not say that homo erectus died out, because their children lived on, and continued going until now.

But then, maybe the better way of saying it is to consider all species of homo whatever to be a form of Man, although not modern man as we know it. Even though the species, that is the evolutionary stage, became extinct, Man kept on going in a different form. A little like how empires around the world rise and fall, constantly changing the structure of our civilisation as a whole, eras come and eras go, but Man has not died out yet.

So for me, the matter isn't so much whether the species carries on in it's exact form forever, but whether or not it carries on at all- which determines whether or not it has died out.

Thing is, I see exactly where you're coming from too.. And I don't believe you're necessarily wrong so much as viewing it from a different angle.

Note that Roxie also said "The Creatures of the Earth will carry on without us".. I may be completely wrong, but what I thought she meant by that was that homo sapiens would die out, and then that would be it- no more Man. Rather, a new species of "homo" would take Man's place. The thing I'm trying to get at is that homo IS man, and thus as long as the homo species is evolving, Man has not died out yet, regardless of how many sub-species become extinct as evolution goes on.

[Chaos]

Like I said, I understand what you say, it's just that by what you're saying, the very first genetic particle of RNA still exists today somewhere in my bloodstream.

To put it in a calmer tone so most can understand, when the species of [i]Homo sapian[/i] dies out, humans will be gone, because that's what WE are classified as. The next step in evolution will be similar, but it will not be human. And that is a recognized scientific belief.

And the creatures of Earth will carry on without us. Our evolutionary forms will either be intellectually superior that they do not look back or apes that don't posses the ability to look back. In that, the [b]genetic[/b] heritage will continue with time, but we, as recognizable humans will not.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=Chaos][size=1]
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.[/QUOTE]

We change our enviornment [i]now[/i], but it wasn't always like that. After all, we weren't always in control of our eviornment enough to change it; we had to survive long enough to get to that point.


[QUOTE]There is a very big line between us adapting and us defacing.[/QUOTE]

It's not defacing if it helps us.

[QUOTE]Two things will happen; 1) we will start some sort of disaster that will kill all humans and most wildlife on the planet,[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I can see that. However, I highly doubt it'll be due to any reason that's thrown around today. Cultural trends show us that most disasters that can be predicted don't ocurr, because people act to change them.

If we kill opurselves, it'll be in a way no one anticipated.


[QUOTE] 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. [/QUOTE]

Evolution is progression; how is progression a downfall?

[QUOTE]It nay not be for another three hundred years and it may not happen in a giant explosion, but it will happen.[/QUOTE]

And the Circle of Life continues.


[QUOTE]No, it's a pure fact.[/QUOTE]

Of course we alter our enviornment; I never argued that. I'm for altering our enviornment to ways that suit us better. However, it is a fact that is constantly taken out of context.

[QUOTE]While we are not so much as killing the Earth, we are physically [i]changing[/i] the content of items of Earth. [/QUOTE]

Again, if it helps humans, I'm for it.

[QUOTE]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]

A fox manages to climb a tree to the birds' nest, and kills and eats the parent birds. Their babies die. The fox passes this skill onto its' offspring, and within one generation, then bird population in that area rapidly declines.

These sorts of scenario ocurr naturally in the wild all the time, because the enviornment is not the static postcard people tend to imagine it as. It's changing with or without us.

[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[/QUOTE]

Yeah; damn those algae.

[QUOTE]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]

I read it in a Micheal Crichton books. =P

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]
A fox manages to climb a tree to the birds' nest, and kills and eats the parent birds. Their babies die. The fox passes this skill onto its' offspring, and within one generation, then bird population in that area rapidly declines.
[/QUOTE]

Deathbug, this post is slightly off-topic and not intended to flame either of your opinions in the slightest.

A quick lesson on evolution:

The scenario you presented above was flawed in that it mentioned the gaining of a "skill". Skills, or attributes not associated with genetic property have nothing to do with evolution (I cannot pass down my ability to type on the computer to my son through my genes, but I can pass down my eye color). So in order for it to work the fox would have some sort of genetic mutation such as, say, a climbing claw. This would be an example of microevolution, or change within the species: as you have noted a commonly occurring event in nature.

The problem with evolution as we see it now is macroevolution; or the change of an animal from one species, to evolve to another as a result of thousands, if not millions of macroevolutions. The only problem with this is that we have never, nor ever will observe macroevolution as it is hypothesized, to the extent that it is the "theory" of evolution is in fact a misnomer. It is not technically a theory, as the hypothesis can neither be observed, nor tested (it is known as a model). And I?m not even going to get in with the growing scientific problems arising in the validity of macroevolution, that?s a different thread entirely.

Just here to clear a few technicalities up.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]A quick lesson on evolution: ...

The problem with evolution as we see it now is macroevolution; or the change of an animal from one species, to evolve to another as a result of thousands, if not millions of macroevolutions. The only problem with this is that we have never, nor ever will observe macroevolution as it is hypothesized, to the extent that it is the "theory" of evolution is in fact a misnomer. It is not technically a theory, as the hypothesis can neither be observed, nor tested (it is known as a model). And I?m not even going to get in with the growing scientific problems arising in the validity of macroevolution, that?s a different thread entirely.

Just here to clear a few technicalities up.[/QUOTE]

This has nothing to do with the thread, but this paragraph is just plain bad and simply betrays an ignorance regarding the subject of evolution, no offense. You say that we've never observed "the change of an animal from one species, to evolve to another as a result of thousands, if not millions of macroevolutions." But humans have, over thousands and thousands of years, domesticated the dog, taking a very large part in bringing about a different species (Canis familiaris vs. Canis lupus, the wolf). (Well, some biologists will view domesticated dogs as a subspecies (although even some dog [i]breeds[/i] mixing can't produce healthy offspring), but far fewer and at that point we get into "what's a species?" and as genetics research progresses the answer to that is going to change. But that's a different topic altogether.)
As for the "growing scientific problems arising in the validity of macroevolution," well that is just a lie. Some evolutionary chains may turn out to be more complex than we once thought, or DNA research might lead to some things being switched around, but believe me at no point has the evolutionary record been [i]less[/i] complete than at an earlier time. If you replace "growing scientific problems" with "growing religious problems" then you'll be barking up the right tree, perhaps, lol.
Drix, if you have any personal qualms with macroevolution you can read a book on it, such as "Almost Like a Whale" by Steve Jones. It will help. Also, your definition of "theory" is by no means the only one or even the proper one. If you want, I'll provide a dozen from reliable sources which will show that there is NOTHING wrong with discussing the "theory" of evolution.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]This has nothing to do with the thread, but this paragraph is just plain bad and simply betrays an ignorance regarding the subject of evolution, no offense. You say that we've never observed "the change of an animal from one species, to evolve to another as a result of thousands, if not millions of macroevolutions." But humans have, over thousands and thousands of years, domesticated the dog, taking a very large part in bringing about a different species (Canis familiaris vs. Canis lupus, the wolf). (Well, some biologists will view domesticated dogs as a subspecies (although even some dog [i]breeds[/i'] mixing can't produce healthy offspring), but far fewer and at that point we get into "what's a species?" and as genetics research progresses the answer to that is going to change. But that's a different topic altogether.)[/quote]

Pardon me for putting evolution in simpler terms. As for your rebuttal, i wonder if you have even READ anything concerning what you speak of. So even if dogs evolved from wolves (which science currently supports), bear in mind that Canis Familiaris despite the vast amount of breeds, is a single species. As for humans bearing witness to the evolution of wolf to dog... well, I sincerely doubt any records date back as far as 130,000 ago (the hypothesized appx. time wolves evolved into wild dogs), so for all humanity can guess is the same for any theorized occurance of macroevolution. As for the domestication of dogs, wich occured approx. 12,000 years ago is a change and manipulation of their behavioral patterns, not any sort of evolution. Whether domesticated dogs, undomesticated dogs, terriers, retrievers, etc are viewed as different subspecies is perfectly fine. Just look at humans and the myriad of differences from one area of the world to another. However, we are all homo sapien.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
As for the "growing scientific problems arising in the validity of macroevolution," well that is just a lie. Some evolutionary chains may turn out to be more complex than we once thought, or DNA research might lead to some things being switched around, but believe me at no point has the evolutionary record been [i]less[/i] complete than at an earlier time. If you replace "growing scientific problems" with "growing religious problems" then you'll be barking up the right tree, perhaps, lol.[/QUOTE]

Not true, the more and more science digs deeper into the mechanisms required for a nature-driven evolution aren't as definite as one might assume. Look above, I never said I have any real problems with evolution, just my doubts. Assuming my religion had anything to do with my previous post is nothing more than ignorance on your part. I believe in theological evolution, I belive in the change of species, but that instead of natural selection, God shaped the world as it is. Why the hell does this even have to be brought into question anyway? My correction to his example on microevolution was based on the current secular theroies.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Drix, if you have any personal qualms with macroevolution you can read a book on it, such as "Almost Like a Whale" by Steve Jones. It will help. Also, your definition of "theory" is by no means the only one or even the proper one. If you want, I'll provide a dozen from reliable sources which will show that there is NOTHING wrong with discussing the "theory" of evolution.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate the book suggestion, but I think I'll just stick to my college education and the fact I'm majoring in biology. If you really want to get into evolution, start a different thread. As for evolution being a "theory" well you should probably study up on your scientific method before you go sputtering off again. Once again, take it to a different thread if you really want to debate.

[Chaos]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]We change our enviornment [i]now[/i], but it wasn't always like that. After all, we weren't always in control of our eviornment enough to change it; we had to survive long enough to get to that point.
[/QUOTE]


As soon as the recognizable [i]Homo[/i] genus appeared, their first action was to hunt down the animals around them, eventually forcing several species into extinction. I'd say that changed the environment.


[quote name='DeathBug']It's not defacing if it helps us.[/quote]

What kind of logic is that? Forgive my disbelief but I can't understand WHERE you got that notion. It may help us now, or even for the next five thousand years, but if it changed the face of the Earth and killed most local wildlife, then yes, it has defaced the planet.


[QUOTE=DeathBug]Evolution is progression; how is progression a downfall?

Of course we alter our enviornment; I never argued that. I'm for altering our enviornment to ways that suit us better. However, it is a fact that is constantly taken out of context.[/QUOTE]


I'm in no way saying that we haven't helped ourselves and perhaps other species on the planet by changing it, just that we [i]have[/i] changed it. And you are right, people do need to understand that we do not affect the world as wholly as certain groups would have us think.

[b]Random Hippie:[/b] "Your chemicals are poisoning the air!"

[b]Random Scientist:[/b] "But...the air IS poison." O-o;;

[b]Random Hippie:[/b] [Keanu]"...Whoa." [/Keanu]


[quote name='DeathBug']Again, if it helps humans, I'm for it.[/quote]

I can't blame you for saying that. I'd much rather live in an air conditioned house than a baking straw hut that burns every summer because of heat.


[QUOTE=DeathBug]A fox manages to climb a tree to the birds' nest, and kills and eats the parent birds. Their babies die. The fox passes this skill onto its' offspring, and within one generation, then bird population in that area rapidly declines.

These sorts of scenario ocurr naturally in the wild all the time, because the enviornment is not the static postcard people tend to imagine it as. It's changing with or without us.[/QUOTE]

Granted, people don't seem to understand that the deer laping water from the stream while birds chirp overhead will be torn limb from limb in several moments, and that might radically kill off the population of second and third-level consumers and fourth level predators, letting the insect population skyrocket, and thus killing off the grass, making the bugs die out in a wide area which affects an even larger area.

And while that may or may not happen with or without us, we still form the world around us, oft times negatively. We are insignificant crap-piles of genetic slop that have somehow worked our way to the top of the food chain and now decide we have the ability to blow up the world.

[Nice run-ons, eh?]


[quote name='DeathBug']Yeah; damn those algae.[/quote]


Yes, damn them to a fiery Hell for single-handedly making the Earth hospitiable!


[quote name='DeathBug']I read it in a Micheal Crichton books. =P[/quote]


I'm guessing [u]Jurassic Park[/u], when Ian Malcolm is in the lodge with his injured leg and is ranting to Hammond and Sattler.


[i]"...And that is why you think that to build a place like this was simple."

"It [b]was[/b] simple," Hammond insisted.

"Then why did it go wrong?"[/i]

But that couldn't be, because Malcolm says "plant cells", not anything about plankton. So now that I think about it, maybe Andromeda Strain. A shame I don't have a copy of it here to look for it. =/

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]To assimilate is to absorb one thing (typically a culture) into another. It can also reffer to digestion. I'm not sure if some one has already pointed this out, but I thought I'd make it known...

People are just going to keep multiplying and urban areas are just going to keep expanding until it becomes impossible to do so. However, it is projected that the Earth's population will slowly start to decrease after reaching eight billion (can't remembe the year now--I put it up before, though).
I don't think that the Earth and its other species are going to go before, or even with, us. (I'm half convinced, without any backing whatsoever, that some kind of plague will wipe us pretty much out; just seems...entirely possible. Maybe I've been watching too many silly horror movies or something.) Sure, we'll wipe out a couple thousand more species, destroy a few more rainforests, cover half the planet in a Metropolis, but that wont bring the world to an end. It'll just inconvenience a few other critters in the process.

As for the whole helping humans thing: I'm not one for purposely poisoning the lakes, but I like my A/C, and I like cars, and all that good stuff. Humans are animals, too; I like to think we got Mother Nature back for the cruel joke she played on us, making us all hairless and feeble-bodied.
However, it's only common sense to recycle and whatnot. I mean, it's all for us in the end, anyway. (The environment-saving bit, from our perspective, that is.)

The world's gonna be demolished to make room for a hyperspace bypass, anyway, so everything's purely hypothetical.[/FONT]
[/COLOR]

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Chaos']As soon as the recognizable Homo genus appeared, their first action was to hunt down the animals around them, eventually forcing several species into extinction. I'd say that changed the environment.[/quote]

So we hunted things and ate them. So what? Again, human beings aren't the first creatures to hunt critters to extinction.

[QUOTE]What kind of logic is that? Forgive my disbelief but I can't understand WHERE you got that notion. It may help us now, or even for the next five thousand years, but if it changed the face of the Earth and killed most local wildlife, then yes, it has defaced the planet.[/QUOTE]

To deface something is to destroy it without reason. If what we've done has helped us, then that's a good enough reason for me.

[QUOTE]I can't blame you for saying that. I'd much rather live in an air conditioned house than a baking straw hut that burns every summer because of heat.
[/QUOTE]

If only the state of California would take the same point of view. Alas.

[QUOTE]I'm guessing Jurassic Park, when Ian Malcolm is in the lodge with his injured leg and is ranting to Hammond and Sattler.[/QUOTE]

I think it might have been [i]Sphere[/i]. I've read a bunch of his books, so I can't really remember.


[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]
The world's gonna be demolished to make room for a hyperspace bypass, anyway, so everything's purely hypothetical.[/FONT]
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

see? We just have to keep everything in perspective.

42.

^__^

[Rei_Man]

Well, whatever causes the end of the world, I think it's pretty safe to say that it'll be by human hands. We've only been on the planet for an extremely small fraction of it's existence, yet our species has single handedly caused more environmental damage than all others past and present.
Though most of the damage can be repaired, some of it is inevitably irrepairable. Take the ozone layer for example, which has been almost completely depleted over parts of Australia. And yet many people still remain ignorant to such problems, clinging onto the idea that humanity, as a whole, is the most intelligent, socially advanced species on the Earth. If we are so 'superior' why has the planet suffered more as we have supposedly 'advanced'?
Other 'inferior' species have maintained a perfect balance with nature since the introduction of life to this planet, taking and giving only what is necessary to survive. Humanity, on the other hand, has taken much and given back little, bathing itself in luxuries at the expense of the world around it.
So yes, my opinion is that, if anything, [I]we'll[/I] end up destroying the planet. And if that's the case I hope we all die with it. Good day to you all, and sleep well.

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson][font=tahoma]One thing some of you people need to realize is that we didn't start jumping through our technology tree with the aim to decimate this planet in every way possible. As soon as our technology progressed to the point where the 'horrible destruction' of our mother planet was seriously evident on a large scale [that coupled with our ability to understand these things plus their ramifications becoming clearer], we started thinking, like the thinkers we are, and trying to find some way to slow it down- Help the planet out, the ol' team spirit- yeah? These sentences- the way you word them, you seem to be displaying humanity as some sort of sinister villain, seeking to blatantly destroy as often and as much as possible. Maybe you don't mean to, but it is really quite annoying. To me, it seemed inadvertent- we were still ignorant to the world as a whole not that long ago, in my opinion.

Now that we can make a difference, we are doing our best to do so. Is it enough? I don't really know, this subject isn't my forte. I am, however, at least a little bit intelligent- my pseudo-genius [^_~] leads me to think that some of the people in this thread need to step back for a moment and think about how they are displaying their opinions. They make you seem ignorant- I hope you aren't, of course.

But all I can act on is what you say and how your words show you as a person.

If the world "ends" it won't be by any God, I hope. If it is by any God, I will find it rather amusing that the first modern, worldwide display of his existence will be to snuff portions of our population out based on his own opinion of how we should be. But, off the religious subject, man has power, yes- but does he have the utter stupidity to, sometime in the future, create either a chain of events, technology or weapon that will somehow destroy the actual, physical world? I hope not. Truth is stranger than fiction, though.

The aspect of ending large chunks of life is possible. There are several ways that could happen, but I also am in the hope that the power of men will be used in combination with the intelligence of men. If something destroys life or the planet in large percentages or as a whole I have faith, perhaps blind faith, that it would be something that is out of men's hands. Not created by or accidentally done by men.

We are still.. maturing, I suppose. That's my opinion. We have a chance to, hopefully, exist as long as we can exist until something grand and outside our power destroys this planet. But, of course, there is also the more negative path- which is, unfortunately, another possibility.

I would like to think that someday men will spread into space, since this planet indeed has some form of lifespan in at least two aspects- resource wise and literally.

Here's to the hope of a long future for our [horrible, demonic] race [of ravagers].[/color][/font]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]There is a middle road folks.

Rei-man: Things aren't all that bad. The ozone layer isn't irreparable. In fact, research has shown that it has decreased in size. Which would mean it's repairing, right? ~_^ No need to be a Doomsayer.

Deathknight: You're making me blush, lol. Humanity isn't some kind of benelovent species which is out there to improve and aid everyone/everything else. Some people are trying to help, but the majority cruise along not caring, whilst select others blatantly ignore the signs.

The facts are not in the extremes. They lie somewhere in the middle. The main point comes down to the majority of people not caring, or being too apathetic to act. We're not all out there to plunder and rape the environment, but we're not all out there hugging the trees and cuddling animals either.[/size]

[DeathKnight]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]Deathknight: You're making me blush, lol. Humanity isn't some kind of benelovent species which is out there to improve and aid everyone/everything else. Some people are trying to help, but the majority cruise along not caring, whilst select others blatantly ignore the signs.
[/size][/QUOTE]

[color=crimson][font=tahoma]No, I never said he was suddenly the holy crusader of justice suddenly- I was implying that it wasn't as dark as that. If you read it as a pro-human speech, I didn't mean it as such. But, there are now, since we've come to realize it, efforts going on to curb the damage we do to the environment. I quote myself- "Is it enough? I don't really know, this subject isn't my forte." and "But, of course, there is also the more negative path- which is, unfortunately, another possibility." Which it is- can we hope for otherwise? Yes. But, once again I quote myself- "Truth is stranger than fiction." =P

I was seeking your "middle road". There were several people in this thread whose words were painting a picture of, as you said, extremes. That is what I was focusing on- not everyone in this thread is doing that, just a few. They are easy to spot. ^_~[/color][/font]

[Rei_Man]

Ok, maybe I did go a bit overboard in that last post. Sorry 'bout that. :sweat:

I didn't mean to say that we're all on a sadistic quest to destroy everything, so, if it sounded like that, I apologize. I guess I meant to say that we've been quite careless at times in our handling of situations, embracing certain aspects of technology with open arms before examining carefully their problems. And it was probably cruel to blame it on the human race as a whole, since it's the corporations and businesses that sell it to us who tell us it's safe in the first place. And its corporations and businesses that chop down forests, etc, etc. But unfortunately it's the people with money who have the power in this world. And I think everybody's more stupid than they're willing to admit, even myself. So shoot me.

And the whole 'irepairable' ozone thing was down to a lack of research on my part, so apologies for that too.

So yeah. I guess I was a bit too ignorant there. Woopdi-doo, I'm an idiot!!

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Rei_Man']And it was probably cruel to blame it on the human race as a whole, since it's the corporations and businesses that sell it to us who tell us it's safe in the first place. And its corporations and businesses that chop down forests, etc, etc.[/quote]

My response to this point is simple: so what? Again, I only care about the enviornment as it pertains to the healthy survival of humans. You see, we don't destroy the enviornment, we change it into something else.

Now, here's the big point that many people miss: there is no such thing as a "good" enviornment or a "bad" enviornment. Enviornments aren't good or bad, they're just states of beings. An enviornment can be good for us, or bad for us, good for birds or bad for birds, good for deer or bad for deer, etc. However, an enviornment in and of itself has no value.

It is our human predisposition that causes us to judge and humanize states of nature. Humans do what every successful species should/must do: change the enviornment to suit themselves. If we didn't, we'd be dead. Simple as that.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='DeathBug']My response to this point is simple: so what? Again, I only care about the enviornment as it pertains to the healthy survival of humans. You see, we don't destroy the enviornment, we change it into something else.[/quote]
Well, we [i]are[/i] destroying existing ecosystems. To many people this is a problem. Those who like large mammals, birds, and fish more than, say, cockroaches and random bacteria. You might enjoy a state-sized megacolony comprised entirely of humans, dogs, cats, rats, and roaches, but to many it's not a very pleasing prospect.

[QUOTE]Now, here's the big point that many people miss: there is no such thing as a "good" enviornment or a "bad" enviornment. Enviornments aren't good or bad, they're just states of beings. An enviornment can be good for us, or bad for us, good for birds or bad for birds, good for deer or bad for deer, etc. However, an enviornment in and of itself has no value.[/QUOTE]
That is true, and it's a good thing to point out. From an evolutionary standpoint, preserving existing species doesn't have too much value. And there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" environment just on its own. Very true.

But because there is such a thing as a good environment for people, and because "good" might take into account resources, durability, how healthy it is, etc., there are many [i]different[/i] kinds of environments we can make that would be "good" for us. There's no perfect one, do you agree?

In light of that, I believe that some "good" environments are good for people [i]and[/i] for existing, healthy (subjective, but I think you know what I mean) ecosystems, and some "good" environments are good only for people, and perhaps only in the short-run. People might mine and burn resources with very toxic wastes as a by-product, and shoot themselves in the foot as a result. But unfortunately, many of the "environment changing" decisions aren't based on what will be good for people in the long run or even in the short run, but what will be the most cost-effective for the rich sonofabitches involved in the decisionmaking. And due to that, what [i]you[/i] are saying becomes a moot point. Because half the time, we're NOT making the environment that much better for ourselves, or at least certainly not for everyone.

Indeed, that is what this thread is all about. We are discussing how humans will end up kicking themselves in the arse, right? This involves people hypothetically creating an environment that will be "bad" for them.

I'm not sure whether I'm arguing [i]against[/i] anything you're saying or not. I'm just trying to clarify how what you mentioned comes into play in the context of "the end of humanity." Maybe you're of the same opinion.

[Lynn Luck]

[COLOR=DarkRed]It will either be bown up,or get so poullted that we can't breath and all die of suffocation. Either way, it will be the fault of all the bastards and bitches of the world. They'll all burn in hell anyway. :smirk:.. *sigh*...Humans...so ignorant, crowdly and arrogant. I'm not human by the way...:demon: Let's just enjoy life while we can. I have a feeling it's going to end soon....-_-[/COLOR]

[CaiSter21]

the world will blow up before all the raw materials run out because we r gonna nuke ourselves to death!
i mean y do u think we still have all of our nukes just lying around, gathering dust!
plus, the ignorrant politicians in this world just cant seem to get along and create peace!

Damn Politics :mad:
It always seems to ruin everything

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=CaiSter21]the ignorrant politicians in this world just cant seem to get along and create peace!

Damn Politics :mad:
It always seems to ruin everything[/QUOTE]
[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]You do realize that, in thirty-five hundred years of human existance, no one's been able to "create peace".

Don't see why they'd want to, anyway; peace is the antithesis to progress.[/color][/size][/font]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]You do realize that, in thirty-five hundred years of human existance, no one's been able to "create peace".

Don't see why they'd want to, anyway; peace is the antithesis to progress.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE]

Har. Seeing as no-one's been able to create peace, where's your evidence? Peace is by no means an obstacle to any scientific progress (unless you're talking about weapon development). I don't see war-torn countries probing Mars any time soon, lol. Are you talking about technological progress, anyway? What is "progress"?

Anyway, (to the rest of y'all) if anyone starts nuking the earth any time soon, it's gonna be terrorists who obtain nuclear bombs. It won't be civilized countries. And it won't be enough to wipe out human civilization, let alone the species. If anything's a major threat realistically, it's disease. No doubt about it.

[Lynn Luck]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Anyway, (to the rest of y'all) if anyone starts nuking the earth any time soon, it's gonna be terrorists who obtain nuclear bombs. It won't be civilized countries. And it won't be enough to wipe out human civilization, let alone the species. If anything's a major threat realistically, it's disease. No doubt about it.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]You have a piont. And disease is another possiblity.[/COLOR]

[DeathBug]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Har. Seeing as no-one's been able to create peace, where's your evidence? Peace is by no means an obstacle to any scientific progress (unless you're talking about weapon development). I don't see war-torn countries probing Mars any time soon, lol. Are you talking about technological progress, anyway? What is "progress"?[/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]There are very few instances in history where progress, by whatever defenition you use, wasn't bred from discourse. The Space Race was a wartime effort, (Well, a Cold-wartime effort), hundreds of technological advancements were created as a result of WWII, and America emerged from oine of the greatest periods of social upheaval in its history with vastly increased rights for minorities.

For better or worse, discourse (although not necessarily war) breeds progress.[/color][/size][/font]

[Fall]

[QUOTE=Sephiroth_unite]
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.
[/QUOTE]Either that, or we're gonna have the high-tech machines and technology that will be able to stop the world ending at all... the way technology's going these days, it won't be long before we're living on the moon.

[Rei_Man]

[quote name='Fall']Either that, or we're gonna have the high-tech machines and technology that will be able to stop the world ending at all... the way technology's going these days, it won't be long before we're living on the moon.[/quote]

I seriously doubt that any technology, present or future, would ever be able to travel prevent the end of the world. Even if we could interfere with issues involving the planet itself, there'd be no way of preventing the eventually death of the Sun. If the human race still exists billions of years from now, the only way of avoiding that would be to settle in another star system, on a planet that could support life. Even if nothing kills us off before then, even if we did manage to find such a planet and to colonise it, the same fate would certainly await that world aswell.