Team Of Experts Say Humanity Faces Extinction

[Richard]

Friday morning offering for the "doom n' gloom" crowd to ponder out there.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

This Is The End: Team Of Experts Say Humanity Faces Extinction
YNews, 2 May 2013

The crazy man walking down the city street holding a sign that reads “The end is near” might just have a point.

A team of mathematicians, philosophers and scientists at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute say there is ever-increasing evidence that the human race’s reliance on technology could, in fact, lead to its demise.

The group has a forthcoming paper entitled “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority,” arguing that we face a real risk to our own existence. And not a slow demise in some distant, theoretical future. The end could come as soon as the next century.

"There is a great race on between humanity’s technological powers and our wisdom to use those powers well," institute director Nick Bostrom told MSN. "I’m worried that the former will pull too far ahead."

There’s something about the end of the world that we just can’t shake. Even with the paranoia of 2012 Mayan prophecies behind us, people still remain fascinated by the potential for an extinction-level event. And popular culture is happy to indulge in our anxiety. This year alone, two major comedy films are set to debut (“The World’s End” and “This is the End”), which take a humorous look at the end-of-the-world scenarios.

For its part, NASA released a series of answers in 2012 to frequently asked questions about the end of the world.

Interestingly, Bostrom writes that well-known threats, such as asteroids, supervolanic eruptions and earthquakes are not likely to threaten humanity in the near future. Even a nuclear explosion isn’t likely to wipe out the entire population; enough people could survive to rebuild society.

“Empirical impact distributions and scientific models suggest that the likelihood of extinction because of these kinds of risk is extremely small on a time scale of a century or so,” he writes.

Instead, it’s the unknown factors behind innovative technologies that Bostrom says pose the greatest risk going forward.

In other words, machines, synthetic biology, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence could become our own worst enemy, if they aren’t already, with Bostrom calling them, “threats we have no track record of surviving."

"We are developing things that could go wrong in a profound way," Dr O'Heigeartaigh told the BBC in a recent interview. "With any new powerful technology we should think very carefully about what we know–but it might be more important to know what we don't have certainty about."

However, it’s not all bad news. Bostrom notes that while a lack of understanding surrounding new technology posts huge risks, it does not necessarily equate to our downfall.

“The Earth will remain habitable for at least another billion years. Civilization began only a few thousand years ago. If we do not destroy mankind, these few thousand years may be only a tiny fraction of the whole of civilized human history,” he writes.

“It turns out that the ultimate potential for Earth-originating intelligent life is literally astronomical.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/end-team-experts-says-humanity-faces-extinction-233025693.html

[Team Sergeant]

These "experts" must have been reading science fiction books..... what about 50% of them have been basing stories on these possibilities for the last 50 years....... :rolleyes:

[Dusty]

lol Freaking scientists. Not so long ago, they said travelling at the speed of 20 mph would kill a person. Coffee will kill you/coffee will help you live longer, blah.

They don't know what's going to happen tomorrow, much less in a billion years.

[longrange1947]

Come on guys!!! You are messing up their chances for juicy gov't grant. :D

[nousdefions]

lol Freaking scientists. Not so long ago, they said travelling at the speed of 20 mph would kill a person. Coffee will kill you/coffee will help you live longer, blah.

They don't know what's going to happen tomorrow, much less in a billion years.

Hey Popular Science, where is my flying car?

[MR2]

Hey scientist, what's the weather going to be like this weekend?

[Trapper John]

OK now come on guys let's be dissing the Scientists. Well, OK, some of 'em. Ahhh, crap, go ahead, most of them have anal/cranial displacement anyway.:p

Can I still keep my light saber, and Mr. Spock costume and stay on the Board?

{Bazhinga!}

[uspsmark]

"It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity." -- Albert Einstein (he didn't even have an iPad! LOL)

Another quote from another scientist! ;)

[Pete]

Will you survive until the next crop comes in?

Will you even have a crop?

I think the point they are making is technology is becoming the weak link.

People in the civilized word are now buyers - not makers.

Might be time to start rereading the Foxfire series of books and figuring out just how much of that you could do.

[nousdefions]

Will you survive until the next crop comes in?

Not if the Federal continues to mandate ethanol.

Sheesh, the dumbest thing ever turning our food supply into fuel.

[PRB]

We will run out of oil in the 1980's
An Ice Age is coming! (1970's)
Global warming due to carbon emissions (except for the last 15 years)
Too much
Not enough
yada yada

[ddoering]

Will you survive until the next crop comes in?

Will you even have a crop?

I think the point they are making is technology is becoming the weak link.

People in the civilized word are now buyers - not makers.

Might be time to start rereading the Foxfire series of books and figuring out just how much of that you could do.


Yep, city dwellers will really suck big time.

[Dusty]

Will you survive until the next crop comes in?

Will you even have a crop?

I think the point they are making is technology is becoming the weak link.

People in the civilized word are now buyers - not makers.

Might be time to start rereading the Foxfire series of books and figuring out just how much of that you could do.

I got the Foxfire T-shirt. ;)

[Trapper John]

All kidding aside, advancements in technology have always presented challenges to society and its very survival. Just look at the turmoil that was created by the Industrial Revolution: mass migration to cities creating a huge public health problem just from waste removal, sweat shop working conditions, creation of labor unions, riots in the streets, pressure on international financial systems and political systems, a world war that was unresolved creating a second world war.

We are dealing with the same issues today driven by advancements in our technology and society is trying to cope and adjust to the challenges that are the result.

One of the greatest challenges at the moment is the massive information technology revolution. Most of the problems we are facing, IMO, are a direct result of our inability to discriminate between that which is good information from the misinformation and disinformation that we are inundated with at an ever increasing rate. Critical thinking skills are (again my opinion) the key.

As the greatest scientist of all (my opinion), Charles Darwin, taught us - species must adapt in order to survive. Our technological advancements will always be altering our environment, we must adapt to the changes that are thrust upon us in order to survive. The challenges we will face in the very near future will be greater still. We are humans and that's what humans do - explore, learn, and create. The conflicts and challenges are unavoidable IMO.

The question is, will we be able to adapt to the rapidly changing environment that we create? Our fate is truly of our own making and the outcome is entirely up to us. I am hopeful.

Just my 2-cents.

[GratefulCitizen]

Critical thinking skills are (again my opinion) the key.

As the greatest scientist of all (my opinion), Charles Darwin, taught us


"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
-Charles Darwin

Insect metamorphosis.
What conclusion is yielded applying critical thinking skills and the great scientist's standard for his own theory?

[Trapper John]

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
-Charles Darwin

Insect metamorphosis.
What conclusion is yielded applying critical thinking skills and the great scientist's standard for his own theory?

Oh Please! And your point is?

[Dusty]

Oh Please! And your point is?

Same-sex marriage prohibits progeny.

[Trapper John]

Same-sex marriage prohibits progeny.

:D:D

[GratefulCitizen]

Oh Please! And your point is?

Analyzing evolution is one area where critical thinking is not welcome.
Critical thinking is only welcomed after evolution is accepted as an unchallenged assumption.

[Trapper John]

Analyzing evolution is one area where critical thinking is not welcome.
Critical thinking is only welcomed after evolution is accepted as an unchallenged assumption.

OK, this thread is about the technological challenges to human survival. I am not going to debate evolution with you here. Neither am I inclined to get into a faith vs science debate anywhere else for that matter. So, DO NOT BAIT ME!!

TAKE IT ELSEWHERE :mad:

[GratefulCitizen]

OK, this thread is about the technological challenges to human survival. I am not going to debate evolution with you here. Neither am I inclined to get into a faith vs science debate anywhere else for that matter. So, DO NOT BAIT ME!!

TAKE IT ELSEWHERE :mad:

Message received loud and clear.

[PRB]

OK, this thread is about the technological challenges to human survival. I am not going to debate evolution with you here. Neither am I inclined to get into a faith vs science debate anywhere else for that matter. So, DO NOT BAIT ME!!

TAKE IT ELSEWHERE :mad:

Trapper John,
Not trying to bait you but evolution on a macro scale is not science.
Micro evolution is science..i.e. blind fish species that develop when in underground lightless evnirons for years...they lost their eyes...however, they are still fish and the loss of the eyes was a negative (loss of building blocks) change to their DNA.
From this type of example some extrapolate to macro evolution...one species developing into another species. There is no evidence of this...no evidence of DNA adding building blocks...none.
There has never been observed a DNA 'addition' that allowed one species to become another species.
The other argument is we are very close to being an APE DNA wise, we are also very close to being a pig DNA wise...all mamals are close in many DNA respects otherwise we would not be able to eat and assimilate their energy etc. One of the reasons you do not like to eat wood (no pun).
Every example scientists use of evolution is micro, but always within the same species grouping, this bird developed this etc over time....but it is still a bird.
If you go to the Smithsonian and see the display of that 4 legged whatever it is developing into a horse ask what they used to make the models....baby and yearling colts...because there never was the 'links' they made up.
It, too, is a facinating study and I'm not approaching this thru religion...strictly science.

[Trapper John]

Trapper John,
Not trying to bait you but evolution on a macro scale is not science.
Micro evolution is science..i.e. blind fish species that develop when in underground lightless evnirons for years...they lost their eyes...however, they are still fish and the loss of the eyes was a negative (loss of building blocks) change to their DNA.
From this type of example some extrapolate to macro evolution...one species developing into another species. There is no evidence of this...no evidence of DNA adding building blocks...none.
There has never been observed a DNA 'addition' that allowed one species to become another species.
The other argument is we are very close to being an APE DNA wise, we are also very close to being a pig DNA wise...all mamals are close in many DNA respects otherwise we would not be able to eat and assimilate their energy etc. One of the reasons you do not like to eat wood (no pun).
Every example scientists use of evolution is micro, but always within the same species grouping, this bird developed this etc over time....but it is still a bird.
If you go to the Smithsonian and see the display of that 4 legged whatever it is developing into a horse ask what they used to make the models....baby and yearling colts...because there never was the 'links' they made up.
It, too, is a facinating study and I'm not approaching this thru religion...strictly science.

Let's discuss this in a different thread that is more topical. I will be glad to start a new thread - "Darwinian Evolution as a Viable Explanation for the Diversity of Species" and we can discuss this. Should be an interesting discussion.

If we do this, I suggest that we make it a rule to not bring religion or faith into the discussion. Just no evidenciary basis for a discussion about matters of faith and personal beliefs IMO and to attempt do so always ends up in scattalogy. For example, the first time I read a post advocating that the Universe is only 9,000 years old as evidence, then, I'm done. Everyone is entitled to their faith based beliefs and I will always try to respect that. We just are not entitled to our own facts to support our beliefs. ;)

Let me know what you think?

[Peregrino]

Let me know what you think?

I think we all get to play respectfully or people will be encouraged to take their ball and go play elsewhere.

[Detonics]

The headline is accurate, the premise.... maybe not so much.

At our current rates of population growth, in ten thousand years there will be a person for every square yard of dry land on earth -deserts and mountainsides included.

The kicker is that long before, we'll have run out of ways to feed that many people.

[GratefulCitizen]

Total fertility rate for the world: 2.47 children born per woman.
Not facing any imminent population boom.

The current population boom is largely attributable to increased longevity.
If technology starts reducing he population (by whatever means), then there will eventually be insufficient people to maintain that technology.

[ZonieDiver]

It amazes me the doom and gloom of science these days. It is usually followed by give me money to fix this issue and research. Yea It is bullshit. Global warming is a prime example. The earths temperature has risen and fallen many times before man kind according to the same experts. Now the powers that be have come up with ways to make billions on this bullshit. Al Gore is a prime example. He is noting less than a snake oil sales man, a real piece of shit.

We will have tidal waves, volcanic eruptions etc etc just like the past. We have survived this long so why lay awake at night worrying about it, just enjoy life while we are here. If the world ends then it ends and there isn't jack shit we can do about a comet strike.

BTY on the gay issure here is my view.

Either way you look at it it is wrong.

Bible says it is wrong end of story.

From a evolutionary point of view they gays take up resources without the drive to procreate so they serve no purpose.

BTW I do NOT think we should burn them at the steak etc but it is morally wrong. Just my opinion.

Wow! I'm not sure what Gay or NotGay has to do with the OP, but:

What about the significant part of the world for whom the Bible has no meaning, is it okay with you if they are Gay? Also...do you eat pork, pay or collect interest, etc. etc. etc.?

Lots of people who don't procreate have usefulness in our society. There are lots of reasons people don't procreate, being gay is just one of them.

Finally, anyone who burns steaks should be shot! (Anything over medium should result in the same fate. IMHNCO) :D

But - once again - How On Earth does Gay or NotGay have anything to do with the End of the World?