Topic: 5th Mass extintion (Read 1971 times)

Economically viable is a term which exists on a sliding scale. As we progress and age the scale is shifted to where things which aren't economically viable today may become economically viable in the future.

As of today we have no need to gather resources from the Moon; but 100 years from now that might be different.

That is not economically viable. A lunar mission costs billions of USD and even those space shuttles can carry no more than 1 tonne of lunar material back to the earth. Who is willing to pay $10 billion for a tonne of Aluminium?

One square km of lunar dirt, a couple of meters deep, contains more easily extracted aluminum and titanium than is produced in a year on Earth.

I completely agree.



http://explosm.net/comics/3634/

Just another incentive to begin harvesting extra-terrestrial resources... Our Solar System has plenty to go around...

There isn't really a finite amount of resources but rather a finite amount of energy... New resources can be created given enough energy and the right technology to fuse/fizz atoms effectively...

The question isn't whether we will run out of resources on our planet. The question is whether we'll have adequate resources to sustain ourselves until an alternate source of materials can be found and exploited...

You sure? Why is that? I don't think either of us can say such things with confidence.

This is true but you can't ignore the fact that the capitalist mindset creates incentive to harvest resources at an unsustainable rate.

My bet is on WW3. Seeing lots of geopolitical conflict all over the world and internal political unrest.

next mass extinction will be caused by:

food & beverages
cigarets
extreme poverty
pollution
WW3

no natural causes. this one is manmade and slowly aims at taper the "unsustainable" global demographic growth.

PS: + japanese people doomed because of fukushima's radioactivity (besides economical and social collapses there too).

Nope, we are part of the ecosystem actually. Species that re predatory are the first to go extinct.


Therefore if 99% of life goes extinct, we humans are going to be higher on the least than at least 50% of life.

Without certain organisms we cannot plant our crops or feed our farm animals.


Certainly some humans will survive perhaps 0.1% or so. But you couldn't exactly compare life in an inhospitable world to life on the planet today.

Right now, species are going extinct at an extreme rate, all the time. Species we haven't even discovered yet are going extinct.

All the potential benefits of medications created by such species wiped away in the blink of an eye.

The humanity has advanced so much there is literally NO possibility of human extinction.
Humans will be the last species to extinct.

UK lose the empire in less than 2 generations and from the wealthiest nation to IMF bailed out in less than 3 generations.

I can see the fall of the US empire but it will take 100years and it will stay powerful

Well it seems to me that humans consider themselves the undisputed king of apex predators. I don't think that is the case.
There is a very important characteristic of apex predators that doesn't apply to humans. Apex predators don't need to have natural enemies because they've evolved in such a way that they're able to keep their numbers in check on their own. The human population on the other hand is clearly out of control, we keep proliferating and we cannot stop. I don't think humans are apex predators. This in turn would suggest that we do have a natural enemy after all, maybe one we are not necessarily aware of.
When our nemesis finally surfaces, it'll be time for mass extinction 

No we're not, we're running out of resources because there is always a finite amount of resources, stop ignoring mathematics.

Everything has to have a beginning.

More like a corptocracy based on crony capitalism. The capitalist mindset is a big reason as to why we are running out of resources.

The theory that the universe had no beginning is actually taking root.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rainbow-gravity-universe-beginning/

Yes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement, based on the amount of energy a civilization is able to utilize. The scale has three designated categories called Type I, II, and III. A Type I civilization uses all available resources impinging on its home planet, Type II harnesses all the energy of its star, and Type III of its galaxy. The scale is only hypothetical, but it puts energy consumption in a cosmic perspective. It was first proposed in 1964 by the Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev. Various extensions of the scale have been proposed since, from a wider range of power levels (types 0, IV and V) to the use of metrics other than pure power.

http://youtu.be/Y3Qi6r0gYIU

In fact it would the the 6th extinction, I remember they speaking about that in the X-files when they revealed the alien plans to destroy the human race.


And if the nature did nothing to protect 99% of all living species that ever existed, why should we bother too much about them? Species die and are born everyday, its the nature.

Not necessarily the fittest, just the ones who have a brain and can recognise a disaster when it's about to hit them in the face, I hate people who stay in denial in when it comes to mathematics and science.

Not necessary a bad thing. Survival of the fitness.

Capitalism gave a lot of wealth to the people, which allowed them to buy all kinds of products, and demands for a higher production. This in turn, takes more resources.   For example, in 1960s maybe 1 in a 1.000.000 Chinese had an opportunity to get a car, now much more would be able.

Yup. Its all about the taste of................. PEOPLE!!!

+1 For both, what you say seems really right !


We hope that the world will change

I for one can't wait for the Soylent Green economy to rise.

You could flavor them according to their national origin, or pop culture orientation.

There'd even be a hip-hop version, Doo Doo Brown.....

the possibilities are near endless.  

Of course, blame capitalism, despite the fact that we don't actually live in a capitalist society right now you also can't ignore the fact that we're rapidly running out of resources to build things and sustain ourselves, this is about survival, not ideology.

The population is quite spread. Most of the population lives in China and India  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4e/World_population.svg/1280px-World_population.svg.png  

I think the problem is that capitalism is not sustainable on such a large scale, with another system the world would be fine.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/13/stephen-hawking-humans-have-less-than-1000-years-left-on-earth-3614602/

This isn't fake or rubbish in the slightest, it's backed by Stephen Hawkings, as I've stated tons of times on this forum the problem with our planet is our population is growing too fast and it can't accommodate us anymore, in order to survive we need to spread out and colonise other planets or live in space itself.

Scientists need to publish articles, otherwise they lose their job. Often the quality is rubbish, but it's easy to understand - so that it gets published.  It is certain we will go extinct if we will not live on other planets. but on the more short term (5000 - 100.000 years), we may be well on this planet. Humans have spread all across the planet, so even in case of natural disaster some of them may survive.

yep we went a litle off topic lol
So back to topic, how do you think this might affect us?

For instance since the time for big mammals to reproduce is long, these will be the ones that will most likely face extinction, and that will probably leave room for small animals like rodents to spread and that will most likely make a big change in the ecosystem. (more likely to spread diseases etc)

I just donated to a shaman to have a micro asteroid nail VOD

haha

so at least vod will become extinct

LOL

That's quite an anthropocentric view. Anyway, first and foremost, a disclaimer: this isn't really my field, so if we have any expert among us, feel free to correct any mistake I make.

I guess the most important point where we disagree is at the very beginning: you're assuming conditions for Earth like planets, and eventually life, would require about the same time as it did here, while I see no reason to assume so. Population III stars - believed to have been the first stars, massive, short lived, and composed only of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium - should have formed about 100 millions years after the Big Bang. Galaxies formed a few hundreds of millions of years after that, and population II stars formed at about that time as well, out of the remains of the population III stars. Subsequent population II stars gave rise to the first population I stars (Sun like) a few billion years after, maybe about 9 billion years ago.

From this point forward, I believe the chemical elements required for Earth like planets and life to have formed, might have existed in a proportion not too dissimilar to what you'd find today - so, I suppose the basis for Earth like life to have formed has existed for at least 9 billion years. From then on, and assuming very similar conditions, evolution of species and technological development, you could have had species similar to humans, at the same stage of development, 4.5 billion years ago. Of course, there is no reason, in my view, to limit this to Earth like life or development track, and perhaps at least some Population II stars could have already provided conditions suitable for life of some kind - or who knows, maybe even sooner.

Anyway, I think we've now successfully derailed this topic, and I blame Vod for that.

You're missing the potential that an M class planet may have formed around another star perhaps a billion years earlier than our Earth and if that planet developed life it would be a billion years ahead of our planet.

Our planet after all is made from heavy elements that came from the death of other stars and perhaps previous planets that may have held life.  We could all be recycled from ancient civilization that failed to escape their sun's death.

I doubt that; since the universe had a beginning, and since all matter has had the same rules placed on it since that beginning, the speed at which planet Earth formed into an ideal place for life to begin is going to be about the same speed as any other planet, meaning those planets, perfect for life as is ours, had creatures evolving at about the same rate and in similar ways considering they've experienced a similar environment as ours, meaning they're roughly in the same spot that we are now: intelligent beings, sentient or otherwise, duking it out for resources, with little time to focus on developing the technology and gathering the resources necessary to travel at lightspeed for decades, if not centuries (not to mention being able to live that long, or to reproduce in-between), just to see more of the same.

The universe is only about 13 billion years old, with our planet having circled the sun about 4 and a half billion years ago (that means about 8-9 billion years are spent just trying to bring order to the chaos.)  Within those 4 1/2 billion years, only the last billion has been spent with multi-cellular life forms, and only the last 200k years spent with your modern day man.  Unless this sentient lifeform managed to find a way to evolve several magnitudes faster than the species of our planet, or those planets formed way faster than all the others, it's safe to say that, while we're not alone, there's little room to precede us in technological advancement, and even if there was, the universe is a huge place and if you have the technology to travel around like that, there's probably something much more interesting locally to that lifeform.  Needless to say, there's no society that can be billions of years old, and no aliens are aware we exist aside from a mutual understanding that the odds of them being the only sentient species in the universe are zilch.

That seems unlikely. I think that there has been so much time since the beginning of the universe that allows for life similar to what exists here to appear, that encountering species at close to our technological level is very, very unlikely. I mean, there could be species literally billions of years old around, and chances are they would have little to no interest in contacting us, which might explain why there seems to be no evidence for alien life - no need to assume everyone has taken the route humanity is taking.

hmm aren't you a little far ahead on your thoughts? How can you say that "every race that develops industry goes mostly extinct", you don't know any race that developed industry that went extint... as far as we know the human race developed industry and is not extinct (yes it could happen, we sure are trying to achieve that).
I have no idea if there are more races that developed industry or not (maybe there are), so I can't say that they went extinct. As far as I know, maybe there are other races, and maybe they are just fine lol

I have a feeling that what we are doing here is done by every intelligent species on every planet.  Every race that develops industry goes mostly extinct, so there are no aliens for us to contact!

According to a recent study (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/401) scientists warn we are approaching the next mass extinction.
What are your thoughts on this topic, and how do you think that will affect us.
The most interesting part for me, is that the other 4 mass extinctions were probably caused by natural events such as super-volcano eruptions or asteroids strikes, but this next is will be our fault... We are as destructive as a super-volcano eruption lol that can't be good :/