The end of the world

Well basically yes, the world will end, but unless it's a very odd happening (and how would the end of the world be odd?) I will be dead, at least a few seconds before it happens, and you know, I'm satisfied with that.

Two strong defensive teams will probably make for a low scoring game.

ZZZZZZZ

Like a thief in the night the world will end.
The "end" is meant to happen when we least expect it to. And the same goes for the way it will end....the least way we expect it to.

HEY DAMMIT, the world didnt end! Well i guess i read my pebbles incorrectly.

Chicken entrails, Farmerman, chicken entrails.

Pepples went out ages ago.

:wink:

In re. Smily's post above.

I agree that a virulent virus with a 14 day incubation period, and 30% mortality is one of the greatest risks that humanity faces at the beginning of the 21st century. There have historically been many major epidemics that had significant social/economic effects. Probably the best known is the Black Death. That spelled an end to the 1000 year domination of Europe by the Catholic hierarchy, and feudal lords. It was a seachange in how Europeans looked at the world and their place in it.

The Spanish Lady during the WWI was serious, but burned itself out before reaching the levels of mortality of the Great Plague. Today, with the rapid and relatively free movement of people half-way around the world in hours, an epidemic would likely be far worse than anything similar that we have faced.

Would it mean the end of our species? I'm not so sure about that. Reduce the world's population by 25-50% and society would certainly be radically changed. Much of our infrastructure would collapse, and all economies would implode. Paranoia and chauvinism would reign. The psychological devastation would almost certainly equal what we used to expect if a spasm nuclear exchange occurred. On the other hand, reduced population would take a great deal of pressure off of the planet's carrying capacity. Wealth doesn't die in the same way that people do, and so the amount of wealth available would "enrich" the survivors. Ideas are even more persistent. Just knowing the importance and possibilities that open up with electrical power, would greatly shorten the recovery period. No one would have to invent the internal combustion motor, and the great transportation networks would survive for some time. A great problem would be the transitional period between the complete breakdown of Law, and the re-establishment of a new social order. In short, I think that with a disease survival rate of 50-75% that we as a species would recover ... probably within 100 years, or less.

You mention Global Winter, but I think that should be amended to radical climate change. Let's regard your Global Winter in the same light as Environmental Collapse, after all they truly are related in most scenarios. One group worries about global winter and another about turning our planet into a sister of Venus. Depending upon how close we are to the penultimate, it might not take too much to start a slow chain reaction that would present a major challenge to survival as a species. Cold may not be quiet as dangerous to us as going hothouse. Humans have survived, even flourished during the great ice ages that have dominated our world's history. Get too hot, and water the sine qua non of existence could be a major problem. As the environmental conditions worsened, we could expect the population to decrease with somewhat similar results to the epidemic scenario. The old, sick, weak and young are especially vulnerable to all these scenarios, but healthy, strong adults have a tremendous capacity for survival. As the conditions that triggered the environmental collapse lessened, the planet's capacity to heal itself would reassert itself and conditions would swing back toward the moderate climate that we've enjoyed since the last ice age.

You've expressed a concern that an atomic war could drive us to extinction. This is almost the least of our worries. Several large Megaton devices would devastate the region close to their points of detonation, but would have limited negative impacts further afield. The USSR detonated a device rated at around 100 MT, and most of the world doesn't even know that it happened. The US, USSR, France, and China conducted extensive atomic testing both above and below ground with very limited negative effects even within sight of the detonations. The dangers associated with atomic war today is rather limited to countries with limited atomic capacity. Most have only a small number of weapons, and those are believed to be much less powerful and sophisticated than the weapons in even the French inventory. The single most danger of an atomic exchange is between Indiia and Pakistan over Kashmir. Recent events seem to indicate that the two countries are moving slowly away from the brink, with the greatest danger coming if radical elements in Pakistan could successful execute a coup. How many and how powerful would an Indian-Pakistani exchange be? The total inventory of the two countries probably is is less than 30, and they range probably from 1KT to 1MT. Assume the worst, and we might see a total off 50MT in an exchange lasting 2 weeks. Both India and Pakistan would be devastated, and dangerous levels of fallout might extend into Indochina and persist for months. More would die from hunger and the breakdown of the economy than from the blast and fallout effects of the exchange. DPNK has few weapons, and they haven't been tested. Most atomic designs are however now so well-known that we have to assume that a DPNK device would work, and yield something like 50KT. The highest estimate I know of is that DPNK might produce up to around 12 warheads before 2005-06 if the gods of luck are with them. China is worrisome, but in time there should be a reduction in nuclear danger from them.

Weird Science is just that, weird. All things are possible, but the danger of a super-collider causing a black hole is so far out there that no one should lose any sleep over it. Much of what would fall into Weird Science is theoretical stuff that exists mostly as mathematical equations. No one has yet figured out a way to empirically test the propositions, and until a test could be run why worry.

Far more dangerous is the possibility that we will collide with a relatively large bit of cosmic junk. There is good reason to suppose that was what drove the dinosaurs to extinction. Though we are constantly looking at the heavens, it would be very easy for an asteroid to smash into one of the oceans (since the largest part of Earth's surface is water, the probability of a water strike is greatest by the same percentages). Though this is a scary scenario, some baby-steps to prevent it are already underway. Even if we are struck again by a rock big enough to radically change environmental conditions for, say 4-5 years, some would probably survive to rebuild the world destroyed by cosmic accident.

Hmmm - according to that, Lost, the world will never end, because you - and presumably many other people with your beliefs, are now expecting the world to end when we least expect it, and in an unexpected way - this means the unexpected is being expected, which makes it the expected.....and there are others expecting the expected, so it wouldna work just to go back to that.......