Is the world being destroyed?

When we use lithium and phosphorus.... it doesn't disappear from the Earth.

Peak phosphorus does not mean that phosphorus will disappear, rather that the reserves with mineable high concentrations are depleting. Instead, we are increasing the background concentrations of phosphorus and adding it to the ocean floor. More sustainable phosphorus use requires a greater appreciation and understanding of the many organisms that make up soils — and the part they play in phosphorus distribution — or we may no longer be able to feed the world at an affordable price.

I do have a problem with people predicting (for the umpteenth time) that civilization is about to collapse.

We aren't talking about the end of civilzation

You seem to think it's the same thing as prophet warning the Hebrews about the wrath of Jehovah or something. I think it's more similar to the campaign against nuclear weapons

It is a good thing to be able to distinguish this political propadanda from real science.

I want to reiterate the incredible progress made by the human race. As a planet we are more productive, we live twice as long, we have less slavery more rights more democracy less war more food security than ever before in history.

I am not cowering for my life.

2. Global Climate change is supported by real science (as opposed to alarmists on the internet), It is being addressed and studied by the scientific community. Some of the dire predictions of climate change you find in the political left are rather exagerrated, but that is another issue.

Real scientists defended tobacco use, questioned climate change, and formulated and promoted o

And given the current trend in medical advances, I might even be around to ask them.

Immortality and everlasting youth are the stuff of myths, according to new research which may finally end the eternal debate about whether we can live for ever.

Backed by governments, business, academics and investors in an industry worth $110bn (£82.5bn) – and estimated to be worth $610bn by 2025 – scientists have spent decades attempting to harness the power of genomics and artificial intelligence to find a way to prevent or even reverse ageing.

But an unprecedented study has now confirmed that we probably cannot slow the rate at which we get older because of biological constraints.

The study, by an international collaboration of scientists from 14 countries and including experts from the University of Oxford, set out to test the “invariant rate of ageing” hypothesis, which says that a species has a relatively fixed rate of ageing from adulthood.

“Our findings support the theory that, rather than slowing down death, more people are living much longer due to a reduction in mortality at younger ages,” said José Manuel Aburto from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, who analysed age-specific birth and death data spanning centuries and continents.

“We compared birth and death data from humans and non-human primates and found this general pattern of mortality was the same in all of them,” said Aburto. “This suggests that biological, rather than environmental factors, ultimately control longevity.

“The statistics confirmed, individuals live longer as health and living conditions improve which leads to increasing longevity across an entire population. Nevertheless, a steep rise in death rates, as years advance into old age, is clear to see in all species.”

The debate over how much longer we can live has divided the academic community for decades, with the search for extended life and health particularly active in the UK, where at least 260 companies, 250 investors, 10 non-profits, and 10 research labs are using the most advanced technologies.

The UK government has even prioritised the separate sectors of AI and longevity by including both of them in the four industrial strategy grand challenges, which aim to put Britain at the forefront of the industries of the future.

But what has been missing from the debate is research comparing lifespans of multiple animal populations with humans, to work out what is driving mortality.

This study plugs that gap, said Aburto. “This extraordinarily diverse collection of data enabled us to compare mortality differences both within and between species.”

David Gems, a professor of biogerontology at UCL’s Institute of Healthy Ageing, said that the summary of the report suggested the research was “a very high-powered study proving something contentious and surely right”.

All the datasets examined by Aburto’s teams revealed the same general pattern of mortality: a high risk of death in infancy which rapidly declines in the immature and teenage years, remains low until early adulthood, and then continually rises in advancing age.

“Our findings confirm that, in historical populations, life expectancy was low because many people died young,” said Aburto. “But as medical, social, and environmental improvements continued, life expectancy increased.

“More and more people get to live much longer now. However, the trajectory towards death in old age has not changed,” he added. “This study suggests evolutionary biology trumps everything and, so far, medical advances have been unable to beat these biological constraints.”

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...

The same scientific community that supports global warming also supports the safety of genetically modified foods.

It’s not exactly a radical concept to say follow the money.

And money, not the environment, nor science, trumps everything.