Are Humans Going Extinct?

[marmar]

Are Humans Going Extinct?

Monday, 01 December 2014 09:45
By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Interview

Some scientists, Guy McPherson included, fear that climate disruption is already so serious, with so many self-reinforcing feedback loops already in play, that humans are in the process of causing our own extinction.

August, September and October were each the hottest months ever recorded, respectively. Including this year, which is on track to become the hottest year ever recorded, 13 of the hottest years on record have all occurred in the last 16 years.

Coal will likely overtake oil as the dominant energy source by 2017, and without a major shift away from coal, average global temperatures could rise by 6 degrees Celsius by 2050, leading to devastating climate change.

This is dramatically worse than even the most dire predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts at least a 5-degree Celsius increase by 2100 as its worst-case scenario, if business continues as usual with no major mitigation efforts. ....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://truth-out.org/news/item/27714-are-humans-going-extinct

[MH1]

1. One way or the other, eventually.

We have created multiple tools to choose from. Climate disruption is but one.

[Yupster]

43. My answer too

Every species goes extinct eventually.

Maybe we'll be lucky and get off the planet before the sun burns out.

Even then, all the stars will eventually burn out.

Great short story about that called "To Outlive Eternity," by Poul Anderson.

[AverageJoe90]

56. Yes, it's true that humans aren't totally immune.

We might possibly be smacked with another K/T asteroid or hit by a large enough gamma ray burst, before we can get off the planet; that, if anything, would do it. Barring something on a truly cosmic scale like that, however, we'll probably just go with the rest of the universe when it finally dies.

[Warpy]

2. If the temperature keeps rising

we're going to have to learn how to breathe methane.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

24. The problem with the temperature rising is that the flora and fauna that now populates Earth

Last edited Mon Dec 1, 2014, 05:06 PM - Edit history (1)

has evolved and adapted to the climate systems that existed 100+ years ago. Evolution occurs when a biological organism's genetic makeup responds to changes in environmental conditions. When those conditions are exceeded faster than an organism can adapt, that species begins to go extinct.

A basic primer. I welcome any challenges to my accuracy. But this is what we're facing - on a planetary scale, not just on a regional or local scale.

[NRaleighLiberal]

33. as I like to tell people - the earth will be just fine - it is we people who be in trouble!

Kind of like when our body runs a temperature to kill off the disease agents!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

34. Yes, exactly. However, it's not just people who are in trouble. Animals and plants are already

dying off in the largest mass-extinction event since the Permian–Triassic event 250,000,000 years ago.

And the current event, even if we could change it's course now, has a lot of momentum.

[NRaleighLiberal]

37. agreed. as an avid gardener, over 22 years in this place, just seeing

trends in bird visits, weeds, temperature shifts, planting zones - it is all quite evident. Kudzu, poison ivy and Japanese stilt grass are all very happy, that's for sure.

[Warpy]

50. Kudzu has always been happy in NC. In fact, it's been absolutely thrilled

It's a good thing it's edible. It might be all we have left after a while.

[NRaleighLiberal]

51. I guess I should give Creeping Charlie a taste test too - it is thriving on my property!

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

just read it is used as a salad green. it certainly has an unusual, aromatic aroma when stepped on!

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. It would actually be surprising if we, eventually, don't. That's evolution for ya!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

25. See my post #24 above. nt

[FLPanhandle]

4. If so, it would be great news for the planet.

Alas, before we go we will kill off and eat/destroy everything down to the smallest shrimp in the ocean and animal on the land.

The planet will eventually recover without us.

[unblock]

5. seems unlikely. a big die-off is imaginable, but extinction?

yeah, plants can't get up and move, but humans can move them.

hard to imagine we couldn't find some ecosystem somewhere on the planet capable of supporting humans. quite possible much fewer than our current population, but something north of zero.

[Bosonic]

6. no

[tritsofme]

7. Our extinction will occur in 24 business hours.

Hold onto your hats!

[olddots]

8. this would be a great planet

WITHOUT THE DUMB FUCKING HUMANS .

[Amonester]

13. Yep. No more dumb media too!

YAY!

[bemildred]

9. We are certainly rolling the dice on that.

Which beggars description, stupid is not near strong enough. "Unfit" comes to mind though.

[MisterP]

17. ex-CUSE me, but we've rolled several sixes in a row, therefore we'll roll nothing but sixes

for the next 2 billion years: I mean, it's just basic statistics!

[bemildred]

19. Heh.

Exactly, with a 95% confidence level, what more could you want?

[jambo101]

10. We now have the tools to bring about our own demise.

Destroying the climate, succumbing to a major plague, having technology develop artificial intelligence and come to the conclusion we are not needed.or just having a nuclear holocaust, as a species we are like a baby with a loaded gun, will we survive? doubtful.

[lancer78]

35. But we also have tools

to guarantee our survival.

[DetlefK]

11. Risking collapse of civilization? Yes. Extinction? No.

[Lurks Often]

12. Expect a major loss of life when the population exceeds the food production

With Africa, the Middle East and large chunks of Asia (including Russia) being hit the worst.

North and South America will probably be hit the least

[FLPanhandle]

15. We are already depleting the oceans faster than fish can reproduce

Wait until all those Japanese and Chinese trawlers come home empty.

[Lurks Often]

16. I was thinking more wheat and rice and other staples

but, yeah the oceans too,

Between the lack of food and the various resulting wars, the death toll will probably be in the billions

[GliderGuider]

18. The breakdown of the Polar Jet Stream

The breakdown of the Polar Jet Stream is rapidly making the Northern Hemisphere less conducive to agriculture. In addition to our ongoing depletion of topsoil and groundwater.

[Politicalboi]

29. Till they all come over here

Then we all suffer when we run out of food faster with more people. We won't be able to control our borders with mass people coming all at once. It's what people do. We survive till we can't.

[Lurks Often]

42. Oh, we'll be able to control our borders

We might lack the political will right now to close our borders, but when the survival of the country is at stake, the borders will be shut tight. Of course the military will do it and a lot of people trying to migrate into the U.S. will die, but the border will be closed.

Besides North and South America aren't the continents that will suffer the worst, both continents have a strong agricultural industry and plenty of land to grow wheat and rice, etc

[CanonRay]

14. We deserve it n/t

[geek tragedy]

20. Nonsense. A 99.9% fall in human populations would still leave

7 million people on the planet.

[GliderGuider]

30. Which is about what it would take for Homo sapiens to become a truly sustainable species. Srsly.

No, Really - How Sustainable Are We?

[hifiguy]

21. Our inabilty as a species to stamp out the twin plagues of

greed and belief in Iron Age superstitions from the Middle East will seal our fate. Extinction is doubtful, but planet-wide catastrophe and a huge die-off seem to be far more likely than not in the next 50-100 years. Perhaps a new civilization can arise based on democratic socialist principles and rational, science-based humanism. Religion and capitalism haven't worked out so well this time around.

[The2ndWheel]

23. Stamp out is an interesting, and correct, phrase

As always, might makes right.

I don't know how wanting to stamp out greed isn't itself greedy, or how thinking that democratic socialist principles and rational, science based humanism won't go wrong isn't as much of a belief as anything thought up in the Iron Age. Religion isn't special. It's just a form of organization. It was thought up by people.

[hifiguy]

27. When you build upon principles

based on ruthless commodification/economic exploitation and the depths of human gullibility - capitalism and religion, respectively - you are maximizing the probability of inhumane and objectively awful outcomes. No human instrumentality or system is or will ever be perfect, but it is clear that some ideas are far better foundations for building a humane and sane and sustainable society than are others.

[The2ndWheel]

28. That's an issue with building a society

Trying to build A society. One size must fit all. It usually doesn't, which is why there's been so much conflict between and even within societies. Any organized effort is monopolistic though. It couldn't function if it wasn't.

A lot depends on how cheap the energy is to keep everything together. If it gets too expensive for maintaining society, then I can imagine how it could get interesting.

[LanternWaste]

39. Add to that our daily reliance on imaginary constructs such as politics and national borders...

"Iron Age superstitions from the Middle East will seal our fate..."

Add to that our daily reliance on imaginary constructs such as political systems and national borders, it certainly does illustrate us to be a less than progressive species.

[hifiguy]

41. indeed.

We are the intelligent apes who have evolved to somehow be able to ask questions about the cosmos. Yet we are, as David Byrne said "still monkeys deep down inside", monkeys who fight over territory and resources like our ape relatives do, but with far more lethal weapons and far more toxic motives. Apes don't kill each other in the name of non-existent gods; only humans have proven capable of such idiocy. Only when our better natures are in control will we survive as a species and deserve the name of homo sapiens.

[arcane1]

53. And modern society is completely different in many ways than what we evolved in.

Alarm clocks, retirement plans, travel, money, this computer, you name it! At that is evolving faster than we can adapt to it. Hell, we never adapted to the steam engine!

Like Ronald Wright said, "we are running 21st century software, our knowledge, on hardware that hasn't been upgraded for 50,000 years"

[Iggo]

22. Almost certainly.

[Rex]

26. Can we survive climate change is the question.

Some of us can.

[Louisiana1976]

38. True. "Some like it hot and some sweat when the heat is on...."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. NO! Because we're SPECIAL. Or, at least dumb enough to tell ourselves we are.

Or, is it because we think ourselves smart and therefore indestructible?

Whereas, the lowly, really dumb, sponge has been around for around 565 million years and has evolved very little. We've been around, in our present form, for about 190 thousand years.

If we're really so smart, shouldn't we evolving in the opposite direction?

[Silent3]

47. When you're talking about *species survival*, not individual survival...

...not flourishing civilization, but any form of survival at all, down to a few small scattered bands living pretty crappy bare subsistence lives -- yes, we're special enough to manage at least that in all but the most extreme circumstances.

If only 25% or so of species survive the damage we do to the planet, comparable to the species survival rate after the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction wiped out the dinosaurs -- we'd be among that 25%.

Hell, we'd probably be among the 2.5% if 97.5% of all species died off. We're very adaptable, can live in all sorts of climates, can survive on a huge variety of different foods, and our brains -- no matter how much trouble they've gotten us into as well -- are a huge survival asset.

[el_bryanto]

32. Do you believe that humans are going extinct? Or are you dumb?

Since I like humans and consider myself to be one - this formulation drives me nuts; but it is how it is often formulated at DU.

Bryant

[Arugula Latte]

36. Not when there are Duggars around.

[Avalux]

40. We are committing mass suicide, slowly.

We will be the only species of life on the planet that is responsible for its own demise.

[customerserviceguy]

44. One could have asked that question

during either of the World Wars, or any other mass warfare or plague event.

We might have a lot less people, but as a species, we're probabaly going to inhabit this planet until we have the technology to leave it behind entirely.

[Silent3]

45. Massive die-off? Collapse of civiliization? Perhaps. Extinction? Very highly unlikely.

Even in a hellish world where many billions have died and remaining ecosystems are badly damaged and strained, many small bands of humans would be able to adapt and survive -- we'd be back to a "short and brutish existence", but remember, survive doesn't mean flourish.

People toss around the word "extinction" way too easily when it comes to humans. That's a huge failure of imagination.

[Union Scribe]

57. Well said. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

46. Sure, eventually humans will go extinct.

For now, I'm glad I live in Alaska which will soon become the new Oregon if recent trends are any indication. We finally got some snow this weekend which is good.

[searchfortruth1]

48. Very sad but it does not surprise me.

[appalachiablue]

49. Is there any research on vaccines/prevention for human greed and evil?

[hatrack]

52. Eventually, sure - 99% of all the species that ever lived don't any more . . .

Hard to see how opposable thumbs, an occasional ability to plan ahead and story-telling skills are going to beat odds like that.

[RKP5637]

54. Earth has cast aside temporary inhabitants, humans are no exception, but many just

don't F'en get it. One spinning ball of dirt in an outcast region of the universe and we can't save what we have. I really think only some form of intergalactic intervention will save this place, humans, many, just don't have what it takes. Where that will come from, I have no idea, but the universe is a world of possibilities, humans are limited by choice.

[AverageJoe90]

55. *Sigh*.....you have GOT to be kidding me.

The hyperbolic title was bad enough, but quoting Guy McPherson, of all sources, who is honestly as much of an extremist doomer as his opposite number, Steven Goddard, is a denialist? Are you *serious*, Dahr Jamail?.

Folks, let me point this out: It's now 2014. Global temperatures, though they are still rising overall, have seen a significant slowing in the warming, for almost 20 years now, and Co2 is now at around 400 ppm.

Now, let's think about this: We are only 36 years away from the cutoff date of 2050, and the rate predicted by McPherson, et al. here is 6*C by 2050, and let us assume that they also believe that this, too, may double, leading to 12*C by 2086 or thereabouts. Let us also assume, that the worst-case scenario of Co2 increase is about 1000 ppm, almost two doublings worth, by 2100. Doing the most basic math, it leads us to a climate sensitivity of an incredible seven degrees(rough estimate) per doubling, almost twice even the most pessimistic plausible estimates by any of those organizations with actual experience in the field. So, basically, McPherson's pulling shit out of his ass, and makes me wonder if he's been relying on David Wasdell's fringe "Earth Systems" pseudoscience again.

And McPherson even has the nerve to basically put a message of joy at the bottom of all that.....that honestly, *irks* me to a great extent. What a fuckin' messed up nutter this guy is.

[XemaSab]

58. Nice denial bullshit

n/t

[Recursion]

59. Extinction? Doubtful. The Medieval warm period/little ice age barrier was a bigger change

in temperature than we're talking about which anthropogenic climate change. These led to things like Greenland becoming largely uninhabitable, changing north Africa from a fertile area to desert, etc., so it will not be without significant disruptions, but our species has survived bigger changes in the past.