A new study has found that much of the world will face uninhabitable temperatures if we continue on the current course of climate change as situation grows more dire
We are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction event the earth has experienced. As ecosystems collapse, organisms at the top of the food web are in peril. Yes, humans are in danger of extinction.
Let’s all bemoan the possibility that a nearby supernova destroys all life on planet earth next week, rather than confronting the nuance of the problems we face and developing constructive solutions.
The bounds are subject to important limitations. Most importantly, they only apply to extinction risks that have either remained constant or declined over human history. Our 200 kyr track record of survival cannot rule out much higher extinction probabilities from modern sources such as nuclear weapons or anthropogenic climate change.
Look, I know it’s not something anyone wants to confront, but I’m not sending it out of malice, or to attack you. There’s no need to be condescending.
I simply want to be realistic about the world we live in. From my point of view it is better to be concerned about the possibility of human extinction and act as though it is a potential outcome, rather than to pretend that our species has wholly conquered the laws of nature and is indestructible.
I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or you’re just not very bright.
“much higher extinction probabilities” doesn’t really mean anything.
The probabilities referred to in this paper are very low. Less than 1 in 14,000 in an extraordinarily conservative estimate, 87,000 is probably a more useful number. So each year you roll that 14,000 sided dice with 1 chance of becoming extinct that year.
This is where it says that:
Using the fact that humans have survived at least 200 kyr, we can infer that the annual probability of human extinction from natural causes is less than 1 in 87,000 with modest confidence (0.1 relative likelihood) and less than 1 in 14,000 with near certainty (10−6 relative likelihood). These are the most conservative bounds. Estimates based on older fossils such as the ones found in Morocco dated to 315 kya result in annual extinction probabilities of less than 1 in 137,000 or 1 in 23,000 (for relative likelihood of 0.1 and 10−6, respectively). Using the track record of survival for the entire lineage of Homo, the annual probability of extinction from natural causes falls below 1 in 870,000 (relative likelihood of 0.1). We also conclude that these data are unlikely to be biased by observer selection effects, especially given that the bounds are consistent with mammalian extinction rates, the temporal range of other hominin species, and the frequency of potential catastrophes and mass extinctions.
So, a “much higher probability” might be 2 in 87,000 for example. Much higher than 1 in 87,000 but still not very likely. More to the point, the paper is saying it doesn’t consider those factors, they’re out of scope, the methodology used in the paper is incapable of assessing the likelihood of nuclear annihilation.
Honestly, if this paper is the best argument you have that human extinction is likely then you really have nothing.
We are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction event the earth has experienced. As ecosystems collapse, organisms at the top of the food web are in peril. Yes, humans are in danger of extinction.
What a silly thing to say.
You realise extinction requires no living specimens to exist right?
Some number of humans will prevail even if the only thing left to eat is slime mold.
Climate change is a big deal. The future is very bleak. People with the power to mitigate the damage are doing the opposite.
Claiming that human extinction is possible or likely about as helpful as suggesting that ancient aliens have the solution.
What a silly thing to say, indeed. Of course it’s possible.
Oh yes, silly me. Anything is possible.
Let’s all bemoan the possibility that a nearby supernova destroys all life on planet earth next week, rather than confronting the nuance of the problems we face and developing constructive solutions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47540-7
Don’t miss this bit:
Oh sweetheart.
Did you google “human extinction science” and link the first result without reading it?
The part you quoted just says modern extinction risks are out of scope for this study.
It does not say that extinction is probable or likely.
Look, I know it’s not something anyone wants to confront, but I’m not sending it out of malice, or to attack you. There’s no need to be condescending.
I simply want to be realistic about the world we live in. From my point of view it is better to be concerned about the possibility of human extinction and act as though it is a potential outcome, rather than to pretend that our species has wholly conquered the laws of nature and is indestructible.
It’s impossible not to sound condescending when talking to someone who’s just making stuff up and claiming that it’s a plausible assertion.
You’re not being realistic, you’re being dramatic.
Human extinction is not a realistic nor likely outcome to the problems humanity presently faces.
Even in the worst projections for climate change, some areas of the globe will still be able to support life.
I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or you’re just not very bright.
“much higher extinction probabilities” doesn’t really mean anything.
The probabilities referred to in this paper are very low. Less than 1 in 14,000 in an extraordinarily conservative estimate, 87,000 is probably a more useful number. So each year you roll that 14,000 sided dice with 1 chance of becoming extinct that year.
This is where it says that:
So, a “much higher probability” might be 2 in 87,000 for example. Much higher than 1 in 87,000 but still not very likely. More to the point, the paper is saying it doesn’t consider those factors, they’re out of scope, the methodology used in the paper is incapable of assessing the likelihood of nuclear annihilation.
Honestly, if this paper is the best argument you have that human extinction is likely then you really have nothing.