Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Human Extinction

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 1:21:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I came across the 2008 document published by the Global Catastrophic Risk Conference at Oxford University today, and their median extinction risk estimates totaled to about a 19% chance by 2100, according to experts on such catastrophic risks. For this thread, please read their specific results on page 2:

http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk...

I would like to pose a few questions for all to give individual responses to.

1. Is it possible for all humans to go extinct from the same cause?

There are roughly 7,350,000,000 humans alive right now. This year, the population has grown by roughly 50,000,000. Birth greatly outpaces death, and therefore we should reach 8,000,000,000 between 2023 and 2027.

This is far too extreme a world population for a cause such as pandemics - natural and artificial - to wipe out the entire world, when it is considered that humans currently live on all continents (including people that temporarily live in Antarctica). In the past half century, the most severe epidemic (excluding HIV/AIDS - as it is effectively non-lethal when there is access to treatment) killed 1,000,000 - the 1968 flu pandemic - but the disease only had a 0.5% case-death ratio. The next largest total comes from the 1974 smallpox epidemic in India - at just 15,000. And smallpox - disease with the most total caused deaths in human history - is now considered eradicated.

We now have the ability to eradicate pandemic-causing diseases, and we worry about an inter-continental disease killing well over 7,000,000,000 people.

2. Is artificial intelligence an actual existential threat?

There are a few things we should consider here. How can artificial intelligence come to the point of exterminating all humans? We control its growth - therefore the development of a self-sufficient "superintelligence" would be nearly impossible, and unworthy of a 5% chance of wiping out all humans ever: let alone within 85 years.

We can create self-driving cars, or robots that do basic actions to take positions in society currently held by humans. But there's a check that humans are extremely capable of putting on the growth of these technologies beyond their wanted ability. A similar check could be put on the development of molecular nanotechnology.

3. Can we stop extinction from occurring?

Humans are smart - smart enough to not set off all nuclear weapons against themselves, and smart enough to not create artificial intelligence controlling such weapons. We have advanced enough medicine to eradicate diseases. How can we possibly go extinct from Earth-based causes?

4. Can asteroids wipe all humans out in today's world?

The most probable thing to cause a mass-extinction in the near future is most likely an asteroid. However, objects that may collide with Earth are on a constant watch from several organizations - NASA's Near Earth Object Program being an example (also - another reason to increase funding for NASA, because they can literally save all life on Earth). Earth can't escape such odds of impact forever, so it is necessary to develop the ability to literally stop asteroids. And it really wouldn't be hard to do so. Just a small push off course would change the long-term course enough to avoid Earth.

---

So what is everyone's thoughts on the matter? This was just something I came across today, and my reaction to it.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 7:26:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 5:36:09 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
The chances of an asteroid are insanely slim in your lifetime.

It's improbable, but more probable than any other cause.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 12:16:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The most probable cause would probably be from a super AI, an artificial intelligence that puts the intelligence of the brightest humans to shame. The AI, since it's self improving may progressively require more energy to progressively get smarter, and we're a pretty close source for that. Or they may not like the existence of humans, and so they'd attack us. Or seeing as how we have to consider Fermi's paradox, it could be that as soon or hmjust before we reach the technological singularity, we'd be a threat to other life forms, so they're waiting for that point to exterminate us.
greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 12:26:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:21:08 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I came across the 2008 document published by the Global Catastrophic Risk Conference at Oxford University today, and their median extinction risk estimates totaled to about a 19% chance by 2100, according to experts on such catastrophic risks. For this thread, please read their specific results on page 2:

http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk...

I would like to pose a few questions for all to give individual responses to.

1. Is it possible for all humans to go extinct from the same cause?

There are roughly 7,350,000,000 humans alive right now. This year, the population has grown by roughly 50,000,000. Birth greatly outpaces death, and therefore we should reach 8,000,000,000 between 2023 and 2027.

This is far too extreme a world population for a cause such as pandemics - natural and artificial - to wipe out the entire world, when it is considered that humans currently live on all continents (including people that temporarily live in Antarctica). In the past half century, the most severe epidemic (excluding HIV/AIDS - as it is effectively non-lethal when there is access to treatment) killed 1,000,000 - the 1968 flu pandemic - but the disease only had a 0.5% case-death ratio. The next largest total comes from the 1974 smallpox epidemic in India - at just 15,000. And smallpox - disease with the most total caused deaths in human history - is now considered eradicated.

We now have the ability to eradicate pandemic-causing diseases, and we worry about an inter-continental disease killing well over 7,000,000,000 people.

2. Is artificial intelligence an actual existential threat?

There are a few things we should consider here. How can artificial intelligence come to the point of exterminating all humans? We control its growth - therefore the development of a self-sufficient "superintelligence" would be nearly impossible, and unworthy of a 5% chance of wiping out all humans ever: let alone within 85 years.

We can create self-driving cars, or robots that do basic actions to take positions in society currently held by humans. But there's a check that humans are extremely capable of putting on the growth of these technologies beyond their wanted ability. A similar check could be put on the development of molecular nanotechnology.

3. Can we stop extinction from occurring?

Humans are smart - smart enough to not set off all nuclear weapons against themselves, and smart enough to not create artificial intelligence controlling such weapons. We have advanced enough medicine to eradicate diseases. How can we possibly go extinct from Earth-based causes?

4. Can asteroids wipe all humans out in today's world?

The most probable thing to cause a mass-extinction in the near future is most likely an asteroid. However, objects that may collide with Earth are on a constant watch from several organizations - NASA's Near Earth Object Program being an example (also - another reason to increase funding for NASA, because they can literally save all life on Earth). Earth can't escape such odds of impact forever, so it is necessary to develop the ability to literally stop asteroids. And it really wouldn't be hard to do so. Just a small push off course would change the long-term course enough to avoid Earth.

---

So what is everyone's thoughts on the matter? This was just something I came across today, and my reaction to it.

The extinction of the Human race, No matter what tehloligy is Inevitable.

The Earth Will be erasicated quickly By the dieig dun, But we can make advances and Travel to other planets. However, Dying stars far Outspeed forming stars, so, There will be a Inevitable time when all life to Have to end, Advanced or not.

Especialy if we make techlologies to make yourself Live forever, You may see the end of the world In Trillions ofbyears, When all stars Inevitably Die out, Eradicating all possible life.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 1:15:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 12:26:16 PM, greatkitteh wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:21:08 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I came across the 2008 document published by the Global Catastrophic Risk Conference at Oxford University today, and their median extinction risk estimates totaled to about a 19% chance by 2100, according to experts on such catastrophic risks. For this thread, please read their specific results on page 2:

http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk...

I would like to pose a few questions for all to give individual responses to.

1. Is it possible for all humans to go extinct from the same cause?

There are roughly 7,350,000,000 humans alive right now. This year, the population has grown by roughly 50,000,000. Birth greatly outpaces death, and therefore we should reach 8,000,000,000 between 2023 and 2027.

This is far too extreme a world population for a cause such as pandemics - natural and artificial - to wipe out the entire world, when it is considered that humans currently live on all continents (including people that temporarily live in Antarctica). In the past half century, the most severe epidemic (excluding HIV/AIDS - as it is effectively non-lethal when there is access to treatment) killed 1,000,000 - the 1968 flu pandemic - but the disease only had a 0.5% case-death ratio. The next largest total comes from the 1974 smallpox epidemic in India - at just 15,000. And smallpox - disease with the most total caused deaths in human history - is now considered eradicated.

We now have the ability to eradicate pandemic-causing diseases, and we worry about an inter-continental disease killing well over 7,000,000,000 people.

2. Is artificial intelligence an actual existential threat?

There are a few things we should consider here. How can artificial intelligence come to the point of exterminating all humans? We control its growth - therefore the development of a self-sufficient "superintelligence" would be nearly impossible, and unworthy of a 5% chance of wiping out all humans ever: let alone within 85 years.

We can create self-driving cars, or robots that do basic actions to take positions in society currently held by humans. But there's a check that humans are extremely capable of putting on the growth of these technologies beyond their wanted ability. A similar check could be put on the development of molecular nanotechnology.

3. Can we stop extinction from occurring?

Humans are smart - smart enough to not set off all nuclear weapons against themselves, and smart enough to not create artificial intelligence controlling such weapons. We have advanced enough medicine to eradicate diseases. How can we possibly go extinct from Earth-based causes?

4. Can asteroids wipe all humans out in today's world?

The most probable thing to cause a mass-extinction in the near future is most likely an asteroid. However, objects that may collide with Earth are on a constant watch from several organizations - NASA's Near Earth Object Program being an example (also - another reason to increase funding for NASA, because they can literally save all life on Earth). Earth can't escape such odds of impact forever, so it is necessary to develop the ability to literally stop asteroids. And it really wouldn't be hard to do so. Just a small push off course would change the long-term course enough to avoid Earth.

---

So what is everyone's thoughts on the matter? This was just something I came across today, and my reaction to it.

The extinction of the Human race, No matter what tehloligy is Inevitable.

The Earth Will be erasicated quickly By the dieig dun, But we can make advances and Travel to other planets. However, Dying stars far Outspeed forming stars, so, There will be a Inevitable time when all life to Have to end, Advanced or not.

Especialy if we make techlologies to make yourself Live forever, You may see the end of the world In Trillions ofbyears, When all stars Inevitably Die out, Eradicating all possible life.

Unless we eventually have the capability to form stars, in which case as long as we could gather material we could persist.
greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 1:51:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:15:18 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 8/5/2015 12:26:16 PM, greatkitteh wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:21:08 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I came across the 2008 document published by the Global Catastrophic Risk Conference at Oxford University today, and their median extinction risk estimates totaled to about a 19% chance by 2100, according to experts on such catastrophic risks. For this thread, please read their specific results on page 2:

http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk...

I would like to pose a few questions for all to give individual responses to.

1. Is it possible for all humans to go extinct from the same cause?

There are roughly 7,350,000,000 humans alive right now. This year, the population has grown by roughly 50,000,000. Birth greatly outpaces death, and therefore we should reach 8,000,000,000 between 2023 and 2027.

This is far too extreme a world population for a cause such as pandemics - natural and artificial - to wipe out the entire world, when it is considered that humans currently live on all continents (including people that temporarily live in Antarctica). In the past half century, the most severe epidemic (excluding HIV/AIDS - as it is effectively non-lethal when there is access to treatment) killed 1,000,000 - the 1968 flu pandemic - but the disease only had a 0.5% case-death ratio. The next largest total comes from the 1974 smallpox epidemic in India - at just 15,000. And smallpox - disease with the most total caused deaths in human history - is now considered eradicated.

We now have the ability to eradicate pandemic-causing diseases, and we worry about an inter-continental disease killing well over 7,000,000,000 people.

2. Is artificial intelligence an actual existential threat?

There are a few things we should consider here. How can artificial intelligence come to the point of exterminating all humans? We control its growth - therefore the development of a self-sufficient "superintelligence" would be nearly impossible, and unworthy of a 5% chance of wiping out all humans ever: let alone within 85 years.

We can create self-driving cars, or robots that do basic actions to take positions in society currently held by humans. But there's a check that humans are extremely capable of putting on the growth of these technologies beyond their wanted ability. A similar check could be put on the development of molecular nanotechnology.

3. Can we stop extinction from occurring?

Humans are smart - smart enough to not set off all nuclear weapons against themselves, and smart enough to not create artificial intelligence controlling such weapons. We have advanced enough medicine to eradicate diseases. How can we possibly go extinct from Earth-based causes?

4. Can asteroids wipe all humans out in today's world?

The most probable thing to cause a mass-extinction in the near future is most likely an asteroid. However, objects that may collide with Earth are on a constant watch from several organizations - NASA's Near Earth Object Program being an example (also - another reason to increase funding for NASA, because they can literally save all life on Earth). Earth can't escape such odds of impact forever, so it is necessary to develop the ability to literally stop asteroids. And it really wouldn't be hard to do so. Just a small push off course would change the long-term course enough to avoid Earth.

---

So what is everyone's thoughts on the matter? This was just something I came across today, and my reaction to it.

The extinction of the Human race, No matter what tehloligy is Inevitable.

The Earth Will be erasicated quickly By the dieig dun, But we can make advances and Travel to other planets. However, Dying stars far Outspeed forming stars, so, There will be a Inevitable time when all life to Have to end, Advanced or not.

Especialy if we make techlologies to make yourself Live forever, You may see the end of the world In Trillions ofbyears, When all stars Inevitably Die out, Eradicating all possible life.

Unless we eventually have the capability to form stars, in which case as long as we could gather material we could persist.

Even so, We'll Eventually Run out of Star Materials, Amd The stars will all die out.

To me, It's Unevitable no matter what. Unless, Glorius dear Leader Kim Jong Un Solves it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 1:58:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:51:54 PM, greatkitteh wrote:

Unless we eventually have the capability to form stars, in which case as long as we could gather material we could persist.

Even so, We'll Eventually Run out of Star Materials, Amd The stars will all die out.

To me, It's Unevitable no matter what. Unless, Glorius dear Leader Kim Jong Un Solves it.

Unless we harness energy into matter. Stuff can't just disappear.
greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:02:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:58:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:51:54 PM, greatkitteh wrote:

Unless we eventually have the capability to form stars, in which case as long as we could gather material we could persist.

Even so, We'll Eventually Run out of Star Materials, Amd The stars will all die out.

To me, It's Unevitable no matter what. Unless, Glorius dear Leader Kim Jong Un Solves it.

Unless we harness energy into matter. Stuff can't just disappear.

even so, There is Too much stars to Get all of them. So, We'll just prolong ourselves untill we run out of resiurces, And all other Stars have died.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:22:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 2:02:31 PM, greatkitteh wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:58:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:51:54 PM, greatkitteh wrote:

Unless we eventually have the capability to form stars, in which case as long as we could gather material we could persist.

Even so, We'll Eventually Run out of Star Materials, Amd The stars will all die out.

To me, It's Unevitable no matter what. Unless, Glorius dear Leader Kim Jong Un Solves it.

Unless we harness energy into matter. Stuff can't just disappear.

even so, There is Too much stars to Get all of them. So, We'll just prolong ourselves untill we run out of resiurces, And all other Stars have died.

There is no such animal as running out of resources. Nothing gets destroyed, only converted. We can master conversion processes.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 1:58:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most of what they say is pure propaganda. It is fear mongering, which the politicians use to their advantage. They want people to be afraid so that they will lean more on the government. They also want to use that fear mongering as a tool to bring about their tyranny over us, and to also spread their empire out to all the utter reaches of the entire earth.
Truth is that there is no fear of extinction in 2100. We've been on this planet in our human form for 250,000 years, at least that's what biologists say. Before that we were Neanderthals for another 1-2 million years. We've been through asteroids. We've been through ice ages. We've been through sun bursts, volcanoes, earthquakes, climate changes. We've been through it all, and yet we keep evolving. We keep getting better, not worse.
That's not to say that there won't be catastrophes. It's very likely that we will see another WW3. This war will cost a billion lives, not 100 million like WW2. In a sense that might be good, since if we keep multiplying, people are going to die left and right anyway. There won't be enough medicine's for all the people on the planet once we get to 20 billion people. Water will become more polluted. There won't be enough room on the roads for everyone to drive. Since huge freeways go up in price at a compound rate, we'll have to stop building them once they get to a certain size. That will lead to haves and the have not's. There will be more crime since it will be hard for police to police huge populations of people. We've already seen this in China. China has a huge problem with rape. The cities are so big, and the ability to just disappear and never be seen again is huge. Once a rape happens, the man who did it can leave and just blend in with the 1.6 billion people that live in China. Looking for this guy is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Even with DNA it's hard to track the guy down. For this reason, most Chinese men know they can get away with rape.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 2:00:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 1:58:32 AM, j50wells wrote:

It isn't a conspiracy. That's utterly ridiculous and I'm honestly unaware on why I feel the need to reply this much to that post of stupidity.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 3:40:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You have no proof. I gave you proof. That proof is that we have gone through hell for 250,000 years. We have not gone extinct. You can't even imagine what life was like 10,000 years ago. It was hell.
Now that you have not given any proof to back up your position, then you are the one being stupid. Read a little, miss or sir. You'll find out that what these people are saying is hogwash.
How would we really die? It couldn't be nature because we've conquered it for 250,000 years. Extinction could only come by some kind of warfare. Even then people would hide and live and populate.
What you are saying is just a result of not using your logic. Try it sometime.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 3:45:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:21:08 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I came across the 2008 document published by the Global Catastrophic Risk Conference at Oxford University today, and their median extinction risk estimates totaled to about a 19% chance by 2100, according to experts on such catastrophic risks. For this thread, please read their specific results on page 2:

http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk...

I would like to pose a few questions for all to give individual responses to.

1. Is it possible for all humans to go extinct from the same cause?

There are roughly 7,350,000,000 humans alive right now. This year, the population has grown by roughly 50,000,000. Birth greatly outpaces death, and therefore we should reach 8,000,000,000 between 2023 and 2027.

This is far too extreme a world population for a cause such as pandemics - natural and artificial - to wipe out the entire world, when it is considered that humans currently live on all continents (including people that temporarily live in Antarctica). In the past half century, the most severe epidemic (excluding HIV/AIDS - as it is effectively non-lethal when there is access to treatment) killed 1,000,000 - the 1968 flu pandemic - but the disease only had a 0.5% case-death ratio. The next largest total comes from the 1974 smallpox epidemic in India - at just 15,000. And smallpox - disease with the most total caused deaths in human history - is now considered eradicated.

We now have the ability to eradicate pandemic-causing diseases, and we worry about an inter-continental disease killing well over 7,000,000,000 people.

2. Is artificial intelligence an actual existential threat?

There are a few things we should consider here. How can artificial intelligence come to the point of exterminating all humans? We control its growth - therefore the development of a self-sufficient "superintelligence" would be nearly impossible, and unworthy of a 5% chance of wiping out all humans ever: let alone within 85 years.

We can create self-driving cars, or robots that do basic actions to take positions in society currently held by humans. But there's a check that humans are extremely capable of putting on the growth of these technologies beyond their wanted ability. A similar check could be put on the development of molecular nanotechnology.

3. Can we stop extinction from occurring?

Humans are smart - smart enough to not set off all nuclear weapons against themselves, and smart enough to not create artificial intelligence controlling such weapons. We have advanced enough medicine to eradicate diseases. How can we possibly go extinct from Earth-based causes?

4. Can asteroids wipe all humans out in today's world?

The most probable thing to cause a mass-extinction in the near future is most likely an asteroid. However, objects that may collide with Earth are on a constant watch from several organizations - NASA's Near Earth Object Program being an example (also - another reason to increase funding for NASA, because they can literally save all life on Earth). Earth can't escape such odds of impact forever, so it is necessary to develop the ability to literally stop asteroids. And it really wouldn't be hard to do so. Just a small push off course would change the long-term course enough to avoid Earth.

---

So what is everyone's thoughts on the matter? This was just something I came across today, and my reaction to it.

This asteroid thing is ridiculous, since the same species that we've lived with on this planet and evolved with has been here for millions of years. The chance of an extinction asteroid is probably 1 in 750,000,000. That's the last huge asteroid that was strong enough to wipe out a lot of species. It wiped out the dinosaurs. So the chances of that asteroid hitting us by 2100 are so minute that it's not even worth worrying about. If we could conquer aging and live to be 100 million years old, then at some point in our existence we might get hit by that huge asteroid. These people are lying. They do that, to make money. They count on fear to sell their tapes and get people's attention.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 3:55:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 3:40:46 AM, j50wells wrote:
You have no proof. I gave you proof. That proof is that we have gone through hell for 250,000 years. We have not gone extinct. You can't even imagine what life was like 10,000 years ago. It was hell.
Now that you have not given any proof to back up your position, then you are the one being stupid. Read a little, miss or sir. You'll find out that what these people are saying is hogwash.
How would we really die? It couldn't be nature because we've conquered it for 250,000 years. Extinction could only come by some kind of warfare. Even then people would hide and live and populate.
What you are saying is just a result of not using your logic. Try it sometime.

I CRITICIZED the belief that humans will go extinct. Did you not read? Maybe you should try that sometime.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 3:58:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 3:55:55 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/8/2015 3:40:46 AM, j50wells wrote:
You have no proof. I gave you proof. That proof is that we have gone through hell for 250,000 years. We have not gone extinct. You can't even imagine what life was like 10,000 years ago. It was hell.
Now that you have not given any proof to back up your position, then you are the one being stupid. Read a little, miss or sir. You'll find out that what these people are saying is hogwash.
How would we really die? It couldn't be nature because we've conquered it for 250,000 years. Extinction could only come by some kind of warfare. Even then people would hide and live and populate.
What you are saying is just a result of not using your logic. Try it sometime.

I CRITICIZED the belief that humans will go extinct. Did you not read? Maybe you should try that sometime.

I got it. I just read your claims and not what you posted about it. My apologies....
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 4:06:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:21:08 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I came across the 2008 document published by the Global Catastrophic Risk Conference at Oxford University today, and their median extinction risk estimates totaled to about a 19% chance by 2100, according to experts on such catastrophic risks. For this thread, please read their specific results on page 2:

http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk...

I would like to pose a few questions for all to give individual responses to.

1. Is it possible for all humans to go extinct from the same cause?

There are roughly 7,350,000,000 humans alive right now. This year, the population has grown by roughly 50,000,000. Birth greatly outpaces death, and therefore we should reach 8,000,000,000 between 2023 and 2027.

This is far too extreme a world population for a cause such as pandemics - natural and artificial - to wipe out the entire world, when it is considered that humans currently live on all continents (including people that temporarily live in Antarctica). In the past half century, the most severe epidemic (excluding HIV/AIDS - as it is effectively non-lethal when there is access to treatment) killed 1,000,000 - the 1968 flu pandemic - but the disease only had a 0.5% case-death ratio. The next largest total comes from the 1974 smallpox epidemic in India - at just 15,000. And smallpox - disease with the most total caused deaths in human history - is now considered eradicated.

We now have the ability to eradicate pandemic-causing diseases, and we worry about an inter-continental disease killing well over 7,000,000,000 people.

2. Is artificial intelligence an actual existential threat?

There are a few things we should consider here. How can artificial intelligence come to the point of exterminating all humans? We control its growth - therefore the development of a self-sufficient "superintelligence" would be nearly impossible, and unworthy of a 5% chance of wiping out all humans ever: let alone within 85 years.

We can create self-driving cars, or robots that do basic actions to take positions in society currently held by humans. But there's a check that humans are extremely capable of putting on the growth of these technologies beyond their wanted ability. A similar check could be put on the development of molecular nanotechnology.

3. Can we stop extinction from occurring?

Humans are smart - smart enough to not set off all nuclear weapons against themselves, and smart enough to not create artificial intelligence controlling such weapons. We have advanced enough medicine to eradicate diseases. How can we possibly go extinct from Earth-based causes?

4. Can asteroids wipe all humans out in today's world?

The most probable thing to cause a mass-extinction in the near future is most likely an asteroid. However, objects that may collide with Earth are on a constant watch from several organizations - NASA's Near Earth Object Program being an example (also - another reason to increase funding for NASA, because they can literally save all life on Earth). Earth can't escape such odds of impact forever, so it is necessary to develop the ability to literally stop asteroids. And it really wouldn't be hard to do so. Just a small push off course would change the long-term course enough to avoid Earth.

---

So what is everyone's thoughts on the matter? This was just something I came across today, and my reaction to it.

There is one factor which, given enough time, will with 100% certainty result in the extinction of homo sapiens. With time we will develop an organism which is capable of not only doing everything that a human can do but also much more. It'll have far superior mental capacity, resistance to disease, etc. Once this happens, people will decide that the next generation should consist of these beings instead of humans, and that currently existing humans should be "translated" into these superior bodies. In a sense it'll be the descendants of our race that live on, but humanity in human form won't. I mean, by this point it'll be considered cruel for anybody to make somebody else remain human. After all, remaining human in the face of the Ubermensch is like choosing to be an ape instead of a human. 1 million years is a sufficiently long timeframe in which there's a 100% guarantee our level of technological development will reach this point.

It'll be extinction through self-induced evolution, and whether or not it's a bad thing is debatable.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 4:41:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:21:08 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I would like to pose a few questions for all to give individual responses to.

1. Is it possible for all humans to go extinct from the same cause?

There are roughly 7,350,000,000 humans alive right now. This year, the population has grown by roughly 50,000,000. Birth greatly outpaces death, and therefore we should reach 8,000,000,000 between 2023 and 2027.

This is far too extreme a world population for a cause such as pandemics - natural and artificial - to wipe out the entire world, when it is considered that humans currently live on all continents (including people that temporarily live in Antarctica). In the past half century, the most severe epidemic (excluding HIV/AIDS - as it is effectively non-lethal when there is access to treatment) killed 1,000,000 - the 1968 flu pandemic - but the disease only had a 0.5% case-death ratio. The next largest total comes from the 1974 smallpox epidemic in India - at just 15,000. And smallpox - disease with the most total caused deaths in human history - is now considered eradicated.

We now have the ability to eradicate pandemic-causing diseases, and we worry about an inter-continental disease killing well over 7,000,000,000 people.

No, it would take a planet-busting event for *every* human to be killed off. We must keep in mind, there are still very secluded communities sprawled out in vastly different terrains. If the oceans flood, people living high in the mountains will likely survive. If an astroid hits, unless it affects the entire planet there will most likely be a small pocket of humans left on whatever habitable lands remain. My point is that it's unlikely that every human would get killed off, but, of course, it's possible if our entire planet is destroyed.

2. Is artificial intelligence an actual existential threat?

There are a few things we should consider here. How can artificial intelligence come to the point of exterminating all humans? We control its growth - therefore the development of a self-sufficient "superintelligence" would be nearly impossible, and unworthy of a 5% chance of wiping out all humans ever: let alone within 85 years.

We can create self-driving cars, or robots that do basic actions to take positions in society currently held by humans. But there's a check that humans are extremely capable of putting on the growth of these technologies beyond their wanted ability. A similar check could be put on the development of molecular nanotechnology.

I don't think this is much of an issue. As you said, we're the ones controlling the development and thus it would be dependent on us for one thing or another. If we truly did create a fully autonomous A.I. that has attained self-awareness, it'd probably be toured around like a side-show freak or put to use by a shadow arm of the government. Either way, it'd have too much attention on it to act out and be a serious threat.

3. Can we stop extinction from occurring?

Humans are smart - smart enough to not set off all nuclear weapons against themselves, and smart enough to not create artificial intelligence controlling such weapons. We have advanced enough medicine to eradicate diseases. How can we possibly go extinct from Earth-based causes?

Well, the thing about Nature is that it's not *fully* controlled yet. Some things just can't be controlled, such as the shifting of tectonic plates. We could do our best to prevent any potential harms from the fallout, but at this point in time I don't think we have full mastery over the natural processes of our planet yet.

4. Can asteroids wipe all humans out in today's world?

The most probable thing to cause a mass-extinction in the near future is most likely an asteroid. However, objects that may collide with Earth are on a constant watch from several organizations - NASA's Near Earth Object Program being an example (also - another reason to increase funding for NASA, because they can literally save all life on Earth). Earth can't escape such odds of impact forever, so it is necessary to develop the ability to literally stop asteroids. And it really wouldn't be hard to do so. Just a small push off course would change the long-term course enough to avoid Earth.

I don't think it'd necessarily be the asteroid itself that would cause the mass extinction, but rather the fallout. The debris and dust might block out the sun for a few weeks, which would cause plant life to die-off. Perhaps our water sources became contaminated, thus we die from a lack of water. Both of these things happened during the extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous Period that reportedly wiped out the dinosaurs.

What I'm more worried about is the super volcano under yellowstone national park. Being in S. Florida, I don't have to worry about the debris reaching me, but nearly every other state would be decimated from the fallout, and considering that we get a majority of our food from the midwest, it'd be a national disaster of biblical proportions. Plus it's overdue, and already causing the ground in the vicinity to rise at an alarming rate.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 4:44:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 4:41:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:21:08 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
What I'm more worried about is the super volcano under yellowstone national park. Being in S. Florida, I don't have to worry about the debris reaching me, but nearly every other state would be decimated from the fallout, and considering that we get a majority of our food from the midwest, it'd be a national disaster of biblical proportions. Plus it's overdue, and already causing the ground in the vicinity to rise at an alarming rate.

From what I've read, that won't erupt for thousands of years.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 5:24:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 4:44:06 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/8/2015 4:41:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:21:08 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
What I'm more worried about is the super volcano under yellowstone national park. Being in S. Florida, I don't have to worry about the debris reaching me, but nearly every other state would be decimated from the fallout, and considering that we get a majority of our food from the midwest, it'd be a national disaster of biblical proportions. Plus it's overdue, and already causing the ground in the vicinity to rise at an alarming rate.

From what I've read, that won't erupt for thousands of years.

Yeah, that's what the USGS is saying. The thing is, the government is very proficient in hiding catastrophes for the sake of avoiding mass hysteria. If they came out and said it's coming, that regions economy would crumble. People would move away, be too afraid to visit the park. I mean, Yellowstone is where 3.6 million visitors spent more than $334 million in one year alone (2010). They also give 20% of their money to the government. So, the government is making a pretty penny off these parks, and would be basically cutting a source of money by admitting the truth.

The USGS website, in their FAQ states:

How do scientists know the Yellowstone volcano won't erupt?

Scientists from the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO) watch an array of monitors in place throughout the region. These monitors would detect sudden or strong movements or shifts in heat that would indicate increasing activity. No such evidence exists at this time.

However, there is evidence of shifts in heat considering that just last year there was a sudden 40 degree spike that caused them to shut down roads due to the asphalt on the roads literally melting. That's a shift in heat if I've ever seen one, and while roads there have required repairs in the past, a 40 degree spike is nothing to push aside. There's also the fact that the ground really is rising now, and only started to rise at such a rate in 2004. To quote National Geopgraphic:

But beginning in 2004, scientists saw the ground above the caldera rise upward at rates as high as 2.8 inches (7 centimeters) a year. Ground deformation can suggest that magma is moving toward the surface before an eruption: The flanks of Mount St. Helens, for example, swelled dramatically in the months before its 1980 explosion.

Not only has there been a sudden rise in elevation and the development of new cracks, but Yellowstone has suddenly started issuing huge amounts of helium-4, a very rare form of helium. Helium-4 appears to be the strongest predictor of activity, as demonstrated with other volcanoes. For example, at the volcanic island of El Hierro , the smallest of the Canary Islands of Spain, which rumbled and shook during seven months in 2011 and 2012, the gas silently filtered through the soil and groundwater on the island.

Eventually, a new underwater volcano erupted off the south coast of the island...

I'm not saying it's gonna happen anytime soon, but there are signs and reasons that dissuade me from accepting the official opinion of the government.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 1:26:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:21:08 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I came across the 2008 document published by the Global Catastrophic Risk Conference at Oxford University today, and their median extinction risk estimates totaled to about a 19% chance by 2100, according to experts on such catastrophic risks. For this thread, please read their specific results on page 2:

http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk...

I would like to pose a few questions for all to give individual responses to.

1. Is it possible for all humans to go extinct from the same cause?

There are roughly 7,350,000,000 humans alive right now. This year, the population has grown by roughly 50,000,000. Birth greatly outpaces death, and therefore we should reach 8,000,000,000 between 2023 and 2027.

This is far too extreme a world population for a cause such as pandemics - natural and artificial - to wipe out the entire world, when it is considered that humans currently live on all continents (including people that temporarily live in Antarctica). In the past half century, the most severe epidemic (excluding HIV/AIDS - as it is effectively non-lethal when there is access to treatment) killed 1,000,000 - the 1968 flu pandemic - but the disease only had a 0.5% case-death ratio. The next largest total comes from the 1974 smallpox epidemic in India - at just 15,000. And smallpox - disease with the most total caused deaths in human history - is now considered eradicated.

We now have the ability to eradicate pandemic-causing diseases, and we worry about an inter-continental disease killing well over 7,000,000,000 people.

2. Is artificial intelligence an actual existential threat?

There are a few things we should consider here. How can artificial intelligence come to the point of exterminating all humans? We control its growth - therefore the development of a self-sufficient "superintelligence" would be nearly impossible, and unworthy of a 5% chance of wiping out all humans ever: let alone within 85 years.

We can create self-driving cars, or robots that do basic actions to take positions in society currently held by humans. But there's a check that humans are extremely capable of putting on the growth of these technologies beyond their wanted ability. A similar check could be put on the development of molecular nanotechnology.

3. Can we stop extinction from occurring?

Humans are smart - smart enough to not set off all nuclear weapons against themselves, and smart enough to not create artificial intelligence controlling such weapons. We have advanced enough medicine to eradicate diseases. How can we possibly go extinct from Earth-based causes?

4. Can asteroids wipe all humans out in today's world?

The most probable thing to cause a mass-extinction in the near future is most likely an asteroid. However, objects that may collide with Earth are on a constant watch from several organizations - NASA's Near Earth Object Program being an example (also - another reason to increase funding for NASA, because they can literally save all life on Earth). Earth can't escape such odds of impact forever, so it is necessary to develop the ability to literally stop asteroids. And it really wouldn't be hard to do so. Just a small push off course would change the long-term course enough to avoid Earth.

---

So what is everyone's thoughts on the matter? This was just something I came across today, and my reaction to it.

A big enough asteroid could extinct most life on Earth, sure. The sea life and the underground life would probably survive. Then evolution could simply start all over again.

Men in submerged nuclear submarines would most likely survive, but since women are not allowed on those boats, there would be a problem once the boats surfaced.

I think the U.S. Navy should start allowing women sailors and officers on the subs -- if for no other reason but to deal with the potential for extinction from such an asteroid.

Of course there would be a lot of serious fighting to the death for the women in that event. But that used to happen all the time anciently. Women were abducted from ancient cities and wars were fought over them quite often according to Herodotus -- just think of Helen Of Sparta !!
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 1:44:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 7:26:14 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:36:09 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
The chances of an asteroid are insanely slim in your lifetime.

It's improbable, but more probable than any other cause.

exactly