Will those seeds grow into grapes? :hmmm:

My point is, mankind is going to kill itself out long before any major climate changes. The planet will live on and recuperate.

On a side note..

It's funny how many non-scientists on this forum make fun of people for not being scientists. But I guess everyone here knows more than everyone here.

I understand. Pass the ketchup and carry on I guess.

http://s.quickmeme.com/img/b4/b4cc4b...bbaa72cb8e.jpg

:up:See Chernobyl.:dead:

We're going to kill ourselves in the next 50-100 years?

Time to party like it's 2014! :hmmm:

I don't see mankind killing ourselves out, but we're sure gonna mess it up and bad crap is gonna happen enough to change the world before climate change. Best to have fun now, party in the Bilge.....

Maybe humanity kills "itself", if taking a lot of other "unhuman" life like animals with it. And if, then especially because people let other people reign and start wars, and torture, that have either not much education, or are egomaniacs, or can easily be bribed, are way too religious, or are plain crazy. Why do educated people help, and work for, egomanic lunatic gangsters ? Out of fear ? For money ?
Thinking of what happens to the planet and some life surviving or not, if it does not interest us now, it will not interest humanity much then, does it.

That is only human. I think it must be especially bad when you are working for some secret service, and believe you are in possession of the absolute truth. Like the other side.

Exactly.

Don't be too concerned about it...
 

Until they begin paring down the number of mouth breathers in a last ditch effort to reduce carbon dioxide levels.

Just my humble opinion follows.

Common sense dictates...

Stop cutting down the rain forests and plant more trees. That will go further than any carbon tax initiatives in curbing climate change.

The answer has been staring everyone in the face the whole time.

Too bad they can't see the forest for the trees.:hmmm:

Human-nature heads-up:
 

Do you expect a species which introduced peel-off postage stamps because they couldn't be arsed to lick the things any more (= how many 100's of tons of waxed backing-paper now going to landfill that just wasn't before) to be planning on doing anything about any of this soon?

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/m...lton-dance.gif

Just...just one last thing.

http://img.allw.mn/content/www/2010/...detectives.jpg


Humanity is...well, it's not particularly easy to kill it off. A disease wouldn't kill all humanity off because there would be random survivors or people immune to it, communities would isolate themselves, kill anyone approaching on sight, and so on.
A nuclear exchange wouldn't kill humanity off because there aren't enough nuclear weapons in the world to hit every human settlement, and the average nuclear weapon isn't powerful enough to destroy a city on its own. If a terrorist detonated a Hiroshima style nuke in London next to the Shard (since the HoP would be too well guarded) then the actual blast radius wouldn't even reach Westminster. It would kill about fifty thousand people and make a big mess of central London (and the fallout would cause more deaths over time) but there are 8 million people in London so in comparison...
Here, have a play with this:
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Remember to set it to ground burst, because unless the terrorists detonate the nuke on a light aircraft or something then the detonation would be at ground level.

So...asteroid impact?
That would be pretty devastating, depending on the size of the rock, it could have a similar impact as a large scale nuclear exchange, massive electromagnetic pulse, dirt and debris in the atmosphere, potential for global cooling...but unless it's the size of a small moon, people on the other side of the planet would still be alive. They would struggle because of the potential for crop failure, and the average human population would go from the billions, to millions and eventually thousands...but it wouldn't go completely.

The biggest threat really is the loss of our current level of technology and social achievements, we would regress back to a sort of feudal or pre-feudal level of society (which would delight certain people, I'm sure) and there would be a LOT of people who would be unable to cope with this, they will die off, but for every...say four or five people who can't cope, there will be one who gets by, maybe doesn't excell, but he or she gets by enough to survive...and then perhaps they will find someone of the opposite sex and have children...of course, most of those children will die, but if a couple survive and they go on to meet other survivors...and so on and so forth.

Sure, there are ways and means to eliminate humanity, and perhaps it's not as difficult as I make out...a decently evolved virus would do the job...but it would have to be a slow burner, unlike Ebola, to spread quickly enough...but eventually humanity would figure out what's happening, and the government types would go into the bunker and ride it out, and odd groups of survivors would take steps to isolate themselves from the disease. Madagascar would shut down everything (TM).

The Dinosaurs went extinct...yes...but in comparison to humanity they were....well, at the risk of sounding arrogant, they were stupid. They didn't build bunkers, they didn't take steps to quarantine each other, they had no defences against a rapid change of their situation.
We do, not all of us would survive, perhaps not even ten percent of the population...but some would, and then they would repopulate.

Not that we're invincible...but we're probably a bit tougher than the dinosaurs were.

Probably. :doh:

I thought the threatened widespread failure of antibiotics was the most worrying thing, but on the BBC news yesterday they said big progress had been announced on a new drug in answer to this; development will take some more time however...

Regarding extinction level events, consideirng the asteroid scenario, it obviously depends on the size of the asteroid. Beyond a certain size it is a game over scenario for mankind, and higher life forms on earth. Its not just Super-tsunamis or dust in the atmnopshere, it is about volcanic activity and the the atmospheric chnage form that, as well as the change of chemical balances in the ocean. Newest assessment of the dinosaur extinction proclaim that it were atmospheric changes (poisoning) after increased volcanic activity that disrupted the food chain of life forms, not the blast, the dust, the cold.

Modern man tends to overestimate technology. Instead, technology still is a fragile thing, breaks easily. In a post-impact world, primitive people will be more adapted to the needs of life, than modern Westerners depending on technology and having lost survival instincts and fundamental survival skills.

One also must ask whether you want to survive for sure such an extinction level event. I would prefer not to survive it. Living in a bunker under the surface is fascinating maybe for the first days. But when months turn into years and the isolation led to the social and inter-human tensions that you cannot avoid in such a situation - then I still need to be convinced that living under such conditions is worth it. Without certain base qualities both material and immaterial, we do not live, but just exist. and all the time you recall what therew was in love and beauty, what now is dead and gone, will notr be back, and only miserable life in a life-hostile environment with no outlook for improvement to be seen by your eyes of that of your children, or children's children. Gulag for life. Great.

The loss of antibiotics would be a nasty thing, but again, wouldn't kill us all. It would dramatically increase the death rate, but the birth rate would likely increase to match it through government incentives and fertility drives.