Slashdot Mirror


This Is the Way the World Ends

Dave Knott writes "The CBC's weekly science radio show Quirks and Quarks this week features a countdown of the top ten planetary doomsday scenarios. Nine science professors and one science fiction author are asked to give (mostly) realistic hypotheses of the ways in which the planet Earth and its inhabitants can be destroyed. These possibilities for mankind's extinction include super-volcanoes, massive gamma ray bursts, and everybody's favorite, the killer asteroid. Perhaps the most terrifying prediction is the reversal of the Earth's magnetic field (combined with untimely solar activity), a periodic event which is currently 1/4 million years overdue."

18 of 394 comments (clear)

  1. Um, global thermonuclear war? by coder111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We still have those bombs, remember?

    What about that? I think it's still much more likely than the other options listed. It wouldn't end the Earth (nor would for example Gamma burst), but it would end the civilization and/or kill all humans.

    --Coder

    1. Re:Um, global thermonuclear war? by sleeponthemic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We still have those bombs, remember? What about that? I think it's still much more likely than the other options listed. It wouldn't end the Earth (nor would for example Gamma burst), but it would end the civilization and/or kill all humans. --Coder

      There are humans all over the place. In some cases you'd have detonate a bomb in one area to kill a couple of people. Seems unlikely. It'd be devastating but unlikely to occur in any civilisation destroying volume.

      --
      I record my sleeptalking
    2. Re:Um, global thermonuclear war? by coder111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are too many humans for that to work. There will be a percentage of population that is resistant. Even the worst pandemics didn't kill >30% of population. This would be enough to disrupt civilized way of live for a while, but not the "end of world".

      If we go into biotechnology, I'm more scared of completely synthetic viruses/bacterias/nanobots. Our current tech is still way off, but one day it will be possible to create things for which humans have no resistance whatsoever. Something like polyethylene membrane coated bacterias. I know this specific example wouldn't work, but if something as exotic was created, our immune system would be completely helpless.

      And chemical weapons are not even that scary. You need quite a lot of chemicals to cover a relatively small area. And most dangerous ones are organic and get broken down/degraded in nature. I don't think you would be able to kill >1% of world population even if you tried with chemical weapons. And to destroy entire biosphere- impossible.

      --Coder

    3. Re:Um, global thermonuclear war? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh c'mon, that threat scenario is SO 80s! Contemporize, man, it's the Terrorists now, not the Communists.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Um, global thermonuclear war? by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd bet on the biosphere surviving. It might not survive in a state that we'd like but it would survive.
      fire off as many nukes as you like but come back in 10 million years and you'll find whatever the rats evolved into hunting each other through the forests of asia and the only remains of our civilisation will be a thin layer of dust containing higher than normal levels of uranium in the rock layers.
      If you don't think the rats and cockroaches will survive then bacteria will. There are bacteria which can survive inside the heart of nuclear reactors then we're not going to kill off the biosphere with just a few hundred thousand nukes.
      Even if we could blot out the sun entirely for a million years the things living around vents in the deeps of the ocean would keep going as if nothing had happened.

      We will never kill the earth, even in a worst case senario we'll be nowhere near as bad as some of the significant events of the past like asteroid hits and super volcanos.

      But we could kill ourselves, like bacteria in a dish slowly killing themselves with the products of their own metabolism.

  2. Overdue, eh? by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I always love it when people say these things. Point of fact, we don't have enough data points to make this prediction. At best, that's a wild conjecture.

  3. What's really disconcerting by Whuffo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's not how likely or unlikely those various doomsday scenarios are. What's disconcerting are the significant number of plausible and possible doomsday scenarios. It's not a matter of if, it's more of a matter of when.

    I sincerely hope that we'll be able to set up colonies on other planets or in other solar systems before something snuffs out life on Earth. Our survival as a species will depend on it.

  4. magnetic reversals are not periodic by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps the most terrifying prediction is the reversal of the Earth's magnetic field (combined with untimely solar activity), a periodic event which is currently 1/4 million years overdue.

    From the record of paleomagnetism found in spreading ocean floors, the reversals are anything but periodic. Reversals recur, but the interval between reversals can be less than 25 thousand years, or longer than 35 million years. In other words, the intervals between reversals vary in duration by a factor of more than 1000.

    The oceanic record is limited to the last 200 million years, at most. It has been extended further back by correlating measurements from continental rocks formed at different times, and relying on models for tectonic drift. This naturally yields inferences with lower confidence and limited time resolution. However, the results suggest that geomagnetic field has occasionally been stable for more than 50 million years at a time.

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

    Given that their occurrence is erratic rather than periodic, and that there is no decent model for predicting their occurrence, the assertion that a magnetic reversal is "overdue" is absurd.

    The scaremongering that a reversal would lead to "the end of the world" or mass extinctions is equally puerile. Reversals of the geomagnetic field show no particular correlation with extinctions in the past.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  5. Re:Most likely scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even the most retarded religious fundamentalist understands that dropping a nuclear bomb on someone who has one, or has a country which has one for a friend, isn't such a bright idea.

    snip

    Even actually been to the middle east ?

    Some of the fundamentalists BELIEVE in their god. They don't care if they all die, so long as they go to heaven.

  6. The most probable one is always forgotten... by master_p · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Overpopulation will kill us all before anything else...resources like oil and metals will be exhausted in the coming decades! the dramatic changes in the climate caused by human activity, the cutting down of rain forests will cause the populations of third world countries to migrate en mass to Europe and North America, further increasing the fights for the remaining resources...

  7. Re:Magnetic reversal by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also don't forget that 99% of the life on earth has a lower life expectancy and thus faster propagation cycle than us. When an animal dies of cancer after 4 years that has a life expectancy of 6 and is fertile with two, life can go on.

    When humans die at age 6 on average, we die out.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Re:Most likely scenario by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Even actually been to the middle east ?

    I'm sure you haven't.

    Some of the fundamentalists BELIEVE in their god. They don't care if they all die, so long as they go to heaven.

    Right. And you know this how? The Saudis are rich enough to have bought all the nukes they wanted (from Pakistan, North Korea, say). And they're as devout as they come. But they haven't sent us all to paradise/hell.

    Funny thing, fundamentalist leaders don't sacrifice themselves. And that goes for Muslims as well as Christians and Communists.

  9. Ummm, probalby not so much by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole nuclear winter thing is a bunch of politics getting mixed up in science. Thus far, there has been no good proof that there's any sort of reality in it. For a decent paper on it have a look at http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html he covers some of the background of the politicization of the concept.

    As for Sagan himself on the issue, his research seems more speculative rather than concrete. Remember he also predicted that the first Iraq war would lead to global cooling because of the particulate matter generated from the oil fires Saddam threatened to set. Well indeed Saddam did set those fires as he threatened and it had no measurable impact on our climate.

    Don't confuse scientists speculating on things with real empiricism. There's lots of interesting ideas and theories, something with mathematical or computer models to back them up. That doesn't mean any of it has a thing to do with reality. That proof is separate.

    String theory would be a good example. It is, in fact, not a theory. It makes no testable prediction. It's a neat bit of math and who knows, might even be correct. However at this time all it is is a neat bit of math, a hypothesis on how things might work. It won't even be a theory until they figure out how to make some testable predictions and won't be at all something to hang your hat on until there've been some serious tests of those predictions.

  10. Much simpler. We will eat the world to death by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The world population is increasing exponentially. Nothing increases exponentially in a limited environment, so the most likely scenario is that we will simply continue growing our consumption until we run out of the resources which allow the growth. oil, water, energy etc. Then the carrying capacity of the earth will be drastically reduced and with that goes the number of living things. In the final stages of growth humans will displace most other lifeforms which compete for resources.

    You could use yeast in a bottle as an example. It grows until all the sugar is consumed, or alcohol level is too high, then it all just dies off.

    Our bottle is simply larger.

    --
    Deleted
  11. Re:DNF by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    During a simulation, the operators do not receive the blocked popups prompting them to acknowledge the exercise, and upon seeing 'multiple targets' on their inbound radar, they instigate a return strike against the 'enemy'. And so it begins...

    That's totally unrealistic. No self-respecting Geek would use a GUI to control nuclear weapons. He'd have a command line interface and some shell scripts to automate the more tedious processes.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  12. Re:Magnetic reversal by Dr+La · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Humans (the genus Homo) *have* experienced, and survived, several polarity reversals in the past: both short terms events as well as major reversals like the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal 0.8 Ma ago. Some of the smaller duration events (like the Mono Lakes, Laschamp and Blake events) happened while Homo sapiens was already around.

    In other words, it seems past examples show we really do not have to fear the end of humanity when the earth geomagnetic filed reverses. There is no record of extinctions tied to reversal events.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
  13. The most likely reason by Per+Wigren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    USA's war against terrorism triggers world war 3 and the revenge-thirst of both sides cause the whole planet to be destroyed by nuclear weapons.

    --
    My other account has a 3-digit UID.
  14. Re:Tsk Tsk Tsk by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A much more interesting top ten would be the myriad ways that civilization could end. The next article on the main page discusses possible environmental causes of a 50% drop in sperm counts. Double that a few more times and you get a tidy end to civilization, attrition. Then there are natural or man made pandemics, massive climate changes, global thermonuclear war. How about a subtle shift in one of the universal constants of physics? The universe isn't going to keep expanding forever either. Too far fetched? Take heart, evolution is cooking up lots of nasty little things to use against us too.

    My personal favorite end-of-civilization would be the global spread of a hardy airborne virus that causes plants to be unable to photosynthesize. Fin.

    Now back to the news,
    -ellie