General Discussion

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)

92. I agree it is a real, serious problem.

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 02:22 PM

Dec 2012

However, I think "global extinction within one human lifetime" (ALL CAPS) is a ridiculous assertion.

And I dont think the ridiculous assertions help the cause.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

GLOBAL EXTINCTION WITHIN ONE HUMAN LIFETIME? [View all] Th1onein Dec 2012 OP

I'm not sure about extinction, but the only humans to live Warpy Dec 2012 #1

So what if we decreased our chances of survival then, right? The Doctor. Dec 2012 #10

I came to terms with the fact a long time ago Warpy Dec 2012 #18

Maybe, maybe not. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #127

Don't forget my favorite, a gamma ray burst! n/t Cary Dec 2012 #102

That's my favorite, too Warpy Dec 2012 #103

This is going on now. MrYikes Dec 2012 #2

Blogging or global extinction? Coyotl Dec 2012 #70

Now, that's scary ReRe Dec 2012 #3

Dated February 2012 dipsydoodle Dec 2012 #4

End of 2011, methane gas surfacing caused "holes" in the sea surface kilometers across BelgianMadCow Dec 2012 #5

Yep. Methane release in huge amounts has been noted for a while now. redqueen Dec 2012 #17

Epistemic Closure coming to an end? Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2012 #6

Human Extinction is Just One Generation Away-Around 2030 triplepoint Dec 2012 #7

Re: the last video freedom fighter jh Dec 2012 #12

To be perfectly honest...... AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #119

lets prevent this dennisbaker Dec 2012 #8

It's too late. eShirl Dec 2012 #9

yes MoonRiver Dec 2012 #50

It's going to be so satisfying to tell the Repugs "I told you so" Xipe Totec Dec 2012 #101

Welcome to DU! hrmjustin Dec 2012 #14

there are huge swatches of land area that putting solar on wouldn't harm food production at all NMDemDist2 Dec 2012 #19

they're still viable ecosystems-- converting them to solar farms would destroy them.... mike_c Dec 2012 #32

it'll do a hell of a lot less damage than the fracking and the oil fields NMDemDist2 Dec 2012 #43

Welcome to DU, Dennis! My name is Patrice. & I think working the odds makes very rational sense. patrice Dec 2012 #58

With everything that the republicans are oldbanjo Dec 2012 #11

This article is absurd. jeff47 Dec 2012 #13

Permian Mass Extinction davekriss Dec 2012 #15

If 70% of land vertebrates go extinct, humans will almost certainly be in the 30% Silent3 Dec 2012 #22

Hmmm davekriss Dec 2012 #39

The only hyperbole I'm talking about is the use of the word "extinction" is regards to humans Silent3 Dec 2012 #44

If everything else dies, what will they eat? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #61

The 30% of land vertabrates who did survive the Permian extinction... Silent3 Dec 2012 #71

They had 100,000 years to reshuffle their genes and adapt via natural selection NoOneMan Dec 2012 #79

Humans adapt quite a bit without having to evolve Silent3 Dec 2012 #83

This message was self-deleted by its author Eddie Haskell Dec 2012 #63

Probably more like a few billion in all likelihood. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #126

Billions could go hungry from global warming by 2100 NoOneMan Dec 2012 #133

IPCC models are not conservative anymore, at least not temperature wise. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #143

Moreover davekriss Dec 2012 #40

The word extinction is not hyperbole when used to describe the state of the natural world. Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #100

Didja notice that your example didn't wipe out all life on Earth? jeff47 Dec 2012 #26

Your faith in humanity exceeds my own davekriss Dec 2012 #41

It's not faith. It's evidence. jeff47 Dec 2012 #48

Human beings are still arguing over climate change and evolution. FedUpWithIt All Dec 2012 #45

Consensus has nothing to do with survival jeff47 Dec 2012 #49

Heat. FedUpWithIt All Dec 2012 #88

No. It's not going to get hot enough. jeff47 Dec 2012 #97

Obviously you do not understand the things you're discussing. FedUpWithIt All Dec 2012 #99

So the fact that you only know one limitation on phytoplankton makes you an expert? jeff47 Dec 2012 #110

Well.... AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #113

The Permian extinction took place over 100,000 years NoOneMan Dec 2012 #59

You exactly explain why our species won't get wiped out. jeff47 Dec 2012 #64

"We don't know the lower threshold for a viable population. It's probably somewhere between a dozen" NoOneMan Dec 2012 #67

They just have to breed. They can do that. (nt) jeff47 Dec 2012 #75

The rich I know can't even mow their own lawns NoOneMan Dec 2012 #80

10 million years davekriss Dec 2012 #16

For animals -no intelligent life forms- to recover, it took 10 million years. randome Dec 2012 #31

Heck, were in the OP did it say extinction is a forgone conclusion davekriss Dec 2012 #42

In the last sentence of the excerpt muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #46

I'm glad I had my orange juice, then davekriss Dec 2012 #47

Warming is projected to happen at 20X the rate of past warmings NoOneMan Dec 2012 #51

And intelligence means humans "evolve" much, much faster than natural evolution. jeff47 Dec 2012 #57

It means we do not really evolve at all, as we have removed ourselves from the natural system NoOneMan Dec 2012 #60

No, it means we have another source of evolutionary pressure jeff47 Dec 2012 #62

Once famine and disasters take their toll (and they will) NoOneMan Dec 2012 #65

Population bottlenecks are not fatal to a species jeff47 Dec 2012 #66

As you mentioned earlier, it only takes 12 of us inbreeding in a dome to carry on NoOneMan Dec 2012 #68

And you still fail to provide any specifics jeff47 Dec 2012 #76

And your biggest refutation is science fiction NoOneMan Dec 2012 #78

Again, you are trying to pretend we're just like any other animal. jeff47 Dec 2012 #81

Is there a word for death of everyone but extraordinarily rich elites? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #82

I think you meant "adapt" not "evolve". Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #156

There is ONE exception to the rule, though. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #114

Various megafauna species NoOneMan Dec 2012 #118

Perhaps, but my point still does stand. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #129

We wont even have temperatures that support photosynthesis in the US breadbasket NoOneMan Dec 2012 #131

That graph seems more than a little too pessimistic to even be partly realistic, TBH. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #141

Why is Ortiz, et al lying to us? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #144

Did I imply that anyone was lying? Did I? (No.) AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #145

Its already slowing down NoOneMan Dec 2012 #146

Not linearly, though. Not yet. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #147

Then just keep whistling past the graveyard NoOneMan Dec 2012 #150

Whatever you say. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #152

BTW... NoOneMan Dec 2012 #122

Don't like the World Bank? Eddie Haskell Dec 2012 #107

Very true, Jeff. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #112

...was once in our atmosphere. longship Dec 2012 #128

Your grasp of chemistry is poor. jeff47 Dec 2012 #130

When the Supreme Court handed the Presidency to Bush in 2000 undeterred Dec 2012 #20

+10,000--I couldn't agree more and that's how I felt at the time zazen Dec 2012 #28

Yes... we let it happen in 2000 undeterred Dec 2012 #35

Wouldn't Gore's term still be over at the end of the year? northoftheborder Dec 2012 #53

It'd be funny if it weren't so painful that the End-Timers are right, just not in the particular patrice Dec 2012 #52

Yes. Gore would have made a difference. Enough? Who knows, but it would have been better. The Wielding Truth Dec 2012 #73

Clinton was taking the threat by Osama bin Laden seriously undeterred Dec 2012 #77

Yep. I agree. The Wielding Truth Dec 2012 #87

This summer will be telling nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #21

Drought you say? obliviously Dec 2012 #30

Drought: an old movie that left a VERY deep mark on me was The Man Who Fell to Earth. nt patrice Dec 2012 #56

Related article from current Scientific American mag Danascot Dec 2012 #23

It's already happened. Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #24

I died when the acid rain Riftaxe Dec 2012 #69

I did a lot of work for the Rainforest Action Network in the late 80s. Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #72

Yeah, I guess those claims didn't quite pan out NoOneMan Dec 2012 #89

Yes- 'cuz if we dont sign on to every piece of absurdist hyperbole, we dont care about the problem. Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #90

Im not sure it is absurdist hyperbole NoOneMan Dec 2012 #91

I agree it is a real, serious problem. Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #92

BTW, sadly... NoOneMan Dec 2012 #93

This is where we part ways. I think lying to people makes them tune it out. Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #95

I don't think presenting a possibility as a predetermined outcome is an equivilent to a "lie" NoOneMan Dec 2012 #96

Not trying to be snarky, but you're using the internet right now, right? Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #104

Hydro NoOneMan Dec 2012 #105

Nice. I'm on an 100% renewable plan here in Oregon, too. Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #106

There probably aren't real world steps NoOneMan Dec 2012 #108

It IS indeed, very much absurdist hyperbole, and that's being a tad polite, IMHO. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #148

Once again, Thank You. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #149

I would settle if the current money train Riftaxe Dec 2012 #155

Well said, probably either of us could list 100 reasons Riftaxe Dec 2012 #154

Warren, I have to agree with that 100%. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #115

Cool. greytdemocrat Dec 2012 #25

I'm with you. Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #55

Re: "Being reminded WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! every other day accomplishes nothing." AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #117

The GOP Dream Turbineguy Dec 2012 #27

Yes; we went through this a few months ago muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #29

Very astute of you. randome Dec 2012 #37

Exactly so, Muriel........n/t AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #137

"We Will All Go Together When We Go" annabanana Dec 2012 #33

You know...I was going to argue and bitch about some people posting here Drew Richards Dec 2012 #34

It's not a scientific article. It's a blog post. Viking12 Dec 2012 #36

Both the IEA and the World Bank have the same forecast ... Eddie Haskell Dec 2012 #38

Which to me possibly explains maybe a little something about Citizens United. nt patrice Dec 2012 #54

It's probably too late. raouldukelives Dec 2012 #74

Apparently practically nobody at DU believes this is a possibility whatchamacallit Dec 2012 #84

Few do but they are here NoOneMan Dec 2012 #85

and then we have reports from DOHA about the US refusing to decarbonise further BelgianMadCow Dec 2012 #86

People have been predicting "GLOBAL EXTINCTION" within their lifetime for thousands of years... cbdo2007 Dec 2012 #121

Not necessarily narcissistic, IMO..... AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #123

It's irrational that it will happen at all....but narcissistic that we will witness it. cbdo2007 Dec 2012 #132

Because it practically isn't, all things considered. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #125

Subject is in All Caps so I just assume it's true... NeedleCast Dec 2012 #94

Can't argue with that! NoPasaran Dec 2012 #98

Is there any way to capture the methane? KamaAina Dec 2012 #109

It's an extreme view of a serious problem caraher Dec 2012 #111

Yeah, my point exactly. n/t AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #116

How is this not Creative Speculation?... SidDithers Dec 2012 #120

Tell me about it. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #124

The word is "diminisher" NoOneMan Dec 2012 #134

But even that scientific view is a huge leap from... SidDithers Dec 2012 #135

Of course, its based on IPCC models NoOneMan Dec 2012 #136

I've seen at least one of his presentations. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #139

Oh, what specifically was he not factual about? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #140

I'll have to dig the PDF up at some point, when I have the time. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #142

Just being realistic, that's all. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #138

Geo-engineering only hope ErikJ Dec 2012 #151

Have you seen this paper, btw? AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #153