Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: GLOBAL EXTINCTION WITHIN ONE HUMAN LIFETIME? [View all]NeedleCast
(8,827 posts)94. Subject is in All Caps so I just assume it's true...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
156 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
End of 2011, methane gas surfacing caused "holes" in the sea surface kilometers across
BelgianMadCow
Dec 2012
#5
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
Welcome to DU, Dennis! My name is Patrice. & I think working the odds makes very rational sense.
patrice
Dec 2012
#58
If 70% of land vertebrates go extinct, humans will almost certainly be in the 30%
Silent3
Dec 2012
#22
The only hyperbole I'm talking about is the use of the word "extinction" is regards to humans
Silent3
Dec 2012
#44
They had 100,000 years to reshuffle their genes and adapt via natural selection
NoOneMan
Dec 2012
#79
The word extinction is not hyperbole when used to describe the state of the natural world.
Uncle Joe
Dec 2012
#100
So the fact that you only know one limitation on phytoplankton makes you an expert?
jeff47
Dec 2012
#110
"We don't know the lower threshold for a viable population. It's probably somewhere between a dozen"
NoOneMan
Dec 2012
#67
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
As you mentioned earlier, it only takes 12 of us inbreeding in a dome to carry on
NoOneMan
Dec 2012
#68
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
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
Drought: an old movie that left a VERY deep mark on me was The Man Who Fell to Earth. nt
patrice
Dec 2012
#56
I did a lot of work for the Rainforest Action Network in the late 80s.
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2012
#72
Yes- 'cuz if we dont sign on to every piece of absurdist hyperbole, we dont care about the problem.
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2012
#90
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
It IS indeed, very much absurdist hyperbole, and that's being a tad polite, IMHO.
AverageJoe90
Dec 2012
#148
Re: "Being reminded WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! every other day accomplishes nothing."
AverageJoe90
Dec 2012
#117
Which to me possibly explains maybe a little something about Citizens United. nt
patrice
Dec 2012
#54
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
It's irrational that it will happen at all....but narcissistic that we will witness it.
cbdo2007
Dec 2012
#132