• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Humans doomed to go extinct by 2100. Scientific American

Heyo

Veteran Member
No.
The fanciful article is short on both evidence & analysis.
One problem is applying models of populations that lack
awareness of over-population, & the ability to alter their
behavior accordingly, ie, humans behave differently from
rabbits & mice.
When I look at what we do with the environment, I question our (collective) ability to alter our behaviour.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I kind of see this as the Fermi Paradox as it applies to civilizations that pass a certain level of technology. Eventually it destroys itself.
That's not how I see it. Because the more I look at the universe and the earth, the more fantastic and beyond figuring out by puny mankind how it got here. That, along with assurance from the Bible as to events and history, makes me conclude there is a God and He will not let it all go by the wayside.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Well, it might. But there is one variable, that he doesn't account for. That we don't go extinct, but evolve into something else than Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
There are 2 kinds of extinctions in practice. Total and change to a offspring species, that is new.
If we evolve as you describe above, 'we' won't know it. :)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
"The earth will rise again out of the water, fair and green. The eagle will fly and catch fish under crags. Grain will ripen in fields that were never sewn...

Two humans, Líf and Lífðrásir, who hid themselves deep within Yggdrasil, will see light. For although the sun was eaten by Skoll, she will give birth to a daughter no less fair, who will follow the same sky-path and light the world. Líf and Lífðrásir will have children; there will be new life everywhere on earth."

Hurstwic Norse Mythology: Ragnarok
Well that sounds kinda like evolution. No recorded showings of anything happening on any other planet. Of course the argument goes that "we don't know..." Then there always are those flashes or whatever (signals) from uh...outer space evolved beings?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No.
The fanciful article is short on both evidence & analysis.
One problem is applying models of populations that lack
awareness of over-population, & the ability to alter their
behavior accordingly, ie, humans behave differently from
rabbits & mice.
Makes me wonder why it's in Scientific American then albiet an opinion piece.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I’m old enough to remember when Scientific American was both scientific and American, now it’s neither.
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
I don't know. Adaptation will play a role. We will develop ongoing abilities and attributes, but extinction? I honestly don't think so, but then I'm an optimist. I'm also an evolutionist, which sometimes begs the question: If we came from a single cell organism in an environment unable to support human life, then what makes us think we'll stop evolving? We either support evolution or we don't. Humans as we exist today will one day change, but will these changes make "us" extinct or will they b considered an evolutionary event in our history as humans? Neanderthal man to Cro-Magnon to homo sapiens to what's beyond our homo Sapien - Sapien reality at present? . I guess we'll either find out or not, eh?
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What a terrible article. It could have been written by a sixth grader. Maybe his conclusions are right. Or maybe not. The thing is, there was no compelling research, statistics, or argument to persuasively support the author’s position. He merely skims the surface of a handful of reasons why humans might go extinct. I’m going to need something much stronger than this fluff piece to convince me that humans will be extinct 78 years from now.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
When I look at what we do with the environment, I question our (collective) ability to alter our behaviour.
Really? I think humans have massively altered their behavior the last ten years. Hell, they massively altered their behavior the last two years because of the pandemic.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
What a terrible article. It could have been written by a sixth grader. Maybe his conclusions are right. Or maybe not. The thing is, there was no compelling research, statistics, or argument to persuasively support the author’s position. He merely skims the surface of a handful of reasons why humans might go extinct. I’m going to need something much stronger than this fluff piece to convince me that humans will be extinct 78 years from now.
I guess Scientific American isn't what it used to be in your view.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
What a terrible article. It could have been written by a sixth grader. Maybe his conclusions are right. Or maybe not. The thing is, there was no compelling research, statistics, or argument to persuasively support the author’s position. He merely skims the surface of a handful of reasons why humans might go extinct. I’m going to need something much stronger than this fluff piece to convince me that humans will be extinct 78 years from now.
It's an opinion - and full of links to the reasons for the opinion. Did you follow the links?
 
Top