How long will the human race survive and why?

[Justin Swanton]

Planet of the Humans poses the question and gets some interesting answers.

My own take is it depends. I feel - about 70% certain - that we are on the cusp of the biggest war in human history (unthinkable I know and I'm thinking it ), but it won't annihilate the human race. All else being equal we should be able to survive on planet Earth indefinitely until the loss of atmospheric carbon and rising global temperatures from an expanding sun make life untenable about a billion years from now. We won't be able to colonise other planets in numbers sufficient and self-sufficient to perpetuate the species.

What is your take?

 

[Harpo]

If we can spend maybe fifty years (not yet, but before that biggest war you mentioned) under some sort of global superpower dictatorship making us all miserable-but-we’ll-muddle-through, then the population can be reduced to the level it was a century ago by limiting the birth rate everywhere (preferably by education but whatever) and after that maintain a steady level by allowing each person 0.75 children, then we’ll be fine.

For those who haven’t heard it before, 0.75 each means 1.5 child allowance per couple, and those who are poor can sell the spare .5 to those who are willing to pay (a billion quid, or whatever) to have 2.

And a population under two billion means everyone can live the average middle class western lifestyle, with stuff.

Colonising other planets is essential because someday the next mass extinction might well include us.

Or, of course, perhaps we’d only litter the place and spoil it, so let’s stay here for as long as we have

 

[Elckerlyc]

I am not very optimistic.
To solve all the problems currently endangering Earth and its much adverse population on a variety of issues (political, economical, climate) requires something next to a miracle. We have a very poor history of actively and progressively working together to address issues; political differences and incompatible interests usually torpedoes any possible agreement. and when here finally is some agreement, it's too little, too late and quite often poorly executed.
Yes, we would need some global. dictatorial superpower to get things done, but reaching such a state of affairs is very likely a world-ending event of itself.
Escape to another (habitable) planet is pure SF, or more like Fantasy. Maybe an escape for the happy few, though I doubt they will remain happy very long. Technological solutions and innovations that will save the Earth in the nick of time works in novels, not in reality.
As humanity we can only look each other in the eye and confess we made a mess of it. And then we would still go our merry way making a mess and blame the other of unwillingness to do something about it.

 

[Justin Swanton]

My own take is that overpopulation isn't an issue. The worldwide population increase is tapering off and will ceiling out in the second half of the 21st century at about 10 billion people. After that it's downhill then faster downhill. Large families in which most of the children survived to adulthood and were able to have children of their own is a temporary and passing phenomenon dating from the 19th century. Today, success in life is seen in professional terms: getting a good career and making a decent pile of money, with expensive gadgets and entertainment as the payoff. Children just get in the way and the trend is inexorably towards having fewer of them and then none at all. So long as our techno-industrial civilisation is able to sustain a career-orientated population children will become increasingly rare. We don't actually have to legislate a reduction in population. That will happen all by itself.

The real problem is that populations are levelling off too fast. Japan is a good example: the hardworking, career-driving Japanese are now well below replacement level, but they have amongst the longest lifespans on the planet. As a result there are too many old people and too few young people to support them and the economy is stagnating as a result. The young, saddled with this financial burden, are even less motivated to have children that will increase their obligations even further. In China a one child policy was law from the 80s onwards: any woman who had a second pregnancy was forced to abort her child - at her expense. Once the Chinese govt realised their were creating an inverted pyramid like the Japanese, they tried reversing the trend by allowing two then three children per family. But the Chinese aren't interested: they've acquired the mentality of the Japanese that career and financial success is everything and they don't want the expense of raising more than one child. The horse has bolted.

So, no. More sensible to worry about legislation that suspends all state medical aid to anyone over the age of 60: if you can't pay your hospital bills yourself then you die at home.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I am not very optimistic.
To solve all the problems currently endangering Earth and its much adverse population on a variety of issues (political, economical, climate) requires something next to a miracle. We have a very poor history of actively and progressively working together to address issues; political differences and incompatible interests usually torpedoes any possible agreement. and when here finally is some agreement, it's too little, too late and quite often poorly executed.
Yes, we would need some global. dictatorial superpower to get things done, but reaching such a state of affairs is very likely a world-ending event of itself.
Escape to another (habitable) planet is pure SF, or more like Fantasy. Maybe an escape for the happy few, though I doubt they will remain happy very long. Technological solutions and innovations that will save the Earth in the nick of time works in novels, not in reality.
As humanity we can only look each other in the eye and confess we made a mess of it. And then we would still go our merry way making a mess and blame the other of unwillingness to do something about it.

Here's an optimistic scenario:

The world population reaches a climax and starts dropping, then dropping faster and faster. The medical system becomes overburdened and once beyond a certain age you receive only basic medical care. Any expensive diseases and you die, simple. At the same time the cheap energy sources start to dry up: oil, coal, natural gas, uranium. Green energy is found not to work. Thorium however is in plentiful supply and it powers thorium reactors that keep the electricity grid functional for a long, long time. But humanity discovers that the infrastructure for an entirely electricity-driven economy is big and burdensome, and gradually begins to de-industrialise: motorcars become the privilege of the rich; commercial air travel disappears. Ships appear with sails to supplement their electric motors, and so on.

As the population declines the de-industrialisation results in a return to the land: growing food and raising lifestock increasingly become the only viable occupations for most people as factories shrink and the whole administrative apparatus shrinks with them. Cities contract into towns, towns into villages. Finally, once the thorium runs out, the human race reverts almost completely to a pre-industrial state, with some - but not much - technology and industry kept up by the wealthy few. Things like pollution, climate change, world wars and the like recede into history and humanity carries on as it had done for thousands of years previously. And they lived more-or-less contentedly enough ever after. The End.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Humans will not cause their own extinction; it will almost certainly be an asteroid. We tend to have a mass extinction collision every 100 million years or so, and the last one was about 65 million years ago.

Natural and man-made disasters will probably ensure that we never leave the Earth - and certainly not our galaxy - in any meaningful way, until the eventual rock from space comes along and gives another species the chance to dominate the planet.

As far as man-made disaster is concerned, I think that our drive for economic growth and self interest is far more of a threat to the habitation of our planet than is war. It's quite conceivable that in the 22nd Century the great question would be about why we didn't change things whilst we still could. We know what direction we are headed in, and we know what needs to be done to change it. We also know that if we leave it much later, then no matter what we do it will be irreversible.

Douglas Adams said 30 years ago that humans were treating the Earth as though they were ten-a-penny, when we are fast becoming aware how incredibly rare are planets like our own, and how much effort it would take to find another one.. At the time that we have the greatest knowledge about how and why things happen, we're not putting the brakes on - we're actually accelerating. And that was 30 years ago.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Humans will not cause their own extinction; it will almost certainly be an asteroid. We tend to have a mass extinction collision every 100 million years or so, and the last one was about 65 million years ago.

That gives us 35 million years. I'll go with that.

Natural and man-made disasters will probably ensure that we never leave the Earth - and certainly not our galaxy - in any meaningful way, until the eventual rock from space comes along and gives another species the chance to dominate the planet.

Methinks insurmountable technological limits will keep us on Earth bar occasional forays by a few individuals to nearby planets.

As far as man-made disaster is concerned, I think that our drive for economic growth and self interest is far more of a threat to the habitation of our planet than is war. It's quite conceivable that in the 22nd Century the great question would be about why we didn't change things whilst we still could. We know what direction we are headed in, and we know what needs to be done to change it. We also know that if we leave it much later, then no matter what we do it will be irreversible.

The human race has never combined to solve its big problems in any effective way (not the same as somebody coming up with a good idea and everyone else copying it). The best we can do is set up diplomatic arrangements to stop big wars, and they don't last very long. Everything indicates that the most recent arrangement has run its course.

Douglas Adams said 30 years ago that humans were treating the Earth as though they were ten-a-penny, when we are fast becoming aware how incredibly rare are planets like our own, and how much effort it would take to find another one.. At the time that we have the greatest knowledge about how and why things happen, we're not putting the brakes on - we're actually accelerating. And that was 30 years ago.

Earth is tough. Even an all-out nuclear war won't make it uninhabitable - just large swathes of it, and only for a time. Personally I can't see anything in physics, biology or politics that is capable of ending us (bar that asteroid of course).

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

I think that Kurt Vonnegut had it about right. A million years from now, when we all have fur and flippers and we spend our time swimming to catch fish because we are easily confused with seals --- We will essentially be the same --- If somebody farts everyone will laugh.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I think that Kurt Vonnegut had it about right. A million years from now, when we all have fur and flippers and we spend our time swimming to catch fish because we are easily confused with seals --- We will essentially be the same --- If somebody farts everyone will laugh.

Farting isn't something you can hide if everyone's underwater. Grant you that.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

From what I can tell, the biggest problem we have is that "The Illuminati" are clearly incompetent. Oh, wait, do they prefer "Bilderberger" now?

Let's single a group that is in the public eye [to support the general point] - The British Royal Family. They have unbelievable personal wealth, to complement the public wealth they control. In theory, the Royal Family is the guiding light of Great Britain. Yet the Royal Family is known to hoard their personal wealth, to hide it in foreign tax shelters, to invest in the very activities that is destructive to the planet. And this is a group who supposedly have a duty to protect the public.

Now multiply that by all the billionaires who have no duty to anyone but themselves. There is a theory that I read about recently [that I can't be bothered to look up right now] among the billionaire class that is pretty straightforward --- They can always buy themselves out of any problem.

So mankind? If the Billionaire class theory is correct, as the areas of the planet that are pleasant to live in change and perhaps become fewer, this class will always assure the survival of the species to protect their own interests. What happens to the billions of people that aren't necessary for their comfort - well, that's another story.

 

[Toby Frost]

I don't think the question is "Will humanity survive?". The real question is "Will life be worth living?". A combination of ruined environment, chaos and the rule of tyrants and sociopaths could make the future absolutely horrible. Of course, that's not inevitable, but it's easier to make people do bad things than good ones.

 

[paranoid marvin]

That gives us 35 million years. I'll go with that.

Methinks insurmountable technological limits will keep us on Earth bar occasional forays by a few individuals to nearby planets.

The human race has never combined to solve its big problems in any effective way (not the same as somebody coming up with a good idea and everyone else copying it). The best we can do is set up diplomatic arrangements to stop big wars, and they don't last very long. Everything indicates that the most recent arrangement has run its course.

Earth is tough. Even an all-out nuclear war won't make it uninhabitable - just large swathes of it, and only for a time. Personally I can't see anything in physics, biology or politics that is capable of ending us (bar that asteroid of course).

We have seen amazing leaps forward when nations and corporations have competed against each. Just imagine how it might be if some day they all worked together?

 

[paranoid marvin]

I don't think the question is "Will humanity survive?". The real question is "Will life be worth living?". A combination of ruined environment, chaos and the rule of tyrants and sociopaths could make the future absolutely horrible. Of course, that's not inevitable, but it's easier to make people do bad things than good ones.

It think that, as it always has, life will be good for some and not for others. Usually down to the luck of the draw when and where you are born.

 

[Swank]

The Americas were settled with only a few hundred individual's genes. We are capable of surviving enormous bottle necks that would normally be viewed as extinction events. That ability for smaller groups goes way up when technology is involved.

Even with no place to go, we could still live in space stations on the habitable edge of an expanding Sol. Far enough from strong radiation we require little more than technology, some raw materials and an inflatable bubble to live and create food. Regardless of what happens to anyone else, pockets of humanity will keep finding a place to keep going.

The greatest long term threat is disinterest in remaining human in the face of more attractive states of being.

 

[Justin Swanton]

We have seen amazing leaps forward when nations and corporations have competed against each. Just imagine how it might be if some day they all worked together?

They won't.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I don't think the question is "Will humanity survive?". The real question is "Will life be worth living?". A combination of ruined environment, chaos and the rule of tyrants and sociopaths could make the future absolutely horrible. Of course, that's not inevitable, but it's easier to make people do bad things than good ones.

Mmmmmh....I'm not too worried about that. The most heavygoing tyrant cannot rule without the placet of his people which means he is obliged to ensure them a reasonably good life if he wishes to stay in power. Look at China. It is arguably the most thoroughgoing dictatorship in history, able to weld people into their homes during the corona pandemic. But when food ran out (food supplies weren't properly organised) the people began to revolt - there were big demonstrations a few weeks ago - and then magically the government announced the covid crisis was over and life could return to normal.

The only exception is a tyrant in a time of war, who builds his power on his army, but that's a temporary phenomenon. Those kind of tyrannies don't last long: the tyrants make too many enemies and even if they win out their successors don't emulate them after their deaths.

No, life would be OK after the dust settled. Not idyllic but not miserable either.

 

[SilentRoamer]

We have seen amazing leaps forward when nations and corporations have competed against each. Just imagine how it might be if some day they all worked together?

All of the greatest advancements in human history have come in times of war and conflict, unfortunately. Human society seems to thrive most under extreme duress and external pressure.

I think it's a sad fact but the sadness does not mute the inescapable truth of the uniquely human ability to create out of conflict.

 

[Wayne Mack]

All of the greatest advancements in human history have come in times of war and conflict, unfortunately. Human society seems to thrive most under extreme duress and external pressure.

I'm not sure that I agree with that assertion. As a broad category, I suggest agriculture and framing equipment. There are also specific items such as automobiles and airplanes that were developed outside of war or any driving conflict. The lineage of telephones from landlines to current cellphones does not seem to reflect advancement due to war. Much the same can be said about computer technology, from basic transistors to CPUs to internet connectivity. These things occurred separately from war times and mostly independently from military needs. I think a stronger case could be made that war time decreases the amount of innovation that occurs.

 

[Eli Grey]

I would like society to keep improving. We need better infrastructure and delegation in communities. And we need to revert back to farming/agriculture as a primary means of sustainability. But we're not on a good path now. Lethargy is viewed as brave and strong amongst the younger generations.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I'm not sure that I agree with that assertion. As a broad category, I suggest agriculture and framing equipment. There are also specific items such as automobiles and airplanes that were developed outside of war or any driving conflict. The lineage of telephones from landlines to current cellphones does not seem to reflect advancement due to war. Much the same can be said about computer technology, from basic transistors to CPUs to internet connectivity. These things occurred separately from war times and mostly independently from military needs. I think a stronger case could be made that war time decreases the amount of innovation that occurs.

Any branch of technology with a military application develops incredibly fast during warfare: aircraft during WW1 and missiles during WW2 as two examples.