I thought this was pretty interesting.  The future doesn't look so bright after all.

 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140105-timeline-of-the-far-future?utm_source=DGM&utm_campaign=Affiliate

Edited January 9, 201411 yr by Hardrada

That's cool, and a little depressing.

It's not bright at all ...

yeeeeepppppp, definitely not reading all that. Left my magnifying glass at home. 

yeeeeepppppp, definitely not reading all that. Left my magnifying glass at home. 

The image on the forums is horrible, the one in the link they have in their post, is actually readable.Edit: So what, we probably have upto 5 million years without unpredicted calamities killing us off.

Edited January 9, 201411 yr by Tigerruss

Well, if I wasn't already worried about that fact that we're all going to die and not be remembered because nothing we do will ever matter because everything will eventually explode and all remnants of the lives we created will be destroyed I certainly am now. 

Well, if I wasn't already worried about that fact that we're all going to die and not be remembered because nothing we do will ever matter because everything will eventually explode and all remnants of the lives we created will be destroyed I certainly am now.

I thought it was humbling to our normally anthropocentric views.

Ah well.

Good news is men die out in 5,000,000 years!! 

Space Iesbians incoming

 

Just kidding, people will have screwed everything up with their own stupidity and selfishness by then.

The maker of this forgets that humans wouldn't let half this stuff happen or would find a way around it. Assuming there have been no major regressions in technology, Earth will be but one planet in an galactic human empire. 

 

This whole chart assumes civilization completely collapses in a thousand years, but also that it never recovers. The first is possible but highly unlikely. Even in a very connected world, some regions may escape a calamity. The second is impossible because humans have always bounced back before, and we will do it again. Only our total extinction or the rise of a new dominant species on Earth would be able to prevent a recovery. 

 

Of course, the end of the universe would screw everyone and everything over. Only traveling to another universe/dimension (assuming those exist) would be able to save us. 

Edited January 11, 201411 yr by Amon

The maker of this forgets that humans wouldn't let half this stuff happen or would find a way around it. Assuming there have been no major regressions in technology, Earth will be but one planet in an galactic human empire. 

 

This whole chart assumes civilization completely collapses in a thousand years, but also that it never recovers. The first is possible but highly unlikely. Even in a very connected world, some regions may escape a calamity. The second is impossible because humans have always bounced back before, and we will do it again. Only our total extinction or the rise of a new dominant species on Earth would be able to prevent a recovery. 

 

Of course, the end of the universe would screw everyone and everything over. Only traveling to another universe/dimension (assuming those exist) would be able to save us. 

While I agree with what you are saying, I think the maker was trying to set a timetable for all the major events that could happen if humans don't adapt.

The second is impossible because humans have always bounced back before, and we will do it again.

The threat of nuclear war didn't exist during the fall of past civilizations. To say it's impossible would only make us ill-prepared if something happened.

The threat of nuclear war didn't exist during the fall of past civilizations. To say it's impossible would only make us ill-prepared if something happened.

 

The poetic irony of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) guarantees that as long as there are nuclear weapons, there won't be nuclear war.

The poetic irony of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) guarantees that as long as there are nuclear weapons, there won't be nuclear war.

 

 

Unless there's a religious fanatic crazy enough to use it.  

You're assuming only rational people can have access to these things.

 

My point is that nothing is impossible.  Humanity likely will die out eventually. We haven't even lived a fraction of the amount dinosaurs did and already the planet is in worse shape.

Edited January 12, 201411 yr by Hardrada

Unless there's a religious fanatic crazy enough to use it.  

You're assuming only rational people can have access to these things.

 

My point is that nothing is impossible.  Humanity likely will die out eventually. We haven't even lived a fraction of the amount dinosaurs did and already the planet is in worse shape.

What defines good/bad shape? Sure it might be getting in bad shape for most life we care about on this planet, but it might be getting in great shape for something else. What I am trying to state is is all a matter of perspective, though yes, on the current path we maybe killing ourselves.Why does it have a to be a religious fanatic that uses it? Why can't it just be some sort of warmongering idiot that doesn't think there would be retaliations for using it... While the earth may be mostly destroyed out of a global thermal nuclear war, I am pretty sure a majority of the people in remote places would survive. Which would mean we would have lots a majority of our population, usable land, and probably have very upset weather patterns, but now most of who's left are thrill seekers, hermits, scientists, and tribes. (Edit: though that's assuming they could survive the nuclear winter)

Edited January 12, 201411 yr by Tigerruss

What defines good/bad shape? Sure it might be getting in bad shape for most life we care about on this planet, but it might be getting in great shape for something else. What I am trying to state is is all a matter of perspective, though yes, on the current path we maybe killing ourselves.Why does it have a to be a religious fanatic that uses it? Why can't it just be some sort of warmongering idiot that doesn't think there would be retaliations for using it... While the earth may be mostly destroyed out of a global thermal nuclear war, I am pretty sure a majority of the people in remote places would survive. Which would mean we would have lots a majority of our population, usable land, and probably have very upset weather patterns, but now most of who's left are thrill seekers, hermits, scientists, and tribes. (Edit: though that's assuming they could survive the nuclear winter)

Religious fanatic was an example, obviously there are many types of crazy people that would do it.Even people living in remote areas would be effected by a global nuclear war. The amount of radiation in the atmosphere/kicked up dust and debris blocking the sun/nuclear winter/extreme changes in weather, etc. Would destroy the environment enough that it couldn't support life.

Unless there's a religious fanatic crazy enough to use it. You're assuming only rational people can have access to these things.My point is that nothing is impossible. Humanity likely will die out eventually. We haven't even lived a fraction of the amount dinosaurs did and already the planet is in worse shape.

Only rational people have enough of them to make a significant impact. The fact they havent been used yet confirms this. Even if a rouge nation or group get them, one nuke won't end the world.This isnt an action movie or a video game, people aren't intentionally looking for ways to start a war.

Edited January 13, 201411 yr by Amon

Only rational people have enough of them to make a significant impact. The fact they havent been used yet confirms this. Even if a rouge nation or group get them, one nuke won't end the world.This isnt an action movie or a video game, people aren't intentionally looking for ways to start a war.

Again, Im using nuclear war as an example. I never said it was very likely. I never implied people were actively working toward this, the whole purpose of this was to point out that humanity's extinction isn't impossible. That's a pretty deluded stance to take.

Edited January 13, 201411 yr by Hardrada

Again, Im using nuclear war as an example. I never said it was very likely.I never implied people were actively working toward this, the whole purpose of this was to point out that humanity's extinction isn't impossible. That's a pretty deluded stance to take.

 

It's not impossible, but total extinction is so unlikely that it's almost redundant to consider it a possibility. Even still, nuclear war is among the lesser things that are likely to cause a total extinction event. This blog explains the likelyhood of possible extinction scenarios in laymans terms. 

 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=14936

 

Essentially, being killed off by robots seems to be the only realistic scenario within the next 200 years. And even that would be rather unlikely. 

 

Total extinction of humanity? So improbable it's essentially impossible. Lots of people getting killed? Likely, but not enough to doom the future of the species. 

It's not impossible, but total extinction is so unlikely that it's almost redundant to consider it a possibility. Even still, nuclear war is among the lesser things that are likely to cause a total extinction event. This blog explains the likelyhood of possible extinction scenarios in laymans terms. http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=14936Essentially, being killed off by robots seems to be the only realistic scenario within the next 200 years. And even that would be rather unlikely. Total extinction of humanity? So improbable it's essentially impossible. Lots of people getting killed? Likely, but not enough to doom the future of the species.

I agree with how improbable it all is, but I was just pointing out that saying it's impossible would be a false statement.Human extinction is improbable, not impossible.

Edited January 14, 201411 yr by Hardrada

I agree with how improbable it all is, but I was just pointing out that saying it's impossible would be a false statement.Human extinction is improbable, not impossible.

 

If you want to be technical sure. But for the sake of debate, it's pretty much impossible based on the current threats that we may have. 

If you want to be technical sure. But for the sake of debate, it's pretty much impossible based on the current threats that we may have.

Current threats, but future threats haven't all been taken into account yet. That's the purpose of this chart.I want to be a part of the imperium and worship the god-emperor as much as the next guy, but I don't see that being likely in our future either.

Edited January 14, 201411 yr by Hardrada

Current threats, but future threats haven't all been taken into account yet. That's the purpose of this chart.

 

 

 

The chart doesn't take into account future threats though, it just assumes that human civilization has vanished within 1000 years. 

 

 

 

I want to be a part of the imperium and worship the god-emperor as much as the next guy, but I don't see that being likely in our future either.

Are you doubting our eternal Lord? Are you...a heretic? 

 

 

Edited January 14, 201411 yr by Amon

The chart doesn't take into account future threats though, it just assumes that human civilization has vanished within 1000 years.

 

Are you doubting our eternal Lord? Are you...a heretic?

 

 

 

 

Anything that isn't sex in the missionary position is heresy, but even that feeds slaneesh.

Edited January 14, 201411 yr by Hardrada