Science Frank Fenner sees no hope for humans

[AirSimming]

Microbiologist prof. Frank Fenner thinks there is no hope for humankind anymore. He believes that we might extinct in about 100 years:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...-hope-for-humans/story-e6frgcjx-1225880091722

Although I'm an optimist, I think Frank Fenner might be right to a certain degree. I personally don't think that we will extinct, but shrink within the next 100 years. And I honestly don't think that this would be bad.

 

[Suzy]

I also doubt extinction - humans have survived worse before! - but I do believe this civilization could collapse if it continues on its current course (depletion of resources, pollution, destruction of environment, etc.) - “Our civilisation will be just as fragile as those before”; “The end of civilization”

 

[Unstung]

People always have predicted the end of human civilization. Boyden is more correct: global warming remains a serious problem but it will not cause the extinction of the human race (maybe greatly affect our species, though), yet politics hold the solution back. The solution would be to stop the use of fossil fuels (and other pollution), which, after millions of years, the earth would return to its normal state. All the ocean's water will be filtered, which happens naturally, and the atmosphere would become unpolluted.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think Frank Fenner doesn't know enough about human history to be more than just another Cassandra.

We will be the last mammal to extinct on this planet.

 

[Hmuda]

I think Frank Fenner doesn't know enough about human history to be more than just another Cassandra.

I thought Cassandra was always right, just nobody believed her.

A better name would be just "doomsayer".

 

[Urwumpe]

I thought Cassandra was always right, just nobody believed her.

A better name would be just "doomsayer".

Yeah true, her curse.

But Cassandras are also people who predict the darkest catastrophes because they simply can't do something different:

"...archetypal character of someone whose prophetic insight is obscured by insanity, turning their revelations into riddles or disjointed statements that are not fully comprehended until after the fact."

 

[Jarvitä]

Oh look, a 95 year-old making predictions 90 years into the future.

Consider this: Predicting what'll happen in 2100 is like a medieval monk in the 15th century trying to predict the technological developments in the year 2000. In other words, impossible. Perhaps we'll stop technological development and level off at 8 billion. Perhaps we'll develop new methods that allow us to sustain tens of billions of people on earth alone. This kind of "predictions" (luddite ramblings) are ridiculous.

 

[Urwumpe]

Exactly. In 1900, nobody would have expected the green revolution - how fertilizer and machines revolutionized farming (in India).

People would have said that India will not be able to sustain 200 million people... now it is 800 million, with famine being a lesser problem in India than in neighboring countries.

 

[Sky Captain]

Humans have made through ice ages and numerous climate changes, supervolcano eruptions and all sorts of lesser disasters so it is highly unlikely that we would go extinct in next 100 years.

Compared to extinction of humans as a species collapse of our modern civilization in more plausible, it could be potentially caused by number of factors like full scale nuclear war, extremely virulent diseases, major natural disasters, incompetence in natural resource managment and so on

 

[Ghostrider]

Compared to extinction of humans as a species collapse of our modern civilization in more plausible, it could be potentially caused by number of factors like full scale nuclear war, extremely virulent diseases, major natural disasters, incompetence in natural resource managment and so on

Or the whole of mankind goes Emo.

Well, if it happens, extinction would only be a Good Thing.

 

[ar81]

"Since there was no human extinction in the past, there will be no extinction in the future".
"Since there was no exploding shuttles in the past, there will be no exploding Challenger".
This kind of statements are like driving a car while watching the rear mirror.

Fenner also talks about wars for food. The problem is not overpopulation, but the fact that we are feeding cars with food.
Earth policy: Data Highlights: U.S. Feeds One Quarter of its Grain to Cars While Hungeris on the Rise
BBC: World hunger 'hits one billion'

 

[Urwumpe]

Don't you own a car? Many deadly accidents happen because people forget watching their rear view mirror from time to time.

Also comparing such nonsense with the real engineering risks of Challenger is annoying. Really. For Challenger, there were solid warnings that got ignored. This here is just a guy who wants media attention.

And oh my god...wars for food. That is really something new. We never ever had wars for food or water in human history for sure. We are doomed.

 

[T.Neo]

Humans are a very adaptable species, compared to other organisms. Our intellect and tool use have allowed us to survive climatic changes and catastrophic events; we may even been the partial cause to the associated extinctions.

The end of (modern) civilisation is a possibility in 100 years IMO. The most plausible cause would probably be something like a large scale nuclear conflict- while wars over food, water or fuel could set off such an event, I doubt they would be civilisation stopping in themselves (although they would undoubtedly have a large impact). Bad politics would probably be a required ingredient in such wars.

It probably wouldn't be the end of civilisation as a whole though, civilisations have come and gone many times before. It's a matter of history repeating itself or not.

While it may be very possible to house tens of billions of people on an ecumenopolitan Earth, it won't be very advantageous for biodiversity- aside from nature reserves (perhaps), all that would exist would be humans, their food organisms, and opportunistic scavengers. And even myself in my general apathy for the environmental causes would absolutely hate for such a future to happen...

I think space colonisation is advantageous in preventing both the collapse of civilisation and mass extinctions, in that it decentralises the human species and may provide technologies or stratagies that could lessen the impact on natural resources.

 

[cjp]

We will be the last mammal to extinct on this planet.

You are almost correct.
Rats are also mammals.

 

[Urwumpe]

You are almost correct.
Rats are also mammals.

We'll rather eat rats than extinct might accelerate the fate of both of us

 

[statickid]

"Fenner says the real trouble is the population explosion and 'unbridled consumption',"-The Australian

This man claims to be a scientist? I say he is probably feeling his life/career dwindling down and thus doomsday shouting. He has nothing to loose- if he were right, then people would say, "Wow! He was right!" If he is wrong, what would it matter? He wouldn't be around to have his credibility hurt. It bothers me that the media can show such naivety towards real science, or if they know better, that they would go through such lengths for sensationalism.

It is elementary population dynamics that organisms show exponential growth until reach the capacity of their resources:

-http://www.bio.miami.edu/

This happens with pretty much every type of organism on the planet and we are not much different. When the carrying capacity is reached, the population levels off at a plateau. This is a graph for some random sheep population, but quick research of published documents will show that it is true for any animal.

-http://www.cic-caracas.org/

I can see that this might cause different effects when this happens the human race, since we are heavily armed and eager to compete with each other using over bearing means of force. However, we are also known to work together quite well and show ingenuity when it comes to resource management. There isn't a question that we will eventually feel some kind of pressure for resources, I think it mostly depends what "mood" we are in as a species that will decide how we react to it. So I agree with many people on here saying that there could be some kind of war, eventually. But there is nothing certain about it, and where he gets this 100 year time limit is beyond me. It's a shot in the dark, I think it has less than 50% chance of being true, as in it is more wrong than correct.

 

[T.Neo]

Human population growth/decline works slightly differently; we have family planning, which other organisms do not. It can be more advantageous for us to have fewer children (and invest more energy in their upbringing). The global population growth rate has even been declining since 1963...

I think that if adequate family planning measures (including education) were provided in the third world, population growth would decrease significantly.

Of course, it would probably be advantageous to have economic development in the third world.

 

[Enjo]

Statickid:
I'm afraid that we don't eat grass, and that our resources don't magically reappear like grass, so there won't be much left to manage. The energy consumption change needed is too big for humans IMO. Even the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec"]Dersertec [/ame]will provide only 15% of Europe's energy needs.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm afraid that we don't eat grass, and that our resources don't magically reappear like grass, so there won't be much left to manage. The energy consumption change needed is too big for humans IMO.

That is pretty much wrong. You personally don't consume that much energy. What makes your statistics so high as western civilization member: Most of our products consume extremely large amounts of energy to be produced. And there is a lot of room for improvements, if you would just make pressure on the industry. Aluminum cans for example are not needed at all. Supermarkets only advertise them, because it is possible to stack more of them on top of each other. For the energy of making a single aluminum can, you can produce thousands of glass bottles.

 

[Enjo]

Good point.
So, when are we starting to make glass bottles instead of aluminum cans then?