Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member leestatic
    Hristos voskrese
    04 Jul '09 23:11
    Seem as most of us anticipate it with a secret morbid excitement whats your money on, global pandemic, geological event, gamma ray burst, reorientation of Earth's axis of rotation, nanotechnology, divine retribution, or even a Zombie apocalypse, I'll go with Nibiru.
  2. 05 Jul '09 08:28
    Originally posted by leestatic
    Seem as most of us anticipate it with a secret morbid excitement whats your money on, global pandemic, geological event, gamma ray burst, reorientation of Earth's axis of rotation, nanotechnology, divine retribution, or even a Zombie apocalypse, I'll go with Nibiru.
    i don't think it shall be nanotechnology, such immense progress has been made particularly in the field of medical science, that we shall probably be bionic by the next century.
  3. Subscriber karoly aczel
    Happy Chappie
    05 Jul '09 09:06
    whats Nibiru?
  4. 05 Jul '09 16:38 / 2 edits
    I think a real doomsday (when literally everybody dies! ) is unlikely to occur within this centaury but I think IF a global disaster occurs that wipes out more than half the world’s population within this centaury but without literally killing everybody then the most likely cause would be:

    1, a pandemic of a really nasty virus

    And I think the second most likely cause would be:

    2, global nuclear war

    And I think the third most likely cause would be:

    3, a world famine caused by the collapse of the world economy and at least partly as a result of not finding sufficient alternatives to oil before the oil becomes cripplingly short in supply

    These three things are the things than most concern me as a result.

    -despite the stupid ignorant hype and hysteria about Nanotechnology and genetic engineering, there is ZERO probability that we would EVER be taken ever by so called “nanobots” or “nanogoo” or the world being poisoned by GM crops going a mock or so called “superweeds” strangling all other vegetation.

    -as for the greenhouse effect -its effects might become be bad within this centaury but I would guess there is virtually no chance of it being so bad as to kill off more than half the population! -we can always adapt to hurricanes and droughts and a modest sea level rise.
  5. 05 Jul '09 17:20
    I would say our doom will be of our own making. Hard to say which scenerio or combination of scenerios it would be. Could even be intentional. I don't buy into the earth passing through the galactic plane causing much harm. An asteroid would be devastating but I think the chance of that happening is less than a crazy nutt letting loose some bioweapon. A super volcano would be bad too but once again I think the crazy nut will beat it to the punch.
  6. 05 Jul '09 20:51
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    I think a real doomsday (when literally everybody dies! ) is unlikely to occur within this centaury but I think IF a global disaster occurs that wipes out more than half the world’s population within this centaury but without literally killing everybody then the most likely cause would be:

    1, a pandemic of a really nasty virus

    And I think the s ...[text shortened]... alf the population! -we can always adapt to hurricanes and droughts and a modest sea level rise.
    how much oil is left?
  7. Standard member leestatic
    Hristos voskrese
    05 Jul '09 20:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    I think a real doomsday (when literally everybody dies! ) is unlikely to occur within this centaury but I think IF a global disaster occurs that wipes out more than half the world’s population within this centaury but without literally killing everybody then the most likely cause would be:

    1, a pandemic of a really nasty virus

    And I think the s ...[text shortened]... alf the population! -we can always adapt to hurricanes and droughts and a modest sea level rise.
    No 2 could very well be a result of the beginning of No 3
  8. 05 Jul '09 21:42
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    how much oil is left?
    Not sure -but perhaps the questions should be “how much easy oil is left?” (there is a lot of oil that is very expensive to extract) and “how quickly will it run out if we carry on increasing consumption?” and I honestly don’t know the answer to these questions.
  9. 05 Jul '09 21:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by leestatic
    No 2 could very well be a result of the beginning of No 3
    Good point; 2 could easily cause 3.
    Or it may even happen the other way around i.e. 3 could result in 2 ! -warfare tends to be more likely to be triggered when people are suffering economic hardship (perhaps because of the anger generated and because they have less to loose? ).
  10. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    05 Jul '09 22:16
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    3 could result in 2 ! -warfare tends to be more likely to be triggered when people are suffering economic hardship (perhaps because of the anger generated and because they have less to loose? ).
    That's what he said.
  11. 06 Jul '09 08:05
    Originally posted by Palynka
    That's what he said.
    Oh yes, so he did. I somehow read that back-to-front.

    Anyway; I think 2 would probably result in 3 and 3 could result in 2.
  12. 06 Jul '09 11:32
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    how much oil is left?
    I heard in a conference that there's enough oil left to sustain our current trend for about 80-100 years more. This estimate could change because population grows (as well as demand for oil), but also because more efficient technology is on the rise.

    Either way, it's hard to tell the exact number.
  13. 11 Jul '09 03:16
    I'll go with Yellow Stone blowing it's top!

    That'll suck for the US and Canada anyhow.
  14. 11 Jul '09 14:57
    Originally posted by dannyUchiha
    I heard in a conference that there's enough oil left to sustain our current trend for about 80-100 years more. This estimate could change because population grows (as well as demand for oil), but also because more efficient technology is on the rise.

    Either way, it's hard to tell the exact number.
    …I heard in a conference that there's enough oil left to sustain our current trend for about 80-100 years more.
    ….


    If that’s true then that would appear to make that particular global disaster scenario that I fear be reasonably unlikely because I am sure, assuming we don’t go made and just keep massively increasing the rate of consumption on oil, in 80 years time we would probably have developed renewable economically viable alternatives sufficiently because 80 years is a long time for scientific research and some of these renewables have already been developed and are already perfectly economic in some places so I am sure that in 80 years time oil could be completely replaced by them!

    But, on the other hand, 80 more years of burning all that oil could massively increase the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere so that the greenhouse effect would be much more severe and I am sure that would cause major problems.
  15. 11 Jul '09 16:22
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]…I heard in a conference that there's enough oil left to sustain our current trend for about 80-100 years more.
    ….


    If that’s true then that would appear to make that particular global disaster scenario that I fear be reasonably unlikely because I am sure, assuming we don’t go made and just keep massively increasing the rate of consumption ...[text shortened]... the greenhouse effect would be much more severe and I am sure that would cause major problems.[/b]
    It gets washed out of the atmosphere by precipitation and by the surface of the oceans. It is elevated to a slight degree now because there is more co2 being generated now. Not even close to being enough to cause damage to the climate. The plants like co2 and so do I. Just look at Al Gore, he'll cheat ya!