28-06-2005 18:33									#61
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd You don't even need global warming to destroy the world, the more "conventional" effects pollution is enough in itself.

That couldn't possibly kill off all humanity, let alone the world. By the time a signficant number of humans are dead the machines that produce such pollution will be nonfunctional.

	28-06-2005 18:34									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison I see no one reads my posts...

What was that? Did someone say something?

	28-06-2005 18:45									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker That couldn't possibly kill off all humanity, let alone the world. By the time a signficant number of humans are dead the machines that produce such pollution will be nonfunctional.

That's the thing about pollution, you feel it's effects long after you stop causing it.

	28-06-2005 19:34									#64
	Tired of ads?

to Lancer, for asking the right questions.

	28-06-2005 19:39									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd That's the thing about pollution, you feel it's effects long after you stop causing it.

You're not going to have pollution sufficient to kill off everything. Not even to kill off everyone. You'd have to pollute to extremely toxic levels most of the planet to kill off all humans.

	28-06-2005 19:49									#66
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker You're not going to have pollution sufficient to kill off everything. Not even to kill off everyone. You'd have to pollute to extremely toxic levels most of the planet to kill off all humans.

You don't have to kill off everything and make the planet toxic to all life to cause a mass-extinction. It just takes a little push to get things rolling.

	28-06-2005 20:24									#67
	Re: What would it take to exterminate mankind? Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Lancer With all the bomb shelters all over the place left over from the cold war, I'd say the infestation would be difficult to eliminate. A show on dinosaurs I watched some time back said that after 2 years the air had cleared pretty much, but all the dinosaurs were dead by then. That couldn't happen to people as canned food can last alot longer than that. The population might be reduced to a million people or something, but I think we would survive such an event. What about Yellowstone blowing up? Full on nuke war? What would it take?

Stellar Converters.

	28-06-2005 20:25									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Frankychan Seriously though, I think it would take a virus or plague of epic proportions, a huge a** meteor...or an alien invasion. I doubt a world war would do humanity in unless all the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons were used. But I heard the US has enough of Bio andn Chem weapons to kill everyone on the planet 15 or so times over...

we destroyed all of our bio weapons 30 years ago, and are in the process of destroying our chemical ones. That last is a little more tricky, since they tend to stay deadly for a long, long time.

	28-06-2005 20:31									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Mass Driver weapons.

they only do 6 damage, halfed by atmosphere.

	28-06-2005 20:36									#70
	Got spare money?

An evil 75-billion-year-old sorceror named Xenu. Duh. Unless we all join the Church of Scientology.

	28-06-2005 21:34									#71
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Doubt that, UN estimates population at 2050 to be between 7 and 12 billion...

If you read the same UN estimates, they also say that the moderate population curve shows a decline after 2050. That's not even talking about the low curve, which shows a decline well before.

quote: On the other hand, I guess since you said after 2050, we could start declining, but with 12 billion people, would it really matter?

Why 12 billion, and not 7? A better shot would be to say just under 10 billion. The UN population estimates hinge on how quickly the birthrates drop in the developing world, and if they continue to drop, as they have been, we will have a population crunch within less than 50 years.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organiz...sion/depop.html

	28-06-2005 21:43									#72
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd Wasn't there a number of mass-extinctions in earth's history caused by exactly that?

There have been massive dieoffs, but AFAIK no extinctions.

	28-06-2005 23:21									#73
	Got spare money?

quote: Can you think of any species that has ever been driven to extinction due to it's population expansion?

BK & Geronimo: You ever heard of the bacteria-in-petri-dish experiment?

	28-06-2005 23:25									#74
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: If you read the same UN estimates, they also say that the moderate population curve shows a decline after 2050. That's not even talking about the low curve, which shows a decline well before.

But why the curve? If it settles down to zero-growth, the simple problem of finite resources will send numbers falling, see above post.

	29-06-2005 03:01									#75
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd You don't have to kill off everything and make the planet toxic to all life to cause a mass-extinction. It just takes a little push to get things rolling.

That's obviously not true, since the environment is a stable equilibrium, not an unstable one... and we've already given it tons of little pushes.

	29-06-2005 03:02									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy BK & Geronimo: You ever heard of the bacteria-in-petri-dish experiment?

Have you ever noticed that unlike a petri dish, the Earth is not a closed system?

	29-06-2005 03:09									#77
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker That's obviously not true, since the environment is a stable equilibrium, not an unstable one...

Then explain the numerous periods of mass-extinction through-out earth's history.

quote: and we've already given it tons of little pushes.

Indeed.

	29-06-2005 03:13									#78
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Then explain the numerous periods of mass-extinction through-out earth's history.

They occured only through really big pushes.

Even a stable equilibrium will be shaken up. The human body is a stable equilibrium, but even it will die if you shoot it in the head.

quote: Indeed.

... and it hasn't collapsed. By your argument, it's inevitable, so it doesn't matter what we do.

	29-06-2005 03:19									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker They occured only through really big pushes.

The size of the metaphoric push is relative, and not at all what I was arguing about.

	29-06-2005 03:30									#80
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker That's obviously not true, since the environment is a stable equilibrium, not an unstable one... and we've already given it tons of little pushes.

Hm, it is stable at the moment.
The question of course is, if the little pushes we give it might accumulate to a greater push within the future.

For example the release of CFC needed tens of years to manifest itself in ozone holes.
Just because the CFCs needed this time to get to the atmosphere layers where it could wreak havoc.

It could be assumed, that other things could also need a long time to manifest themselves in effects humans can notice (and that, like the ozone holes, the effects will be absolutely unpleasant for mankind )

For example, those little pushes could result in several control circuits (lets use the Abbreviation CA) of the ecological system (lets call it Gaia) running out of alignment.
We donīt notice them as they are small, but they are there and they have an influence on other control circuits interlocked by them (lets call them CB).
As we give those control circuits every year these small pushes, the damage gets greater and greater (and the control circuits cannot recover):
The first year (or maybe decade) we get CA out of alignement, which lead tho CB running out of alignment.
The next year/decade CB leads to CC (Control Circuits interlocked with CB) and the Combination of CB and CA running out of alignment leads to CD (Control curcuits interlocked with CA and CB) running out of aligment.
This of course causes a lot of other control circuits running out of alignement the following years/decades

So year for year the damage gets greater and we just notice it, if there are visible effects/disasters occuring because the system has (in some area) run out of Backup-Control Circuits which would otherwise have prevented these effects/disasters.

Itīs just hypothetical. But thereīs a chance greater zero, that Iīm right

	29-06-2005 05:07									#81
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Proteus_MST All points are probably covered by the attributes mentioned: The high rate of mutation means, that the virus/bacteria itself creates variations as it goes from victim to victim. Perhaps this will be enough to cover all variations of humans. And the virus is designed with stealth in foreground, so that mankind hopefully doesnīt even know what hit them by: Having a long Phase of latency without any symptomes and then a short phase where the disease breaks out in the victim, killing it within short time. Furthermore the virus/bacteria imitates the symptomes of other diseases as it breaks out, so that the doctors who treat the victims donīt get suspicious that the victim might die of a new disease but rather think it was something they know well. (and at the point the disease breaks out the first infected person hopefully already made contact to numerous other persons, thereby spreading it over a large area [if the phase of latency is sevreal weeks and the victim travels often this would ebe an ideal combination ]) The only point where the world would get warned in time would be of course, if informations of the plans to release such a virus would leak out. But of course there are small spots where humans live isolated (for example small indian tribes within the rainforest). Therefore I should introduce a fifth attribute the disease should have: e) All kinds of animals should be the vectors of the disease. They themselves are not affected by the disease, but they can infect humans the same way that they could get infected by another human carrying the diesease (i.e. by means of bodyfluids and perhaps also by feces)

likely your virus' high mutation rate would spoil the elaborate incubation mechanism when a mutated strain that lacks the incubation rate would jump the gun and blow the secrecy. If the mutation rate of a virus is high it's almost impossible to have the insidious unseen spread of the disease you are counting on to take out the whole species without any warning. The high mutation rate will also likely moneky wrench the silent animal carrier model.

	29-06-2005 05:10									#82
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy BK & Geronimo: You ever heard of the bacteria-in-petri-dish experiment?

The bacteria form spores conditions change and they come back.

but Kuci made the most important point.

	29-06-2005 05:11									#83
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Proteus_MST Hm, it is stable at the moment.

You don't understand the meaning of the term. In a stable equilibrium, there are built-in forces that tend to return the system to the equilibrium state.

	29-06-2005 05:16									#84
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Lancer Dodo birds?

Hunted to extinction, along with the Mauritian blue pigeon.

	29-06-2005 05:20									#85
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker You don't understand the meaning of the term. In a stable equilibrium, there are built-in forces that tend to return the system to the equilibrium state.

The only problem is that planet earth doesn't have any built-in's. It just happens that there are some kind of equillibrium, but that doesn't mean that this can't be changed.

	29-06-2005 05:26									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat The only problem is that planet earth doesn't have any built-in's. It just happens that there are some kind of equillibrium, but that doesn't mean that this can't be changed.

I view it like trying to tip over a pyramid. At first, it'll keep falling over back onto its base. But if you push it far enuf, it doesn't come back. KAPOW!

	29-06-2005 05:29									#87
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat The only problem is that planet earth doesn't have any built-in's.

But the environment does.

	29-06-2005 05:40									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler I view it like trying to tip over a pyramid. At first, it'll keep falling over back onto its base. But if you push it far enuf, it doesn't come back. KAPOW!

Granted, earth is a pretty stable system considered that it has survived for millions of years, but that doesn't mean that changing parameters can't make the pyramid to fall the wrong way. Question is if humans are capable to make this push wich we really don't know how big is to be.

	29-06-2005 05:41									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker But the environment does.

Such as ?

	29-06-2005 05:48									#90
	Put an end to popups!

Say a bunch of predators are wiped out by a plague. The prey then survive and reproduce more, providing more food for the remaining predators. This makes the predator population increase, returning the system to equilibrium.