|
Odds for the survival of the human race 50-50
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: |
British Scientist Puts Odds for Apocalypse at 50-50
Mon June 9, 2003 08:56 AM ET
By Deena Beasley
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - This is the way the world might end: A genetically engineered pathogen is released, debris from an erupting "supervolcano" blocks the sun or scientists in the biggest "bioerror" of them all accidentally trigger a matter-squeezing "big bang."
The demise of civilization has been predicted since it began, but the odds of keeping Planet Earth alive and well are getting worse amid a breakneck pace of scientific advances, according to Martin Rees, Britain's honorary astronomer royal.
Rees calculates that the odds of an apocalyptic disaster striking Earth have risen to about 50 percent from 20 percent a hundred years ago.
The 60-year-old scientist, author of the recently published "Our Final Hour," says science is advancing in a far more unpredictable and potentially dangerous pattern than ever before.
He lists as mankind's biggest threats: nuclear terrorism, deadly engineered viruses, rogue machines and genetic engineering that could alter human character. All of those could result from innocent error or the action of a single malevolent individual.
By 2020, an instance of bioterror or bioerror will have killed a million people, Rees contends.
"There is a growing gap between doors that are open and doors that should be open," Rees, a professor at Britain's Cambridge University, said in a recent interview.
The cosmologist concedes that natural disasters have always loomed -- so-called supervolanoes could explode at any time and asteroids could slam into the planet, causing massive climate changes -- but says the most frightening risks are probably man-made.
"A hundred years ago, the nuclear threat wasn't even predicted ... but that threat still hasn't gone away," he said.
The arms race, after all, was fueled by science, and the field has a responsibility to inform a wide public of the risks in deciding how to apply scientific breakthroughs, he added.
BIOTECHNOLOGY COULD CHANGE HUMAN NATURE
"For the first time ever, human nature itself isn't fixed. Biotech drugs and genetic engineering are empowering individuals more than ever before," Rees said.
With rapidly advancing DNA technology, "even a single person could cause a disaster," Rees warned, noting that the United States, after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and anthrax scare, is well aware of this threat.
Thousands of people have the ability to engineer viruses and bacteria to cause deadly plagues. Even if one such "weirdo" didn't kill many people, that type of biological terrorism would profoundly change daily life, the scientist warned.
Nanotechnology -- the subject of a recent Michael Crichton thriller about the havoc caused by runaway microscopic machines -- are also a potent threat, he said.
If the field advances far enough, rogue self-replicating nanotechnology machines -- feeding on organic material and spreading like pollen -- could devastate a continent within a few days, Rees said.
The dangers of global warming are also addressed in the book, subtitled "A scientist's warning: How terror, error, and environmental disaster threaten humankind's future in this century -- on Earth and beyond."
Rees does not discount the possibility of disaster caused by scientific experiments involving particle accelerators. "Perhaps a back hole could form, and then suck in everything around it," he cautions.
So what's to be done?
The British scientist calls for better regulation and inspection of sensitive data and experiments.
"We need to keep track of those who have potentially lethal knowledge," Rees said.
He also suggested better efforts to "reduce the number of people who feel excluded or otherwise motivated to cause harm."
|
Pretty freaky. I think that the risk of nuclear holocaust is pretty much avoided (unless China goes psycho). At most there might be a terrorist nuclear attack but that wouldn't spell the demise of the human race. The threat of a genetically engineered killer virus on the other hand is pretty scary! Especially since bio technology research is virtually a completely unregulated industry. |
|
|
| gibbo |
| This is a quite a scary topic the thought of biological attacks and killer viruses is creepy and is becoming more of a serious threat than people notice, while most peoples attentions are focused on nuclear attacks it seams biological threats could be building up without us even noticing. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| We shouldn't be that surprised. Our race thrives on survival of the fittest and rampant killing of eachother. Deep down we're just a bunch of monkeys with the same animal instincts. I don't think it's a question of odds. It's a question of when. We're going to destroy ourselves--the question is will it be in 10 years or 1000 years? |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| I agree that this is scary, especially when he says bioterror or bioerror will kill 1 million people by 2020. It's a scary world we are growing up in. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
I think its already happeneing. I usually dont take conspiracy theories seriously, but through my own readings and questions i am beginning to think that HIV was genetically engineered to remove the "bad seeds" of humanity.
Go ahead... flame me:) |
|
|
| occrider |
http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/aids.asp
I think it could happen in the future with other diseases ... I don't think aids was a product of human creation however. Simply because if we had the technology to create something as lethal as AIDS 20 or so years ago, why can't we come up with a cure with technology from 2003? |
|
|
| Project T |
quite simply, i don't agree.
as we evolve through time, if that is the right word, the threat changes. from the prospect at dying at 25 only a few thousand years ago, to the massive scientific leaps made within the last 100 years including nuclear science. most of our parents spent their younger ages worring about nuclear apocalypse, as i'm sure many people worried about getting conquered by the romans.
i feel that society cannot always explain or cope and that something needs to be taken to see the bigger picture to somehow fill in the gaps. |
|
|
| gibbo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Project T
quite simply, i don't agree.
as we evolve through time, if that is the right word, the threat changes. from the prospect at dying at 25 only a few thousand years ago, to the massive scientific leaps made within the last 100 years including nuclear science. most of our parents spent their younger ages worring about nuclear apocalypse, as i'm sure many people worried about getting conquered by the romans.
i feel that society cannot always explain or cope and that something needs to be taken to see the bigger picture to somehow fill in the gaps. |
hmmm i fail to see how the romans although a threat to certain societies in their day could cause a threat of human extinction the way a biochemical or nuclear threat could they just didnt have the same ability of an instant impact. Although now we won't die off slowly of bad living conditions and such with the technology now a couple of mistakes could end the world thats thew point here |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/aids.asp
I think it could happen in the future with other diseases ... I don't think aids was a product of human creation however. Simply because if we had the technology to create something as lethal as AIDS 20 or so years ago, why can't we come up with a cure with technology from 2003? |
Thanks alot for that rider... it cleared some stuff up.... but i still do not understand how this virus appeared so suddenly.... im sure that man and monkey had contacts with each other before 1980.... how come the virus didnt show up say 500 years ago?
Why now? Thats what strikes me..... |
|
|
| Project T |
u fail to see my point mr gibson :p
in the middle ages when the romans left most of europe, there was a period called the dark ages where people died young, there was widespread famin and most knowledge was lost. there was a period then known as the renaissance where bright individuals such as da vinci captured the spirit of europe and massive advances were made gaining previous knowlegde and experience, learning from it and bettering it.
if all is lost, it won't be for long, i am sure :) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Project T
quite simply, i don't agree.
as we evolve through time, if that is the right word, the threat changes. from the prospect at dying at 25 only a few thousand years ago, to the massive scientific leaps made within the last 100 years including nuclear science. most of our parents spent their younger ages worring about nuclear apocalypse, as i'm sure many people worried about getting conquered by the romans.
i feel that society cannot always explain or cope and that something needs to be taken to see the bigger picture to somehow fill in the gaps. |
Don't agree that are chances for survival are so slim? I dunno ... it came pretty close to the wire during the cold war. What if something bad had happened at the wrong place at the wrong time? We could have quite easily been plunged into nuclear holocaust.
I also think that it's quite possible for new deadly diseases to arise quite naturally. The more popluation overcrowding there is and the more likely humans will live in unsanitary conditions which is an incubator for disease development.
Not to mention all those statistics about asteroids that are due to hit the earth eventually. |
|
|
| gibbo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Project T
u fail to see my point mr gibson :p
in the middle ages when the romans left most of europe, there was a period called the dark ages where people died young, there was widespread famin and most knowledge was lost. there was a period then known as the renaissance where bright individuals such as da vinci captured the spirit of europe and massive advances were made gaining previous knowlegde and experience, learning from it and bettering it.
if all is lost, it won't be for long, i am sure :) |
I still believe even in the times of the dark ages and through things like the plague the threat of an instant ending to the world wasn't a possibility like it is now that is my point yes times may have been bad then but i think the threat of an instant ending to the world however unlikely is a lot more possible now than it was then. |
|
|
|
|
