My comments that you replied to were meant as general comments just to show examples, not specifics, otherwise those comments would be pages long.

But for arguments sake:

1) Wrong. Rabies has a 100% mortality rate...just an example. Natural Ebola strains top 90%. Manufactured Ebola or Small Pox strains can theoretically be made at or near 100%. As far as containing a 100% mortality rate virus being easy? Why? Are you assuming a short incubation period followed by a quick advance to death? What about a disease that has a long latency before it's full symptoms take effect, while still being infectious. This could spread everywhere and infect most of the population before it's even realized....and only later progress to fatal stages. What about a disease that doesn't kill, but sterilizes? Point being, you can assume these things are not possible, but you can't be definitive. And considering that there are those who are looking to weaponize viruses, it makes these things a distinct possibility. I'll give you that no matter how perfect a disease is, it will not kill everyone, just because of random resistances, but if it kills 98% of the worlds population, with that other 2% being scattered across the globe, that's pretty devastating. That surviving 2% might find it hard to just deal with simple infections and or maladies after that, since the infrastructure of modern medical practice will have been destroyed. So although not extinction outright, the seeds of extinction very possibly. Same with my sterility virus....if it manages to spread and sterilize 98% of the people...not a good outlook. But these are still just examples of my point....just theoretical possibilities.

2) Again, just a general example. I use the Black hole creation because it's eye catching, but my point is that any scientific experimentation comes with risk. Just like originally discovering that atom splitting releases vast amounts of energy. You can't assume that our scientists, no matter how versed in quantum mechanics and universal physics, know every aspect of every thing. They simply don't. Just as another example, lets say they theorize a way to bring about anti-matter or dark matter or whatever phantom matter, but without fully understanding the underlying true physical properties of said matters. Then when trying to apply their theories in a lab setting stumble upon a process that releases energy at vastly larger levels than atom splitting, or starts some kind of quantum chain reaction, or creates long half-life radioactive isotopes that are highly unstable, and unpredictable, because of being based on principles of matter that we only have assumptions about and not facts. Science is not a finite principle where we have all the answers to everything. Most of it is still alot of assumptions. Again picking apart my examples is pointless, because they are just examples, simply illustrating the concept that scientists deal with unknown variables.

3) Yes that is an undeniable constant possibility. The chances are only minute? How do you know? That is strictly an assumption based on nothing. The Sun is a chaotic mass; No one knows the chances of some solar event being volatile enough to permanently damage our atmosphere. We can barely predict our own weather, and can't even predict small chaos models like tornadoes, or tectonic events like earthquakes or volcanoes. How can you presume to claim a solar event is a minute possibility? ....you can't.

4)Finite resources do include energy and other recyclable resources. But renewable energy isn't abundant and neither are recyclable resources. Otherwise we wouldn't need to use up resources now....we could just recycle everything....but we don't, because we can't. Food is also a resource, and thats where my overpopulation example comes into play, if over industrialization effectively limits or even outright eliminates viable arable land. No plantlife would mean no wildlife would mean no food. A bit of a chimerical example, but still. Or continuing with the example of industrialization, what if we deforest to the point where, combined with overpopulation, we create an imbalance in the natural transference principals our biosphere is based on, or a true global warming dynamic....where we build so much and deforest so much that the current oxygen/carbon balance is altered to an extreme. Atmosphere changes....we die off.
For the record I'm not a proponent of this current global warming BS. But if we physically overrun our green with steel and concrete, which is a long way off still, we can disrupt the planet's biosphere to the point where it can no longer support human life.

5)see above

6) It's not pessimism, it's objectivity. Species simply do not survive, for one reason or another. They all die off...they all become extinct. It is an absolute guaranteed principle of planetary existence. If we are confined to this planet(this solar system), we cannot avoid extinction....period. That is not debatable. The time frame is definitely debatable....and maybe I'm pessimistic in the amount of time I think we'll still be around, but I honestly don't feel that way. Too many types of variables exist now that can bring us down....and these variables ironically are a direct result of our accelerated advancement in medicine, science and industry over the past 100 or so years. Those specific things that have advanced our civilization are the same things that are hastening it's demise.

That's my outlook, but what do you want from me?....look at my name and my avatar...I am the personification of death :hehe: I can't help it.

First up, I doubt we will see a world like fallout's. When this planet dies off (in several hundred million years) it will completely die off. I would be surprised if humanity is still around then but if we were we would die with the planet, however since we are even now ready for interplanetary travel (and possibly even terraformation) we would have either died off or more hopefully long since left.

Now, Chernobyl is the single easiest example I can give, type "modern day pripyat" or "modern day chernobyl" into your respective image search engines, nature has long since reclaimed the land. We could utterly bomb the hell out of each other and life would trundle on, this planet has been through hell and back, we have, at times, lost almost all of the species on the planet (the most prominent example I can conceive is when we lost 95% of all species thanks to hyper volcanic activity)
Point is, even if the world burns, it will survive, we may not but I would be surprised, humanity is an incredibly resilient species, our adaptability and ability to rapidly react during chaotic circumstances is frankly utterly amazing.




Thanatos: 100% kill rate viruses don't exist...if they did they wouldn't exist for long. It would defeat the point of the virus and it would rapidly die off so I disagree, even very deadly viruses tend to be pathetic in the long run and rapidly die off. The mos successful are those which don't kill the host, or do so very slowly.

You clearly don't have a clue about current Physics, but frankly I don't blame you, it's not easy to keep up with! First off, antimatter has been created and collided with matter already, it releases a huge amount of energy (it is actually one of the contenders for use as an intergalactic fuel, if we can utilise antimatter already in existence and find some way of containing it (currently unknown, though there are some ideas) then we could harness it to travel the stars and potentially, the galaxies) but doesn't blow up the world. The LHC won't blow up the world either, please don't believe what you read in the Sun, Murdoch is hardly the greatest of all minds...

We can't predict our weather because of Chaos theory, we are en route though, give it a few decades and we may be able to overcome the problems presented by chaos. As for the Sun (as in our star) it is unlikely to do so, we have no reason to assume it will any more than we should predict that Mercury will suddenly decide to break all laws of physics and come beat us up (for stealing Venus' lunch money). I'm not saying it's impossible, but implausible doesn't begin to cover it, there's no reason to assume it will happen, the Sun is not that volatile in all honesty.

Renewable sources are finished, pressure from companies intending to make money and a lack of support from it's advocates has resulted in this, somewhat pathetic, standoff. By renewable I mean will not run out in the course of this planet's lifetime. Recycling too is infinite technically, the problem you can argue is overpopulation, though that won't kill us all it could result in serious damage to the human race, notably if wars spark. It won't destroy the planet, or us. We will not die out just cos it happens, something would need to actively kill us off, species do become extinct, the planet changes and we (we being denizens of the planet) must adapt to survive. We are currently capable of galactic travel, in theory...I've already covered my opinions on this above.

In the words of Dr. Cox. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wroooooooooonnnnng.

Yeah...condescension it always an attractive trait in a person...especially when that person doesn't comprehend what's written by the person they attempt to patronize, or is wrong themselves.

First of all I mentioned the rabies...which is, for all intents and purposes a 100% mortality virus...so no, I'm not wrong. It exists. If you can't think outside the box and conceive of an airborne virus with a long latency and 100% mortality, fine. But to outright claim it's not possible is foolish.

I understand physics well enough....you simply didn't comprehend what I wrote. Again, my examples are not direct examples, they are simply illustrations of the point that science deals with unknown variables and a mistake at the applied level can have dire consequences. Again, think outside the box, and don't argue about a specific example that's more metaphorical than actual. I already made this point when I stated those examples, I guess you missed that in your eagerness to spout your excellent grasp of physics, which I question anyway....please explain to me how intergalactic travel is possible. You're so versed in physics and yet you simply gloss over one of the primary laws of physics E=mc^2. Care to explain how we circumvent this little problem....regardless of what fuel we use?

And speaking of fuel. How do you so cavalierly assume antimatter will be a good fuel if we can "simply" contain it? How do we simply contain something that essentially reacts with any type of containment or interaction with physical mass or energy, with extreme violence? Tough problem.

And as for comparing the Sun having a potentially biosphere damaging event with some ridiculous comment about mercury breaking physical laws and beating us up for stealing venus' lunch money? Are you serious? This isn't a condescending comment....it's an amazingly stupid comment. If you were trying to illustrate your intelligence, this remark achieved the opposite.

Actually, that last part made me realize discussing my educated opinions of various possibilities with people who think they are espousing concrete definitives and not their own educated opinions, and do it in a patronizing manner, is a bit tedious.

Nevermind

Pot calling the kettle black there my friend, nothing wrong with a little joking, if it upset you that much then I apologise for it.

Did I say it wasn't possible? No. I said if they did, they wouldn't exist for long, viruses that kill you are pointless, they don't last. The point of any organism (ignoring the debate over a virus' classification) is to make it's own genes survive, by reproduction and by surviving. If a virus killed off every host rapidly it wouldn't have enough time to fully propagate and more worryingly (for the virus) would be unable to spread, although a dormant virus can last a while it's not ideal, far from it, those which don't kill their host will outcompete it very soon. A virus that was airborne and slaughtered everything would die out before it got anywhere, it would be too deadly for it's own good.

First up, E=MC^2 isn't necessarily correct, there's some doubt over it's validity in the more...extreme circumstances. Secondly, what's it actually got to do with anything? It's an equation that deals with the potential energy of an object, it doesn't relate to long distance travel.
How could intergalactic travel be possible? Well, it would take a hell of a long time, but it's possible. The idea currently being touted for the actual ship is a vast vessel, built from a space station so no fuel is required to take off, then literally sending a full colony into space. Quite an amazing concept though it likely won't happen for centuries unless some major changes occurring.

I didn't say we could simply contain antimatter, I said: "if we can utilise antimatter already in existence and find some way of containing it (currently unknown, though there are some ideas)"
Not simply, not even known yet.

You do realise the mercury thing was a joke right? I'm not seriously saying Venus has lunch money, or we're going to steal it or anything like that, I was saying there's no known reason for the Sun to suddenly do something which would wipe out our planet, it's no more likely than Mercury suddenly breaking the laws of gravity, why the hell would it happen?

Good constructive debates require more than opinions, you seem to believe that the only way to talk is about one's opinions as if they are fact, rather than looking at the facts and then making your opinion. Cos that's just plain silly.

Ok....maybe I was in a bit of crap mood before I even read your reply yesterday...and your reply was just the type that tends to annoy me...so there was a cumulative effect that may have pushed me into PO'd mode....didn't mean to come across like that.

The reason I got annoyed because claiming my hypothetical opinions are wrong is foolish when all you have to back your claim is your own hypothetical opinions....and especially when you don't even read what I write and argue against your own interpretation of my statements....which you did again in this last reply in reference to my virus point.

You repeat your point that a virus with a 100% mortality rate would be ineffective because it would die out before it could progress. Do you purposely ignore my mention of long latency which I've repeated over and over? If a virus doesn't go into symptom state or activate for a long enough time period, say 3 months or even longer, 6 months, a year....then it could infect the entire worlds population. It wouldn't be killing it's host and thereby itself before it spread. It's not impossible for a virus like this to develop through mutation or even more likely, through manual creation with intent. There are a plethora of viruses that have such long latencies....luckily few with extreme mortality rates, although one does comes to mind; HIV. What if HIV mutates to become airborne? Mutations happen. Sorry I simply don't see that scenario as some extreme impossibility.

As for traveling to stars....read up on the Joint Propulsion Conference findings recently. These are the top astrophysicists and aeronautics specialists in the field. They themselves believe travel to another star based on not only current technology but almost all theoretical technology would still be a total fantasy. It would take a scientific leap of incredible proportions for us to even consider true viable star flight.

Issue one is Mass-Energy Equivalence(E=mc2). Regardless of your claim that there are "doubts" about it's application in extreme situations, there is no applicable example of it. It simply applies as a verified physical law. You simply cannot hope to achieve speeds that approach light....mass expansion simply does not allow it.

Of course your "Ark" ship concept is the viable concept to consider, but it's simply not viable at all currently. It would take us upwards of 80,000 years to just reach Centauri (a worthless system) and twice that to reach Tau Ceti (the closest promising system). But even proposing the best options of theoretical propulsion tech we may conceivably achieve at some not to distant point, like Nuclear-Pulse or the more fantastical Anti-matter propulsion, has another altogether different but as imposing a barrier. While Nuke-Pulse or anti-matter if realized to full potential has the capability of rendering travel to centauri down to about a century, this would require constant ultra acceleration and then deceleration. Two issues apply here...sustainable G's...we would have to devise a way to handle these G forces that would basically turn you to paste(there are some theories for that, but they aren't overtly practical at this point)...but the second and more important issue is fuel requirements. To achieve these levels of constant acceleration/deceleration would require at a minimum ALL the energy this planet produces and most scientists believe it would require substantially more, upwards of 100 times the energy output of the earth. That's the big barrier. First we'd have to acquire this fuel(probably by strip mining every resource from every planet in this system, and then we'd have to store it on the ship. The engines would have to be ginormous.....maybe like the size of the moon....which would of course add equivalent mass which would have to be propulsed. Right now this is beyond a fantasy. Without a giant leap in astrophysics, we ain't going anywhere.

Now can we make that leap?...maybe. I have my doubts though. There are a few other theories that float, like solar sails and magnetic acceleration so the ship wouldn't need to carry it's fuel, but this has the added problem of not having a truly viable way of "decelerating"....and these theories are even more on the fantastic level.

Reaching Ceti is a nice dream....but right now that's all it is, is a far fetched dream. Again research the findings of the JPC from the last couple years.

And back to the Solar event....your refute of my point amounts to "why the hell would it happen?" ??? Because it's already happened, often. It's a chaos model. We can't predict what it will or won't do on any specific level. It's had solar events that have drastically affected this planet over the course of it's existence. It's already happened, many times. Don't make the mistake of assuming just because it has general stability over the course of thousands or millions of years between violent events that that means there is no violent event in the foreseeable future. It happened, it will happen again. The question is just when...not if. Maybe it won't happen for a couple million years, and we're cool....maybe it'll happen tomorrow. No one knows.

Anyway....I'm topic'd out.

If you want to just come back and say I'm wrong on everything, go ahead. You'd serve yourself better though by taking my points into honest consideration and listening to the astrophysicists make my points too.

Good convo....sorry for being a bit peeved yesterday.

Humanity will eventually destor itself, but if it's done "correctly" (I know, it sound pretty hard) maybe the evolution will begin again.

Not after 10 years, of course but over millions of years.
(Pretty interesting, how will the product of that evolution look like)

But if the world's filled with rad's, start worrying.
Because it ain't that easy if that's the situation. :cryvaultboy:

Beautiful optimism, but sometimes.
I just think that humanity is an mistake.

Because other animals live in harmony, and we just want to show off.

I haven't seen any lions lying down with a lamb lately, all I see is lions devouring a lamb. Animals don't live in "harmony", they just don't have the intelligence nor emotions to feel "guilty" like humans do. If we hit an animal with a car, most of us would stop and see what we can do to help it. If an animal out in the wild is injured, another animal is going to either ignore it or kill and eat it.

I'm pretty sure that whatever civilization that will rise up out of the ruins of the pre-war world will be near-unrecognizable. As for the Earth, it will recover, eventually.

On the second thing, I hope we don't bomb each other into oblivion, but there is always someone crazy enough to push the nuclear button.

I can't even begin to fathom how people could believe that post nuclear conflict, that our world could even begin to resemble the world portrayed in Fallout...

The Fallout World is based on a 1950s futuristic dystopian viewpoint of what the world would look like. Remember, it is SCIENCE! not science. It is how they would have imagined it would be based on the height of scientific knowledge of the 1950s, not our more knowledgeable view.

Well, Earth is the only planet that we know of that can support life as we know it. Aside from the fact that it happens to be our home and we find it to be pretty it's just like any other chunk of matter floating around in space that's big enough to have become a planet. Warm fuzzies about it being our home aside, its ability to support our particular brand of the organic technology we call "life" is really the only thing that's special about it.

The thing is that, by all accounts, this situation is temporary. The amount of time life is likely to have existed here is a flash in the pan by cosmic standards, and we know very little about the history of the universe (or even our own solar system) going very far back. Many scientists surmise that other planets may have supported life in the past, but due to changes in their orbit, atmospheric composition, temperature, etc. they became inhospitable to it. It's pretty likely that this will happen on Earth at some point.

I have to agree with others that have said that our affection for Earth has more to do with the current state of life here rather than the planet itself. At some point, if we survive that long, we'll probably be forced to leave it. In the meantime it's important that we protect the delicate balance of factors that allow life as we know it to continue to thrive here, though, otherwise the living things that make this place precious won't survive, and Earth will once again be just another rock hurtling through space.

The status of the Earth by the late 2200s is still very unhealthy, as FEV and Fallout is seemingly still up in the atmosphere or that the atmosphere has been completely polluted and it will take probably thousands years for life to fully go to normal. I could imagine that the Ozone Layer would have been dissolved and the world would be forever dead but apparently that is not the case. But I believe that the Earth can only return to normal if there is still some surviving plant life, that has not been mutated or course.

If this topic asks if I think we will ever have a nuclear war, then I say maybe. I'm honestly not sure.

Hopefully then next generation in charge will be a little less aggressive. We actually came really close to total destruction; the Cold war. I can't believe they thought their students to "duck and cover" (hide under their desk). Somehow a desk if supposed to protect you from a Nuclear weapon and the building over their head is just there :facepalm: .

There is a real good documentary on Cherynoble on I think the Science Channel. They document the animal and plant life in the Exclusion Zone around the town. In this area, no humans are allowed, so the animal and plant life is free to live like it did before humans. Now, there was no fire storm or blast damage beyond the Nuclear Plant, so the forests and fields could at least start from something. However, what they have found is rather surprising. Even though the ground was super staturated with radiation as the fallout happened at the worst possible time, the animals and plant life are flourishing. Nature is quickly taking over that which was once human domain. The fallout occured during a time where there was little rain so the radioactive particles did not get washed away or watered into the ground. So, the animals and plant life are highly radiated. Waht they eat is highly radiated, and what they live in is highly radiated. However, there is little evidence of mutation, and the ones that have occured died out. Not because they were not viable animals, just that they did not appeal to prospective mates, so they did not produce off spring. Sure, this is only a short time later, but it actually shows a trend where the animals are becoming resistant to the effects of the radiation.

So, what I think would happen after a Nuclear War is the Vegetation and Animal Life would return rather quickly and if not bothered by humans, would survive and thrive. It would be a much greener world full of pretty much normal looking and acting life that I think most people would imagine it to be.

I think that the world will end up like in Fallout for a couple reasons. Oil is becoming scarce and scientists predict that we will run out in 50 to 80 years (oddly enough when the Great War happens). There is a LOT of tension in the Middle East and people are suspecting Britain to throw its hat into the ring to help fight terrorism (but really trying to get oil which causes the Resource Wars). Also, I am a Christian and possibly a nuclear war may actually be the Rapture, God decided to let us decide when it will happen. :blink: my brain asploaded.

I guess that can be possible but if the effects of nuclear bombs are too big then we/animal life may not have a chance to evolve and become rad resistant.

We're already heading into the Resource Wars right now. The corporations and world governments are running carbon sequestration rackets as an excuse to burn and find more fossil fuels, China will likely be the big bully instead of the U.S. because of the crappy economy, and Russia will buddy up with rogue states to become the third wheel. World War 3 will be like the intro to FO1 and the prologue to A Boy and his Dog. World War 4 will end in a matter of hours depending on 1st/2nd strike capabilities globally. Unfortunately, we don't have the wild card of FEV-1 to inoculate people to rads and ghoulification doesn't happen... I'm hoping I'm by a priority target when WW4 goes down so I'm just a shadow when its said and done.

I always thought China & India would get over populated, & then invade Russia. lol :angry:

Maybe it won't be humans who bring about said apocalypse but maybe ailens? I't could happen you know,some greedy race trys to take a planet by force or trys to destroy life so they could terraform it. Maybe it will be like the book "Road Side Picknick" if i remembre correctly. Search it up on wikipedia it looks interesting.

How I think the world will "end": Given the crappy economy in the U.S (Or just California?) Either way, some big country is gonna fall due to economy, another country is gonna see the oppurtunity, if not not several countries, attack it, big war ensues, Earth goes "Boom". So, the world might end up in a nuclear wasteland, but not the way Fallout started, with countries invading others because they don't like them or something (not liking the flower, so they shoot the man. Anyone get the referance?), but with economic downfall, powerful country falls, bigger, now more powerful countries attack, allies of weaker country attack attackers, and attackers attack allies and other attackers.

The Earth has no intrinsic value; it only has value as a human resource. In any case, it's inevitable that we'll face World War 3 at some point, and when we do, nuclear weapons will inevitably be involved. Some times I find myself thinking that I'd rather live in a world like Fallout or like in the tv-series Jericho, regardless of the consequences leading up to it, than I would in a world that's stagnated in statism, where humans exist only as potted plants to be watered by bureaucrats.

I don't think there are any aliens out there that would actually attempt to wipe out whole planets. Unless if they have been living for millions-billion of years. Then they may start finding resources from planets like Earth. Besides how likely is it that other intelligent life-forms have been capable of living for so long without blowing themselves. It's bound to happen.

I'm 99% sure that if humans ever disappear of the face of the Universe, it would be human judgment. Not aliens. In-fact we probably be the ones to go to other planets searching for resources. Humans exploit everything that we can get our hands on. I do, but I try not to.

I throw away food, sometimes say that this food tastes bad that makes my mom angry. Really shouldn't be saying that. :facepalm: I don't litter EVER tho. Never kill any creature. I hate those people who see a caterpillar and say that they are gonna kill it. WHY?

I have faith we'll nuke ourselves to Oblivion and the world will be done.