Print 143 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on Jun 25 at 8:56 PM

Is humanity doomed? An eminent Australian scientists believes so.

Mankind is headed for a mass extinction, along with many other species clinging to Earth, and there's probably nothing to be done about according to one scientist. Frank Fenner, a much-lauded and awarded scientist hailing from Canberra, Australia, doesn't see much hope for humans in the future. Between rampant pollution, ecological destruction, overpopulation and over-consumption, the planet is already past its tipping point -- it's not a question of if, but when this mass extinction will occur.

Where one might see this view as the ramblings of a crackpot, Fenner is certainly no such thing. His contributions to science over the last 60+ years are just as staggering as his proclamation. An Australian Academy of Science as well as Royal Society fellow, Fenner holds credits in everything from eradicating smallpox and helping Australia with victories in New Guinea by dealing with malaria among their troops to wild rabbit population control with the myxomatosis virus. He has contributed to nearly 300 papers and book chapters as well as written or co-written 22 of his own books. In 1973 he established the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies. Still active in science and education, until recently he was still showing up for work every day at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at ANU (which he directed from 1967 to 1973) and will be opening a symposium at the Australian Academy of Science titled Healthy Climate, Planet and People next week to help connect environmental science and environmental policy.

Fenner likens the current global situation to the devastation of Easter Island. The Rapanui, the Polynesian settlers of Easter Island, found a pristine mote of land and in the next millennium or so proceeded to completely devastate its ecosystem by cutting down nearly every tree on the island. Entire species disappeared and shortly after, so did most of the Rapanui. They had driven the island into an unsustainable ecological disaster.

"We'll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island," Fenner told 
The Australian in a recent interview. "Climate change is just at the very beginning. But we're seeing remarkable changes in the weather already.

"The Aborigines showed that without science and the production of carbon dioxide and global warming, they could survive for 40,000 or 50,000 years. But the world can't. The human species is likely to go the same way as many of the species that we've seen disappear.

"Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years. A lot of other animals will, too. It's an irreversible situation. I think it's too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off," he explains.

Fenner is not alone in his belief. Many other scientists feel that humanity has driven the world over the edge with no hope of rectifying the situation before we meet our bitter end, taking many other species along for the one-way trip. But others, including some of Fenner's colleagues, believe it isn't too late. However, the time in which to address the issues is rapidly coming to an end.

Stephen Boyden, retired ANU professor and friend and colleague of Fenner's  claims "Frank may be right, but some of us still harbour the hope that there will come about an awareness of the situation and, as a result, the revolutionary changes necessary to achieve ecological sustainability.

"That's where Frank and I differ. We're both aware of the seriousness of the situation, but I don't accept that it's necessarily too late. While there's a glimmer of hope, it's worth working to solve the problem. We have the scientific knowledge to do it but we don't have the political will."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

OK Chicken Little...
By Leper Messiah on 6/23/2010 9:10:37 AM , Rating: 5
For someone who is apparently so well versed in climate change over the course of the planet's history, he should probably know that drastic climate changes like the one that would be necessary to wipe out the entire human race within 100 years are basically only caused by asteroids hitting the Earth. So unless he has some advance knowledge he isn't sharing with the rest of us it seems to be just a little far fetched.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By LeviBeckerson on 6/23/2010 9:16:33 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder about that. Is it impossible that the last 100 years of population growth, industrialization, pollution and ecological destruction will add up to a more potent factor than dinosaur-killer? One is a relatively simple event, the other comprised of many interconnected systems. Could our current situation lead to a cascade effect? I think it's more than believable. Certainly worth thinking about rather than denouncing out-of-hand, in my opinion.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By Arc177 on 6/23/2010 9:42:08 AM , Rating: 1
And the boogeyman and tooth fairy are believable too. There isn't any evidence that supports these clowns hypothesis.
Seriously, there isn't much to worry about here. I know I won't lose any sleep over this rubbish.
Al Gore and Barrack Obama have Nobel prizes, surely they must be right also? How about those jacka$$es vote gravity out of existence?
"Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By paydirt on 6/23/2010 10:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
This scientist was born in December 1914, which would make him 95 years old. He's definitely very distinguished (eradicating Small Pox, and an Australian rabbit plague).

These comments of his aren't backed by anything. There are plenty of things that we are doing that are not sustainable, but that does not mean that the population will vanish. AND IF there are wars over food that would tend to shrink populations (due to deaths) and make the food situation more sustainable.

I am not a scientist... I would tend to think that starvation would help keep things in balance.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By bill4 on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: OK Chicken Little...
By Jeffk464 on 6/23/2010 3:28:14 PM , Rating: 4
If said people in Africa could live off the land or manage to grow enough of their own food why would they be starving? I know if it was between me starving and planting a field of potatoes I would for sure plant the field of potatoes.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 10:06:56 AM , Rating: 4
I think that the scientist is presuming that the large population will be so destructive as it collapses that even sustainable areas will be pillaged into unproductivity. The 'locusts' of humanity would prey on the 'sustainables' until only they are left and they would die off themselves since they only know how to prey on others. Kind of like Mad Max or The Road.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By Jeffk464 on 6/23/2010 3:25:28 PM , Rating: 1
Even if this happened its almost impossible to believe that some remaining level of population would survive somewhere. Human are extremely adaptable and will figure out a way to survive in my opinion. A species can pop back with a fairly small population.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By Starcub on 6/24/2010 12:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
A species can pop back with a fairly small population.

That would be 1 plus a test tube. Technically, the "1" part of that isn't absolutely necessary, but would you want to leave the future of mankind up to technology alone?

OK, so "Water World" put it a little differently, but everybody knows that hollywood constantly takes a kernel of truth and turns it into unbelieveable nonsense.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By Jeffk464 on 6/23/2010 3:19:20 PM , Rating: 1
"I am not a scientist... I would tend to think that starvation would help keep things in balance."

Exactly starvation is the the ultimate cap on any population. This is always and has always been the case. Ancient Egypt had a 10 year period of climate change(drought) that wiped out half of their population.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By straycat74 on 6/23/2010 6:40:49 PM , Rating: 3
If only Al Gore had been alive to warn them.....

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By grandpope on 6/24/2010 2:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly his point, starvation brought the population level to something that was more sustainable to the current level of food production.

It's not about preserving the status quo at all costs, it's about being able to keep population levels in line with production figures. Hell, even China learned THAT lesson...

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By bill4 on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: OK Chicken Little...
By bill4 on 6/23/2010 9:49:14 AM , Rating: 1
Well, I forget not all the Daily staff is liberal, there's Asher I think, and maybe a couple others, but they never post articles, whereas the lefties post incessantly, and it's getting worse, they seemed to have hired several new left wing editors. No doubt they dont hire anybody before vetting their political views, like good censoring liberals do.

I mean, if you guys want to go form left wing politics website number 8 million and 7, go do it. But this crap doesn't belong in a "tech" site. Almost every article you guys post is blatantly slanted garbage, meant to antagonize your conservative commenters. It's got to stop.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 10:01:11 AM , Rating: 1
So you believe that the earth has unlimited mineral resources and that growing and uncontrollable populations aren't going to cause any problems?

This researcher is clearly a chicken little claiming extinction, but you clearly have your head burried in the sand. As long as you don't have to deal with it, who cares? And I wonder who created the travesty that is our national debt....

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By bill4 on 6/23/2010 10:07:55 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, pretty sure liberal thinkers like yourself created our national debt. How ironic. Obama's first year deficit was 5 times Bush's largest, but you know, it's all Bush's fault by the media.

Can you answer me why factually, average human lifespan is much greater now with 6.8 billion people than it was 200 years ago with far less?

Can you answer me why you wrote "growing and uncontrollable" population growth when population growth is factually slowing and has been for years?

Why do liberal consistently know absolutely nothing about the topics they discuss?

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 10:24:36 AM , Rating: 1
The National Debt is caused when taxes (income) does not cover expenses (spending).

Republicans and Democrats are equally capable of spending. However, only Democrats will actually sustain or increase taxes. Where do you think those surpluses came from? The Conservative ideology of reducing taxes to 'starve the beast' is designed to create a deficit. The beast can't be starved until it has hit a limit to borrowing.

So yes, the debt is exactly what the Republicans want. Absolute morons in Washington, but when Bush had a Republican legislature and an expanding economy he was putting about $400B/yr onto my grandkids.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By bill4 on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: OK Chicken Little...
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 10:45:44 AM , Rating: 3
I cannot believe how stupid you are.

The United States was mostly agrarian in the mid-1840s. Populations were very low. Incomes were amazingly low. Africa low. The population was too low actually. We were deliberately importing Europeans to settle the West. There were very few needs for government. We weren't raising large armies/navies to fight foreign wars. At that time a huge chunk of Federal income came from IMPORT TAXES.

Now higher populations require more services. More police, dedicated fire departments, more courts to settle disputes. Then we have the transportation and communication systems. Those taxpayer funded programs have overseen the greatest economic expansion in history.

I swear, right-wingers may claim they know something about economics, but they are almost always clueless about how our economy even works.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By bill4 on 6/23/2010 10:52:22 AM , Rating: 2
Higher populations dont "require" more services per capita at all! Huh?

Where do you people with non functioning brains actually come from?

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 11:18:03 AM , Rating: 5
Yes they do.

I used to live on a farm. Low taxes. Low services.

Now I live in a suburb. The roads are all paved. And well maintained due to the heavy traffic. When it snows it gets plowed. If there is a fire a professional and full time fire fighter will put it out. There are public green spaces (aka parks). Zoning rules are drafted and enforced. Economic development is actively courted.

It is all about living as a group instead of as individuals. You can call it socialism, because it technically is.

Education was once all private. We once had to do everything for ourselves. Taxes were low, but we were also very poor. (FYI - the rich back then did pay a lot of taxes, but when averaged with the masses the tax load was very small) Now we are rich, and taxes are high because of all of the public offerings we enjoy.

The elementary education was made public (and paid for through State taxes, which obviously had to increase). Then public universities expanded, those cost a lot of tax dollars. Of course we want to fill those schools, so the Feds provided educational grants....

Are we understanding yet? All of those things that we think of as benefits to our society are either tax funded or tax-seed funded. Even private things like professional sports can only exist because they are underwritten by tax dollars. Why don't you just grow up and admit that some loose degree of socialism is necessary for the society which we have all benefited from? Or you could move to Zimbabwe or Afghanistan. I hear taxes are really low and that the government is almost powerless.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By shin0bi272 on 6/23/2010 11:43:57 AM , Rating: 1
You are confusing "have to have" with "have been told to". You dont HAVE to have all the roads paved but the city (or county) charges you money in the form of taxes to give you that service. You dont have to have it but you have been told to pay so that they can give you and others that service. Education became federally funded during jimmy carter (the dept of ed passed by like 2 or 4 votes but became an institution instantly)and since its passing in 1978 or 77 we have spent over 3 trillion dollars on education. Our test scores have gone up 1 point in math and 3 points in reading. The dept of ed gives 86% of the money it receives in its budget (you know, your taxes) back to the states... the other 14% (of 3 trillion) its been keeping over the years. Why cant we just have the state tax us enough to fund the education system in our state? Oh yeah because then the federal government wouldnt have power over what our kids learn.

You are misconstruing what the politicians tell you you need with what you actually need. All you need are food, clothing, shelter, transportation (in some cases), and money. All of those are provided in a free market system based on your labors. But if you allow the government to tell you you also need health care and that they should be the ones to provide it you lose freedom and choice and of course money that you worked for.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 12:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think that keeping the Feds in the loop also keeps the states from appropriating money unfairly. All of the states are required to meet certain standards in order to receive funding. This has actually held-up states like California and Texas(net tax contributors) and helped states like Mississippi and Wyoming by providing minimum funding levels.

The Feds also use the money that is not given to the states in block grants to fund academic research and of course testing (and don't forget bureaucracy!).

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By JediJeb on 6/23/2010 3:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
Now I live in a suburb. The roads are all paved. And well maintained due to the heavy traffic. When it snows it gets plowed. If there is a fire a professional and full time fire fighter will put it out. There are public green spaces (aka parks). Zoning rules are drafted and enforced. Economic development is actively courted.

Necessities or luxuries? If someone wants a park, then the people in that area should fund it. Why should someone like me living out in the country have to spend my taxes to pay for a park, probably in another state I will never see? Zoning rules are drafted and enforced mainly to make sure the rich dont lose property value because someone builds next to them who doesnt share their sense of asthetics. Around here cities annex farms who do not want to be part of the city just so a new office building or subdivision can be built, trampling on the rights of the farmers so the government can have more power by having more voters in their district. And around here we don't spend tax money to plow the road when it snows, each farmer takes care of their own section of road, part of the community working together to keep costs down.

Education was once all private. We once had to do everything for ourselves. Taxes were low, but we were also very poor. (FYI - the rich back then did pay a lot of taxes, but when averaged with the masses the tax load was very small) Now we are rich, and taxes are high because of all of the public offerings we enjoy.

If we are all rich, then we don't need high taxes to make public offerings to enjoy, we can each pay our own way to those offerings. Instead what is really happening is the poor and average feel that they should be entitled to the luxuries that the rich have and that the rich are obligated to pay for the things the poor are entitled to. No, I do not support a class system at all, but I go believe that each person should have to work hard to achieve the things they want in life, it should never fall on someone elses shoulders. I earned my education, working my way through school and with a single $2500 loan that I repaid a year after leaving college. During my Masters work I ran out of money, so guess what, I went to work instead of draining the system for money to finish.

Society today is not even what I would call Socialism, it is more like modern Pre-school where everyone should be allowed to win, no losers and everyone gets what they want just to keep them from whining like the spoiled children they really are. This countries government was founded on the principals of self reliance, just read any of Thomas Jeffersons writings to see that. For those who wish for a European type society I say let them move to Europe and be happy paying taxes and sucking the teat of the government and never growing up. Maybe then this country can become what it should be, the best in the world, instead of just like the rest of coddled masses.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By RU482 on 6/23/2010 11:23:21 AM , Rating: 2
what utopia do you live in where people are all responsible and can take care of themselves?

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By knutjb on 6/23/2010 3:59:46 PM , Rating: 1
The true number of non-self-reliant people are growing because politicians have been too focused on curing their ills when the real cure is a lightly regulated private business economy. Without healthy businesses and and allowing un-healthy businesses to fail the economy will eventually fall. Big Government continually puts the cart before the horse.

Senator George McGovern said after he left the government for private business he soon understood all the damage he and his fellow Senators had imposed on the economic engine of the country. His business failed and he attributed part of it to over and poorly conceived regulation. He said there were too many unnecessary hoops that prevented efficient operation. He is very liberal by his own admission but has experienced the wrath of poor governance.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By Ammohunt on 6/23/2010 2:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
The Conservative ideology of reducing taxes to 'starve the beast' is designed to create a deficit. The beast can't be starved until it has hit a limit to borrowing.

its obvious you know very litle about Free market economics. Follow along i will keep it simple; reducing taxes = more money in Americans pockets = more disposable income for idividuals = more taxes collected due to increased spending on everything imagineable. More spending at the consumer level ripples all the way up the chain companies selling more products due to increased demand means wait for it JOBS! to supply the demand = steady economic growth with population growth.

the economy hasn't recovered becasue Americans know that democrats(Socialists) increase the hardship on indivduals via taxes increases, welfare schemes and whacky policies so people shutter their doors and save for that rainy day(comming to a town near you soon!) i.e. less money being put into the economy. I myself plan on staying single income(keep my wife from working outside the home) in order to stay in a lower tax bracket and i also plan on heating my home with wood this winter(becasue of the f'ed up energy use schemes mandated by the power companies). Most smart Americans are doing the same or similiar thats why tax revenues are in the toilet currently. if the current administration pushes more maybe i will adjust my lifestyle to join the 80% of Americans that pay no income tax at all by switching to a minimum wage job.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By JediJeb on 6/23/2010 3:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, and that is exactly what is happening in places like Sweeden, where those that make less than $60k( I think) pay no taxes and those making more pay all the taxes. People just refust promotions that place them in the high tax bracket so they can keep feeding off the taxes paid by those that do pay them.

A teacher in college did an experiment about this once. He started out by giving a test and after all the grades were recorded he gave everyone a A no matter what the grade, the average was around 85%. Second test he did the same and everyone got an A but the average score was down to 80%. The longer he did this the faster the grade average fell until by the end of the semister hardly anyone was making an effort to score well on the tests. Same happens when governments begin to pay for every imaginable service, the average citizen will always take the easy road and let the government pay for the service instead of them saving money to pay for it themselves, never realizing they are probably paying more for the service because the overhead cost of the government running it is higher than when it was private.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By gamerk2 on 6/23/2010 4:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, as per usual with conservatives.

Yes, in theory, lower taxes = higher economic growth. However, unless economic GDP growth increases enough to offset the rise in debt due to lower taxes, teh debt will rise.

Every US President since FDR has grown GDP faster then debt except for four:
Ford [and only by .2%], and he gets a pass due to the oil embargo
Regan [by 10% his first term and ~9% his second]
Bush 41 [13% increase in Debt/GDP!!!]
Bush 43 [7.1% and 20%!!!!!!!]

The reason is simple: Economic growth is fueled by government spending. Government provides services at cost, paid for via taxation. As such, individuals don't need to pay +20% on the free market [Profit Margins] for those same services, adding more money to spend, driving the economy. High taxes on the rich ensure those services are properly funded, creating economic growth.

Republicans have it backward. People drive the economy, not business.

And before someone makes the argument "Congress does the budget, not the President", almost all budgets are approved as is by Congress, with minor [Million, at most] changes in spending, not enough to offset the clear recent trend in which party is responsable for all the debt.

Supply side economics has not once produced more growth then debt in the 5 Presidental terms its been tried. Almost all the debt the country currently has to pay off has been accumulated by Supply-Side Republicans. For the love of god, reurn to Kenysian economics already!

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By Ammohunt on 6/23/2010 6:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
Economic growth is fueled by government spending

In Socialist Economies not freemarkets

High taxes on the rich ensure those services are properly funded, creating economic growth.

Long term that destroys the middle class and we become a third world sh!thole like Mexico with super rich and dirt poor. It also chases the wealth out of the country to places where taxes are less *see UK

Again you much like Obama have no idea how wealth is created.

Reducing taxes coupled with the reduction in the size of Government entitlement programs and un-needed agenies that can be provided at the state level is the only thing that will save America right now.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By bill4 on 6/23/2010 10:27:37 AM , Rating: 1
Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009 the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%

So much for growing and uncontrollable population growth alarmist bullshit. I'm actually surprised Wiki even let such non conformist facts be printed in their population article, since Wikipedia is run by liberals too, like almost all mainstream media.

We all know the real reason for most of todays alarmism, liberals. Unsaid is "vote for your local Democrat politician, or global warming/population growth/homelesness/uninsured/acid rain/whatever bullshit we're touting today will kill us all!".

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By InsaneGain on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: OK Chicken Little...
By transamdude95 on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: OK Chicken Little...
By bupkus on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: OK Chicken Little...
By InsaneGain on 6/23/2010 12:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
How ironic. Obama's first year deficit was 5 times Bush's largest, but you know, it's all Bush's fault by the media.

Ummm, did it not occur to you that Obama took office right when one of the worst recessions since the 1930's took hold? If you knew anything about economics, you would know that during recessions, governments typically go into deficit spending in order to finance economic stimulus packages which stabilize the economy. Obama's administration was forced to finance massive stimulus packages to prevent a complete financial meltdown, started well into the Bush years, while tax revenues plummeted. I don't consider myself left-wing, but it is obvious to me that those that typically call themselves anti-left wing are quick to form strong opinions in topics they know nothing about, and they derisively dismiss those that actually do know what they are doing. Asshats.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By Solandri on 6/23/2010 12:56:10 PM , Rating: 3
Way I figure it, Bush (I voted for Gore BTW) took office just as the biggest recession since the 1930s took hold (tech bubble popping). But the Dems never cut him any slack and blamed the poor economy and budget shortfalls on him instead of Clinton. Bush's deficits had nothing to do with spending. The level of spending in his 8 budgets essentially averaged the same as from Clinton's 8 budgets. The difference was Clinton's budgets were awash with inflated tax revenue from the tech bubble. Bush was saddled with low tax revenue caused by the bubble bursting and his self-inflicted tax cuts.

So while I technically agree with you that Obama shouldn't be to blame for the first year deficit, I shed no tears for those on the left crying that he isn't to blame. If you wish to blame Bush, you must also blame Clinton. If you wish to say Obama isn't to blame, then neither is Bush to blame. You can't have it both ways and blame it all on Bush.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By JediJeb on 6/23/2010 3:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest you can take it all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt, then Harry Truman. Why did they not end the "stimulus" activities back then once the Great Depression was over? Once we came out of that and into the post WW2 boom era all things like Welfare and such should have disappeared because their usefulness was over. Government spending should have fallen off like a rock and so should taxes because we were no longer at war, we had tons of surplus for the military, and people had plenty of jobs. They didnt fall back to the levels prior to the Depression because by then government had found it could have much more power over the average citizen than it ever had before. The ruling elite could now control things on a global scale and they were not about to give it up. That is how far back the blame goes, at least that far, if not farther.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By EBH on 6/23/2010 1:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
Can you answer me why factually, average human lifespan is much greater now with 6.8 billion people than it was 200 years ago with far less?

200 years ago we did not have the conforts that assist us in living longer.

Take tech back 200 years and see how long you will live.

Stop being so arogant.

If you think we are not overpopulating then you live in a vacume.

The only regulations there are in terms of populating are:

1)How long the woman giving birth will live/reach an age that its no longer healthy to give birth.

2)How much money you have.

Other than that you can pretty much breed to your hearts content. Each country might have laws but overall our population is rising. Not going down.

Are we doomed? No, scienists live in a vacume with religous extreemists.

Will there be challanges? Yes, each human needs to become conscious of their impact in the world and become accountable for their actions.

Whether you are a libtard or a reptard or a teatard has nothing to do with humanity at it's core. So using polotics will only show ones ignorance.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By cruisin3style on 6/23/2010 9:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
YOU HAVE ABSOULUTELY NOT IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT in terms of the liberals creating the national debt.

Look up debt by president, debt by year, or something like that. Then compare when Reagan took office to when Bush, Sr. left office for starters. Now look at Reagan taking office to Obama taking office, subtract Clinton's added debt from the total added debt, then compare the Reagan/Bush/Bush total debt increase number to what the US national debt was before reagan took office.


FOr bonus points look up which presidents grew the economy the most during their terms

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By Arc177 on 6/23/2010 10:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
For bonus points take your simplistic bogus argument and learn how our government actually functions. The vast majority of the debt was accrued under congressional control by the democrat party. In case you missed it our government is not only run by our president.

To make it extra clear just filtering debt by president doesn't cut it in the real world.
High functioning retard is likely what you are. I say likely on the notion that you are online and may actually pay bills. Although this may be an incorrect assumption.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By cruisin3style on 6/24/2010 6:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I don't understand how it works at all, you got me

Now, does the president or congress put together a budget for every fiscal year?

DOes the president or congress push large legislation (health care, for instance) that isn't reactionary like financial reform because of a financial crisis?

For bonus points take your simplistic bogus argument and learn how our government actually functions. The vast majority of the debt was accrued under congressional control by the democrat party. In case you missed it our government is not only run by our president. To make it extra clear just filtering debt by president doesn't cut it in the real world. High functioning retard is likely what you are. I say likely on the notion that you are online and may actually pay bills. Although this may be an incorrect assumption.

Take your simplistic, bogus English and learn how our language actually functions. "the democrat party" is not the correct usage. I believe President is usually capitalized. If something is likely, you are asserting that it is possible that it is not true, and therefore can always be incorrect...unless you are saying it is possibly incorrect that I am online...

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By MrBlastman on 6/23/2010 10:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
And I wonder who created the travesty that is our national debt....

That is easy to answer but requires a long story to go in depth about it. I'll be very brief:

Clinton did.

What, Clinton? Yes, actually, he caused it all. How?

Well, it started way back in 1993 with the changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. It then continued with their reforms of HUD in that year continuing into 1994. Basically, in a nutshell, these reforms opened up--well, actually, forced banks to begin lending to "anyone and everyone," especially in the poor and underpriviledged communities so they could live the "American Dream" and own a home. Housing prices were relatively low at this point, still recovering from the slump of the mid 70's and 80's, subsequently slumping for a while in the mid 90's, thus opening the doors to the boom.

His policies encouraged homeownership, reductions in downpayments to absurdly low levels and encouraged lenders to open up their practices to accomodate disadvantaged people or those with less-than-steady incomes. A reduction in standards ensued.

1990's--Clinton failed to retaliate successfully against Osama Bin Laden. The only time he _did_ do something was to draw attention away from him in the Lewinsky scandal by launching a volley of cruise missiles at a training camp. Cruise missiles, really? We had several telltale incidents such as the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Africa and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.

Despite these actions, and Clinton's hollow words, the August of 1998 cruise missile strikes were ineffective at doing much. They were a diversion for Clinton, nothing more. We all know the best way to kill a terrorist is up close and personal through full metal jacketed rounds out of the cold, dark barrel of a rifle. The terrain in that region of the world is prohibitive to ground vehicles and helocopters (due to the nooks and crannies that a shoulder fired rocket could be launched from).

He didn't do this.

1999--Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed parts of the Glass-Steagall Act. By allowing the Banks and Financial Services Firms to integrate in conjunction with insurance companies, they set the stage for the risk-taking and gambling with our own money that was seen in the mid-90's using structured products. This really was the icing on the cake for the ensuing disaster that occured in the 2000's.

Bush came to office when the damage had already been done to set the stage. Unfortunately, Bush didn't help things at all with his incompetence by invading Iraq after Afghanistan with little reason to do so, thus putting us on two fronts and giving our military resources a large strain. The financial cost for the war, however, had _little_ bearing on the ensuing financial crisis. It _did_ divert his attention to overseas, keeping his eyes from where they needed to be--on our economy. They were completely off it however.

Why? In 2003 he tried to reform Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and again in 2005. Both times he was blocked by the Democrats. This would have significantly curbed part of the damage. It never happened.

The rest is history. Our economy imploded, people bought houses they should not have, their lines of credit dried up, banks investments plummeted due to the ridiculous amount of risk tied in the gambling bets known as "structured products" that nobody understood, our government injected billions into the banking system to prop it up and then more came from Obama. We're now stagnant but stabilized but far from recovered.

So, I'm glad you asked. This was very condensed, but I'm sorry to inform you that Bush (who I know you want to blame) did not cause it and Obama has done nothing to help things.

We've had 22 years of crap Presidents, when is it going to end?

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 11:00:57 AM , Rating: 2
Gramm-Leach passed 343-86, veto proof. So don't blame Clinton. Blame the best legislature that money can buy.

Osama is just a criminal that got lucky. I am sure there are plenty of other criminals that Clinton could have killed too. These jokers found a loophole in aviation policy and devised a way to use it as a weapon. Just like The Lone Gunman showed on TV for all to see.

The problem with housing is the ARM. Since home prices can go up or down, and downward motion will be magnified as reseting ARMs create more and more defaults. This pushes the entire market down.

As for the government, not balancing the budget when the economy is expanding is a violation of the very idea of borrowing in the short term. Add the entire cost of the wars (which were paid for off-budget). Every penny spent on war has been borrowed since it has been off-budget. So the debt would be 10% smaller if Bush Jr didn't need to get justice for his Daddy by invading Iraq.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By MrBlastman on 6/23/2010 11:36:48 AM , Rating: 2
If you take 10% of of 1 Trillion, what do you have left? 900 Billion. Not a dent worth really wasting any breath over. While stupid (the Iraq war was stupid to start but we had to finish what we broke), the War didn't cause this whole mess, but, it did contribute to it morseo in less-financial ways.

Blame the best legislature that money can buy.

Indeed. End lobbying, (which Obama promised to do but has and is going to do nothing about) and you help solve that problem.

It happened under Clinton's watch, so he gets the blame by default. :P

The ARM is more a problem with interest rates are going UP than down. When they go down, they reset at a lower rate (and typically, as of now, a rate at or below what their fixed rate was). The artificially low rates we're seeing in the mortgage and bond market at the moment is helping to curb that. This policy is in large thanks to Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve.

We're not going to see a rise in interest rates for some time from the Fed as inflation is zero at the moment. The ARM definiately was a contributor to the mess as rates were high at the time and people's mortgages were resetting to 30-50% more a month per payment than prior. However, the ARM's came about and were pushed down consumers throats as a result of the laxing of mortgage processing standards and HUD standards, which Clinton started.

Mortgage agents were posing as financial experts talking people up into bigger homes than they could ever afford by using those ARMs to do so. You just have to look at it in the full context.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By aldo12345 on 6/23/2010 10:34:31 AM , Rating: 2
Please, some of you Americans don't have a clue what left wing is any more. Years of cold war paranoia and propaganda have left some of you with the notion that being a liberal is the same as socialism or communism.

Just because you live in a country that is slightly right of center, doesn't mean that central or liberal policies are left wing, your simple lacking perspective.

I see all to often stupid comment on here about how the US is up sh*t creek because the Democratic party are in power. We're up sh*t creek because of the financial crisis, is there some sort of conspiracy that the Democrats started that too?

At the end of the day, its the Americans people that choose what type of government they have, which tends to cycle between the two parties. Two terms of a Republican government too conservative? Vote Democrat, and vice versa. At the end of the day its majority of people in the center of the bell curve that choose the government. Its the not the extremists on the edges, that will continue to vote for there respective parties simple because of their ideologies and now what is in the best interest.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By shin0bi272 on 6/23/2010 12:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
The financial crisis was triggered by the democrats here in the US with their enacting of mark to market accounting in nov 2007.

Yes the stage was set by about 20 presidents going all the way back to FDR (progressive democrat) starting a federally backed housing company called fannie mae, then jump forward to richard nixon (progressive republican) who created freddie mac to compete with fannie... then jimmie carter (progressive democrat) who started the community reinvestment act which told mortgage lenders how many loans they had to give to people who couldnt afford them but you'd know them as "low income loans"... then jump forward to the repeal of glass-stegal (passed by both republicans and democrats) which allows banks and insurance companies or whatever to merge and things like car lenders and appliance companies to become a bank. Then we have all these subprime people preying on the poor (50% of which weren't for CRA at all) then immediately selling the loan they made to fannie and freddie to get that bad debt off their books and onto the federal government's! Or in some cases they bundled all their mortgages together into a mortgage backed security and put it on the securities exchange... basically they took people's mortgage payments and went to vegas hoping to beat the house.

Then in nov 2007 with the dow at 13100 the democrats passed FAS157. That enacted mark to market accounting upon the next fiscal year start for all businesses on the stock market (aka publicly traded). That's why the stock market didnt crash till late july early aug of 08... the rules hadnt kicked in yet and people were able to stay afloat but were in panic mode. When did the stock market start recovering? The same day that the house banking and finance committee I think it's called came out and announced that they would end mark to market. That date ... mar 10 2009. Oh mark to market allows people to lose more money on the stock market than they put in... its something that FDR had to suspend to make the economy stop its free fall during our great depression... or better known as the 1930's.

And that is the financial crisis in a nutshell... big government (hint hint) enacting laws that affected the economy in a positive way at first but over time became too much to handle (hey! kinda like social security and public sector union pensions!) and then in order to try to stop people from making money even with the more restrictive laws in place they enact something they know will screw up the economy. But they will claim they have to because "its the right thing to do" or "it will keep people honest". And the entire house of cards comes crashing down...

And the best part? We're not done yet! Next up is the money (or asset) bubble that's about to pop... 2011 or 12 we will see another huge problem in the world market... again started by us here in the USA because we (like most socialist countries) have spent so much money we cant pay it back! Thus you have the money bubble... buy canned food and a hand cranked radio because this one is gonna suck big time.

Lastly, THE DEMOCRATS ran both houses of congress and sometimes the presidency from 1954 to 1994. If you see it laid out in a graph its a sea of blue (democrat) with a few specs of red (republican) till 1994 then theres a large chunk of red and some blue specs till 2006 when the sea became blue again. The far left have been in control of this country for so long (really since the 1890's when they decided it was time to "progress" away from the constitution and founding fathers towards a more modern government) that we cant put the breaks on the push to the left any time soon. There are so many people with their hands out to the benevolent federal government that its going to collapse the economy pretty soon (see cloward and piven strategy).

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By aldo12345 on 6/23/2010 12:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
Why did you waste your time writing that? Its clearly bias contrived tripe that twists the facts.

If it was so obvious that the steps the democrats where taking would lead the collapse then why didn't the Republicans retract the laws?

It was 2004 when sub prime lending increased 50% and between 2004 to 2007/8 sub prime mortgage debt doubled. The Republicans were asleep at the wheel.

I unlike you are not pointing the entire blame on one thing. There was a lot more variables at play. Simply blaming the democrats is naive.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By Lifted on 6/23/2010 2:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I forget not all the Daily staff is liberal, there's Asher I think

Sorry, but Asher, or whoever the person was behind the pseudonym, was outed as a big-oil / bush administration shill.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By shin0bi272 on 6/23/2010 11:34:43 AM , Rating: 2
In the Netherlands Liberal doesnt mean the same thing it means over here man.

Over there liberal means more like libertarian... small government maximum freedom. Over here its a code word for socialist or "progressive". The progressives stopped calling themselves progressive after teddy roosevelt I think it was because woodrow wilson and his ilk gave the word progressive such a bad connotation they had to find another name for themselves that people wouldnt immediately cringe over. So they coopted the name liberal from Europe. Because a classic liberal is one (like I said) who wants maximum freedoms... the progressives want something called social justice (which is code lingo for redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor) so they claimed that their social justice would give people maximum freedom so because of that one twist of the truth they were "liberals" in the classic sense of the word.

Which is what the totalitarians do... they claim to have your morals or your best interests at heart so that you vote them more power... then they take away your power, your rights, your will, and your freedom... and in the case of the greenies they literally take your power, and your car!

They are doing it with global warming now... look at how the lefties defend global im sorry climate change (they keep changing the name of the thing so people will fall for their lies), whenever you bring up the fact that we have no replacement for oil or coal. The speaker of the house (you know that 800 year old psychotic fossil nancy pelosi) was invoking the name of god in the name of global warming, er climate change... just a few days ago. Thus making global warming a moral issue (she literally said it was a moral obligation) and one that no one could deny or argue over.

Forget about the fact that we have 300 years worth of oil, more coal than anyone in the world, and vast deposits of natural gas... that's irrelevant... because we've give the widdle urf a tempature and we ebil hoomans has to stop driving those evil suvs and burning that nasty coal because there are scientists who admitted cooking the books to prove that we were causing global warming er climate change with our CO2 production. When these scientists were caught cooking the books they tried to deny it but then about a month or so later came out and admitted there had been no significant warming since 1995 and that in fact the temps had gone down almost a whole degree. Gee that's funny our co2 production went up but the temps went down on their own... maybe the eco freaks were lying all along! maybe some of them didnt believe that we were causing the temps to go up but used that to push legislation like cap and trade which every scientist on the planet admits wont lower co2 emissions at all! That doesnt sound totalitarian now does it?

What you want to call them is communists. What? You thought all the commies in the former soviet block countries of europe just became capitalists overnight when the berlin wall fell? Nooo! They went underground and moved into pushing for a world take over by a central government (like oh say the UN) through a "moral cause" like global warming.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 11:56:44 AM , Rating: 3
There are a lot of halftruths in there, although I did like the description of Pelosi as a fossil. I'll make you a deal. Let's vote ALL of the bums out in November.

We do not have 300 years worth of oil. Global stocks have already peaked. The decline will take decades and eventually relegate what oil is left for its' proper use in petrochems instead of as a fuel. I doubt that we will wring every last drop out of the earth (shale oil in the Colorado/Utah/Wyoming), but the age of gas, diesel, and heating oil will come to a close in my lifetime. We do have a ton of coal, as do the Chinese. 300 years at current usage. Natural gas. Hmm. We do have a bit, but oddly enough we are still importing a huge percentage of it from Canada....

The 'cooked books' on climate change haven't had any impact on the theory since that data was already considered an outlier. Good try though. The core fact of the climate change model is that there is a lot more atmospheric CO2 now, oceans are more acidic (absorbed CO2 is carbonic acid), and the earth has collectively uncorked an ass-ton of carbon since the industrial age. It has obviously gone somewhere. My problems come up with the models. The system is so huge and complex I don't think any of the models can really be pointed at as accurate. I am happy to believe that we are doing something to the environment with these changes, but the actual impacts could be of varying severity and consequence. I don't really even worry about it because it isn't like the oil, coal, and natural gas is just going to be left in the ground for ever and ever.
And American Liberals believe in maximum freedom, equal opportunity (I noticed that you missed that one, you must be a white male with some inherited benefit), and equal access to basic services. Gone are the days of cash welfare (thank god!), but basic housing and nutrition for children has certainly been interpreted as a basic right and government mandate. Don't believe me, try to get some government aid as a healthy single male.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By shin0bi272 on 6/23/2010 12:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
oil 300 years:

And the books that I was referring to that you so casually describe as an outlier were from the UN's climate scientists themselves! People in england, the us and several other countries were colluding to distort the facts and when their data was requested through FOIA they said they'd destroy it before they released it. Im sorry man but youre wrong.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By nafhan on 6/23/2010 10:17:48 AM , Rating: 2
It's not impossible, but I think it's pretty unlikely. People are a lot like cockroaches. We can survive just about anywhere, and adapt to extreme situations. I think massive die offs are much more likely than complete extinction. Granted, massive die offs are neither good nor a sure thing, either.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By michael67 on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: OK Chicken Little...
By MrPickins on 6/23/2010 2:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
Till the start of the 1800s population was in a equilibrium whit nature and till then there ware about 1B people for the last +10.000 years on earth, and diseases and the amount of food kept population in check.

Can you back up that claim?

This shows otherwise:

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By michael67 on 6/23/2010 5:02:03 PM , Rating: 1
Its a hard for most to read graph as it not scaling linear.

But the source i got my Nr's from was the documentary link i provided,but a fact is still that population growth exploded sins 1800, in my lifetime (40) population dubbeld almost, and a other fact is that the amount of population we all ready have now is not sustainable, not even speaking of 5B extra by 2050!

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By sleepeeg3 on 6/23/2010 3:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing more than the rantings of an old man confronted with his own mortality, trying to draw attention to his life before he goes, and wishing it upon the rest of the world.

Global warming doomsayers never provide any scientific justification for their statements.

Here is what we know, Levi:
-70-98% of oxygen is produced by the ocean. Even if we cut down every tree, we would still survive.
-CO2 levels are at 400ppm. They have risen only about 80ppm over the last century.
-CO2 levels were ~3000ppm in the Jurassic - almost 10x what they are today! Live thrived. So will we. The human body can survive 10,000-100,000ppm.
-Temperature was also not directly dependent on CO2 levels. Look at the graph... There must be another factor at play. Most likely solar and/or geological activity.

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2010 4:47:51 PM , Rating: 1
Wow Levi, you're really a moron. You know that?

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By hr824 on 6/23/2010 9:43:15 AM , Rating: 3
With a few clicks you would find that he is NOT well versed in climate science he's a virologist. This story is just Franks opinion it's not based on hard science. The closest he gets to climate science is was the director of the Centre for Resources and Environmental Studies until 1979!!

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By iceonfire1 on 6/23/2010 9:56:39 AM , Rating: 4
A talented virologist predicting apocalyptic disaster? May know something we don't?
Time to make my zombie plan a little more serious!

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By spleendamage on 6/24/2010 2:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
Cardio ...

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By Jeffk464 on 6/23/2010 3:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
Human populations have suffered mass die offs before and eventually come back. Why would this one be any different?

RE: OK Chicken Little...
By kroker on 6/25/2010 4:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
My opinion is somewhere between yours and Levy Beckerson's. I too think that such a catastrophic event that would catch everyone by surprise is a little far fetched. Whatever the disaster, at least a part of the population should be able to retreat to some underground emergency bunkers. We're not in the middle ages anymore, we should have the technology to detect whatever danger might cause this ahead of time, save part of the population that could rebuild civilization later, create foods that last a very long time etc.

But, on the other hand, who knows what could happen? You can read this funny article on Cracked about this: I know Cracked is not a reliable scientific source, but the last hypothesis is especially frightening to me. I think you shouldn't be so quick to rule out the possibility that we might go extinct in the near future (near meaning 100 years).

You have to realize - life is really not a right, it's just a privilege. Enjoy it while it lasts.

...But, but the witch doctor said...
By Arc177 on 6/23/2010 9:21:15 AM , Rating: 2
This article is a demonstration of the corruption of science. These guys are morons. Not a single shred of scientific evidence to support their ludicrous views. Fenner and his buddies should go plant their chairs in the surf in the rising tide & command it to halt with King Cnut. And all the justification that they "know" what they are talking about? Its called argument from authority and is logically baseless.
Anyone who listens to these guys? I have ocean front property in Kansas to sell you at a very good price.

By Quadrillity on 6/23/2010 9:31:05 AM , Rating: 1
You are exactly right. It violates the common knowledge rules of academic integrity.

By todda7 on 6/23/2010 9:44:14 AM , Rating: 2
These guys are intelligent and have knowlegde and information beyond the imagination of John Doe. I do not doubt they are right, to some agree, just that their timespan is wrong and that even in the worst case scenario, some would probably survive.

However, I have to agree with you. These guys are misusing their position as good scientists. Arguments and theories should be evaluated objectivly, independent of the authority of the scientist who made the claim.

RE: ...But, but the witch doctor said...
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 9:55:22 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, his theories are based upon numerous well understood population impacting shifts. The article provides details of the polynesian population on Easter Island, but there are numerous others. A great local example is native American irrigation-based civilization along the Salt river in what we now call Arizona. Developments in technology had allowed huge leaps in population growth that have shown to collapse just as other animal populations do when key environmental aspects change. In the Salt river civilization massive irrigation and well developed agriculture expanded rapidly and allowed a large population. After a couple centuries the slightly saline nature of the Salt river had accumulated enough salts in the fields to start causing drastically smaller and smaller yields. Yes, kind of like Brawndo. The food supply was sharply curtailed and within a very short time the entire population was gone.
This is what the Australian researcher is talking about. That the whole world is so overpopulated and so quickly running through global resources that a correction is inevitable. I agree with him up to that point. I think a population correction is inevitable within the next 100 years. I don't think it will be an extinction. Humans can eat almost anything, so we aren't dependant on an specific plant/animal population to survive. We are also spread across the globe, so obviously there will be population segmentation. I would wager there will likely be a nuclear war as fighting for resources become most dire. Hopefully we will not lose our technology during the correction. The resources just don't exist on earth to redevelop from the beginning again since by that time any ores and fossil fuels that remain will be very difficult to get to. Our ancestors had those resources sticking out of the ground.

RE: ...But, but the witch doctor said...
By bill4 on 6/23/2010 10:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
The Population Bomb was a best-selling book written by Paul R. Ehrlich in 1968. It warned of the mass starvation of humans in 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation and advocated immediate action to limit population growth

Your BS is nothing new, sir.

RE: ...But, but the witch doctor said...
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 10:18:31 AM , Rating: 2
We are actually doing an amazing job in keeping up with population. GM crops have provided unheard of yields. Widespread use of commercial fertilizers have done wonders in stabilizing the food supply. We currently do have enough food. Starvation is caused by distribution problems, not global shortages. Other countries have also filled in the gaps. Brazil has mowed down huge chuncks of the rainforest and planted tens of millions of acres of soybeans, corn, and other crops.

The global population now stands at about 6.7 billion. It has just about doubled in my short lifespan. Will it be 13 billion by 2050? I can hardly see how that is going to work out. Oil will be in steep decline by then. There will still be coal and nuclear, but I just don't see a good way out. Some of those 'poor hightly populated' nations of the 70s/80s are now world powers (China & India). So there is going to serious problems down the road.

RE: ...But, but the witch doctor said...
By bill4 on 6/23/2010 10:41:12 AM , Rating: 3

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009 the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%

Sorry, try again. Population growth is slowing, not increasing. Period. This is a fact. Please stop ignoring this fact in future alarmist postings. Thank you.

The world population was 3 billion in 1960. It reached 6 billion in 1999. So 39 years to double. Current projectons are 9.4 billion in 2050. So in the 51 years between 1999 and 2050, it will not even come close to double. In fact it is projected to only increase from 8 billion to 9.4 billion in the 25 years between 2025 and 2050. That's a logical consequence of a slowing population growth fact.

Get it? A doubling of todays 6.8B isn't even in any projections. It's impossible to say if it will EVER happen, let alone when. You'll be long dead, anyway.

Uncontrolled population growth is liberal alarmism BS, factually.

RE: ...But, but the witch doctor said...
By Mojo the Monkey on 6/23/2010 4:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'll start off by saying that its tiring hearing most of you who the doom-and-gloom people "liberal". Its a bit presumptuous, just stick to the topic.

Otherwise, I agree with you and you make a great point about the population rates. I also wonder why these doom-sayers never take scientific innovation into account. When a situation becomes desperate, there is always a financial incentive to rectify the situation.

I believe that when some of these now-fringe problems start coming into the spotlight, the amount of money and brilliant minds that humanity will be able to throw at them will allow revolutionary changes. Nutrition, energy, pollution, etc. - all have been significantly affected by innovation in recent history, who is to say that its not going to continue happening?

By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2010 4:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'll start off by saying that its tiring hearing most of you who the doom-and-gloom people "liberal".

But it's true.

By Jeffk464 on 6/23/2010 3:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
True, but the world natural fisheries are being wiped out and I would rather eat salmon and lobster over rice and beans.

RE: ...But, but the witch doctor said...
By aegisofrime on 6/23/2010 10:21:07 AM , Rating: 2
There IS mass starvation, just not in the developed countries.

RE: ...But, but the witch doctor said...
By bill4 on 6/23/2010 10:47:10 AM , Rating: 2
Although I am not sure there is too much mass starvation going on today, what of it there is is because of (typically left wing, ala dailytech supported) governments, not lack of food. An example being North Korea, other being Africa which are in a constant near anarchic state.

You essentially lied there, knowingly I assume.

RE: ...But, but the witch doctor said...
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 11:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
I think you interpreting the voices in your head as part of the post. It merely stated that there were people starving - and then you went off about distribution problems (which was mentioned earlier) and then called the poster a liar. There are meds for the voices, but the rightwingism my require a frontal lobotomy.

By shin0bi272 on 6/23/2010 12:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
No what he was saying was that in places with large centrally planned governments... like the communists of N. korea, or the despots and dictators of the bulk of afican nations there exists a large portion of those populations that are starving. The Americans give aid to africa every year (8 billion I think the amount was last year) and the people still go hungry because the dictators use the food and money we send to buy guns for their wars with other african countries.

RE: ...But, but the witch doctor said...
By shin0bi272 on 6/23/2010 12:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
and dont forget who helped out on that book... John Holdren! Obama's Science czar! A man who advocated creating corn that would sterilize people is now the right hand man of the president of the us. Does that scare anyone else?

By Quadrillity on 6/23/2010 4:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Does that scare anyone else?

I can't think of anything else that could "catch me by surprise" when it comes to Obama's ideology. If someone from the outside looking in were to guess, they would say that he is purposefully destroying this country. So no, not surprising.

By transamdude95 on 6/23/2010 10:06:06 AM , Rating: 2
It's got electrolytes!

RE: ...But, but the witch doctor said...
By Danish1 on 6/23/2010 10:18:04 AM , Rating: 3
Both China and India are very focused on keeping their populations in check so I predict the earth population will correct itself in less than a decade when the holier than thou goodness industry stop feeding africa and the middle east, forcing those areas down to their self sustainable population levels.

It won't be pretty of course.

By JediJeb on 6/23/2010 3:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
If you check into the population of Russia you will see it is actually declining. Average of less than 2 births per 2 people will naturally decline a civilization. According to friends I have there the government is now encouraging families to have more children just to maintain population.

No chance
By todda7 on 6/23/2010 9:34:43 AM , Rating: 2
Theres is no chance that humans as a species will die out the next 100 years. Even if there will be a mass exctinction (which there of course will be, but I doubt it will come in 100 years), humans have a very good skill in adapting to new conditions. Even if 90 % died, there would still be 0.7 billion people left.
The only thing which coul wipe out the whole species in 100 years, would be an asteroid. I doubt even nuclear war would wipe everyone out, even though the survivors would probably not ever regain the position and power humans have today.

RE: No chance
By Zingam on 6/23/2010 9:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
It must be a pretty big asteroid. I don't think that asteroid will destroy humanity. A few will survive for sure. Except if the asteroid is so huge that it can destroy the Earth surface completely which I doubt that will happen. It's not impossible but it is not very probable.
And in 100 years humans might be able to launch other humans into space to colonize other planets. Well, I don't think that it will happen in the next 500 years but it's impossible to predict. As 100 years ago nobody had an idea that today will be posting crap on something called "The Internet"

RE: No chance
By todda7 on 6/23/2010 10:06:42 AM , Rating: 2
No, it doesnt need to be big. If it was smashed into pieces before it hit the earth (and many, much smaller asteroids would hit instead) it could easily wipe out humanity. A single asteroid doesnt need to be that big either, it just have to hit at the right place and it could send tsunamies which goes around the earth several times.

This will eventually happen. It does'nt have to destroy the surfarce of the earth, but that will probably happen too. It's just a matter of timescale. However, I dont think we should worry too much about the asteroids. Not gamma ray bursts either. The timescales of these things happening is so large that I doubt that when (not if) the humanity goes extinct, that it would be asteroids (or gmb's) causing it.

RE: No chance
By Zingam on 6/23/2010 10:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
But you forget that there are so many bunkers built around the world ;) In many of these bunkers rich people could survive for years.
The movie 2012 was a little bit over-exaggerated. The only real catastrophe that is know to have happened to Earth was when a big planetary Mars-sized object hit the Earth 4.45 billion years ago. At least that's one of the theories how the Moon was formed.
Also if you check there are many more extinction theories. It think the life on Earth is hit by mass extinctions every 100-150 million years and they are not all caused by asteroids. Extinctions happen all the time. We are too short-lived to observe them.

RE: No chance
By gamerk2 on 6/23/2010 4:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
No asteriod needed, just a decrease in the ready supply of fresh water, an economic collapse, and a dictator with a nuke looking to expand.

People need to understand, as resourced we need dry up, other countries will look to ensure their supply. Saddam went into Kuwait for the extra cash, others will move into other countries just for the supply to cover their needs. And frankly, sooner or later, if the oil supply dries up, I expect a US/China/Russia war over oil.

Fresh water is another one. Lets face it, if GW comes to pass, fresh water will become a major resource, especially in larger countries. And they will constantly be competing with poorer countries with nothing less to lose.

I'll be shocked if we don't have a nuclear war over resources within the next 100 years.

RE: No chance
By seraphim1982 on 6/23/2010 10:13:38 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, could humans survive without a lot of the luxuries we have today?

Hypothetically speaking....

I bet even if 10% of the world population would survive a disaster of global proportions, most of the water, food, medicine, cars, oil refining can't be done and every luxury we have will be gone. Nor we could not access the internet to figure out how to make a splint.... etc etc. etc.

So we just reduced that 10% of populations' chance to survival by a significant amount. We'd essentially be thrown back to the stone age and everyone with knowledge on how to fix and repair things, would be dead within a generation.

RE: No chance
By todda7 on 6/23/2010 10:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
If the survivors would manage to survive and build up the population would depend on the resources available. Building nuclear reactors and windmills would probably not be possible, so they would be limited to the resources which are easy accessible and easy to extract, like oil and coal. If there were none left, I do not think they would be able to rebuild the population.

RE: No chance
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 12:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
The easy to reach resources are gone.

It isn't like 2000 years ago when there were copper and tin deposits right on the surface. If we are reduced to hunting and gathering (and used the discarded/found tools of the past) we won't be able to readvance through the bronze/iron ages again. We are so interdependent I don't think many in the West will last long on subsistence.

I wonder how modern farm animals will do without current technology. I hope some buffalo survive. We already know that they can take care of themselves.

RE: No chance
By MrPickins on 6/23/2010 2:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
So, are you making the assumption that all of the metal that we have produced in the past few millennium will simply vanish?

On the contrary, I think we would have a distinct advantage over our ancestors using all the refuse left over from our current civilization.

RE: No chance
By todda7 on 6/23/2010 5:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
I believe everything would depend on the easy accesible energy; oil, coal and lumber of which are all completely depleted (in the term of easy accesable, though).

RE: No chance
By Jeffk464 on 6/23/2010 3:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about, people managed to live before the industrial revolution. Farming can be done and shelters can be built without fossil fuels. Populations can go back to a simple agrarian way of life so long as their is a huge population die off.

By KingofL337 on 6/23/2010 9:47:44 AM , Rating: 2
I believe that over population will lead to our demise. If we do survive it won't be as we do or in the numbers we do today.

According to the Internets the world population is roughly 6,830,000,000 people. Think about all the resources we use and throw away every day, times our population number, unfortunately it looks to be only a matter of time. Unless some other mass extinction event happens virus/plague and it reduces our numbers drastically. Even if we stop growing in population it still doesn't look good for us.

I mean look at the world economy, it's a mess and the only reason it hasn't collapsed all together is all the major western countries keep throwing money at it. If it doesn't look like the wheels have come off the bus your living an a dream.

RE: Overpopulation
By bill4 on 6/23/2010 9:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
Well, like a typical liberal, you're not very learned or rational.

You do realize that many scientists predicted overpopulation would have drastic consequences long before now, right?

You do realize the rate of population growth is slowing dramatically, right? Right? Please admit that one thing for me, just that one thing. It's like trying to get liberals to admit polar bears are factually thriving, or the average persons lifespan is growing. Neither jive with their doom and gloom garbage.

In the past, the world's population often doubled in 10-20 years. How long do you think it will take to go from 6.8m to 13.6m? Hey guess what, it will take 50 years, 100 years, in fact it may NEVER happen at current trends. So, can you admit the FACT population growth is slowing drastically?

Finally, why is human lifespan and quality of life drastically greater today with 6.8B people than it was 200 years ago with far less?

Do you realize the vast, vast, vast, vast, majority of land is completely uninhabited? Over 95%? Do you remember when that satellite fell? Do you know why they werent going to bother shooting it out of the sky at first? Because 95% of the earth is completely uninhabited. The odds of it falling on people were near zero.

I could go on and on, there's no point.

RE: Overpopulation
By Zingam on 6/23/2010 10:10:45 AM , Rating: 1
95% of uninhabited land! Well I choose to stay here where I live: hot in summer, cold in winter. It's a little dusty but hey it is one of the best places to live on Earth. It's no wonder why in the last 10 000 years all sorts of barbarians from Asia, the Middle East and North Europe have invaded these lands. They are good - maybe not the best but certainly one of the better to live. The climate is OK, the lands are fruitful, there aren't any hurricanes, volcanoes, dangerous predators, poisonous insects, diseases etc.
And you can go to live in Antarctica :D It's completely uninhabited!
Yes what you say is true but the good lands to live are not that many. The life of only a small fraction of the whole population has improved significantly.
If the human population was stable and limited to 100-500 millions on the whole planet the life would be the best. But 6-7 billion people is just too little too much!

RE: Overpopulation
By transamdude95 on 6/23/2010 10:21:15 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure where you are getting your 'fact' that the world's population often doubled in 10-20 years.

RE: Overpopulation
By mcnabney on 6/23/2010 10:36:53 AM , Rating: 2
It has doubled in 40 years, or two 'generations'.

RE: Overpopulation
By transamdude95 on 6/23/2010 10:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
And not 'often', either!

RE: Overpopulation
By bill4 on 6/23/2010 10:48:59 AM , Rating: 2
OK fair enough, I was wrong about that. Just thought I recalled it. It's not exactly crucial to my argument, and doesn't change the various facts of slowing population growth.

RE: Overpopulation
By Zingam on 6/23/2010 10:03:01 AM , Rating: 2
It may lead to the demise of many but not all. I believe in the worst case that some people in the industrialized countries will survive.
But yes you are right overpopulation is a burden which is worse then industrial pollution. Protest always can cause the closure of a factory but according to current moral values nothing can be done to limit the birth rates in Africa, India, and most of the poorest Muslim countries.

Well nature has found a solution and it is call epidemics.

My prediction is: Because we cannot press some populations to limit their growth they'll continue to expand their numbers. This will create more and more pressure on the more developed parts of the world. At a certain time the people of these parts of the world feel endangered they'll react instinctively and all moral values will be dropped and the result will be war or something worse.

People forget all the time that they are just animals and as animals they are ruled by instincts - the instincts to breed, the instincts to self-preserve.
You see sects could force some people to commit suicide but most people defend themselves and would not allow to die easily.

By Negronpope on 6/23/2010 9:45:28 AM , Rating: 1
You clowns are why this guy's probably right. It distressing to know that our species is going to be wiped off the planet (along with a lot of other species) because such a large portion of our population chooses to put its head in the sand.
Obviously, the majority of you have no experience in either the field of evolution, biology or archeology.
Oh, wait a minute! I'm sure there's at least a few of you that think evolutions a false theory.
And 40% of all Americans surveyed think the Second coming of Jesus is going to happen within this century.
We are the only species capable of this level of self delusion.
What a pack of morons!

RE: Morons!
By fredthelight on 6/23/2010 10:01:12 AM , Rating: 1
100% agree with you. Most people here replying that this scientist is wrong are pure brainless morons.
Because of these morons, who, for most of them, still believe in a stupid god, we are heading right to the wall.
We are overpopulating, we are overproducing, we are overpoluting, most people are starving..but of course, difficult to see for those whose belly is so big, they can't even see their dick when they piss!

RE: Morons!
By Arc177 on 6/23/2010 10:42:55 AM , Rating: 3
I can't even tell what negronpope's position is, so I am not sure what you are agreeing with.
He waved his verbal arms around spouting a bunch of pseudo-scientific gibberish and you agreed.
Good job, perhaps you can win a Nobel prize as well?
Then add in the baseless ad hominem attacks and you are on track to making yourselves out to be the morons.
The facts don't support your position. Science does not support this theory. Its daydreaming and scaremongering. Suckers are born every minute and apparently your number was up.

RE: Morons!
By fredthelight on 6/23/2010 11:23:53 AM , Rating: 1
Not my fault if you don't understand english.. go back to your Big Mac.

RE: Morons!
By Arc177 on 6/23/2010 12:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh noes! Some sort of treehugger insult has been hurled at me across the ether.
Please go back to smoking weeds and watching Disney channel.
Lenin coined a term especially for you: "useful idiot"
Look it up. It will likely be the most knowledge you've acquired in some time based on your statements so far.

RE: Morons!
By MrPickins on 6/23/2010 2:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
You forget the people that actually want some sort of supporting evidence when presented with an outlandish claim...

RE: Morons!
By Negronpope on 6/25/2010 8:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
Psudeo scientific? Not at all. It can be proven that mass extinctions have occurred repeatedly on this planet.

Guess what. Your next! And frankly from the tone of these posts, you deserve it.

What a joke...
By Octoberblue on 6/23/2010 2:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
The only reason articles like this are posted is to get lots of reader comments. I would have thought it beneath AnandTech to throw out these red herrings, but since I see them all the time I guess not.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say all this garbage is true. Then the only hope for humanity lies in rapid technological development to counteract and solve these problems. Rapid tech development does not happen in impoverished economies. Ever.

Now, to any sensible person it is obvious on the face of it that this fear-mongering is designed to get us all so scared that we beg for centralized government to rule over us and force us to stop being such horrible parasites on the earth. (It is not a coincidence that the incredibly loathsome view of humanity in general is the same among leftists radicals and tyrannical regimes. They are the same people in different circumstances.) But central control and forcing us all to live in mud huts and eat grub worms to save the planet will definitely not result in tech development. So the leftist solution would not solve the problem even if it was as serious as they claim. But it would give them lots and lots of power. How convenient.

My Ecology teacher in high school said that the earth would be irreversibly damaged within 50 years and humanity would go extinct soon after because of the amount of phosphates we were introducing into the ecosystem via laundry detergent and the like. That was more than 25 years ago. Has anyone heard about the phosphate Armageddon lately? The theme of these things is always the same and always with the same purpose. The mechanism of our destruction changes, but historically it has never been correct. In the early part of the 20th century the New York Times was publishing articles on how another ice age was eminent because... you guessed it, humanity was screwing up the planet. In fact, during the first Earth Day in the 70's the big theme was that the ice age was almost upon us!

The problems we are facing, poverty, energy needs, etc, can be solved and will be. But not if the radicals get their way. Ironically, they are the biggest threat to humanity.

RE: What a joke...
By superstition on 6/23/2010 4:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Now, to any sensible person it is obvious on the face of it that this fear-mongering is designed to get us all so scared that we beg for centralized government to rule over us..."

It's this sort of partisan political hackery that enables our planetary ecology to continue to be raped.

Divide and conquer.

RE: What a joke...
By Octoberblue on 6/23/2010 5:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
You're comment illustrates my point exactly. The human race is a rapist to you. What violent imagery. And your anthropomorphizing of our ecosystem as a rape victim, (presumably with yourself as the imagined rescuer), is a function of your own psyche and has nothing to do with facts or science or anything useful.

There is a monstrous lust for power that lurks in the hearts and minds of many people who gravitate towards positions in any form of government. This does not mean that government itself is bad. But it can be extremely dangerous in the hands of the power-thirsty. History clearly shows us that this is the case.

If you so easily buy into alarmist propaganda, while utterly refusing to recognize the real danger posed by the propagators themselves, then it is no wonder you don't like my post. You are not a sensible person.

RE: What a joke...
By Arc177 on 6/23/2010 7:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent points all Octoberblue.
Superstition has illustrated precisely the definition of Lenin's "useful idiot" term.
Zero critical thinking and more koolaid drinking.

I am sure superstition thinks Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were all great guys. Really they were. (sarcasm for superstoopid)

What I don't understand is why the liberals are really so stupid?

More human beings have been murdered by the various forms of liberal governments throughout history than any other form by multiple orders of magnitude. Retards like the liberals in this forum fail history class and then aspire to repeat the same mistakes all over again often times dragging the rest of us down while their delusions of grandeur fail miserably. History is rife with demonstrations of this.

RE: What a joke...
By superstition on 6/25/2010 8:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
"I am sure superstition thinks Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were all great guys. Really they were."

Non sequitur and ad hominem. Nothing I said has anything to do with those people or people like them.

And, both of the responses to my post illustrate my point. Partisan political hackery, divide and conquer, is exactly what facilitates the rape of our ecology.

Calling yourself conservative and wrapping yourself in a lot of nonsensical partisan attitudes won't allow you to miraculously overcome basic human needs, like clean water, uncontaminated food, and so forth.

Keep pretending that left vs. right two party politics is an adequate paradigm for viewing the world, while Rome burns.

Uh huh
By Ristogod on 6/23/2010 9:10:01 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, well these so called scientists are wrong. I know it's beyond comprehension that any scientist could be wrong, but they more often are than not.

What you don't believe me? Oh, well then I'm a scientist. Now you have to believe me.

RE: Uh huh
By tviceman on 6/23/2010 9:22:40 AM , Rating: 3
But if you're a scientist, and most scientists are often wrong more than they're right, then chances are you're wrong and Fenner's wrong and that would mean divide by zero.

By muhahaaha on 6/23/2010 11:43:23 AM , Rating: 5
Dear DailyTech,

Please post an article that isn't pure speculation, and has no iStuff in it, and is actually relevant to the tech industry.


The old man has lost it.
By DanoruX on 6/23/2010 9:16:42 AM , Rating: 2
Mankind is in a better position to find a solution to this so-called problem than ever before and we have to listen to a has-been scientist proclaim, without any proof, that we're all going to die? Come on....

RE: The old man has lost it.
By Wellsoul2 on 6/23/2010 9:31:55 AM , Rating: 2
The guy does seem a bit depressed. ;-)

It's important to know that science predicted we couldn't
feed all the people we can now. Agriculture improved and
now you hear no predictions like that.

With all the gloom and doom, life is better for most people
now than it ever has been.

By bill4 on 6/23/2010 9:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
You mean we're not already dead from global warming, BP oil spill, the ozone hole, rain forest depletion, acid rain, and everything else the liberals told us would kill us?

Looks like they lied. They were saying ten years ago global warming was unstoppable if we didnt do something within ten years, and well, CO2 emmissions have only increased.

RE: Wait
By bill4 on 6/23/2010 9:38:30 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and I forgot overpopulation, which nobel prize winning Ehrlich predicted would kill us all by the 70's in his book the population bomb.

Looks like "science" is 0 for 1,000 when it comes to the environment.

Not far off
By masamasa on 6/23/2010 1:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately this fellow may be right. While it may not be as fast as he predicts, it's coming like it or not.

The human race is destructive and driven by greed. We are slowing destroying this planet and the life on it bit by bit and unless there is a radical change we'll be next. You don't need to be a genius to figure this one out. Just stay on top of current events and look at the big picture.

- steadily increasing population
- decreasing food sources
- decreasing species
- increasing damage to the environment
- slow to execute any change

The more people we add to the planet and the more third world countries become move into the modern world that we as North Americans take for granted, the worse it's going to get. By the time we get around to change that truly makes a difference it may already be too late and it will be us with the thinning ranks, like it or not.

Not looking forward to it, but I doubt I'll be around anyway. That's pretty much the attitude of the whole world, which is why it's going south to begin with. The plague upon us is our own negligence, taking this world for granted, because nobody truly gives two hoots about those who aren't part of the population yet.

All I can say is good luck - we are going to need it and luck won't be enough.

RE: Not far off
By JediJeb on 6/23/2010 4:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
- steadily increasing population

- decreasing food sources

- decreasing species

- increasing damage to the environment

slow to execute any change

Read above, the population increas is steadly slowing so not such a problem. Food sources are more than plentiful, the US government pays for thousands of acres of land to not be used for producing crops to prevent the market from being flooded with food. Only a few species a decade at best are disappearing, but hasn't that happened even long before man came on the scene. Damage to the envrionment is slowing also, much better laws exist to control the amount of pollution released each year.

Ok slow to execute change may be right, but it may also be a good thing, since many knee jerk reactions could do more harm than good.

Get out much?
By Ammohunt on 6/23/2010 2:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
This guy doesn't get out much do you have any idea how much of the world is fed by US farmers? thats despite huge tracks of arable land that are currently laying fallow. Ukraine has one of the largest undeveloped farm areas in the world larger than the US; Brazil’s mega farms feed millions. Slow death perhaps in maybe 1000 years not 100.

RE: Get out much?
By masamasa on 6/23/2010 2:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
Unless the terrorists get us first!!! =P

I don't think so
By Zingam on 6/23/2010 9:46:22 AM , Rating: 3
1. Life is extremely difficult to extinguish - Perhaps only a solar explosion could destroy it all.
2. For 3.5 billion years the life forms on Earth evolve into more and more complex creatures that adapt very well to the environment.
3. Mass extinction happen all the time. Sometimes much more, sometimes much less - but life is here to stay even in the form of bacteria and cockroaches.
4. Humans are the most advanced and adaptable big animals of all. Even if billions die - a few will find a way to survive and repopulate the Earth. I don't think that pollution and diseases will kill the humanity. They could harm it but won't kill it.
5. Sometimes great minds go mad too... Especially when they go senile.

By Creig on 6/23/2010 10:54:59 AM , Rating: 3
What, we'll suddenly start having some inexplicable desire to carve large stone heads?

he could be right...
By XZerg on 6/23/2010 9:40:59 AM , Rating: 2
How many of you reading will actually live that long to tell him he was wrong.... ahahahahahaaha

wait, will he?


not the first time
By zmatt on 6/23/2010 10:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
I saw a book the other day published in the 80's that predicted that mankind would die out around 1999 for the same reasons as listed here. Obviously it didn't happen. End of the world predictions have been around as long as we have. So far they have all been wrong. I don't intend to start believing in them now.

By Yaos on 6/23/2010 10:40:02 AM , Rating: 2
It is very difficult to wipe out certain species even when you set out to do such a thing. The Human species has already gone through massive swings in climate and living conditions, and can survive in the middle of the Anarctic and the middle of the desert.

here's a thought:
By TSS on 6/23/2010 11:52:44 AM , Rating: 2
I find it funny how each time the earth might undergo a major change, scientists predict our species will completly die out.

How about, the entire population of homo sapiens sapiens dies out but before that happens, homo sapiens superior will arise. No i don't mean any kind of X-men stuff, just the next step in human evolution. I've never ever heard somebody take that approach, while the first chapter of history in highschool is, we aren't human version 1.0.

There's a limit to how much we can adapt too, a limit a few might not have and thus are the future "missing link" between evolutions. We wouldn't even know this was going on untill it was far too late for us.

That's about just as likely as what they are predicting and i find a much nicer way to end our existance. why must every prediction be such doom and gloom?

not likely
By dgingeri on 6/23/2010 12:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
I do believe we have a mass die off in the near future, likely within the next 100 years, but that will be man made.

I don't believe for a moment that humanity has cause any major climate change. we haven't seen major changes in the weather. droughts like some lately have come and gone many times in human history, and thousands of times over the history of the planet. He certainly doesn't give humanity, or even life itself, credit for the ability to adapt to changing conditions. Conditions change all the time, we just need to adapt to them.

No, the major die off will be this way: the US will run into an economic crisis we can't get out of. Government services will have to be cut, but not before politicians tax the private businesses out of existence, causing the tipping point where the economy shuts down completely. this will cause the rest of the developed world into the same conditions, leaving every developed country totally defenseless.

Less developed countries, unable to feed their people without the extra food of the developed countries, will then begin attacking the developed countries to get more food. This brings about constant warfare that will degrade into all out nuclear war, constant bombing, and mass genocide. Whole societies will be wiped out, with the most numerous societies winning: China, India, and Russia.

The US will be overwhelmed rather quickly, being taken over by those who want the food production areas, lumber, and oil that the treehuggers protect so well right now. The current "green" movement will turn on us to make us the prime target of the rest of the world. Because we have such a society that won't tolerate slavery, a resistance will form, carrying out terrorist acts against our occupiers until they, not having the moral restrictions we have, will simply wipe out all of us to stop the resistance.

The rest of the world will simply degrade into what we see in Africa today, a total lawless free-for-all war. This will last for 400-1000 years, until a new society begins to rise again to greatness, only to be brought back down in another 400-800 years.

All our technology and knowledge will be lost to another Dark Age. We'll be back to a feudal society again soon.

it has happened before, at the end of the Egyptian, Roman, and Persian empires. It will happen again. This is the history of humanity. It shouldn't be too surprising. We are really the tail end of the European empire period that started with the Spanish conquests and will end with the collapse of our own economic empire.

With as many people as are alive today, far more than standard, hand worked farming technologies can sustain, the loss of life to get back to a sustainable state will be massive. I estimate 80% or more of the population will be lost before it stabilizes. That's part of life and the nature of humanity. Nothing will elevate us above that.

By FaceMaster on 6/23/2010 1:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
I don't care, we're hardly worth saving any way

"Might not" survive
By superstition on 6/23/2010 4:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
is not the same thing as saying it's too late.

So, either the headline should be changed or the body.

In any case, calling someone a fictional character (Chicken Little) is not a rebuttal.

By radializer on 6/23/2010 5:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
Here I was, ready to plunge into a massive argumentative thread on Bayesian statistical probabilities of the Doomsday argument ... but, this turned out to be a totally different, although equally amusing, thread! :-)

For those who are curious, search of "Carter Catastrophe" ... a good starting point is:-

By Orac4prez on 6/23/2010 7:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously folks. Yes, it's all man-made madness. We all know when you ogle the gorgeous ladies the fires of passion burns! Oh, the humanity!!!! And whatever you when reading this don't get hot under the collar - you'll only add more to global warming. Maybe we better ban all politicians - more hot air from them that anywhere else. Will it never end!

The Next 100 years...
By Senju on 6/23/2010 8:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely in the next 100 years...
1.) Mankind will create livable environments on the moon and mars.
2) Technology innovation will continue and new alternatives will be available for food, medicine and cures.
3.) Robotics will advance to help with the human survival.
4.) We have a 100 years to figure how to survive the next 100 years.

The world will change in the next 100 years but I think humans will survive.

still survive......
By zodiacfml on 6/23/2010 11:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
human beings will survive if things get really that bad..
thing is, lifestyle won't be as good as today or in the past.

It's kind of sad...
By klstay on 6/24/2010 9:12:19 AM , Rating: 2
... to see someone who has done so much previously lose their mind in their dotage. Hopefully his fellow guests in whatever home he ends up in will not mind overmuch hearing such rantings.

By Digimonkey on 6/24/2010 11:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
I think old people when they get nearer to death, kind of beg for attention. Best way to do that if you're an old scientist is to throw a dooms day prediction out there as bate, especially with all that's going on in the world today.

By DarthKaos on 6/24/2010 3:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
...maybe. I think it is so funny that people with opinions "always" think they are the only one that could be correct. As much as this guys view is really more of an opinion or theory rather than a fact so is the opposing view. The tipping point of the earth is way to complex of an idea for anyone to be sure when it will happen until it happens.

It may or may not be today. Quite honestly the tipping point could be the extinction of a certain species of insect for all we know. Humans just believe they are too smart. We are like teenagers that think we know everything and that we are invincible. When the end comes we won't know it or we will be staring at a freight train too large for us stop or get out of its way.

So why change our ways? Because we can see there is the possibility of us affecting the earth in bad ways. Sometimes it is not the odds of something happening that should motivate us to change. It is the severity of consequences that should create a motivation for change.

Begs the question.
By falacy on 6/24/2010 10:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
Fact: A very long time from now, in human terms, the Sun will expand beyond the orbit of the Earth, as part of its natural progression as a star. Everything that makes the Earth an amazing place will absolutely be gone at that point.

Fact: Humans are smart enough to find a way to survive beyond the natural life span of Earth.

Question: Will any humans actually do it?

Personally, I have no hope at all that we will. I look out my windows and stand on my deck breathing in the air and the scenery in the hopes that my experiencing of "living the dream" will somehow be imparted upon the universe such that someone, sometime will stumble upon the memory of my understanding our "space ship Earth". All things, not just we human beings, deserve to live in some manner beyond the life of our mother-ship, Earth, even if at the end of all things in this universe, we humans were the only creatures to observe it. Sadly, when I experience the goodness of the individual and see it contrasted by the power and dim wit of the whole, my heart tells me that we will fail as a species and that failure will be soon. Our greatest strength as creatures is that we are all so very different, while our greatest failure as a species is that we despise our differences rather than cherish them; Not one single disease nor hardship has wiped us out. Quite to the contrary of hope, there is no natural law nor any precedent that states that how life has been in North America for the last thirty years is how life will always be for all humans.

We doom ourselves. I do not know why.

Truth: That which is, regardless of perception; It just "is".

@ bill4
By LeviBeckerson on 6/25/2010 6:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
Hi Bill, I just wanted to clarify a few things for you and others who might have gotten the wrong idea from this article.

First, I am not a liberal. But that you think I am simply because I write an article about a very respected scientist and his predictions for the future is telling.

Second, nowhere in the article do I claim to support Dr. Fenner's predictions. The closest thing that came to that is my statement that the man is not a crackpot. He is 95 years old, has studied very broadly in his time, and has seen a whole lot more than you or I (unless you're 95 years old too, in which case, how did you do it?).

However, while I feel that mankind's extinction probably isn't coming any time soon, it's simply narrow-minded to dismiss his warnings. He makes good points and comparisons. Whether or not you or I agree with them is completely irrelevant to the science at hand.

Further, at least one commenter asked why we post articles like this on a tech-based site. I'm can't claim to speak for the other staff, but in my opinion, this article is 100% tech. Fenner's claims are almost entirely based around industrialism and technology which has allowed the human race to grow nearly exponentially while at the same time destroying entire ecosystems that may or may not be necessary to our race's survival. If his prediction comes to pass, it will be 100% due to our advanced technologies, be it from overpopulation, over-pollution or World War III.

Lastly, and this isn't just for Bill, but for all who post comments that express opposing views to others', please stay civil. I love a good debate, but when insults mingle with arguments, the entire process devolves into a caveman head-bashing fray.

PS: The views expressed in this comment are solely my own and may or may not reflect the overall disposition of DailyTech LLC. :)

By Blue Wolf on 6/25/2010 12:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say were past the tipping point cause there is a lot we could do to turn it around but the fact is we all care about lining our pockets to much than actually doing something for the sake of doing it. We technically need to drop money all together for things than can actually help and all work together but to bad that's only in a perfect world.

By Icehearted on 6/25/2010 1:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
I've been thinking the same for years now, only my belief has always been that we can survive for approx 300 more years before overpopulation, consumption, and pollution would turn our world into an unsustainable mess. People are, for example, breeding rampantly in America, but schools are running out of funds and resources, we're in a massive trade deficit, jobless claims are rising and will continue to rise, and our current economic system supports growth for the few at the expense of the masses. A few thousand wealthy people cannot support an economy of millions, but Americans, even the poor ones it seems, support this system despite it's cost to them.

I like to use our infrastructure as a simplification of what I mean. For every automobile you see on the road today, in 20 years that number will likely triple or more in number, and in another 20 years, it will do so again, but are the roads becoming wider to accommodate this? Of course not.

Doomsday is about more than an exploited economic system, lack of ethics and personal responsibility, or even our wasteful nature. It's the essence of humanity, our "every man for himself" and "all's fair" attitude encourages that we take no responsibility for our own, but instead live for only ourselves, assuming then that people will balance things out by their personal generosity. Most people live with a sense of personal entitlement that precludes this belief, and ergo makes this a flawed idea.

My only regret is that I will not live long enough to witness this first hand. I'm seldom wrong on these kinds of things, and I would like to have seen how people respond to the mess they've created for themselves.

Doubt my thoughts? Look at what happened after the two big hurricanes. The cities and districts fell into chaos, police became murderers, and children were left alone to starve in the blistering heat by indifferent strangers as they sit crying beside dead parents.

But hey, "all's fair", right?

“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki