Extinction

Humanity Extinct by 2100?

A child born today may live to see humanity's end, unless…, says Reuters.

|

HumanExtinction
doomsteaddiner

The drumbeat of doom sometimes recedes into the background and other times (like now) grows louder, but its rhythm remains steady and incessant. Today, Reuters is recycling a 5-year old prediction by Australian microbiologist Frank Fenner that accumulating environmental crises (most especially including man-made climate change) will make Earth uninhabitable for people by 2100. Back in 2010, Phys.org reported:

Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change.

Fenner, who is emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, said homo sapiens will not be able to survive the population explosion and "unbridled consumption," and will become extinct, perhaps within a century, along with many other species.

The new Reuters story uses Fenner's alarming prediction as an opening to argue that the U.N. climate negotiations are failing and that much greater efforts must be taken to avoid catastrophic climate change. Interestingly, Reuters does take note of earlier predictions of catastrophic climate change: 

For years now, we have heard that we are at a tipping point. Al Gore warned us in An Inconvenient Truth that immediate action was required if we were to prevent global warming. In 2007, Sir David King, former chief scientific advisor to the British government, declared, "Avoiding dangerous climate change is impossible – dangerous climate change is already here. The question is, can we avoid catastrophic climate change?" In the years since, emissions have risen, as have global temperatures. Only two conclusions can be drawn: Either these old warnings were alarmist, or we are already in far bigger trouble than the U.N. claims. Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the case.

And yet, despite the recent rejiggering of global temperature data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, most researchers find that global average temperatures have not been increasing at the rates predicted by computer climate models. If the lower trend is maintained, predictions of climate apocalypse go out of the window. In fact, the researchers at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who honcho satellite temperature data recently revised the temperature trend downward from a rate of +0.14 to +0.11 degrees Celsius per decade. That implies an average increase in temperature over the next 85 years of under 1 degree Celsius. That's not nothing, but it's not apocalyptic.

If you'd like a more accurate (and therefore more optimistic) analysis of how environmental, technological, and economic trends are likely to unfold over the course the 21st century, I heartily recommend buying and reading, The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-First Century (St. Martin's, July 21). Spoiler alert: Human beings don't become extinct by 2100.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

225 responses to “Humanity Extinct by 2100?

  1. Humans are going to go extinct due to overpopulation? I’m not sure that Dr. Fenner understands what “extinct” means, here.

    1. He apparently thinks it means having to turn up the air conditioner, or live somewhere besides Manhatten/the Netherlands.

      1. We’re gonna breath all the oxygen and then suffocate en masse.

        1. I had a no-joke panic attack/meltdown as a very young child after being told in school that “all of the rainforests” are being burned down and tilled under for farmland. I had previously been told that rainforests are where we get the air we breath, and had it in my head that my family would be clinging to our tree in the backyard trying to breath the last of the oxygen.

          1. Your will to live makes me laugh. You gotta risk your life over stupid shit semi-regularly to really appreciate life.

            1. I do all of my electrical work without shutting off the power. What do you do?

              1. “What do you do?”

                I ripped the tag off a mattress in public last week.

                1. I ripped the tag off a mattress in public last week

                  Was it the mattress you were lugging around to protest your “rape”?

                  Actually, has anyone checked whether or not mattress girl’s mattress still had the tag?

                2. I ripped the tag off a mattress in public last week

                  Was it the mattress you were lugging around to protest your “rape”?

                  Actually, has anyone checked whether or not mattress girl’s mattress still had the tag?

                3. Was the mattress being carried by a SJW at the time?

              2. I like to hike into wild areas completely unprepared.

                1. Then you are probably prepared , just not equipped.

              3. So, you are known as “Shorty”?

            2. Amen, Brother. Surviving in a wheel cheer with tubes up your nose, wearing a diaper, hands shaking is not living.

              Riding one of my Harleys, scuba diving, flying an ultralight, even sailing…. that’s living.

              If my insurance policy says it’s not covered… that’s for me.

              “Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!”
              ? Hunter S. Thompson

              1. Own a Ninja ZX14 and a ZRX1200R and know how to use them. Been taken out by a truck once already. Would have ridden the next day if I hadn’t had a cast on my right hand (and, hence, no brakes).

                Now, I’m not entirely dumb, so I wear all the gear (or I’d be dead already), but…

                Going fast is REALLY fun. I’ll take the risk. It’s worth it.

                1. “Going fast is REALLY fun. I’ll take the risk. It’s worth it.”

                  Hope those you are putting in danger on the roads you share feel the same way.

                  It’s not unusual to witness a youngster on a pocket rocket trying to win a Darwin Award on the freeways here in Houston. It’s always a younster. I don’t know if that’s because they grow older and wiser or if they win their award, probably some of each.

                  1. Hope those you are putting in danger on the roads you share feel the same way.

                    The net danger a motorcyclist, even a speed freak, puts on the road pales in comparison to what your average car or truck driver can do. If a motorcyclist is a cause of a wreck, the likelihood is any fatality will be his own. OTOH, a motorist is just as likely to kill another person in an accident.

                    That isn’t to say there aren’t a good number of asshole, dangerous motorcyclists. There are. There are far more dangerous car drivers though.

                    I say this as someone who has no desire to ride a motorcycle.

                  2. Been riding for almost 50 years. I attribute my surviving “youth” to a lot of luck and a lot fewer idiots on the roads back then.

                    Now in NJ we have tons of people from other countries who’ve never driven above 20 MPH before. I have to ride like they’re purposely out to get me. Maybe they are… Hmm….

                    1. I attribute my surviving “youth” to a lot of luck

                      OR…

                      You were simply “better” than all the ones who ended up a stain on the road.

                      Go now and reproduce. Perpetuate your goodness by sharing your most awesome genes.

                  3. Whom have I put in danger, oh wise one? Oh, no one – when one takes the appropriate precautions. Even on public roads…

              2. My wife’s 90+ year ols granny had this quote taped to the door of her assisted living high rise the first time I met her. Evidentially she lived by those words. Inside the walls of here apartment were pics of her as a young hottie with some famous people ( men mainly ) in various places. Some were on a golf course somewhere in the north east with the approiate golfing attire of the day.

                She was quite the character and made a large impression on me. I loved that lady from the day I met her.

              3. ppppppt whatever i skydive with nunchucks

                1. Wow… do they work better than a parachute?

                  1. Yeah, it’s like having your own personal helicopter.

          2. Seriously, the sort of hysteria is being fed to the next generation is always both terrifying to the kids and politically driven by their instructors, but any adult should recognize the silliness of it all. It’s really pretty sad when you think of it.

            Of course, the religious folks have the same drum beat, except if you don’t do what they want, you’ll burn for eternity.

            1. “Of course, the religious folks have the same drum beat,”

              These ARE the “religious folks”, just a different jealous god.

              1. “Look, do you want a happy God or a vengeful God?”

              2. STOP STALKING ME, SEVO!

            2. Of course, the religious folks have the same drum beat, except if you don’t do what they want, you’ll burn for eternity.

              Funny that.

              Do you suppose the architects of both have similar desired outcomes?

              1. Agents of A-Thrush.

                Explanation here:

                http://www.freewebs.com/thrush…..thrush.htm

            3. Yup, you all got it…. it’s the same dance, they just rename the tune.

          3. Watching Spaceballs probably didn’t help.

          4. The 80s did produce some good Bruce Cockburn songs though.

            They’re burning down the Amazon!

    2. Even Paul Ehrlich never went beyond “lots of people are going to die off” because of overpopulation.

      1. Environmentalists (all strains of lefties, really) love them some morality plays on mankind’s hubris. An extreme die-off event isn’t a worry of theirs, it’s a dark fantasy. Humanity immolating for its sins. They’re a very millennialist bunch.

        1. The replace traditional religions with these quasi-science based doomsday cults.

        2. An extreme die-off event is inevitable.

          Ima party like it’s 1999.

      2. Paul Ehrlich knew to never go full retard?

        1. No. It is just that Professor Fenner has achieved a new level of retard.

          1. No such thing as Peak Retard.

        2. Yeah, Ehrlich goes Full Retard over and over. As Aresan notes – Fenner’s just adjusting the bar to a new low….

          1. Now I understand.

            Thank you.

  2. IN 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus inaugurated a grand tradition of environmentalism with his best-selling pamphlet on population. Malthus argued with impeccable logic but distinctly peccable premises that since population tended to increase geometrically (1,2,4,8 ) and food supply to increase arithmetically (1,2,3,4 ), the starvation of Great Britain was inevitable and imminent. Almost everybody thought he was right. He was wrong.
    In 1865 an influential book by Stanley Jevons argued with equally good logic and equally flawed premises that Britain would run out of coal in a few short years’ time. In 1914, the United States Bureau of Mines predicted that American oil reserves would last ten years. In 1939 and again in 1951, the Department of the Interior said American oil would last 13 years. Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

    “Plenty of Gloom”, The economist Dec 18th 1997

    1. Equally good logic and equally flawed premises… Seems to be a lot of that going around these days.

    2. In the 1890’s it was predicted that due to the increasing population we would be swimming in horseshit by 1930.

      They were right! The progs have been shoveling it down the populace’s collective gullets for well nigh a hundred years.

      1. That’s “neigh”, pal.

      1. Uh. Except for #2 (‘US will use Military Power to secure Russia’s Nukes’), I didn’t find any of those even remotely chilling.

        As for prediction #1: I doubt that the Russians will turn against Moscow. What will happen, however, is that Russia will follow the trajectory of 17th Century Spain and gradually decline to being politically irrelevant by 2100.

        1. “I doubt that the Russians will turn against Moscow.”

          I think they’ll ‘turn against Moscow’ the way the Greeks ‘turned against Athens’; when the money runs out, they’ll demand that they keep getting their free shit.

      2. Shit, I used to get stuff from Stratfor. Had forgotten about them.

        Thanks Frankie!

      3. So Russia will both lose control of it’s far flung provinces and project it’s evil control over the Black Sea area ?

        1. Yeah, I noticed that contradiction.

          But since I think Russia is on a downhill slide, it doesn’t particularly worry me.

  3. Once the robots figure out how to make self-replicating mobile woodchippers…

    1. I have it on good authority (from a SEREMOWOCHI Mark IV engineer, no less) that the Self-Replicating Mobile Wood Chippers will power themselves by the very biomass which they will rend, so the future looks grim indeed.

      *returns to Empress Grace Chord’s website to catch up on latest developments*

  4. If so, laissez les bon temps rollez! Far more likely that the human race will end when (not if) Yellowstone blows its top.

    1. I think we’ll live. And by ‘we’ I mean everyone who doesn’t live in North America, namely ‘me’.

      1. Those who don’t live in North America might starve to death if North America were suddenly destroyed.

    2. Considering that the prevailing winds blow west to east, those of us on the Cascadia shore will probably make it through.

      Especially once we block the passes.

  5. Fuckin’ loon. It’s always interesting when scientists dip into bizarre science fiction, like the weird pronouncements Stephen Hawking makes every now and again. They don’t seem to be based on much beyond century old SF cliches. We’re using all our resources! The planet will wipe us out soon! We must colonize space! Alien contact will mean our devastation! (unless the aliens see what we’ve done to the planet and don’t bother)

    For years now, we have heard that we are at a tipping point. Al Gore warned us in An Inconvenient Truth that immediate action was required if we were to prevent global warming.

    Oh, well, Al Gore said it. We should’ve listened. We didn’t listen!

    1. “For years now, we have heard that we are at a tipping point. Al Gore warned us in An Inconvenient Truth that immediate action was required if we were to prevent global warming.”

      Oh man, that’s funny. When your argument is ‘Al Gore said it!’ you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

      WE DIDN’T LISTEN

      1. Even as things ‘get better’ (assuming if they were ever bad to the extent bozos claim) we’ll still be crying ‘we didn’t we listen’?!

        My guess is ‘An inconvenient truth’ will be in the $1 sale bin soon enough.

    2. If aliens came to Earth I highly doubt they’d be here to kill us. They’ll come as traders not invaders. You don’t get to be an interstellar space fairing civilization without a scientific outlook, rational philosophy and in all likelihood, rejection of the sorts of social institutions that we call ‘states’.

      1. We come in peace! We come in peace!

        1. Dat! Dat! Dat!

          1. And you go… IN PIECES!!!

            1. Just one more line and you could have avoided this embarrassment.

        2. He’s bringing love, don’t let him get away! Break his legs!

      2. Yeah…about that…read Blindsight. ‘Starfish’ aliens might operate and think in ways we can’t even understand.

        1. I do not buy the “Aliens will think in ways we do not understand” meme.

          While it is certain that they will have cultural habits and assumptions that are not equivalent to ours, they will still be constrained by the laws of physics, the fundamentals of biology and ecology and the need to communicate.

          We have had to learn the laws of physics and we are getting a grasp on biology. Communication must contain information. The only problem then is how that information is formatted.

          1. I always laugh when someone says that XYZ can’t support life because there is no carbon or water located there.

            I think it’s a bold assumption that life has to be carbon based.

            1. The only thing that comes close to carbon in forming bonds with other chemicals is silicon. Silicon bonds are much harder to break so they require much higher temperatures for the sorts of reactions that carbon compounds do.

              Water is superior as a medium because of how frequently it occurs and the fact that the molecule is slightly polar. The next most common molecule, methane, is not polar and also suffers from the fact that it is only liquid at much lower temperatures, which slows reactions.

              I am not saying that silicon or methane based life is impossible, it is just a lot more difficult.

          2. Well I guess you can say I don’t buy the ‘Humans anthropomorphize everything so of course they’d assume alien life is exactly the same as they are’ meme. Particularly when there’s species on earth itself that operate in ways humans cannot fully understand. You think a sentient alien Portuguese Man o’ War is going to share the exact same concept of communication or even sentience?

            As Blindsight points out, certain human characteristics might not be optimal for evolutionary reasons, particularly in alien populations that aren’t the product of primate herd behaviour.

      3. They’re aliens, who knows how their minds work? Projecting human tribalism and impulses on aliens is ridiculous. Maybe they would try to ride over us like we’re bugs, maybe they’d want to trade, maybe they’d want to study and learn, maybe they’d steer clear. Trying to predict what “they” would do, while having no data of what “they” are, is just idle speculation. And coming from the mouth of a scientist does not imbue it with scientific legitimacy.

        1. Those reconnaissance flights over remote rural areas would have given the aliens the impression that Earth is a bunch of underpopulated regions with nothing worth plundering.

        2. By that same logic, the Ancient Aliens series makes a whole lot more sense. Aliens build spaceships and unfathomable technology and then spent eons traveling to Earth to visit humans. When they got here, they move some big stones around, maybe made some crop circles, or commissioned a caveman to draw their portrait on a cave wall, then they left without a single trace of any of their technology or civilization. Do these aliens not have incentives? Did they manage to become interstellar travelers without ever discovering logic?

          Of course it’s all speculation, but the most ridiculous speculation you could project onto aliens would be that of the alien invader scenario. That or the alien stone mason scenario, I’m not sure which is more retarded.

      4. To Serve Man is a cook book!

      5. If aliens came to Earth I highly doubt they’d be here to kill us.

        This is exactly right. Why would a race that can cross the cosmos CARE to deal with Earth? If you are already capable of crossing vast distances, there is far more access to resources than on Earth. Water is abundant all over the solar system. The asteroid belt has more water than 100 earths- a significant amount of that thought to be on Ceres. Accessing all these materials requires technology, but assuming they have technology, it would be significantly easier to harvest these materials outside a major gravity well. The same is true for metals (abundant in meteors, without the need to dig through miles of rock at the bottom of a gravity well) and methane.

        1. This does leave out the possibility of a politically (read ‘Imperialist’) or religious based motivation for conquest. IOW, the aliens could come to ‘save’ us or even save the dolphins from us. (“So long, and thanks for all the fish.”)

  6. Just another aging boomer trying to project his mortality on the entire species. And if this is the climetastrophe with a more productive planet, below average accumulated cyclone energy, and record food production, then more please.

  7. What’s the take on Anthony Watts? Reliable?

  8. There will be a lot of extinctions by 2100, but humans won’t be one of them. Here are some things that will be gone by 2100:
    – owning a small family business
    – cooking meals for your family at home without a sanitation license and a health inspection
    – hunting, fishing, camping or raising your own food
    – packing a brown bag lunch for your kids
    – having kids without a license
    – letting kids out of your sight or without their ankle monitors ever
    – self-performing any maintenance on your car or home
    – making anonymous comments on popular political websites without having your identity secretly subpoenaed
    – doing anything without permission
    – eating meat, fat or dairy
    With a future so bright, we all may wish to be extinct.

    1. Ankle-monitors, you prehistoric ape? We’ll be injected with RDIF chips at birth and monitored by the benevolent State. Parenting is the thing going extinct.

      1. I think the advance of technology makes statism ever more dangerous. Every new technological break through makes it even more important to abolish statism before a truly total state comes into being, one that George Orwell could not possibly have imagined.

        1. But how are we going to stop carbon emissions without statism? How will we protect people from making poor choices without statism? Won’t someone think of the state?!

          1. But without statism, who will institutionalize injustice?

  9. The problem is that socialism is likely to be extinct by 2100 and this guy is really angry about that. His claim that mankind will be extinct is just his way of dealing with that anger through fantasy and wish fulfillment. That is really all that is going on here. It is just a man seeing his religion fade from existence and yelling “mankind will pay for its sinful ways”.

    1. You have to get rid of envy before you can get rid of socialism. Otherwise you just get Picketty type rebranding.

      1. Perhaps. Regardless, I think this guy is afraid it will go away and capitalism will win. Believing mankind will be punished with extinction is his way of dealing with that.

        1. Yeah, his internal belief system may be so rife with contradictions that he can’t see anything other than disaster. Reminds me Aileen Wuornos ranting about how the whole system is going to collapse as she’s about to get the death penalty.

        2. I’m not convinced that many are thinking in those specific ways, John, but their thinking is definitely eschatological. A frustration with the lack of progress toward perfection and a hatred of the sinners who refuse to see the true way seem to be necessary (or at least typical) parts of this phenomenon.

    2. We will never be rid of socialism and its offshoots. Likewise, these Malthusian types have long existed and will continue to, erm, grace us with their indelible presence.

      The best we can do is to highlight their long, sordid history of failed predictions and laugh at them for the charlatans they are.

      1. Sure they have. And they arise almost entirely when things are changing and people are getting more free. This causes the various top men to recoil in horror at the peasants not understanding their place in the natural order.

        If this guy thought socialism was on the rise rather than on the decline, he wouldn’t be having juvenile fantasies about man kind finally getting its deserts for being so vile and consumptive.

        1. I’m not so sure he thinks socialism is on the decline. Rather, I think he sees an opportunity, like countless other leftists, to accelerate socialism’s hold over economic life.

          Plenty of regular people think income inequality is the worst thing ever and that only coercive redistribution of wealth is the answer. So-called “experts” adding climate-change “catastrophism” to the political zeitgeist encourages such redistribution beliefs.

          1. No. He really believes this shit. He is not saying it to further the cause. This harms the cause. If we are all dead anyway, there is no point in worrying and sacrificing for the greater good of socialism. Without the promise of Utopia, there is no point. No. this guy is having a juvenile tantrum over the world not doing what he thinks it should.

          2. Frank Fenner doesn’t think anything since he’s been dead for 5 years. And he wasn’t a crazy socialist. He lived a life of great achievement. One bullshit prediction made when he was 96 is does not justify this Reuters story or, for that matter, the level of contempt in the comments here

            1. Hand,

              Sorry but crazy is as crazy does. He made a batshit crazy prediction for a reason. The guy was a biologist. He of all people should have known how stupid that prediction was. So the question is why did he make it? The only reason I can see is he was having a tantrum over the world being so vile and consumptive, or in other words capitalist.

              So, he made a bat shit crazy prediction that was nothing but an angry revenge fantasy over the world being too capitalist. The guy let his anger over people being too capitalist and consumptive consume him to such a degree he convinced himself all of humanity was going to go extinct in punishment for it.

              If that doesn’t make him a “crazy socialist”, I am not sure what would.

              1. John, I didn’t know Frank Fenner, but I am one degree of separation from him. He wasn’t a misanthrope given to angry revenge fantasies. He was a very nice bloke who (let’s not forget) helped eliminate smallpox.

                So why did he say this? My guess is that at 96, tired and a bit depressed, he gave into pessimism.

                Not that this is relevant to the bigger point (or the question of why he is being disinterred now), but I just hate the cheerful slagging off of the man for one stupid act. It’s unfair.

                1. Every generation has to have its Linus Pauling.

            2. One can do a lot of good for mankind and still espouse deplorable beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive. And yes, when someone who should know better makes such ridiculous predictions, he deserves contempt for it.

              It’s akin to that earlier music thread: musicians can produce great music yet hold contemptible politics. That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the artist’s genius or will refrain from listening to his work. Likewise, Fenner probably did more for us all than anyone else during the 20th century with his contribution to the eradication of smallpox; but he is not above criticism, even harsh criticism, when he makes stupid proclamations.

              1. I’m not saying he is above criticism. No one is. John isn’t when he starts claiming the only explanation for Fenner’s remarks is an angry revenge fantasy. Reuters isn’t when it digs up comments from a long-dead old man for… well, why, exactly?

                1. Especially when there are plenty of genuinely misanthropic doom merchants still living, breathing, and getting paid for their actual angry revenge fantasies

        2. I like your optimism.

        3. …fantasies about man kind finally getting its deserts for being so vile and consumptive.

          Dualism, Eschatological thinking, Salvation, etc. are phenomena of the human psyche. They are a part of every one of us, whether we like it or not. So it strikes me as counterproductive when fellow rationalists pooh-pooh religion and its study as so much wasted time and energy when these ancient traditions shine a light onto the inner workings of the human psyche/soul. Throwing out the study of religion is a refusal to comprehend the non-rational (majority) aspects of human nature.

    3. I like to think socialism will be eradicated by that time but I’m not so sure. It’s a cancer on humanity and you can never really get rid of cancer unless by some as-of-yet undiscovered means.

      1. You guys all missed the point. My fault for not being more precise with my words. The point is that this guy thinks it will be. What actually will happen is anyone’s guess, though we won’t be extinct.

        1. What actually will happen is anyone’s guess, though we won’t be extinct.

          Socialists will do their best on that count…

  10. Let’s here. If we keep current conditions constant and extrapolate into the future based on those conditions, women will be running faster marathons than men by 2023.

  11. So Greenland will be green again,and grapes for wine will grow in the British Isles ? We’ve seen this movie.Imagine a longer growing season in the Dakota’s,Canada and Russia. With the rule of law {not man ) and modern water ,sewage and power genration and lines in Africa and South America and free trade I could see a very bright future.

    1. Then again,I won’t be alive then,so I think I’ll make some jerked chicken and a salad and have some stout,or porter,or both this weekend.May have some garlic smashed red potatoes too,Yeah,that’s the ticket.

      1. “garlic smashed red potatoes”

        That song you sing – it is liked by me.

        *adds red potatoes to shopping list*

      2. No butter on those potatos there sir.

        It might kill you.

    2. Are you suggesting humans are capable of doing some sort of change in order to take advantage of changing conditions? Like people could move out of one area to live in another? Like animals?

      Blasphemy!

      1. Well yes,in their SUV’S.

      2. No. Climate can change, human beings and other life can’t.

        1. This is true, because Darwin said it is.

          Life can only wait for random changes to equip it for environmental changes. No species ever migrates of adapts. That’s just crazy talk.

  12. Why is it that I suspect that the more objectionable part of “unbridled consumption” isn’t the “consumption” part? Probably just the same cynicism that leads me to suspect that the learned professor didn’t issue his jeremiad on tree bark which he scratched with a stone in between his forays from his cave to gather nuts and berries and grubs for his daily sustenance.

    1. I’m a hunter,a very good hunter,these people would not last a day out in mother earth.

      1. Oh but they’ll be gatherers merely picking fruit off the trees and bushes and reciting poetry all day. It’s paradise, after all.

    2. “unbridled” = without government permission. That’s the real problem.

  13. Ignoring the insanity of humanity going extinct because of slight changes of temperature (shockingly, if early humans managed to survive the end of the Ice Age and several major volcanic eruptions they’d likely survive the most extreme climate change claims):

    I may be mistaken, but hasn’t statistical analysis shown that the human population is likely to stabilize before 2050? Most Western countries only have population growth thanks to immigration, and developing nations have began a slow drop in birthrates as they industrialize. There’s no Baby Boom on the horizon and that massive generation is beginning to die off. How can you possibility get ‘overpopulation’ out of the actual data? You know, the thing environmentalists are always claiming they take very, very seriously?

    1. Don’t use facts,you’ll piss them off,or piss on them.They both work.

    2. “I may be mistaken, but hasn’t statistical analysis shown that the human population is likely to stabilize before 2050?”

      The UN thinks the human population is actually going to be in terminal decline by the end of the century because of lower birth rates. Of course, that makes the same mistake the overpopulation doomsayers make, which is that they look at current trends and assume those trends will remain true indefinitely.

      1. I’m no scientist, but Ima guess, based on my limited experience of observing the real world, that the population will stabilize at its holding capacity.

        Call me crazy.

    3. There’s no Baby Boom on the horizon and that massive generation is beginning to die off.

      Furthermore, the Baby Boom generation oversaw the greatest expansion of human wealth in history; if anything, this shows there is at least a strong positive correlation between population growth and rising living standards.

      What should actually frighten people is the low birthrates in developed countries and the graying of the Baby Boomers. The problem of paying for massive entitlements, however, is not the creation of unchecked human action, but of law.

      1. I don’t think it’s fair to call it ‘law’. Call it ‘statute’ which has the force of law, but is not necessarily lawful. There’s nothing in the common law that justifies welfare statism and there’s nothing in any rational body of law that does this. It can only come from arbitrary statutory law.

        1. While I generally agree with you regarding the superiority of the common law over statutory law, even the common law can do injustice that is then corrected by statute.

          For example, I don’t think it is right that, under the common law, I could be held personally liable as a small, passive investor in a large business. Why should even a tiny sliver of ownership expose me to unlimited liability for the actions of a few over whom I had no real control? At least in this context, limited liability – created by statute – corrected this deficiency in the common law.

          Another example is where some courts imposed duties on property owners to protect flagrant, “bad guy” trespassers from the consequences of their trespasses. I believe several states have overturned this common-law doctrine by statute.

          I’m sure there are other examples that I’m not thinking of, but in sum, the common law, as much as it should be revered, is still a human institution, and as such it contains faults that need to be rectified.

      2. the Baby Boom generation oversaw the greatest expansion of human wealth in history

        We’ll see what we are left with when they are gone. They may have spurred wealth, but it appears their goal is to die after stealing everyone else’s.

  14. *opens linked articles, Ctrl-Fs for “nuclear power”*

    Huh. How odd. I was sure that these people who are so concerned with CO2 would want to reduce emissions.

    1. Yes, IF they were really concerned with that, why they would want to do that.
      I think it’s easy to see the revealed preference here.

    2. They all want cake. But they want to eat it, too.

      1. You can’t hug your children with nuclear arms!

        However you can bake a cake with in oven powered by purified uranium yellow cake.

  15. In the years since, emissions have risen, as have global temperatures.

    Thing is temperatures have not risen since 2007. In fact they have not risen since 1998.

    Why not mention that Ron?

  16. Only two conclusions can be drawn: Either these old warnings were alarmist, or we are already in far bigger trouble than the U.N. claims. Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the case.

    Why would you draw that conclusion? Because of new, alarmist predictions that will turn out to be wrong?

    1. We’re running out of oil,gas,minerals ,farm land ,food and water! ( 1970’s ) Ice ball earth!!!!

      1. Humanity- the ultimate resource (applies to both ingenuity and derp).

  17. I’m rather more worried about about flesh and blood humanity evolving quickly into cyborg humanity and onwards to full-on cylonism, than a return to an eocene or triassic climate.

  18. I think he’s right, so lets party our asses of before then. It’s Friday, and I know where we can find an empty bomb shelter with some good wine from 1956.

  19. we will never reach Peak Doom

  20. Yesterday Martin O’Malley wrote an op-ed saying we should be using 0 fossil fuels by 2050.

    He said that if elected president, he’d set up committees to figure out how to do this.

    So he has no actual plan. We’ll just set up committees and kind of hope for the best.

    1. “No time to discuss this as a committee.”
      “I am not a committee!”

      You think Han Solo would figure out climate change by committee? Hell no. He’d get on his tauntaun, ride out of the blast doors and tell climate change “I’ll see you in hell!”

      1. And then slice open his tauntaun like scheew, waaaah, and stick his friend inside its guts. Also his best friend is a bear.

        Is any of this getting through to you, O’Malley?

    2. Committees are the solution to all unsolvable problems, even problems that aren’t problems yet. I love committee meetings, probably the very best use of my remaining time on earth.

    3. I bet he has a plan. It’s just too ugly and reminiscent of Stalinism to discuss openly and prior to electoral success.

      1. It’s really more a series of five-year plans.

    4. Why can’t he charter a committee, regardless? Why make it contingent on his becoming president? If it’s such a concern, why not devote his public life to it rather than running for president first? You don’t mean to suggest that global warming theatrics are just theater, do you?

    5. Worse than having no plan, he doesn’t even know if it’s feasible. But it sure sounds nice, and science and technology are so nifty, surely it can be done, right?

  21. Have you noticed how cats are taking over the internet? Doesn’t that worry anybody? Cats could live a good life off our rotting corpses. I’m just sayin’ that sometimes the danger is right in front of you, staring at you, rubbing you.

    1. Weaving between your legs at the top of the stairs? They are clever little assassins.

    2. I have noticed that baby goats are taking over the Internet.

  22. My 2100 predictions:

    Abortion after the first month of pregnancy will be illegal. Generally today abortion is seen as icky and with the advent of ever cheaper birth control and ever better more convenient pregnancy testing not knowing will no longer be an excuse

    Homosexuality will be below 1% of the population rather then 4%. Thing is heteros are the ones having children and they want hetero kids. homosexuality is genetic which means parents will simply chose not to have kids with the “gay gene”.

    With the death of the majority of millennials due to old age the 90’s will finally be recognized as having better pop culture then the 80s

    1. So many problems:

      1. Since homosexuality is progressively seen as less bad, there’s no reason people would care about having a gay kid. The people who would care are living in backwards parts of the world where they wouldn’t have access to this technology anyway.

      2. Everyone already knows the 90’s had better pop culture than the 80’s. The 80’s was a dead zone of sadness and misery. They had the worst Rocky movies and fuck Poison.

      1. I don’t disagree on pop culture, generally. But I do disagree on movies:

        1980s: The Empire Strikes Back

        1990s: The Phantom Menace

        1980s: Back to the Future

        1990s: Batman and Robin

        1980s: Raiders of the Lost Ark

        1990s: The Phantom Menace (so bad I’m including it twice)

      2. Poison

        YOU HAD TO BRING THEM UP, DIDN’T YOU.

        I like CC DeVille. The rest are all demons sent by satan to sow misery on earth. ESPECIALLY that tool “Rickki Rockett”. What a swollen puss. And NOT a great drummer. Like, say Tommy Lee, from one of the GREAT THINGS FROM THE 80’s…..Motley Crue (NEEDZ MOAR UMLAUTS)

      3. Mr. T would like a word.

      4. The 80’s was a dead zone of sadness and misery

        .

        Two words:

        Kurt Cobain

    2. There isn’t any evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Maybe there is something we don’t yet know. Until they find it, I am not buying that it is. If it were genetic there would not be any such thing as bisexuals. And even if there were a genetic explanation for that, it still couldn’t explain how otherwise straight people when placed in an environment where straight sex is not available, like a ship at sea or prison, engage in homosexual sex only to return to being straight when they go back to regular society. If something is genetic, you don’t get to ignore it or transform into something else or be half that way. If you are born six fee tall, you don’t get to transform yourself into being five feet tall two or three times a year to make your girlfriend happy.

      If homosexuality is “genetic” then any other form of human behavior is also “genetic”. I don’t do something unless you like doing it and you don’t choose to have something appeal to you. It just does.

      1. If something is genetic, you don’t get to ignore it or transform into something else or be half that way.

        Yes, actually, that’s how phenotype usually works:

        Genotypes often have much flexibility in the modification and expression of phenotypes; in many organisms these phenotypes are very different under varying environmental conditions

        There isn’t any evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

        Not in the sense that there is a “gene that makes you gay”. But there is plenty of evidence that heterosexuality is genetic, likely being dependent on the correct interaction of hundreds of genes. When those genes don’t work perfectly, you get asexual, bisexual, transsexual, homosexual, and paraphilic behaviors; we have nowhere near enough data to unravel this.

        By analogy, cars break and fail in predictable and repeatable ways, even though nobody ever designed or intended them to fail in those ways.

        1. Big deal. You get someone who has those natural preferences. That doesn’t mean that they can’t ignore those preferences and choose to act some other way. And if they can do that, they are responsible for their actions.

          The problem with any genetic explanation for human behavior is that if it is true, then human beings don’t have free will and are not responsible for their actions. And if humans can ignore their genes and behave otherwise, then the genes don’t explain anything beyond why we have some preferences. And that isn’t explaining behavior.

          The whole thing is a fucking cargo cult. They want to claim that genes rule and explain our behavior but then also claim that we still have free will and can ignore whatever our genes tell us. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

          1. The problem with any genetic explanation for human behavior is that if it is true, then human beings don’t have free will

            Not at all. A genetic basis for homosexuality means that homosexuals find gay sex enjoyable, not that they are irresistibly compelled to engage in it.

            That doesn’t mean that they can’t ignore those preferences and choose to act some other way.

            Of course they could ignore those preferences, but why should they?

            1. Not at all. A genetic basis for homosexuality means that homosexuals find gay sex enjoyable, not that they are irresistibly compelled to engage in it.

              Which means the explanation is meaningless. If you can’t tell me why some people act on it and some people don’t, you haven’t explained the behavior. You have just begged the question by saying “some people like this and choose to act on it”. That is all you are saying. That is not an explanation of anything. We already knew that, no genetics required. Gay people like gay sex. No shit Sherlock. Pointing to a gene, that you hope exists, doesn’t make that incite anymore profound or any less begging the question of why some people have gay sex. Well, they like doing it, isn’t really much of an answer or explanation. And that is all you are saying.

              Of course they could ignore those preferences, but why should they?

              I don’t know and I don’t care. That is not my point. The point is that if they can ignore the preferences, pointing to a genetic cause for them doesn’t explain the behavior.

              1. begging the question of why some people have gay sex.

                Most people understand how preferences turn into behavior: your engage in a behavior either because you are forced to, or because you derive an economic benefit from it, or because you have a preference for it.

                Well, they like doing it, isn’t really much of an answer or explanation. And that is all you are saying.

                “Liking” something can be genetic or it can be a learned preference or it can be a mix of the two. “Liking gay sex” appears to have a significant genetic component, just like “liking milk” or “liking cilantro”.

                Pointing to a gene,

                I’m not “pointing to ‘a’ gene”. There are many genes that are needed to make people sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and they sometimes fail. There is no more likely to be “a” gene for homosexuality than there is “a” gene for sterility.

                1. Most people understand how preferences turn into behavior: your engage in a behavior either because you are forced to, or because you derive an economic benefit from it, or because you have a preference for it.

                  That is not an explanation at all. You are just saying “some people liek doing it”. That is certainly true as far as it goes. And it may be the only explanation for our behavior there is. It is not however particularly explanatory. Moreover, it still leaves the genetic explanation for some preferences as a meaningless observation. We don’t choose any of our preferences. If we can ignore them at our leisure, what difference does it make if they are genetic? None.

                  1. We can’t ignore our preferences at our leisure. If we could, the concept of preferences would be meaningless. We have complicated minds, so we can overcome certain preferences and predilections sometimes. But we all have personalities and things about ourselves that are difficult or impossible to change.

                2. There are many genes that are needed to make people sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and they sometimes fail. There is no more likely to be “a” gene for homosexuality than there is “a” gene for sterility.

                  Big deal. That doesn’t make the behavior any more genetic. And moreover if we can ignore our preferences and act otherwise, eliminating that gene or group of genes won’t eliminate homosexuality, because preference is not the same thing as behavior.

                  1. That doesn’t make the behavior any more genetic.

                    Nobody is claiming that the behavior is genetic. Scientists are claiming that the preference has a genetic component.

                    because preference is not the same thing as behavior.

                    And you keep confusing the two. That’s your very own personal problem and fixation.

          2. The problem with any genetic explanation for human behavior is that if it is true, then human beings don’t have free will and are not responsible for their actions.

            So what? Maybe that is how it is. Even so, it doesn’t remove responsibility for one’s actions. Some philosophers have argued quite the opposite rather convincingly.

            I really think that free will doesn’t matter. What happens happens and a world with free will looks exactly like one without.

            1. I really think that free will doesn’t matter. What happens happens and a world with free will looks exactly like one without.

              Of all the philosophers and thinkers who’ve struggled with this dilemma for millennia, only Zeb has it finally figured out. Good job.

    3. My 2100 predictions: Abortion after the first month of pregnancy will be illegal.

      I doubt it. Many humans will be grown in artificial wombs and animals by then and the issue will be seen as absurd. People will start applying rational criteria to life-and-death decisions, which is whether something has sentience (roughly, a functioning brain).

      Homosexuality will be below 1% of the population rather then 4%. Thing is heteros are the ones having children and they want hetero kids. homosexuality is genetic which means parents will simply chose not to have kids with the “gay gene”.

      That argument doesn’t work because homosexuality has persisted for hundreds of millions of years in higher animals and has never shown any signs of dying out.

      The argument also fails because while in 2100, traditional reproduction will still be a cheap and simple option, two males or two females will be able to have offspring. You’ll also be able to clone yourself, mix and match chromosomes from more than two parents, or even edit individual genes.

      1. Homosexuality has existed for so long because it is not genetic anymore than any other form of human behavior. We are so sex obsessed as a society that we convince ourselves that if something relates to sex it must be different and special. No, it is not. Sex is just a human activity. And our likes and dislikes relating to it are no different than our likes and dislikes relating to any other human activity. Some people have enjoyed self flagellation and ascetic hardship pretty much since the dawn of mankind. Are those things “genetic”? I don’t think so.

        1. Your depth of knowledge on everything amazes, John.

        2. John, stick with law. Your grasp of genetics is seriously lacking.

          1. No. I just don’t buy the bullshit geneticist tell themselves. They like to pretend that we can call behavior genetic and yet still claim free will. No you can’t. If my genes tell me to like big breasted women, then I will like big breasted women and always will. If I can ignore that desire such that I never act on it or I can condition that desire out of me, then it is not genetic. My genes don’t fucking change because I change my mind.

            If hour behavior really is “genetic” then things like psychological conditioning shouldn’t work. Yet they do. The people who are out of their depth here are the geneticists who thing their field explains things completely outside of what it actually does.

            1. They like to pretend that we can call behavior genetic and yet still claim free will.

              All the papers that people have written on this talk about the genetics of sexual orientation. That is, they talk about the genetics of a preference, not a behavior.

              It’s your mistake that you are conflating “orientation” and “behavior”.

              1. But then it becomes a meaningless explanation. My preferences for anything are not something I choose. I may want to go across the street and punch the guy in the nose because he cut me off in traffic, but I can choose not to. I didn’t choose to feel that desire any more than someone chooses to feel sexually attracted to the other sex. Yet, I am still responsible if I go over and punch him in the nose and saying “men have a genetic preference for punching people in the nose” doesn’t contribute anything meaningful to our understanding of why some people punch others in the nose.

                To bring that back to homosexuality, if all genes can explain is a preference or a tendency, then the behavior is not “genetic” in any more than any other behavior. And it certainly doesn’t mean that people cannot judge homosexual behavior in a way they can’t something like height. “I couldn’t help it I wanted to do it” is not an excuse of your actions and not a reason to preclude people from judging those actions rightly or wrongly even if your “want” had a genetic cause.

                Lastly, the existence of otherwise straight people who become homosexuals in certain environments only to return to being straight when they go back to their normal environment shows that even the preference for homosexuality isn’t genetic. If it were, how do those people have it and then lose it?

                1. But then it becomes a meaningless explanation. My preferences for anything are not something I choose.

                  Preferences come from three sources: (1) genetics, (2) your environment, and (3) a conscious choice. (Yes, in some cases, you can consciously train yourself to have certain preferences.)

                  if all genes can explain is a preference or a tendency, then the behavior is not “genetic”

                  Correct: the behavior isn’t genetic, the preference (orientation) is.

                  Lastly, the existence of otherwise straight people who become homosexuals in certain environments only to return to being straight when they go back to their normal environment shows that even the preference for homosexuality isn’t genetic

                  That reasoning only works for phenotypes caused by a single gene with complete penetrance. Sexual orientation likely is determined by the interaction of many genes and has incomplete penetrance.

                  “I couldn’t help it I wanted to do it” is not an excuse of your actions

                  Oh, I agree: genetics does not absolve people of culpability or moral responsibility. Your error is in assuming that anybody feels like they need to make “excuses” for what consenting adults do with each other.

            2. I don’t think biologists, qua biologists, have much to say on the subject of free will. If they do, they aren’t being very good scientists. Because science is no where close to addressing that question.

              In any case, maybe there is no such thing as free will. There is no way to test it. You can only make one choice in each instance, so to say that you could have chosen differently is meaningless. You didn’t. Counterfactuals aren’t real.
              In any case, free will just means that you do as you will. Maybe your will is genetically predetermined in some way.

              At this point, it is ridiculous to think that behavioral tendencies are not to some degree genetically determined. There is a lot of evidence from twin studies to support it. It doesn’t have to mean that all of our choices are predetermined. Just general preferences and tendencies.

        3. We are so sex obsessed

          So homosexual behavior in penguins and dolphins is also due to “sex obsession”?

          Some people have enjoyed self flagellation and ascetic hardship pretty much since the dawn of mankind. Are those things “genetic”? I don’t think so.

          In fact, your propensity for engaging in these practices is probably strongly determined by your genetics.

          And our likes and dislikes relating to it are no different than our likes and dislikes relating to any other human activity.

          Indeed, which means that it is likely shaped a great deal by our genes.

          1. In fact, your propensity for engaging in these practices is probably strongly determined by your genetics.L

            Why is that? Because you say so? And what does “strongly determined” even mean other than you have no fucking idea? Either it determines my behavior or it doesn’t. It can’t sort of determine it or determine it on Tuesdays and Thursdays but not the rest of the week. You claims are nonsense. They don’t even make sense internally.

            Indeed, which means that it is likely shaped a great deal by our genes.

            So fucking what? Our preferences are not the same as our behavior. Even if you can explain our base desires with genetics, you still haven’t explained anything because you have not explained why I choose to act on them or choose not to act on them. It is the action that is the behavior. And you claiming I have this or that preference because of my genes, that you likely haven’t found but pretend you will someday, does nothing to explain my actions.

            It is all bullshit.

            1. It is all bullshit.

              John, I think you’d find this topic really interesting if you chose to read up on it rather than react to your presupposition of what genetics means. There aren’t that many things where people are willing to claim pure genetic determinism, but genetic tendencies do influence how we interact with the world around us, and being aware of that helps us interpret human behavior better.

              Here is a fairly well balanced gloss genetics AND environment and depression.

              From personal experience I have a family tree littered with addicts. I make a point of handling stress and depression in constructive ways rather than hitting the bottle or getting stoned as a result. In this case genetics doesn’t define that I am an addict, but it does make me wary of putting myself in positions where I might become one.

              1. I am willing to believe that our preferences for things come from our genes. The problem is that we can ignore those preferences. So saying that they come from genes really doesn’t get us anywhere explaining behavior. Sure, people do things, even self destructive things because they like doing them. But why do some people choose not to do these things and others do not? Explaining the existence of the preferences doesn’t explain why some people choose to act on them and some don’t.

                We get caught up in sex and such. But I really don’t think sexual preference is any different than any other preference. It is certainly important to your life but fundamentally it is just a preference like any other.

                Take your addict relatives. I have those too. If we set down with our relatives and ask them, which I am sure you have as I have, “why the hell do you drink so much”. The answer is of course “because he want to”. They phrase it in terms of “I can’t help myself” but really they want to. They desire it. I don’t see how saying “your desire to drink a bottle of bourbon every day is because of your genes” really explains much or helps. Okay, why can some people with those genes ignore that desire and i don’t? That is the heart of the matter and something genes cannot ever explain unless you are willing to give up the concept of free will.

                1. I am willing to believe that our preferences for things come from our genes. The problem is that we can ignore those preferences. So saying that they come from genes really doesn’t get us anywhere explaining behavior

                  Most people understand how preferences turn into behavior: you balance the enjoyment you derive from doing something against the costs and risks of engaging in it.

                  Okay, why can some people with those genes ignore that desire and i don’t?

                  Because desires and preferences come in different strengths and they interact with each other. Some people may enjoy alcohol a lot others don’t. Some people enjoy sex a lot, others don’t. Some people worry a lot about getting sick or fat, others don’t. If you are a hypochondriac homosexual who doesn’t enjoy sex much to begin with, you don’t engage in the behavior, even if you find men very attractive. If a blowjob makes you feel really good, you may not care about whether you get it from a man or a woman, even if you don’t find men attractive. Etc.

                  1. Win Bear, that is nothing but a long winded way of saying “because some people choose to do so and others don’t”. That is it. And again, maybe that is the only explanation available for human behavior. Regardless, saying that some or even all of our preferences come from our genes is still a meaningless observation. Your desire to do this comes from your genes is no more explanatory than saying it comes from the Devil. So what, if you can’t tell me what to do about it?

                    1. Your desire to do this comes from your genes is no more explanatory than saying it comes from the Devil.

                      Genetic mechanisms are quite explanatory. For example, if you inherit unusual sensitivity to noise, you’ll probably not become a race car driver or rodeo announcer. If you have the genes that reward you strongly for social interactions, you’re more likely to become a waiter than an archivist.

                      So what, if you can’t tell me what to do about it?

                      Preferences that have a strong genetic component are hard to change through the environment. Preferences that have a weak or no genetic component can be changed through the environment (parenting, education, media).

                      If you don’t like the genetic preferences you were born with (I’m beginning to think that’s your beef), well, you’ll just have to learn to live with them, just like you do with a bald head or a small dick. Maybe you make up for it with your winning personality. Sometimes you can compensate with drugs; for example, there are drugs that help with shyness. Maybe we’ll eventually come up with a pill that makes gay men be attracted to women too, although it’s hard to see why most people would want to take it.

                      In any case, what business of yours is it to “do” anything about how other people have sex?

                    2. I’m waiting for the pill that gives me a bigger dick.

                2. The answer is of course “because he want to”. They phrase it in terms of “I can’t help myself” but really they want to. They desire it.

                  Here we’re getting on shaky ground. My experience with addicts is that they’ve often given up a sense of agency, or maybe that they never had one. I actively cultivate a sense of agency. When I notice myself saying “I’ve had a bad day, I can’t wait to get home and have a stiff drink” I make myself a cup of tea instead, but I can see how one could easily make oneself a slave to something and no longer believe that one has a choice. I firmly believe that if you reject the notion that you have a choice, then you don’t have a choice.

                  But back to the original topic. So you believe that preferences have a genetic component and a social component? This puts us in agreement on the issue (although we’d probably quibble over exactly to what extent each plays a role). Why does it even matter where our preferences come from? Should I settle down with a girl I don’t prefer because other people are uncomfortable with me having different preferences than they do?

                  1. Absolutely not. I agree Jesse that our preferences being genetic means nothing.

    4. Wait, people would be aborting their gay kids, but they’d have to test for this and abort within the first month of pregnancy? That seems difficult.

  23. Copies for my library ordered…

  24. What a ridiculous underestimation of human beings’ ability to survive and adapt. even if catastrophic climate scenarios come about, no way humans go extinct. we’ve been through that before.

    1. You could end up with a society that won the genetic competition based on compliance to the authority structure in place. Make masculinity an undesirable trait by funnelling resources from those who exhibit it and to those who denounce it. A society of weak men, unable to survive without the “benevolence” of women. I’m seeing this eunoch society being formed out my window here in Japan.

      1. I don’t think that will be mostly genetic, though. Cultures change a lot faster than genes possibly can. I don’t think a lot of manly men are failing to reproduce (maybe in Japan, I don’t know). They just adapt to the culture. I think that if they have to plenty of people will cope and survive whatever comes.

        1. You can change the composition of the gene pool by eliminating those who exhibit undesirable traits. I’m not talking about point mutation, rather more a way of ending a genetic line through coercion. People will most likely cope and survive, but that is still something not set in stone.

          1. It would take many generations to do so. We have been selecting dogs for specific characteristics for literally thousands of generations, yet, if we let them breed free of human intervention, they very quickly revert to a specific type – around 18″ tall, short hair, terrier-type build.

  25. predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation

    Do they even bother running their statements through a logic filter?

    Because a sure sign of imminent species extinction — population plummeting to 0 individuals alive — is booming population growth and over 7 billion individuals alive.

    Happens all the time.

    1. The argument is they’ll use up all the resources after which the population will plummet to 0 which is of course ridiculous. Even if we used up all the oil and had no other means of energy production, Earth prior to oil sustained hundreds of millions of people. Worst case scenario would therefore not be extinction, it would be a population decline back the stable population we saw prior to fossil fuels.

      1. It’s hard to kill off every single member of a species with over 7 billion members scattered over almost the entire earth in 85 years.

        Really, really, really hard.

        As in, multiple simultaneous Comets O Doom From Space levels of hard.

        1. “It’s hard to kill off every single member of a species with over 7 billion members scattered over almost the entire earth in 85 years.
          Really, really, really hard.”

          Various commie dictators have given it hell and even with their best efforts, their own populations still survived, so, yeah.

  26. Fenner, who is emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, said homo sapiens will not be able to survive the population explosion

    I see: people are reproducing so fast, there will be none left in 2100. Oh my.

    In any case, there is no “population explosion”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_9mhnWVWeA

  27. Climate Change: the latest doomsday cult.

    1. Climate Change: the latest doomsday cargo cult.

      1. If it’s a cargo cult, it works. No tropical tribe is so well lavished as the climate science crowd.

  28. The problem is that socialism is likely to be extinct by 2100

    Families are generally socialist units, and the only kind that sometimes work moderately well.

    Government socialism vanishing from the earth by 2100? If only.

    1. Well family units aren’t typically run on a socialist model, you have to scale up to groups of people that are bigger and less familiar than family units which are ‘sharing’ the ‘means of production’. A family situation might best be described as a ‘partnership’ between ma and pa, with some little serfs who can’t voluntarily enter your family or leave it necessarily until a certain age, and they exist as dependents, not co-owners of the means of production.

  29. If these people really believed the bullshit they were peddling, they would demand the simultaneous detonation of every nuclear weapon in the world, in order to trigger a massive nuclear winter that would lead to climate paradise.

    1. If you actually believe that human beings are going to be extinct in 90 years and there is nothing anyone can do about it and human beings will take the rest of life on earth with them, then the logical solution is to start killing as many people as possible now. If human race is going to be extinct anyway, killing people now is just bringing on the inevitable. If however you can kill enough people, you might be able to save some of the rest of life on earth.

      That is where what this guy is saying leads. Of course he doesn’t really believe any of that. He is just having a tantrum.

      1. If I were convinced that humanity was doomed, I think I’d be more inclined to say “fuck it, let’s have some fun.” I think you need a few more assumptions before logic leads you to killing people. Such as there being some inherent good or evil to the existence of humans or other life on earth.

    2. Someone proposed seeding the atmosphere with stuff to reflect the sun and thus mitigate warming, and the climate faithful dismissed the idea. This is because they don’t accept any solutions that don’t involve government controlling every aspect of our lives. So that makes you wonder what their real goal is.

      1. Some of it is the desire to control, I’m sure. And some of it is the strange notion of natural=good. Lots of people see it as a moral issue and we need to punish ourselves for our moral failings and for being unnatural.

        Not to far from condemning homosexuality or birth control for being unnatural.

        Doing “unnatural” things is pretty much what makes us human.

        1. How can you be sure that people aren’t going to do “unnatural” things unless every aspect of life is controlled by the government?

          1. Well, responding to “that makes you wonder what their real goal is”. Some people use it to gain more control as their end goal. Some people embrace the control necessary as a moral imperative because people are so bad.

            I want people to do unnatural things.

            1. I want people to do unnatural things.

              You and Warty should hook up.

        2. Why is it that anything humans do is somehow unnatural?

          We evolved big brains naturally and use them to our benefit. There is nothing more natural than that.

  30. What might actually be extinct by 2100:

    HIV
    Cancer
    two-party monopoly on our political system
    Wall Street
    software patents
    scarcity
    privacy and anonymity (take the bad with the good)

    But still a surplus on idiocy and paranoia.

  31. They cannot quantify the benefits of the sacrifices they want us to make in our standard of living, so they say that the alternative is human extinction if we don’t make the sacrifices.

    There a few things wrong with that reasoning. Primarily, we should concentrate on making them quantify the sacrifices they want us to make. If they can make predictions about what’s going to happen to the climate in the future, sufficiently reliable that we should sacrifice our standard of living to avoid their predictions, then quantifying the extent of the sacrifices they want us to make in our standard of living should be a piece of cake by comparison.

    That’s where we should be hitting them. Don’t waste your breath on the science. How much will it cost us in terms of GDP per capita to make the changes they want us to make? They can answer that question. They just don’t want to talk about that that because they think we would never support making those sacrifices if we understood the extent of what they were asking us to do.

    1. They’ll probably respond, “Do we really need 27 different scents of deodorant?”

      In other words, they will impose their arbitrary values on the rest of us as a “solution.”

      1. As someone who bought a stick of deodorant last night, yes, and fuck yes I need a choice of scent. Most of the offerings were terrible and I have a preference.

    2. The Germans are quickly learning about the high costs of their alternative energy economy. Over the last 5 years or so, their industrial electric rates have risen to where they are almost 3 times the cost of what it is in the U.S. And companies are moving out of Germany because of it. This is a quantifiable cost of their green scheme.

  32. I buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people arenâ????t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the best deals is
    BEST PROFIT DEAL CHECK ,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.workweb40.com

  33. Party like it’s 2099!

  34. I don’t really care if the human species is extinct by 2100. Why should I?

    1) I will be long dead,
    2) my children will be dead,
    3) my grandchildren will be damn close to dead,
    4) if my grandchildren chose to have their own children, it’s their fault, not mine.

    Put differently, I have zero compassion for the not-yet-conceived.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.