Peak Oil News and Message Boards

I give it around 2,000 years. That's about how long it will take for humans to ruin the planet.

I selected 100 years because I know how exponential population growth works.

I selected 10,000 years or more.

I think the climate is already screwed, and we've triggered off a global mass extinction event to boot. I fully expect most human populations to die off and most species to go extinct all over the globe as a consequence of AGW.

But I don't think the human species will go extinct. Call me an optimist if you want, but I think a tiny remnant of humanity will survive scratching out a meagre existence along the northern coastline of Greenland or Alaska or in the mountains of Antarctica and places like that. If after global warming makes most places on earth uninhabitable, I retain a sliver of hope that if things will sort out so there is some tiny piece of habitat that can support a farm somewhere on earth, then a few humans will hang on there.


Take us to northernmost Greenland, please.

There will always be intelligent life here, at least till the sun dies.

I reject the presupposition behind the question...there has never been intelligent life on Earth, and there likely never will be!

The proof is most of the discussion on this forum!

intelligent life you say?

depends on if we can finish of the dolphins or whales I guess

then again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq4uCWtQE24

"And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space 'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth"

If we exhaust all the fossil fuels on the planet and have made no effort to mitigate or transition to some other energy sources, most of the human population will die off. But that doesn't mean all humans will die off. There are primitive but intelligent humans that can survive on the planet regardless of the availability of fossil fuels.

dohboi wrote:I reject the presupposition behind the question...there has never been intelligent life on Earth, and there likely never will be!
The proof is most of the discussion on this forum!

Yep, especially the guy earlier who thinks the rest of the world will die off except for where HE lives. How...conveeeeeenient. Ego, ego, ego.

I went with 10k+ as well. There's no reason to suspsect that the Earth won't have any niche space for a primate on land somewhere. This doesn't imply that industrial civilization survives, but rather just a more typical quantity of humans, appropriate for the mid weight predator that we are.

There's nothing wrong with their only be some thousands of humans alive on the Earth. Perfectly reasonable population size.

Getting back to quality over quantity is a good deal for our species.

I’m not voting, I have no idea, far too many variables.

All I wil say is we do need a huge population reduction

I have selected more than 10000 years albeit it won't be that long before intelligent life is busy with deciding which neighbour to eat on next dinner or how deep hole to dig to survive next winter.

Depends on your definition of "intelligent life". My dogs are pretty intelligent. Whether or not humans are is debatable. True intelligence doesn't rely on delusion to get through the day.

Never a post from Ghung that isn't oozing with "I'm more enlightened than you sheeple" contempt.

Our sensibilities are misplaced. We should be asking "How much longer will Earth support a rich and diverse Ecosystem?"

"Intelligent Life" seems to have been at odds with that.

asg70 wrote:Never a post from Ghung that isn't oozing with "I'm more enlightened than you sheeple" contempt.

Thanks for your "intelligent" response.

You are very welcome.

jedrider wrote:Our sensibilities are misplaced. We should be asking "How much longer will Earth support a rich and diverse Ecosystem?"

"Intelligent Life" seems to have been at odds with that.

Good point. How can we be deemed “intelligent” if we destroy the environment that made us?

Newfie wrote:

jedrider wrote:Our sensibilities are misplaced. We should be asking "How much longer will Earth support a rich and diverse Ecosystem?"

"Intelligent Life" seems to have been at odds with that.

Good point. How can we be deemed “intelligent” if we destroy the environment that made us?

From my understanding no other species destroys the environment which sustains it. It only overpopulates its carrying capacity. Perhaps Ibon can chime in.