Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Confirmed by science: our species is doomed. [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)81. There is no star close enough to us to cause a deadly gamma ray burst.
None of the stars that are close enough for a gamma-ray burst to be dangerous are capable of producing a gamma ray burst.
As for an asteroid impact, that may or may not wipe out humanity depending on the kinetic energy involved. A massive enough asteroid would cause extinction.
You'd need an object large enough to re-liquefy the Earth's surface. Such as the impact that created the moon. An object that big is relatively easy to find, and there's no object that big close to Earth.
A full scale nuclear conflict also could kill us all off. The initial exchange would not. Subsequent radiation effects would kill off a large number of those left and weaken the rest. The nuclear winter created by the blasts would destroy vegetation on most of the planets surface for years. Few would survive that, and those who did would face long odds of creating a successful future generation.
Face long odds because........?
Radiation in such an event will not be distributed all over the Earth. Some parts will be "hot", others will not. People already live in the areas that are unlikely to be "hot".
Nuclear winter will definitely harm food production, but we don't need to feed billions for the species to survive. Getting down to thousands would still leave an easily sufficient "breeding population".
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
91 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I came to this conclusion about a year ago. This when I realized it's pretty pointless.
Katashi_itto
Apr 2014
#1
An evolutionary leap, in a positive direction of course, would be the only thing that might save us.
MoonRiver
Apr 2014
#3
Not necessarily - other animals can adapt as well - cockroachs for example will do just fine
el_bryanto
Apr 2014
#5
Humans are the only species that seves zero purpose to the cycle of life on Earth.
NM_Birder
Apr 2014
#11
"Humans are the only species that seves zero purpose to the cycle of life on Earth."
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#12
Don't think I have ever done an emoticon. Maybe I have, just don't remember.
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#30
That's sweet. Always happy when I can make someone smile. Have a great day. nt.
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#47
"Humans are the only species that seves zero purpose to the cycle of life on Earth."
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#55
By your rationale, then to hell with other life species, we will determine what is "natural".
NM_Birder
Apr 2014
#35
You can't separate concepts like "benefit" or "purpose" from your human perspective.
Silent3
Apr 2014
#72
Humans only need technology and "food distribution systems" to live in large numbers...
Silent3
Apr 2014
#70
An estimated 99% of species have gone extinct -- why would humans be different?
FarCenter
Apr 2014
#46
Darwin's theory doesn't have a built in guarantee for long term human survival.
GoneFishin
Apr 2014
#77