Science and Technology Will Lead to the Extinction of Humans

[hujiaqi_beijing]

The Continuous Development of Science and Technology Will Definitely Make Humans Extinct Soon

Humanity is facing extinction, which is the conclusion from my study of nearly three decades, and it is not alarming. Natural extinction of humanity will happen billions of years later, but the threat of extinction we are facing is due to the non-rational development of science and technology.

I. The Means Of Extinction Are Inevitable.

The power of science and technology is enormous, and it can enhance human capacity by millions of times, or even thousands of millions of times. The electric transmission of information has increased the speed of long-distance communication between human beings by thousands of millions of times; while the large-scale computer has improved the computing capacity of human beings by hundreds of billions of times.

How many times has the capacity of self-destruction of humanity been improved by science and technology? Now a nuclear bomb could easily destroy a city of millions of people; the biological toxin transformed by use of transgenic technology is even more devastating than nuclear weapons. But no matter how terrible the means of destruction are, they will not extinguish human beings. Even if they are used together with all the nuclear weapons, they will destroy hundreds of billions of people and cause a nuclear winter, but will not result in the extinction of human beings (which is found by research of the relevant bodies). However, apparently the development of science has not reached its summit, and as long as science and technology does not stop developing, they will reach a higher level. Therefore, its destruction power will finally be able to extinguish human beings one day, which means that extinction means are inevitable. This is a relatively easy logic conclusion.

The above conclusion, i.e. the extinction means is inevitable, is actually agreed upon by the scientific community, but since the following problems did not draw widespread attention, science and technology has always been in non-rational development.

II. The Means of Extinction Will Be Used Definitely

When science and technology is so developed that it can produce the means of extinction, such means and developing technology will continue to spread. After the earliest extinction means appear, the second, third and even more extinction means will also appear in succession. The new extinction means will be more accessible, more powerful and more user-friendly for one person to operate independently, and it will be spread to the people who dare to use it sooner or later.

What is to be stressed is that humanity is not completely evolved. No matter how perfect the social system is, how strict the legal system is or how good the moral atmosphere is, they can only bind the community as a whole. It cannot guarantee one hundred percent that everyone is absolutely rational and will never do extremely bad things which would bring the end of human beings, even if it was only done once by someone.

III. Extinction Power Can Also Burst Out Unintentionally

In fact, extinction power will not only burst out because of intentional use, and it can also burst out even if no one makes intentional use of it.

Science and technology has one large feature, its uncertainty. We often think that the best scientific and technological achievements are the worst. This means that, as the development of science and technology reaches a level that can extinguish humans, the careless use of scientific and technological achievements as well as scientific experiments may lead unintentionally to the extinction power bursting out unexpectedly, thus putting humanity in the abyss leading to extinction.

Some idealists always wonder if we can avoid such accidents through high meticulousness. It actually is impossible! This is because uncertainty is the inherent characteristic of science and technology, and even Einstein and Newton had a lot of scientific errors. What is more, not everyone is as great as Einstein and Newton.

IV. Self-extinction Is In The Near Future

It now appears that a nuclear bomb could destroy a city of millions of people, and the transgenic biological toxins are even more harmful. In fact, such power is not far from the power needed to make humans extinct. Science and technology made its real start in the industrial revolution of the mid-18th century, only 200 years ago. It was in such a short span of 200 years that humans raised the level of science and technology from zero to the level nearly enough to make humans extinct. Today, the production speed of science and technology is much faster than that of the past, and it is in accelerated fission development. Most scientists believe that extinction means will occur in this century, and even within 30 or 50 years. Then, will it be long before the extinction power bursts out after extinction means occur?!

Therefore, the self-extinction of humanity is actually in the near future, and it is still late even if we take measures right now.

Please email questions or comments to [email protected]

 

[editec]

So basically one must accept the probablility that sooner rather than later advances in technology fall into the wrong hands thus setting off some manmade disaster which ends human life on the planet?

Yeah, I can see how one might think that possible.

Plausible, I suppose, except there's an awful lot of humans to kill on this planet and while I definitely believe that sooner or later our WORLD WIDE CULTURE is likely to cause some kind of WORLD WIDE disaster which brings down our societies, it seems likely to me that some humans will survive at some level somewhere.

Global Wierding, OTOH, assuming it is real, will probably do the same thing, even if we do our best to prevent it.

I suspect we reached some environmental tipping point we don't even suspect exists yet, to be honest.

 

[JBeukema]

Technology will do nothing to harm humanity


It is humanity that shall destroy humanity, using whatever tools available

Don't blame the technology

 

[editec]

Technology will do nothing to harm humanity


It is humanity that shall destroy humanity, using whatever tools available

Don't blame the technology

A fair complaint, I suppose.

But that assumes that the technology which might kill us is a weapon, doesn't it? and that some human or humans willingly pull the trigger.

Bus suppose that the problem isn't a weapon or anything that humans do ON PURPOSE

Suppose, for example, that the problem is blowback from a technology that we don't recognize in time?

For example, suppose that a chemical becomes ubiquitious which has a long term effect in our ability to procreate?

Like hormone mimics for example, or some DDT like event?

The earth is now a vast science experiement with nobody really in charge, folks.

We've released tens of thousands of chemicals into the ecosystm (including our own bodies!) the long rage effects of which, we haven't a clue.

And the long range effects of combinations of those chemicals we have even less a clue about, too.

Species death by technology?

I'd say we have pretty good chance of causing that, to be honest.

We're really only about 150 years into the age of science and technology and already we're discovering that much of what we did has been dangerous or detremental to our species and the ecology upon which we all depend.

And with capitalism leading the way and that philosophy assuming that the invisible hand of the market has the foresight to see the problems it MIGHT be causing?

I'd say that the possibility that sooner or later we screw up either unknowingly or because of misadventure REAL BAD?

I'd say the chances of that happening are about 100% if we continue conducting business as usual.

 

[KittenKoder]

Technology will do nothing to harm humanity


It is humanity that shall destroy humanity, using whatever tools available

Don't blame the technology

A fair complaint, I suppose.

But that assumes that the technology which might kill us is a weapon, doesn't it, and that some human or humans willingly pull the trigger.

Bus suppose that the problem isn't a weapon.

Suppose for example that the problem is bloewback from a technology that we don't recognize in time?

For example, suppose that a chemical becomes ubiquitious which has a long term effect in our ability to procreate?

Like hormone mimics for example, or some DDT like event?

The earth is now a vast science experiement with nobody really in charge folks.

We've released tens of thousands of chemicals into the ecosystm (including our own bodies!) the long rage effects of which, we haven't a clue.

And the long range effects of combinations of those chemicals we have even less a clue about, too.

Death by technology?

I'd say we have pretty good chance of causing that, to be honest.

Actually, the chances are very low of that occurring, and even then it would not eradicate us, hell, even in the worst case it would barely make a dent in our current population.

 

[JBeukema]

...


If any of out technology kills us, it'll be intelligent machines with no need for their creator gods

 

[KittenKoder]

...


If any of out technology kills us, it'll be intelligent machines with no need for their creator gods

"Creator gods"?

Um ... how old are you again?

 

[editec]

Technology will do nothing to harm humanity


It is humanity that shall destroy humanity, using whatever tools available

Don't blame the technology

A fair complaint, I suppose.

But that assumes that the technology which might kill us is a weapon, doesn't it, and that some human or humans willingly pull the trigger.

Bus suppose that the problem isn't a weapon.

Suppose for example that the problem is bloewback from a technology that we don't recognize in time?

For example, suppose that a chemical becomes ubiquitious which has a long term effect in our ability to procreate?

Like hormone mimics for example, or some DDT like event?

The earth is now a vast science experiement with nobody really in charge folks.

We've released tens of thousands of chemicals into the ecosystm (including our own bodies!) the long rage effects of which, we haven't a clue.

And the long range effects of combinations of those chemicals we have even less a clue about, too.

Death by technology?

I'd say we have pretty good chance of causing that, to be honest.

Actually, the chances are very low of that occurring, and even then it would not eradicate us, hell, even in the worst case it would barely make a dent in our current population.

Now how do you know that?

Ceraininly most events couldn't possibly wipe out mankind, I certainly agree with that theory.

But all possible events?

You can't know, nobody can know what the effects might be in the long run.

You do realize don't you that men's sperm counts have dropped (I've read by as much as by half!) in the last 50 years, right?

If you do not know that, do read on...

Sperm Count Decline Confirmed
Monday November 24 1997 4:58 PM EST
Expert: Sperm Counts Falling Around the World

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Modern living is hitting men right where it hurts the most, with sperm counts falling more quickly than anyone thought, U.S. researchers said Monday.

Experts who set out to dispel fears of falling sperm counts found they were even lower than had been reported. "I think this study will change the debate about sperm decline from 'if' to 'why'," said Shanna Swan, chief of the reproductive epidemiology section at the California Department of Health Services, who led the study.

The debate has been bubbling since 1992, when Niels Skakkebaek, Elisabeth Carlsen and colleagues at Copenhagen University reported sperm counts were falling around the world, based on an analysis of 61 different studies. Their announcement caused a flurry of debate, and studies published since have shown conflicting results. British research found that men born in the 1970s had 25 percent fewer sperm than those born in the 1950s, while Harry Fisch of New York's Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center found men there had high sperm counts, with no evidence of a decline.

Swan's group re-analyzed the 61 studies. "Overall, in Europe and the United States there is a strong and significant decline," she told Reuters. There could be regional variations, which would account for the New York findings and similar findings in Seattle and Finland, she added in an interview.

The National Institutes of Health agreed. "Their analysis of data collected from 1938 to 1990 indicates that sperm densities in the United States have exhibited an average annual decrease of 1.5 million sperm per milliliter of collected sample, or about 1.5 percent per year," the NIH said in a statement. "Those in European countries have declined at about twice that rate (3.1 percent per year)."

Sperm counts seemed to be going up slightly in developing countries, but Swan said the data from these areas was sketchy and did not go back as far as the U.S. and European results. Swan, whose findings will be published in the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Services, one of the NIH agencies, said she approached the task expecting to disprove the theory. "When I first read Carlsen I was at first, frankly, suspicious because of its simplicity," she said.

But after careful analysis, she changed her mind. What is the cause? "Once we rule out differences such as smoking, temperature, age and ethnicity, what we will have left are environmental factors," Swan said. She, and many other experts, blame persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which range from pesticides such as DDT to industrial chemicals like PCBs. All have been shown to act like hormones such as estrogens, which can either bring out feminine characteristics or work to counteract male hormones.

Swan is part of a National Academy of Sciences committee writing a report on such chemicals. The Academy has not reviewed her sperm research. Swan said fertility was not the big issue, as babies were still being born. "However, sperm count is a marker, a red flag ... for testicular cancer." she said.

In November 1996 the U.S. Congress passed legislation requiring the Environmental Protections Agency (EPA) to develop ways to test substances to see if they disrupt human or animal hormones. In May, the European Environment Agency, European Commission, World Health Organization and other organizations agreed there was an apparent decline in sperm count in some countries, and evidence that rates of testicular cancer were increasing.

source

 

[KittenKoder]

A fair complaint, I suppose.

But that assumes that the technology which might kill us is a weapon, doesn't it, and that some human or humans willingly pull the trigger.

Bus suppose that the problem isn't a weapon.

Suppose for example that the problem is bloewback from a technology that we don't recognize in time?

For example, suppose that a chemical becomes ubiquitious which has a long term effect in our ability to procreate?

Like hormone mimics for example, or some DDT like event?

The earth is now a vast science experiement with nobody really in charge folks.

We've released tens of thousands of chemicals into the ecosystm (including our own bodies!) the long rage effects of which, we haven't a clue.

And the long range effects of combinations of those chemicals we have even less a clue about, too.

Death by technology?

I'd say we have pretty good chance of causing that, to be honest.

Actually, the chances are very low of that occurring, and even then it would not eradicate us, hell, even in the worst case it would barely make a dent in our current population.

Now how do you know that?

Ceraininly most events couldn't possibly wipe out mankind, I certainly agree with that theory.

But all possible events?

You can't know, nobody can know what the effects might be in the long run.

You do realize don't you that men's sperm counts have dropped (I've read by as much as by half!) in the last 50 years, right?

If you do not know that, do read on...

Sperm Count Decline Confirmed
Monday November 24 1997 4:58 PM EST
Expert: Sperm Counts Falling Around the World

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Modern living is hitting men right where it hurts the most, with sperm counts falling more quickly than anyone thought, U.S. researchers said Monday.

Experts who set out to dispel fears of falling sperm counts found they were even lower than had been reported. "I think this study will change the debate about sperm decline from 'if' to 'why'," said Shanna Swan, chief of the reproductive epidemiology section at the California Department of Health Services, who led the study.

The debate has been bubbling since 1992, when Niels Skakkebaek, Elisabeth Carlsen and colleagues at Copenhagen University reported sperm counts were falling around the world, based on an analysis of 61 different studies. Their announcement caused a flurry of debate, and studies published since have shown conflicting results. British research found that men born in the 1970s had 25 percent fewer sperm than those born in the 1950s, while Harry Fisch of New York's Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center found men there had high sperm counts, with no evidence of a decline.

Swan's group re-analyzed the 61 studies. "Overall, in Europe and the United States there is a strong and significant decline," she told Reuters. There could be regional variations, which would account for the New York findings and similar findings in Seattle and Finland, she added in an interview.

The National Institutes of Health agreed. "Their analysis of data collected from 1938 to 1990 indicates that sperm densities in the United States have exhibited an average annual decrease of 1.5 million sperm per milliliter of collected sample, or about 1.5 percent per year," the NIH said in a statement. "Those in European countries have declined at about twice that rate (3.1 percent per year)."

Sperm counts seemed to be going up slightly in developing countries, but Swan said the data from these areas was sketchy and did not go back as far as the U.S. and European results. Swan, whose findings will be published in the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Services, one of the NIH agencies, said she approached the task expecting to disprove the theory. "When I first read Carlsen I was at first, frankly, suspicious because of its simplicity," she said.

But after careful analysis, she changed her mind. What is the cause? "Once we rule out differences such as smoking, temperature, age and ethnicity, what we will have left are environmental factors," Swan said. She, and many other experts, blame persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which range from pesticides such as DDT to industrial chemicals like PCBs. All have been shown to act like hormones such as estrogens, which can either bring out feminine characteristics or work to counteract male hormones.

Swan is part of a National Academy of Sciences committee writing a report on such chemicals. The Academy has not reviewed her sperm research. Swan said fertility was not the big issue, as babies were still being born. "However, sperm count is a marker, a red flag ... for testicular cancer." she said.

In November 1996 the U.S. Congress passed legislation requiring the Environmental Protections Agency (EPA) to develop ways to test substances to see if they disrupt human or animal hormones. In May, the European Environment Agency, European Commission, World Health Organization and other organizations agreed there was an apparent decline in sperm count in some countries, and evidence that rates of testicular cancer were increasing.

source

Okay ... You do realize that the same technology you are blaming for it is also what found this information out ... yet oddly it's all still circumstantial. Unless there is a full 100% correlation it's still guessing. Now, let's look at one specific point to demonstrate this.

Testicular cancer, I just happen to know a bit about it because of an old friend. The cause based on the information you posted is the "feminizing" hormones. Yet the truly strange problem with this is that the treatment for most problems, including prevention for those with a high risk, is the administration of female hormones since many studies have also shown that those with higher testosterone levels are at risk for more health problems than people with lower levels. The point, studies contradict each other all the time, because as I said, it's all really just guessing.

Now, as to technology being the problem, it's not, to the contrary technology has and will be what actually saves humanity ... if we use it right. Just like guns, the choice of those who use it determine whether it is a danger or a tool. Without technology we would already be on the brink of extinction.

 

[editec]

Actually, the chances are very low of that occurring, and even then it would not eradicate us, hell, even in the worst case it would barely make a dent in our current population.

Now how do you know that?

Ceraininly most events couldn't possibly wipe out mankind, I certainly agree with that theory.

But all possible events?

You can't know, nobody can know what the effects might be in the long run.

You do realize don't you that men's sperm counts have dropped (I've read by as much as by half!) in the last 50 years, right?

If you do not know that, do read on...

Sperm Count Decline Confirmed
Monday November 24 1997 4:58 PM EST
Expert: Sperm Counts Falling Around the World

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Modern living is hitting men right where it hurts the most, with sperm counts falling more quickly than anyone thought, U.S. researchers said Monday.

Experts who set out to dispel fears of falling sperm counts found they were even lower than had been reported. "I think this study will change the debate about sperm decline from 'if' to 'why'," said Shanna Swan, chief of the reproductive epidemiology section at the California Department of Health Services, who led the study.

The debate has been bubbling since 1992, when Niels Skakkebaek, Elisabeth Carlsen and colleagues at Copenhagen University reported sperm counts were falling around the world, based on an analysis of 61 different studies. Their announcement caused a flurry of debate, and studies published since have shown conflicting results. British research found that men born in the 1970s had 25 percent fewer sperm than those born in the 1950s, while Harry Fisch of New York's Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center found men there had high sperm counts, with no evidence of a decline.

Swan's group re-analyzed the 61 studies. "Overall, in Europe and the United States there is a strong and significant decline," she told Reuters. There could be regional variations, which would account for the New York findings and similar findings in Seattle and Finland, she added in an interview.

The National Institutes of Health agreed. "Their analysis of data collected from 1938 to 1990 indicates that sperm densities in the United States have exhibited an average annual decrease of 1.5 million sperm per milliliter of collected sample, or about 1.5 percent per year," the NIH said in a statement. "Those in European countries have declined at about twice that rate (3.1 percent per year)."

Sperm counts seemed to be going up slightly in developing countries, but Swan said the data from these areas was sketchy and did not go back as far as the U.S. and European results. Swan, whose findings will be published in the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Services, one of the NIH agencies, said she approached the task expecting to disprove the theory. "When I first read Carlsen I was at first, frankly, suspicious because of its simplicity," she said.

But after careful analysis, she changed her mind. What is the cause? "Once we rule out differences such as smoking, temperature, age and ethnicity, what we will have left are environmental factors," Swan said. She, and many other experts, blame persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which range from pesticides such as DDT to industrial chemicals like PCBs. All have been shown to act like hormones such as estrogens, which can either bring out feminine characteristics or work to counteract male hormones.

Swan is part of a National Academy of Sciences committee writing a report on such chemicals. The Academy has not reviewed her sperm research. Swan said fertility was not the big issue, as babies were still being born. "However, sperm count is a marker, a red flag ... for testicular cancer." she said.

In November 1996 the U.S. Congress passed legislation requiring the Environmental Protections Agency (EPA) to develop ways to test substances to see if they disrupt human or animal hormones. In May, the European Environment Agency, European Commission, World Health Organization and other organizations agreed there was an apparent decline in sperm count in some countries, and evidence that rates of testicular cancer were increasing.

source

Okay ... You do realize that the same technology you are blaming for it is also what found this information out ...

Of course.

yet oddly it's all still circumstantial. Unless there is a full 100% correlation it's still guessing. Now, let's look at one specific point to demonstrate this.

Yeah...so?

Testicular cancer, I just happen to know a bit about it because of an old friend. The cause based on the information you posted is the "feminizing" hormones. Yet the truly strange problem with this is that the treatment for most problems, including prevention for those with a high risk, is the administration of female hormones since many studies have also shown that those with higher testosterone levels are at risk for more health problems than people with lower levels. The point, studies contradict each other all the time, because as I said, it's all really just guessing.

Not interested in debating the cause of testicular cancer, KK.

This thread is about the POTENTIAL of some aspect of our technology to come back and bite us in ways we're not expecting.

I submit that that's certainly within the realm of possibility, and you seem to be interpreting that as some sort of luddite assualt on science and technology.

It's not.

It's merely acknowledging that the potential for our technology to blowback in our faces is pretty fucking obvious.

This isn't really even debatable unless you rewrite my theme into something its clearly not.

Now, as to technology being the problem, it's not, to the contrary technology has and will be what actually saves humanity ... if we use it right.

It's knowing how to USE IT RIGHT that is the potential problem which you seem to be dismissing as some for of ludditism

Just like guns,

No it's not just like guns at all.

When one uses a gun one knows what it will do.

When one introduces a new chemical into our lives, one does not know what the outcome will be, and certainly one doesn't KNOW what outcomes might come as it combines with other chemicals which we've introduced into our bodies and our environment.

This is not a very confusing statement, and I'm have difficulty understanding why it's confusing you.

the choice of those who use it determine whether it is a danger or a tool. Without technology we would already be on the brink of extinction.

Without technology the population wouldn't be six billion that's for damned sure.

 

[G.T.]

This is a mind-numbing thought.

The problem with this is that it's a detriment to your own life if you spend too-much time focusing on, and dwelling on it. Only those with substantially elite and influencial power/voices will be able to put into practice a reverse-trend should this all take place. To effect change you need a movement, and without a movement humans are reserved and lack motivation.

Perhaps a counter-technology which would crate a "super-motivation" in human-beings could cause them to study in-depth all of the worldly knowledge and devise severals ways and means to avoid such catastrophe. I don't put it past us as a species.

We are the most sentient and intelligent species to ever roam this Earth. If any species can survive by its own will, it will be human beings.

 

[eagleseven]

The development of stone tools enables one man to easily crush the skull of another. For his victim, the stone club is Armageddon.

All technology, and indeed warfare, are mere extensions of this fact.

 

[JBeukema]

Well said, Eagle. Imagine Man's fear the first time the sky was filled with deadly missiles... Archers were bringers of death from far beyond the reaches of the sword or club.

 

[G.T.]

The development of stone tools enables one man to easily crush the skull of another. For his victim, the stone club is Armageddon.

All technology, and indeed warfare, are mere extensions of this fact.

welllllll....not all. My hair-gel will never cause a panic

 

[JBeukema]

welllllll....not all. My hair-gel will never cause a panic

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OEDEkqazqo]YouTube - AXE Operation Balloon[/ame]

 

[G.T.]

Can't view youtube videos from my office.

 

[asaratis]

The Continuous Development of Science and Technology Will Definitely Make Humans Extinct Soon

Humanity is facing extinction, which is the conclusion from my study of nearly three decades, and it is not alarming. Natural extinction of humanity will happen billions of years later, but the threat of extinction we are facing is due to the non-rational development of science and technology.

I. The Means Of Extinction Are Inevitable.

The power of science and technology is enormous, and it can enhance human capacity by millions of times, or even thousands of millions of times. The electric transmission of information has increased the speed of long-distance communication between human beings by thousands of millions of times; while the large-scale computer has improved the computing capacity of human beings by hundreds of billions of times.

How many times has the capacity of self-destruction of humanity been improved by science and technology? Now a nuclear bomb could easily destroy a city of millions of people; the biological toxin transformed by use of transgenic technology is even more devastating than nuclear weapons. But no matter how terrible the means of destruction are, they will not extinguish human beings. Even if they are used together with all the nuclear weapons, they will destroy hundreds of billions of people and cause a nuclear winter, but will not result in the extinction of human beings (which is found by research of the relevant bodies). However, apparently the development of science has not reached its summit, and as long as science and technology does not stop developing, they will reach a higher level. Therefore, its destruction power will finally be able to extinguish human beings one day, which means that extinction means are inevitable. This is a relatively easy logic conclusion.

The above conclusion, i.e. the extinction means is inevitable, is actually agreed upon by the scientific community, but since the following problems did not draw widespread attention, science and technology has always been in non-rational development.

II. The Means of Extinction Will Be Used Definitely

When science and technology is so developed that it can produce the means of extinction, such means and developing technology will continue to spread. After the earliest extinction means appear, the second, third and even more extinction means will also appear in succession. The new extinction means will be more accessible, more powerful and more user-friendly for one person to operate independently, and it will be spread to the people who dare to use it sooner or later.

What is to be stressed is that humanity is not completely evolved. No matter how perfect the social system is, how strict the legal system is or how good the moral atmosphere is, they can only bind the community as a whole. It cannot guarantee one hundred percent that everyone is absolutely rational and will never do extremely bad things which would bring the end of human beings, even if it was only done once by someone.

III. Extinction Power Can Also Burst Out Unintentionally

In fact, extinction power will not only burst out because of intentional use, and it can also burst out even if no one makes intentional use of it.

Science and technology has one large feature, its uncertainty. We often think that the best scientific and technological achievements are the worst. This means that, as the development of science and technology reaches a level that can extinguish humans, the careless use of scientific and technological achievements as well as scientific experiments may lead unintentionally to the extinction power bursting out unexpectedly, thus putting humanity in the abyss leading to extinction.

Some idealists always wonder if we can avoid such accidents through high meticulousness. It actually is impossible! This is because uncertainty is the inherent characteristic of science and technology, and even Einstein and Newton had a lot of scientific errors. What is more, not everyone is as great as Einstein and Newton.

IV. Self-extinction Is In The Near Future

It now appears that a nuclear bomb could destroy a city of millions of people, and the transgenic biological toxins are even more harmful. In fact, such power is not far from the power needed to make humans extinct. Science and technology made its real start in the industrial revolution of the mid-18th century, only 200 years ago. It was in such a short span of 200 years that humans raised the level of science and technology from zero to the level nearly enough to make humans extinct. Today, the production speed of science and technology is much faster than that of the past, and it is in accelerated fission development. Most scientists believe that extinction means will occur in this century, and even within 30 or 50 years. Then, will it be long before the extinction power bursts out after extinction means occur?!

Therefore, the self-extinction of humanity is actually in the near future, and it is still late even if we take measures right now.

Please email questions or comments to [email protected]

A very un-scientific paper!

...enhance human capacity thousands of millions of times? *(Give us a clear definition of enhance human capacity.)

...hundreds of billions of people? *(World population is estimated at 6.773 billion...will be about 9 billion in 2040.)

The use of such terms as "thousands of millions of times" and "hundreds of billions of times" without any scientific backup gives one reason to believe that you are full of hot air and have no business trying to present a scientific paper.

...Most scientists believe...? *(I doubt you have polled all of the scientists and cannot determine what most of them think about anything.)

What hogwash!

Go back to the drawing board and start over.

 

[G.T.]

Those were all good catches asaratis; however, they don't really refute the underlying point.

I think it's a bsaic 50/50 chance we kill ourselves before we are killed by some asteroid or climate change.

 

[American Horse]

Technology will do nothing to harm humanity


It is humanity that shall destroy humanity, using whatever tools available

Don't blame the technology

On the other hand, technology may have arrived just in time, opening a window enabling us to save ourselves from some pretty steep risks in our galactic, stellar, or planetary neighborhood. We are learning, also maybe just in time, that the risk is real, and the danger is growing.

Not only once but, twice in almost exactly a decade and a half, a mere instant in geological or astronomical time frames, both a comet and possibly another comet or an asteroid have collided with Jupiter creating huge effects on the planet. The most recent impact, said to have left a dark bruise, is the smallest of the two.
Two similarly dangerous events:
Comet Shoemaker/Levi 9 - July 22 1994 - click on "YouTube - Comet Shoemaker Levy colliding with Jupiter" to see the video. The flashes at about 7-O'clock low are the individual impacts from SL-9 after breaking up into about 22 smaller pieces, striking the planet as it turns in it's axis 360 degrees in about 9.8 hours.

Un-named object strikes Jupiter - July 18, 2009
First noticed by an amateur astronomer, estimaetd to have been about a mile in diameter, National Geographic comment "If you could look edge-on at the planet exactly where it happened, you would have seen a fireball," she said. "What we're looking at now is not the hole, but burnt up debris raining back down onto the planet." (NOTE: the dark spot at the equator is the moon IO's shadow. Look to the top of the planet for the dark impact area.)

Another: "In August, President Barack Obama will receive a major report from the U.S. human space flight plans committee about the future of space travel, which could be a turning point for NASA in the 21st century. He should remember the Jupiter hit as he considers the report." (from the WSJ July 24)

 

[hujiaqi_beijing]

A very un-scientific paper!

...enhance human capacity thousands of millions of times? *(Give us a clear definition of enhance human capacity.)

...hundreds of billions of people? *(World population is estimated at 6.773 billion...will be about 9 billion in 2040.)

The use of such terms as "thousands of millions of times" and "hundreds of billions of times" without any scientific backup gives one reason to believe that you are full of hot air and have no business trying to present a scientific paper.

...Most scientists believe...? *(I doubt you have polled all of the scientists and cannot determine what most of them think about anything.)

What hogwash!

Go back to the drawing board and start over.

Thank you for bringing those errors to my attention. These articles have all been translated from Chinese into English, and although you are correct in some, many are due to translational errors. It is hard to translate a piece of writing while still maintaining its true meaning. I hope you still see the point behind this article.