Humans will be extinct in 100 years says eminent scientist

Jun 23, 2010 by Lin Edwards report
Professor Frank Fenner

(PhysOrg.com) -- 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. United Nations official figures from last year estimate the human population is 6.8 billion, and is predicted to pass seven billion next year.

Fenner told The Australian he tries not to express his pessimism because people are trying to do something, but keep putting it off. He said he believes the situation is irreversible, and it is too late because the effects we have had on Earth since industrialization (a period now known to scientists unofficially as the Anthropocene) rivals any effects of ice ages or comet impacts.

World population growth chart.

Fenner said that is only at its beginning, but is likely to be the cause of our extinction. “We’ll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island,” he said. More people means fewer resources, and Fenner predicts “there will be a lot more wars over food.”

Easter Island is famous for its massive stone statues. Polynesian people settled there, in what was then a pristine tropical island, around the middle of the first millennium AD. The population grew slowly at first and then exploded. As the population grew the forests were wiped out and all the tree animals became extinct, both with devastating consequences. After about 1600 the civilization began to collapse, and had virtually disappeared by the mid-19th century. Evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond said the parallels between what happened on Easter Island and what is occurring today on the planet as a whole are “chillingly obvious.”

While many scientists are also pessimistic, others are more optimistic. Among the latter is a colleague of Professor Fenner, retired professor Stephen Boyden, who said he still hopes awareness of the problems will rise and the required revolutionary changes will be made to achieve ecological sustainability. “While there's a glimmer of hope, it's worth working to solve the problem. We have the scientific knowledge to do it but we don't have the political will,” Boyden said.

Fenner, 95, is the author or co-author of 22 books and 290 scientific papers and book chapters. His announcement in 1980 to the World Health Assembly that smallpox had been eradicated is still seen as one of the World Health Organisation’s greatest achievements. He has also been heavily involved in controlling Australia’s feral rabbit population with the myxomatosis virus.

Professor Fenner has had a lifetime interest in the environment, and from 1973 to 1979 was Director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at ANU. He is currently a visiting fellow at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the university, and is a patron of Sustainable Population Australia. He has won numerous awards including the ANZAC Peace Prize, the WHO Medal, and the Albert Einstein World Award of Science. He was awarded an MBE for his work on control of malaria in New Guinea during the Second World War, in which Fenner served in the Royal Australian Army Medical Corps.

Professor Fenner will open the Healthy Climate, Planet and People symposium at the Australian Academy of Science next week.

Explore further: German scientist starts four-week swim down Rhine river

More information: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/easter.html

Related Stories

Protecting natural forests crucial for climate change

Aug 06, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- South-east Australia’s natural forests are among the most carbon dense in the world and store three times more carbon than Australian and international climate change experts realise, a ...

A big lesson from the reef

May 07, 2009

The lesson from Australia's Great Barrier Reef is that we have to protect its biodiversity - because biodiversity in turn protects us.

Critical problems for fresh water supplies in Pacific

Aug 22, 2007

Despite high average annual rainfalls and balmy temperatures, an expert from The Australian National University warns that small island nations in the Pacific face freshwater supply and sanitation problems among the most ...

New Easter Island theory presented

Dec 06, 2005

A University of Hawaii anthropologist and colleagues are blaming rats and Dutch traders for the mysterious abandonment of Easter Island.

Recommended for you

Underwater elephants

5 hours ago

In the high-tech world of science, researchers sometimes need to get back to basics. UC Santa Barbara's Douglas McCauley did just that to study the impacts of the bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) on cor ...

Malaysia air quality 'unhealthy' as haze obscures skies

11 hours ago

Air quality around Malaysia's capital Kuala Lumpur and on Borneo island was "unhealthy" on Tuesday, with one town reaching "very unhealthy" levels as haze—mostly from forest fires in Indonesia—obscured skies.

User comments : 153

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JerryPark
3.6 / 5 (21) Jun 23, 2010
Population growth has long been acknowledged as a problem, though it is slowing. But the alarmist and defeatist attitude of Frank Fenner is surprising in a person who is lauded for his supposed scientific predilection.

If we were indeed destined to expire within a human lifetime, "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" would be an acceptable attitude. But profligate politics is not an acceptable course.

We are not about to expire and Frank Fenner is just plain wrong.
jsa09
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2010
Perhaps extinct by 2100 is a bit excessive. For sure most other animals will be, we will living off soylent green and loving it. Plus there will be the problem of the distribution of wealth and resources. It is already out of balance and getting more so.

With more people the super rich will be so wealthy that they will be able to match the wealth of a lifetime of work for a normal person in less than a day. Wait this may already be happening and it is extremely unhealthy for society.
ClevorTrever
3.4 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2010
I don't think we'll be extinct 100 years from now, but I do think we will be post-industrial and massively diminished in numbers with small pockets of humans ekeing out a living in a very harsh man-made environment. Our grandchildren will reap what we are sowing.
ealex
4.2 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2010
This is just alarmist fear-mongering, which is surprising and disappointing from a scientist of his supposed caliber.

Mass death? Sure. Drastic reduction in population, again, entirely possible, all it would take is one kick-ass airborne virus.

But you always have to take into consideration that the ARE communities of people living in isolated and remote areas that will not be hit as hard by whatever hits densely populated areas. More so, most countries have various fall-back mechanisms in case of catastrophe to ensure some level of survival of the species (bunkers, shelters, seed vaults, etc) and certainly more than we as a public know of.

So it would be fairly safe to say that excluding the most catastrophic of events, we will NOT go extinct anytime soon.

A lot of us might die, granted, but then again, within 100 years, all of us discussing this here will be dead anyway. Concern should be raised and educated, but not through extremist stances and statements, just IMHO.
mysticfree
4.8 / 5 (25) Jun 23, 2010
I predict that Mr. Fenner will be extinct within a hundred years.
Egnite
3.9 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2010
It's such a shame to see a great contributor to science in the past century go senile but I suppose it happens to even the best of us.
ralph_wiggum
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2010
The guy is 95, give him a break. This is just his way of saying get off my lawn your damn kids! When I'm his age I'll be telling stories about how in my day computers had to process information 64 bits a time and we liked it.
zz6549
3.9 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2010
Humans might end up extinct in a 100 years if we stopped all technical innovation right now. But considering how fast our society is advancing, in a 100 years we might not even need bodies, let alone food.

I applaud Fenner's work in eliminating the smallpox virus, but it seems he's forgotten about man's ability to change his environment.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2010
Mr. Fenner seems to not recognize that human populations have always been rather large. Population growth is not exponential. It's greater than linear but not exponential.
Glyndwr
3.6 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2010
Most people have no idea how stupid they are...we won't be extinct imo but then again its depressing to meet so many people in self denial acheiving nothing but getting old and fat
mysticshakra
1.7 / 5 (24) Jun 23, 2010
What an idiot. Wonder who paid him to make such stupid and poorly thought out comments. Political agendas abound.
Bob_Kob
Jun 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Xynos21
3.9 / 5 (19) Jun 23, 2010
"Humans might end up extinct in a 100 years if we stopped all technical innovation right now. But considering how fast our society is advancing, in a 100 years we might not even need bodies, let alone food."

This is exactly the kind of thinking that lead to the population of Easter island watching as the last tree was felled. Holding out hope for technology to save us is as wrong and misguided as holding out hope for the gods to save us.
karnoug
Jun 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otto1923
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2010
@mysticshakira
What an idiot. Wonder who paid him to make such stupid and poorly thought out comments. Political agendas abound.
What an idiot. Wonder who paid you to make such stupid and poorly thought out comments. Maybe you'd like to say something of substance worth discussing? Is there something specific you take issue with?
Au-Pu
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 23, 2010
JerryPark and ealex are examples of the Easter Island mentality he quoted, mysticshakra is an excellent example of denila and as for zz6549 it is the fact that our population growth is becoming exponential that is going to be the source of modifying our environment that will kill most of us. The very quality he thinks will save us is what will harm us, because we are too stupid to see past our greed or immediate needs.
Kynos21 makes more sense than the others.
gunslingor1
4.2 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2010
"This is just alarmist fear-mongering, which is surprising and disappointing from a scientist of his supposed caliber."
-You should look deeper into it if you respect him before calling him a fear mongerer, rather than dismissing him without an arguement.

"I applaud Fenner's work in eliminating the smallpox virus, but it seems he's forgotten about man's ability to change his environment."
-No, that's the whole point, we are negatively and excessively changing the planet; in the early days life changed the climate in positive ways that allowed more complex life, we are undoing billions of years worth of evolution.

"Mr. Fenner seems to not recognize that human populations have always been rather large. Population growth is not exponential. It's greater than linear but not exponential.What an idiot. Wonder who paid him to make such stupid and poorly thought out comments. Political agendas abound."
-The graph doesn't lie, those are accurate values, an it is an exponential curve.
gunslingor1
4.4 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2010
-but thats the problem, populations of any species can go exponential (locusts are the perfect example) and when they do they tend to use up there resources and practically disappear. It COULD happen to us. The danger is really. Though this is a worst case senario in my opinion, if we continue as we are, I think a minimum of 90% population reduction in the next 100 years is unavoidable.
thyran
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2010
Too bad that this - once great- man has become old and senile, unable to differentiate the relevance of certain informations.
Rute
3.4 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2010
To Skeptic_Heretic: Population growth rate at the moment is not speeding up, but we have to understand that we're living a transitionary period.

The less people who take Earth's fate seriously will have children, the larger the proportion of those who don't will grow. There have been and always will be people who measure up others and themselves by their ability to make children.

In the end times, our planet will be populated by 100 billion people who breed like rabbits and enjoy it. That's darwinism.
MadPutz
3.3 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2010
Apparently Professor Fenner believes that technological progress ended the day he cured smallpox.
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
And malthus actually wrote his missive as an argument AGAINST the point made in it, as he was refuting anothers argument. read gk chestertons comments

Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2010
To Skeptic_Heretic: Population growth rate at the moment is not speeding up, but we have to understand that we're living a transitionary period.

The less people who take Earth's fate seriously will have children, the larger the proportion of those who don't will grow. There have been and always will be people who measure up others and themselves by their ability to make children.

In the end times, our planet will be populated by 100 billion people who breed like rabbits and enjoy it. That's darwinism.

Depends on whether social mechanisms come into play.

We've watched that education and wealth greatly remove the impetus to breed as can be evidenced by the population replacment statistics of first world nations and developing nations.

China is a poor example of this due to the social controls involved, however, Canada, the US, and all of western europe are phenominal examples.
otto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2010
The less people who take Earth's fate seriously will have children, the larger the proportion of those who don't will grow. There have been and always will be people who measure up others and themselves by their ability to make children.

In the end times, our planet will be populated by 100 billion people who breed like rabbits and enjoy it. That's darwinism.
I keep posting this link in threads like this in order to put pop growth into perspective: Johnston's Archive
http://www.johnst...310.html
http://www.johnst...4pd.html
-1 BILLION abortions, roughly 1/5 the worlds present population, preempted. This is the ONLY reason we have peace and prosperity in the western world today.
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
Elsewhere it is different:
http://www.nation...wth-rate
http://en.wikiped...ity_rate
-Gazans have roughly doubled their pops in 15 years, meaning that fully half of the population is under 15 years old. You can see that by and large the regions which are experiencing the most violence, suffering, and ecological devastation are the ones whose pops are growing the fastest.

The world as a whole doesnt need to be overpopulated for civilization to collapse because of overpopulation and the devastation it inevitably wreaks.
GSwift7
2.2 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2010
I see what this guy's problem is. He has his dates all mixed up. The time scale on his graph goes 1000 BC, 1000 AD, 1 AD, 2025 AD. Maybe he means 1000 years in stead of 100. lol, those pesky decimal points and numbers moving around again. The only big paper I ever wrote in college was on overpopulation. I based my paper on the data and predictions of the time (1988/1989), and none of the trends, predictions, fears or catastrophies suggested then have come to pass. Same goes for the acid rain scare, global cooling, and I think probably now global warming will be the same. Back in the 80's the evidence for looming population crisis was irrefutable, the trends were clear, the science was rock solid. lol. What a sham. It was all wrong.
otto1923
4.5 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2010
I see what this guy's problem is. He has his dates all mixed up. The time scale on his graph goes 1000 BC, 1000 AD, 1 AD, 2025 AD. Maybe he means 1000 years in stead of 100. lol, those pesky decimal points and numbers moving around again. The only big paper I ever wrote in college was on overpopulation. I based my paper on the data and predictions of the time (1988/1989), and none of the trends, predictions, fears or catastrophies suggested then have come to pass. Same goes for the acid rain scare, global cooling, and I think probably now global warming will be the same. Back in the 80's the evidence for looming population crisis was irrefutable, the trends were clear, the science was rock solid. lol. What a sham. It was all wrong.
Did you factor in the abortion statistics I posted, the 2 additional gens which havent been born since, the success of family planning efforts, etc? Maybe you were the dupe because you werent given all the information.
Donutz
4.5 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2010
I'm kind of amazed at the high degree of vitriol and low level of rationality in people's responses on this topic. Disagreeing with him is one thing -- basing your whole rebuttal on name calling (which describes more than half the rebuttals) doesn't really advance your pov.
fuzz54
3.8 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2010
We have absolutely no way of predicting what kind of technologies will exist 30 years from now. Perhaps we'll have a handle on atmospheric engineering. Maybe not. Trying to predict the future 50 to 100 years from now is ridiculous when technology is growing exponentially along with the population.
otto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2010
I'm kind of amazed at the high degree of vitriol and low level of rationality in people's responses on this topic. Disagreeing with him is one thing -- basing your whole rebuttal on name calling (which describes more than half the rebuttals) doesn't really advance your pov.
Maybe english isnt your first language? Being duped means being deceived. We were all duped into thinking that drastic measures were needed to be taken to curb pop growth (they were). But we had no idea the scope of efforts that were being planned to address the issue. We were then led to believe it was a 'sham' to disguise the draconian scope of it all. A pop the size of india, along with their descendents, were never born. Where would they be living? What would they have been eating?

The methods of abortion in communist countries often left women maimed, sterile, or dead. This was also easily concealed.
3432682
1.2 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2010
Malthusian nonsense; even Malthus later changed his mind. Academia has large contingents of doomsters, pessimists, and malcontents. Population is leveling off. Prosperity is booming, food and health are soaring. There is less war and conflict than ever. Read Julian Simon, Bjorn Lomborg, Indur Goklany, and Matt Ridley. The doomsters are usually socialists trying desperately to grab more power for big government. As for global warming, it is complete BS. We've had a half a degree, and temperatures are going down now. Relax and observe. Things have never been better, except for government-induced catastrophes, imposing their socialist schemes by telling us lies about how terrible things are.
Rute
4.7 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
We've watched that education and wealth greatly remove the impetus to breed as can be evidenced by the population replacment statistics of first world nations and developing nations.

China is a poor example of this due to the social controls involved, however, Canada, the US, and all of western europe are phenominal examples.

Still, some people make children based on other than social needs, and the question is that will those peoples' groups stay strong or will they weaken.

There's little we can do about the need to make many children, unless we resort to extreme policies like those seen in China. I doubt that, since westerners value freedom more than rational thinking.

For example, it has been predicted that muslims, with their average worldwide child count of six, will form the majority in many western countries in the future. 90% of muslim children keep their faith.

When muslims are in majority, we will live on their terms.
lengould100
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2010
I applaud Fenner's work in eliminating the smallpox virus, but it seems he's forgotten about man's ability to change his environment.
That's hilarious. It is "man's ability to change his environment" that has the professor pessimistic. Given the rate of degrading mental ability demonstrated in these comments, I'm prepared to give the professor a 50-50.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2010
Reading about global conspiracies like what you are talking about fuzz makes my head hurt. I think you need to check your tin foil hat to make sure it's working. Did you do the upgrade by glueing old real copper pennies to it so that you're protected from the newest version of mind control ray that THEY are using now?

Come on, get real. This is patently absurd.
HaveYouConsidered
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
A drastic die off is entirely possible, but true extinction seems a stretch. And, why toss in the towel so fast? If everyone believed him, they'd just stop trying, go lawless, and party until the end (i.e., we'd all be acting like our politicians already are). Why encourage that?
Bloodoflamb
3.2 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2010
The only way we will cease to exist as a species is our inevitable evolution. Humans are too adaptable to actually go extinct. What a ridiculous hypothesis.
SteveL
4.5 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2010
Extinct in 100 years? Highly unlikely. As mentioned before there are people living in secluded and self reliant societies that will survive just about anything short of a nuclear, solar or impact event. Diseases may rampage population centers and trade routes until natural thinning is complete.
Over consumption of available energy, water or food will cause rationing and wars - again thinning the population to a naturally sustainable level. But extinction? I highly doubt it. Civilizations have grown to prominance before and collapsed for one reason or another into a subsequent dark age. What makes us so special this time so that it "can't" happen to us? Every thinking person knows there is a limit to the resources upon which our society depends. Any remaining humanity will have to re-learn how to live with what nature provides. Unless of course we eventually learn how to leave the cradle and become a multi-planet species - before the next die off.
JCincy
3 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2010
100 years to extinction. Possible? Yes. Probable? I don't think so.

I believe it would require a catastrophic event or series of catastrophic events to eliminate the human race.

I don't believe population increases or industrialism alone will lead to the extinction of the human species in just 100 years.
Bitflux
5 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2010
We have absolutely no way of predicting what kind of technologies will exist 30 years from now. Perhaps we'll have a handle on atmospheric engineering. Maybe not. Trying to predict the future 50 to 100 years from now is ridiculous when technology is growing exponentially along with the population.

My thought is, will our sense of responsability grow at the same rate?
As long as the monetary system rewards the greedy and ego driven and not the scientific and creative minds - we will be heading that way - I for one agree with Mr. Fenner. Darwin will probably win this argument - only when it hurts enough, humanity changes its ways, it just doesnt hurt enough yet.
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
@gswift7
Did you visit the websites I posted? Do you deny that these abortions were taking place, and you had no idea about it when you researched your paper?

Overpop didn't become a problem in much of the world ONLY because of abortion. Something which your paper entirely neglected to include. And it is indeed a problem, and the greatest one as the article states, in regions where abortion doesn't occur, where growth is mandated by religious edict.
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2010
"My thought is, will our sense of responsability grow at the same rate?"

There's a delicate balance between too much success and not enough success in any society. In the former Soviet Union you see the problem of not enough success. In ancient Rome you see the problem of too much success. Our modern global society self-regulates that to some extent, at least compared to previous human cultures. Global communication and trade has an equalizing effect. For example you see companies outsourcing work from places where costs are high to places where costs are low. That allows market pressure to spread the wealth better than it ever was before. As we humans meet new challenges, we always seem to find some path of least resistance to overcome those challenges. That is a real trend that's always existed. I see no reason to expect that trend to suddenly stop. 3000 years of human history is hard to argue with.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2010
Otto, your conclusion is wrong. Economic pressure places the cap on birth rates more than anything else. In developed countries it is not a benifit for a family to have 10+ children as it is in underdeveloped countries. The number of children in poor countries that die from childhood diseases far outnumber abortions. Malaria alone kills more people than abortion. If you don't have lots of children and you live in Ethiopia for example, then the odds are that you will have no children who survive to adulthood.
DGBEACH
1 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
Here's a thought...if Dr. Fenner hadn't gone and eradicated smallpox from the human race, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation today...yet another mechanism of natural selection has been overcome...wait until we're able to stop cell death- THAT will spell the end of us!
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2010
THAT will spell the end of us!
Doubtful, that will just start a period of renewed interest in mining out every planet in the local system, then the local group, then the local galaxy group, etc.
PoppaJ
1.3 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2010
I agree 100% with his findings only if stagnation occurs within scientific advancements. Since that is not the case I do believe that many advances will be made that will allow us to live elbow to elbow without much issue. We may look like the Borg but we will live. However, that will not occur. We will be living in space and the oceans, and we will be able to reorganize atoms to what ever our hearts desire. I welcome the future and the issues it brings. If anything he has brought to our attention the need for faster innovation and invention.
Gammakozy
Jun 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ArcainOne
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2010
Wow, I love denial. It is amazing to see how so many people when confronted with a serious threat simply choose to ignore it until it is absolutely staring them in the face. Take a tour of history with in the last 10 years and you'll find a bunch of instances where we did not want to believe a disaster was coming and it came anyway. The Housing market for one, the New Orleans levies for two and 911 for three. Humans have survived for thousands of years because we are smart, intelligent, and all out clever about how we survive nature not ourselves. Look back at the black plague, it is a perfect example of how a tightly packed civilization can go from flourishing to devastated by its own hand. While the plague itself was a product of nature the devastation it caused was a product of our own doing because of HOW we lived and the conditions WE produced. Many stamp their feet like children and refuse to believe even the most logical, finding any excuse to deny the possibilities.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2010
@gswift7
As we humans meet new challenges, we always seem to find some path of least resistance to overcome those challenges.
And the path of 'least resistance' was in aborting a significant percentage of pregnancies worldwide, for the last 70 years. One which you were not aware of until now, and one which was not a factor in forming this opinion of yours AT ALL. Your opinions cannot therefore be valid. Obviously.

1BILLION ABORTIONS.
22% of all pregnancies in the US consistantly aborted. Wake up.
Ronan
4 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2010
SteveL, I would agree wholeheartedly with you, if disease, overpopulation, and resource overuse were the only factors involved. But there's also global warming (key word there being "global"), and that leaves me a little more inclined to buy Professor Fenner's argument. Secluded and self-reliant societies might have trouble staying self-reliant when the climate they've depended on starts going south (or north, as the case may be).

Mind, I'm not sure about the 2100 date, and I'd consider it wholly possible for some small pockets of humanity to survive, despite everything--and, given enough time, repopulate Earth. But IF we were to go extinct in the near future, then I'd be surprised if it took only 100 years. 250, minimum...and maybe more. There are a lot of us, and unless things get really bad, really fast, the odds'll still be in our favor for a time.
Bloodoflamb
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
Wow, I love denial. It is amazing to see how so many people when confronted with a serious threat simply choose to ignore it until it is absolutely staring them in the face.
Nothing is going to be a threat to me in 100 years. I'll be dead either way. Either way, the assertion that somehow humans will cause or experience a disaster that actually wipes out every single member of our species is ignorant at best. Humans are capable of eking out an existence in very nearly all of the most inhospitable environments on this planet.
joefarah
1 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2010
Population growth is nowhere near being a problem. I like the way the scale was scrunched over the past 2000 years to make things more dramatic though - or is that just a mislabeling mistake.

If only 10% of the earth's land surface is habitable, that leaves 100,000 sq m (roughly 1 million square feet) per person, assuming there are 10 Billion people. When it gets down to 100 sq. ft. per person, let me know. We may then have to work at making the other 90% of the earth habitable, assuming we don't want to build high rises, etc.

This is old propaganda successfully used to justify killing of the most innocent. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2010
Otto, I just hope they are getting some good stem cell research out of all that. I'm pro-choice and proud of it. Go cry about your anti-abortion politics on a political site. Your data on abortion rates don't seem to correspond with data on population rates. If anything, based on the data you present, I would say that abortion looks like a major contributor to population increase. The global population didn't really start to acclerate until abortions became widespread, and as abortions increased, so did the world population. Now, with abortion rates on the decline, we are seeing a slowing of population growth. I'm just looking at the trends. I didn't make up the data.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
Nothing is going to be a threat to me in 100 years. I'll be dead either way.


I'm sure thats what many politicians and business men are saying as well... why should I deal with it when I can pass the buck to tomorrows generation.

Either way, the assertion that somehow humans will cause or experience a disaster that actually wipes out every single member of our species is ignorant at best.


I also say it is ignorant to believe that 6,800,000,000 people (and counting) are incapable of royally screwing up the world.

Humans are capable of eking out an existence in very nearly all of the most inhospitable environments on this planet.


And I can't believe I actually HAVE to ask this.. buy why let it get to that point? Does it really have to stare us in the face before we say "Gee bob, maybe we SHOULD do something about this..."
Megadeth312
4.7 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2010
Wow, I love denial. It is amazing to see how so many people when confronted with a serious threat simply choose to ignore it until it is absolutely staring them in the face.
Nothing is going to be a threat to me in 100 years. I'll be dead either way. Either way, the assertion that somehow humans will cause or experience a disaster that actually wipes out every single member of our species is ignorant at best. Humans are capable of eking out an existence in very nearly all of the most inhospitable environments on this planet.


Easter Island.

It didn't even take climate change, they managed to do it simply by over-consumption of resources.

Our ignorance leads our cleverness only to our detriment.

While it would be silly to say we will become completely extinct in that time frame, great change is coming, I think that's the point we should focus on.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2010
Otto, one more thing: Read your own evidence.

This is from the web site you linked:
"TOTAL, 1922 - 2010: 863,000,000 reported abortions, estimated 950,000,000 total abortions"

on this page:
http://www.johnst...310.html

That averages to 11 million per year. With global birth rate at about 134 million per year. That's only 8%, and I have to question the assumptions used on your web site to come up with the estimated value with unreported and missing data added into the total.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2010

If only 10% of the earth's land surface is habitable, that leaves 100,000 sq m (roughly 1 million square feet) per person, assuming there are 10 Billion people. When it gets down to 100 sq. ft. per person, let me know. We may then have to work at making the other 90% of the earth habitable, assuming we don't want to build high rises, etc.


We hit 6 billion people when I was in high school roughly in 2002-2003... maybe 2004. Within 7 years we are almost at 7 billion... if we where to continue on a linear progression that is very generous, it would increase by 1 billion every 10 years and that would mean in 30 years we'd be at 10 billion people... and that is being extremely generous on the estimates...
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2010
Of course you also need to take into account the required space to farm enough food for that many people. population problems do not simply apply to the amount of "space" on earth, but also our ability to eat AND drink.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 23, 2010
Of course you also need to take into account the required space to farm enough food for that many people. population problems do not simply apply to the amount of "space" on earth, but also our ability to eat AND drink.

To that, let me add: bathe, excrete, sleep, exercise, work, dance, fuck, play, swim, congregate, spectate, build, destroy, travel....all those people aren't going to be shoe-horned into ten-mile-high boxes. In short, all this bullshit about technology solving all our problems is hopelessly pie-in-the-sky. We can't even get it together enough to accomplish a relatively simple goal, like feeding all of the nearly seven billion currently "living" on this planet. This has got to end, and yes, we are going to get hit hard, and soon. It is inevitable.
There is no distinction between communist/capitalist/muslim/xian/brown/white/yellow/homo/hetero/
educated/healthy/beggar/banker/candlestickmaker/
asshole/saint/liberal/ conservative when you are DEAD.
Bloodoflamb
3.3 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2010
And I can't believe I actually HAVE to ask this.. buy why let it get to that point? Does it really have to stare us in the face before we say "Gee bob, maybe we SHOULD do something about this..."
No. You DON'T have to ask it. I'm just a big a proponent of environmental protection as you. But the assertion that humanity cannot adapt to some catastrophic event flies in the face of our biological history. And it does not follow from that statement that we should trash the planet.
Caliban
3 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2010
An essential point is being overlooked here- we are now in an era where all of the easily extracted resources have already been extracted; most of the deadliest diseases are not only still with us- they are even more virulent; the quantity and quality of arable land/fresh water is rapidly diminishing; average temperature is INCREASING; fisheries are collapsing; and the largest populations are in areas that are going to be the most immediately and hardest hit as soon as any of these factors goes critical. People are going to be on the move, and they aren't going to give a shit about any one else's religious, political, social or economic preferences, as all they will be concerned with is the aquisition of food and water. We may not even require the assistance of more manmade mega-disasters like BP's "Spill"- the line may already have been crossed. How much more will it take to convince everyone? A supervolcanic eruption? An asteroid impact? An abrupt, catastrophic climate change?
Loodt
Jun 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 23, 2010
A plague? Don't worry- they are all overdue at this point, and it's only a matter of time. Our continued insistence on the accumulation of wealth by a few, rather than equitable distribution of resources will ensure total collapse once a couple of props are knocked out.

Everyone seems to forget that the ENTIRE population of H. Sapiens has been reduced-on at least one occasion- to as few as a thousand or less individuals. What are the odds of a group that small surviving long enough to overrun the globe. Astronomical. Not Inevitable, but MIRACULOUS! Why do we insist on tempting Fate, instead of being rational and doing what is necessary to maximize our survival as a species?
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
Otto, one more thing: Read your own evidence.

This is from the web site you linked:
"TOTAL, 1922 - 2010: 863,000,000 reported abortions, estimated 950,000,000 total abortions"

on this page:
http://www.johnst...310.html

That averages to 11 million per year. With global birth rate at about 134 million per year. That's only 8%, and I have to question the assumptions used on your web site to come up with the estimated value with unreported and missing data added into the total.
Yeah. Keep reading. You may question less as you begin to understand what Johnston's sources were and the amount of effort put into accumulating the evidence.

And I would have thought that your college research would have given you an idea of how complex demographic calculations can be. Many variables and interrelations. But the correlation between overgrowth and unrest is a pretty clear one. Uganda, Somalia, Liberia, Gaza, Rwanda; all near the top of the list.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2010
Not Inevitable, but MIRACULOUS! Why do we insist on tempting Fate, instead of being rational and doing what is necessary to maximize our survival as a species?
I agreed with you until you said not inevitable but Miraculous.

H Sapiens is so prolific because we're so adaptable. You could end our technology right now and we'll probably still live on due to our unsurpassed ability to reason through problems. Bloodoflamb is right on the money here, ridiculous that he's been downranked. The human mind is extraordinary within nature because we don't see nature as an obstacle inherently, or at least not all of us do. Our curiosity, even when left alone with no referential framework is unmatched.
otto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2010
And it is clear that any judgement or opinion on malthusian pop growth without the inclusion of abortion and the effects of 'family planning', as these 2 things actually played out, are worthless. We were told that overpopulation was not a problem by many learned experts while this massive exercise in prenatal infanticide went on unreported.

The industrialized nations prospered and were peaceful. The third world remained in constant turmoil, punctuated by incidents such as the ethiopian genocide or the hutu/tutsi bloodbath. The cultures which caused it were not destroyed; Ethiopia, Rwanda and Burundi remain near the top of the list.
The number of children in poor countries that die from childhood diseases far outnumber abortions.
And still plenty left over to produce this kind of misery over and over:
http://en.wikiped..._to_2000
-They tell us this is caused by bigotry and despotism; but the numbers tell us overpop always results in them.
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
The human mind is extraordinary within nature because we don't see nature as an obstacle inherently, or at least not all of us do. Our curiosity, even when left alone with no referential framework is unmatched.
Yeah, we're so clever that sometimes we even legitimize cannibalism and ritual sacrifice, when conditions such as overpopulation warrant it. (Hey, Im just sayin')
http://en.wikiped..._culture
Caliban
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2010
Not Inevitable, but MIRACULOUS! Why do we insist on tempting Fate, instead of being rational and doing what is necessary to maximize our survival as a species?
I agreed with you until you said not inevitable but Miraculous.

The human mind is extraordinary within nature because we don't see nature as an obstacle inherently, or at least not all of us do. Our curiosity, even when left alone with no referential framework is unmatched.


I remain optimistic in that regard as well, too, BUT- the last time it happened, we don't have any reliable evidence of massive, long-lived environmental degradation, abrupt climate change, radiation, disease, vanished food and water, et c.(much less any CATASTROPHIC events) ALL at roughly the same time.

We are feverishly at work creating the perfect storm. That's the difference this time around. Why put ourselves in the position of having to "Do Over"- much less risk extinction?
Bloodoflamb
1 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2010
If we really get to the point of resource exhaustion, human beings will simply begin to slaughter eachother. What's ACTUALLY going to happen? Do you really believe that we're going to annihilate the surface of the earth to such a degree that there won't be sources of nutrition and water AT ALL? There will wind up being SOME pockets of human beings that survive and they'll figure out some way to make due.
knikiy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2010
We ain't that special. Farts in the wind.
ZeroGravitas
Jun 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RobertKLR
1 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
Sounds to me like a certain Aussie just wanted a little attention.
Caliban
2.5 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2010
If we really get to the point of resource exhaustion, human beings will simply begin to slaughter eachother. What's ACTUALLY going to happen? Do you really believe that we're going to annihilate the surface of the earth to such a degree that there won't be sources of nutrition and water AT ALL? There will wind up being SOME pockets of human beings that survive and they'll figure out some way to make due.


I would like to believe that too.

Keep in mind, though, all the other species, oh-so-marvelously adapted to their(frequently quite varied)environments, that are no more.

We are not invulnerable- especially not, if we are deprived of technology.
Amy_Steri
3.8 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2010
A common refrain in these comments has been that our technology will help us to overcome the increasing problems associated with overpopulation. While this is true to some extent, our rapid technological advancement could actually cause our own extinction. This is most likely to happen through the intentional production of a weaponized virus. Currently the facilities, technology, and training required for production of bio weapons remains fairly exclusive. What happens when someone can do this in their basement with off the shelf components? "The White Plague" by Frank Herbert spells out this exact scenario.
Scryer
1 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2010
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't this predicted before? By some crazy guy, then, technology got better and it could support more people in a smaller area.

Anyway, unless a meteor hits the earth, I think we'll be alright, either way I may not be alive to care about such a prediction.

Also, I can imagine other civilizations that have gone through similar trials and errors and possibly made it out alive, so to speak. It's possible we'll develop technology that can break any waste down to it's basic units, then reconstruct it however we want it. Considering what we're capable of right now, I can see many problems getting solved with just a little investment of money from any sector.

It's more of a race - can we fix our problems at a decent enough rate to the point where the problems we're causing get negated fast enough, right?

Though we have more problems then we can control at the moment, I'm sure.
sven
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2010
Not surprised, when all media is censored and even science is heavily censored and distorted. We can only build a reliable life with total free speech policy. There is a war against some of you reading this, you are so fooled and lied to that you do not even realize it.
JoeySimpson
1 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2010
Pfft the illuminati will release their super virus and kill 90% of us before this goes down...
GabrielHBay
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2010
Sorry, but I have doubts about the overpopulation idea. As a reality check, estimate the biomass volume of the entire human race at 7 billion. Between 1 and 2 cubic kilometers? Scarcely a speck of dust on the surface of the earth... At humble cruising altitude during a overland commercial flight the existence of a human population on earth is barely visible. Human hubris makes us feel far more powerful and important than is supported by reality.
gt000
5 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2010
If anything the Professor is being too optimistic. In much less than 100 years any number of extremist groups will have the ability to construct viruses or even completely artificial pathogens that will make today's worst diseases look like the common cold.
TheMightyPen
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2010
Extinct? Possibility. But its far more likely that the only species left in 100 years will be humans, cockroaches and whatever lies at the bottom of the sea and needs no oxygen or sunlight. And the remaining humans will live off the cockroaches... Nice thought, Gabby, but currently the (only) 7 billion of us have managed to use up almost 40% of the earth's surface for agriculture alone. That does not leave enough space for the planets regeneration or to produce the ecosystem services needed to supply us with things that give us happy, healthy lives-like food. And that's only ONE planetary boundary. I could go on for ages. When it comes down to it, we cannot rely on technological innovation alone to save us from our chilling trajectory, it will take lifestyle change and governance, but it's not impossible. Comments like this from FF are based in some pretty solid science, and fuel necessary dialogue. Also, I appreciate all the previous sarcastic comments.. it lightens the situation.
getgoa
1 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2010
Putting opinions aside and following the same book that has been in existence before us all--the bible
drbo.org---humankind will fall according to the commandments. The bible says clearly in Deutoronomy or consequences of stars how huanity will fall and why it will. This book is the only source of reference. Mankind will not end anytime soon and my webpage at myspace(http://www.myspac...a8thsin) shows exactly how this can be done, by reading/interpretation. The end of mankind is no where soon and is a full circle to the exact date King Artaxerxes? gainsaid conditions to be built for the Jewish Temple. This approximation directly from the bible is 3473A.M. and mankind will return to ash in 3473.
VOR
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2010
the extinction issue is moot, I think. but it doesnt invalidate the basic point. Climate change and population growth are actually the two biggest issues the world faces. It doesnt matter how much of climate change is manmade, its still a huge threat. Buy climate change at least has some awareness and some small efforts to correct. Population, however is the most overlooked and underregulated issue of our time. As a planet we have virtually NO SOFT LANDING. We dont regulate based on projections of resources, (only currect space restrictions in a few tiny areas). By the time the resources start to actually become scarce it will be WAY TOO LATE. That is a ship that turns VERY VERY slowly (years) too. It seems that often the more slowly a problem creeps up on people the less likely they are to be prepared. In that picture he looks kinda like Leslie Nielsen in Police Squad lol.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2010
@Caliban
I remain optimistic in that regard as well, too, BUT- the last time it happened, we don't have any reliable evidence of massive, long-lived environmental degradation, abrupt climate change, radiation, disease, vanished food and water, et c.(much less any CATASTROPHIC events) ALL at roughly the same time.
Is this what youre referring to?
http://en.wikiped...ttleneck
-Which may have been caused by a Toba eruption.
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 24, 2010
We are feverishly at work creating the perfect storm. That's the difference this time around. Why put ourselves in the position of having to "Do Over"- much less risk extinction?
You guys know what I believe- that the threat is a real and obvious one, and that this has been known for a very long time. And, because we can look back at history and see multi-generational, pan-global efforts to address it- such as the abortion/family planning efforts funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and other NSOs, most recently Bill Gates- we can surmise that a Body exists which can deal with the very biggest threats to humanity. A Body dedicated to the preservation of those Things most valuable to the future; those being the vast store of irreplacable Knowledge we have accumulated, and the priceless record of successful interaction between life and its environment, which is contained in the genetic record.

If wars can be Planned and Engineered to benefit humanity, so can environmental peril.
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 24, 2010
The Solution, as usual, would not be acceptable to the vast majority who would need to suffer and die because of it; not knowing or accepting that they would inevitably be suffering and dying without the Solution anyway... which is why Decisions such as this must be made by a pan-generational, pan-national Group which Operates safely beyond the scrutiny of the general public.

I suggest that the human race in its best form will survive through the indefinite future because it has Guardians with the Foresight and Resolve to ensure that it does. They have carried us this far; I have faith they will continue to do so.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2010
Caliban
1 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2010
Is this what youre referring to?
http://en.wikiped...ttleneck
-Which may have been caused by a Toba eruption.


That's what I'm talking about.

The difference being, this time around, that there will be the likely addition of several other environmental and/or catastrophic events just for added measure.

A very narrow escape following those other supposed near extinctions, with, apparently, only one or two stresses. Looks like we'll be going into this one with multiple stresses at the outset, and can probably expect some sort of catastrophic event in roughly the same time frame, as well.

If we plan to survive, then we probably better send
the Chosen Ones into the bunker right now.
I'm not a doomist, or armageddon-jockey, it's just that these events happen with more or less complete regularity. As I said earlier- very well-adapted species -Hell- whole phyla- have disappeared overnight too many times, and too regularly to ignore.
convolutedmind
4 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2010
Humans may be extinct within 100 years. Our technology may help our species evolve into something post-human, leaving outdated DNA software behind.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2010
If we plan to survive, then we probably better send
the Chosen Ones into the bunker right now.
As others here have pointed out, it would only take a designer virus to do the trick... the creation of such, it has been suggested, is virtually certain some time in the near future.

What to do? How would you defend against such an Inevitability? The need to establish independent colonies off-planet is pretty obvious, but this is still decades away. Where else could totally independent and self-sustaining colonies be established to ensure the survival of the species, but underground.

And so we have Rumors of vast subterranean bases under such places as Dulce afb NM, and the Denver airport; hundreds perhaps scattered around the globe and interconnected by evacuated tubes and supersonic transport.

Not so outlandish given the Plowshare weapons and void creation, robotic nuke earth borers, plus the 1000s of cubic miles weve already mined out beneath the surface.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2010
Not so outlandish given the Plowshare weapons and void creation, robotic nuke earth borers, plus the 1000s of cubic miles weve already mined beneath the surface.
Completely outlandish considering there is no basis for this assumption.
trekgeek1
1 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2010
What is everyone worrying about? On average, people don't trust science. This means that in 50 years religions will have taken over again bringing with them disease, death, and destruction. We'll be back to 1 billion in no time.

On a serious note, we'll be fine. Technology will save us, but only if we also change the way we operate. There is plenty of land, energy, and Oxygen for everyone. We must ensure that we use our technology wisely, and that means clean energy sources, recycling, and efficient cities that can handle mass populations.

Eventually though, we will have a problem. If we succeed and don't die, we'll eventually hit a population limit in the distant future. We need to start working on getting off this planet effectively and in large numbers while learning to colonize all m-class planets.
otto1923
3.5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2010
Not so outlandish given the Plowshare weapons and void creation, robotic nuke earth borers, plus the 1000s of cubic miles weve already mined beneath the surface.
Completely outlandish considering there is no basis for this assumption.
The basis, SH, is the continuing threat of overpopulation, first identified by the Sumerians; the continuous threat it has placed the species under, ever since agriculture proliferated; and all the evidence Ive accrued, only some of which Ive presented here, which leads to the conclusion that wars as we know them have always benefited humanity, eventually, whereas they should have led to its slow destruction. Evidence that they were Prepared for, Orchestrated, Manipulated in pretty obvious ways during their waging... All toward an end which could not be explained any other way.

THATS the basis. You must admit that the premise, that People will habitually plan for the future, is sound.
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 24, 2010
You want to take issue with what I consider evidence, as with abortion-as-population control; or with the philosophy itself, that Leaders might have banded together to fight their common foe, that being the people they Rule: then I'll speak to those things.

Youll accept the idea that unrestricted markets invite collusion to fix prices, or that organized crime would inevitably corrupt judges and lawmakers who were potential enemies, and yet not expect the same behavior from european dynasties or Greek city-states in waging war and managing economies and populations?

You could believe that somehow one man could turn a whole nation into an army, but you couldnt accept the idea that he was assisted by a Group working behind the scenes to enable him to do so?

And you couldnt possibly believe that these things could be done because to let war and corruption happen by themselves might well lead to something infinitely worse?
damnfuct
1 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2010
otto1923, no one is forcing people to have abortions; and at the same time, we would probably all be dead right now if it weren't for the massive population that it avoided (dead through some world war over some bulls**t or another). Seven billion people is way too much; it seems like the only way we survived through our notable extinction event is that the people left over were obsessed with sex. Knowing that we descended from this stock, it's no surprise that we've grown to an embarrassing 7 billion people.
In regard to this drivel you've been spouting about some "all powerful" group behind the scenes acting as puppet masters; what is your point? Seriously, if you are or aren't correct, what difference does it make? What difference does one person posting conjecture on the internet make? No difference; there is no point. If you're right, then you are just cattle and you cannot make a difference.
kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (10) Jun 25, 2010
You can scale the highest mountains, reach into the deepest seas and even fly to the moon BUT: just how are you going to tame the human lust for sin?
Until you do that, life is just going to get worse on earth, even if the tech gets better. Those with the tech will strut around like peacocks showing it off and those without will maim and kill to get it. Here's an example of the atrocities we are cabable of:
Monterry - Police are increasingly fleeing their posts in rural communities in the Mexican border state of Nuevo Leon after the killings of more than 60 officers in the area so far this year.

Authorities blame warring drug traffickers for growing violence in the northern state which has registered more than 250 violent deaths so far in 2010, including 61 police officers, according to the public security ministry.


To those worshipping at the altar of evolution, just how is the human race to evolve out of their sinful condition?Perhaps by aborting all new pregnancies?
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (10) Jun 25, 2010
@trekgeek1:
What is everyone worrying about? On average, people don't trust science. This means that in 50 years religions will have taken over again bringing with them disease, death, and destruction. We'll be back to 1 billion in no time.

Strange you should say this, have you considered that most of the best known scientists e.g. Newton, Galileo, Pasteur etc. were all god-fearing men?
God said: be fruitful and multiply - hence there are around 7Billion people around now. God also gave us commands to obey and it's in violating those commands that we have the mess we find ourselves in today: Total disregard for God Himself, lying, stealing and cheating, sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, covetting what we don't possess, disobeying and disrespecting our elders and authorities, killing physically as well as in our hearts. The list goes on.
So it's not disregard for science as much as disregard for God that will lead us to "extinction". Your choice.

otto1923
4 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2010
otto1923, no one is forcing people to have abortions
In china they are, directly, and elsewhere where economics and poverty force the issue.
the people left over were obsessed with sex.
People have always been 'obsessed' with sex. We owe our existance to the fact.
what is your point? Seriously, if you are or aren't correct, what difference does it make?
It's just good to know that the world isn't out of control, the species has a future, and all the violence and suffering can actually have a Purpose, isn't it? Otto thinks so.
otto1923
5 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2010
God said: be fruitful and multiply - hence there are around 7Billion people around now. God also gave us commands to obey and it's in violating those commands that we have the mess we find ourselves in today
Belief in your god or gods, and blind obedience of their will, is what has directly led to the Mess we find ourselves in. Unrestricted growth and the belief that god will provide for however many offspring the faithful can bear, causes inevitable conflict among groups who think they are more worthy of what the other group has.

Your god has done his work. The earth is full. He is now only a menace. Time for his reign to end.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2010
You can scale the highest mountains, reach into the deepest seas and even fly to the moon BUT: just how are you going to tame the human lust for sin?
Sin is imaginary. We don't believe in your god nor your concept of sin.Sin only exists if your god exists, which he does not.
Until you do that, life is just going to get worse on earth, even if the tech gets better.
Prove it.
Those with the tech will strut around like peacocks showing it off and those without will maim and kill to get it. Here's an example of the atrocities we are cabable of:...To those worshipping at the altar of evolution, just how is the human race to evolve out of their sinful condition?Perhaps by aborting all new pregnancies?
We could start by not calling condoms the work of the devil. FYI: the majority of abortions in the US are performed on good christians, because restrictive societies don't educate about sex and think you can change people through edict from on high. It doesn't work, Grow up.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2010
Strange you should say this, have you considered that most of the best known scientists e.g. Newton, Galileo, Pasteur etc. were all god-fearing men?
Seeing as the church burns people at the stake for teaching things contrary to scripture I wouldn't doubt they were "God FEARING".
God said: be fruitful and multiply - hence there are around 7Billion people around now. God also gave us commands to obey and it's in violating those commands that we have the mess we find ourselves in today:
So "be fruitful and multiply isn't directly responsible for overpopulation and the resultant pollution, resource and war issues our society faces?
Total disregard for God Himself
I don't see this as a bad thing seeing as he has total disregard for us if he exists.
So it's not disregard for science as much as disregard for God that will lead us to "extinction".
Science is the reason you're alive today. God is not.
getgoa
1 / 5 (7) Jun 25, 2010
There are a lot of very very literally "stupid" comments.

Ecclesiastes 7:17
Be not over just: and be not more wise than is necessary, lest thou become stupid.
(drbo.org)

The answer to the end of any nation or people is found in the bible, there is no other source on this planet or any other that explains the difference so well between thought and reality for mankind.

Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2010
The answer to the end of any nation or people is found in the bible, there is no other source on this planet or any other that explains the difference so well between thought and reality for mankind.
I can think of one right off the bat. http://en.wikiped...Delusion
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2010
There are a lot of very very literally "stupid" comments.

Ecclesiastes 7:17
Be not over just: and be not more wise than is necessary, lest thou become stupid.
(drbo.org)
7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. -John8
The answer to the end of any nation or people is found in the bible, there is no other source on this planet or any other that explains the difference so well between thought and reality for mankind.
Absolutely right.

"1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot..." -Ecc3

-That includes just about everything created by man, including your faulty religion. Time to pull it up by the roots. The earth needs weeding.
Quasi_Intellectual
5 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2010
I love how every discussion on this site digresses into religious or political squabbles.

Anyhow...
While Professor Fenner's prediction might be a bit pessimistic, there is a certain degree of truth there as well.

Hell, the man MAKES viruses for population control purposes. He could very well be the orchestrator of our doom.
MarkyMark
Jun 26, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
alivation
5 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2010
I find it amazing that people can think that the current population level is not a problem. The extinction rates, the destruction of vital ecosystems, the pollution and diminishing of potable and irrigation water supplies are obvious. All the current estimates are that we are pretty much at the limit of what the planet can supply. I would be surprised if the worlds population grows much more from here. We are one bad harvest in the northern hemisphere from massive famine (it seems we only have about 3 months food stock piled according to estimates made a year or two ago). If there was a major weather event that caused crop failures across a significant portion of the grain growing regions in the world many many ppl would starve.

This would seem to be just a matter of time.
alivation
3.5 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2010
As for complete extinction ... that seems unlikely for such a versatile species. Even in a worse case climate change scenario some ppl would survive. The aboriginal ppl of Australia survived in very arid and seeming inhospitable landscapes quite comfortably for 60,000+ years with stone, wood and bone technologies. Someone will hang on.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2010
The key would be to survive with our knowledge base and technological prowess intact. How low could we go without disrupting access to vital resources, maintaining communications networks and manufacturing potential, and the military capability to protect it? We would still need to be able to leave the planet and colonize the inner system to ensure long-term survival.

I think what we've seen in rampant capitalist consumerism in the last 60 years has been a mad rush to reach a self-sustaining tech plateau which would allow for a serious reduction in pop density. It is obviously unsustainable; it has caused suicidal ecological damage; and has all but collapsed. But it seems like we are now on the verge of something, doesn't it?
Bookbinder
5 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2010
I read a book by Albert Khan some 27 years ago and he also predicted a collapse of human population. It's the numbers, people. The geometric rise in populations particularly in the fertile age group, is difficult to argue against.
fullbony
1 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2010
reminds me of stephen hawking's comment on extraterrestrial visitors and how bad that can be.
this guy should stick to microbiology....its people like him who have increased the world population through his efforts. now he is just feeling bad about the whole thing and wants to stir up the media. until he can come up with solid explanations for his theory it all sounds like BS to me.
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2010
Humans will surely not be extinct in 100 years, but unrestricted population growth could very well lead to wars and famines like never before. Humanity almost never reproduces with accordance to resources available. We fly to the Moon, but we are too stupid for this. From bacteria to animals to humans, nature always ultimately finds a way to correct the numbers. But we will not like its way...
williemays
1 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2010
It's god, guns and & Gays all over again.
The responders to this idea are very
funny indeed.
This theory is either politically motivated...
Not a thought out theory or
Completely wrong...

At least I know what I don't know about
what will happen in 100 years...which isn't much.

skipm
1 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2010
Hasn't he ever wondered why Governments don't develop a male contraceptive? Its because the governments know that if both males and females use contraceptives population will drop like a rock, and invasion a nobody to do the work will prevail. Population is need to survive. The problem is, who is "populating" will be the question. Race wars anybody...
gt000
not rated yet Jun 26, 2010
To expand on my earlier comment that the Professor is too optimistic, it's only a matter of time before extremist groups realise they can achieve their goal of mass destruction through bioengineering. There are already individuals & hobby groups carrying out genetic engineering experiments in their own homes. The equipment is not too expensive & fairly easy to obtain. By 2050 there will be a large number of PhD graduates with knowledge of how to create & manipulate viruses, bacteria and even artificial lifeforms. One can easily imagine an extremist group recruiting people with the skills to create a weapon capable of global effects. If you are a true pessimist you could imagine an end-of-the-world cult creating a virus engineered to attack an aspect of biology common to all mammal species. My view is that some form of bio-weapon will cause the collapse of civilisation within 50-60 years and extinction of the human race could well follow.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2010
The problem is, who is "populating" will be the question. Race wars anybody
The whole racial thing is only a convenient way of getting groups to fight each other. Everybody in Europe is at least a little bit Germanic- the trick was in applying it to the right group. The Russ, who founded Russia, were from scandinavia- Jutland. They were more germanic than prussians.

We are already being parsed out according to ability. The great expansion of the university system enabled those with higher acumens to be removed from their incipient cultures, encouraged to commingle, and caused to settle elsewhere in pursuit of their careers. This was the real message of the book 'the Bell Curve'; we're all being husbanded in new and more effective ways.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2010
Minor correction: the Rus were a group of Varangians, Norsemen, who had relocated from Scandinavia, first to Northeastern Europe, then to the south where they created the medieval Kievan state.
MorituriMax
not rated yet Jun 27, 2010
Hmm, funny that he didn't also do a side by side graph of the science and technological advances that we have made to help feed and protect all those populations over time. Along with the medical advances.
MorituriMax
not rated yet Jun 27, 2010
"Earth since industrialization (a period now known to scientists unofficially as the Anthropocene) rivals any effects of ice ages or comet impacts."

Riiighhhhhhhhttttt.. because the human industrial age of the last couple hundred years has done the same damage to the planet as this:

Vredefort meteorite: The meteorite, larger than Table Mountain, caused a thousand-megaton blast of energy. The impact would have vaporised about 70 cubic kilometres or rock - and may have increased the earth's oxygen levels to a degree that made the development of multicellular life possible.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2010
Hmm, funny that he didn't also do a side by side graph of the science and technological advances that we have made to help feed and protect all those populations over time. Along with the medical advances.
Which only allows for pops to grow even larger, with the same percentage inevitably existing above the threshold of instability, poverty, starvation. Accompanied by greater and longer lasting ruination of arable land and the general environment, exacerbating the problem. Steeper parabola, more severe destruction.

This cycle has been slowed in the west by abortion, but allowed to continue in predominantly Moslem-dominated regions.
hush1
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2010
We are already being parsed out according to ability.


Hi Everyone

http://news.natio...doctors/

(70 years without food or water)

I'm surprised none of you consider this an option.
Just surprised. Nothing more. Nothing less. :)

O.k. Thanks. Have a beautiful millennium.
Or week. Or year. Or decade. Or century.
(Your choice)
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2010
Vredefort meteorite: The meteorite, larger than Table Mountain, caused a thousand-megaton blast of energy.
Ssssooooooooooo; you think it would take an event of at least this magnitude to bring civilization to it's knees, or something slightly less severe perhaps?
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2010
(70 years without food or water)

I'm surprised none of you consider this an option.
Just surprised. Nothing more. Nothing less. :)
Yeah, Jesus was a pretty convincing 'fakir' hisself.

"faqir is not who can not do anything and is nothing in his self-being. But faqir has all the commanding powers (gifted from Allah) and his orders can not be revoked."
stealthc
Jun 27, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
davezichos555
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2010
its really possible to happen that sooner or later this century will rain of human blood & dead bodies scattered everywhere its sort of plague or genocide or simply human error, metaphorically people today towards how they respond & made decision to matters they simply take it as if they can buy the remedy at supermarket without any intellegent quiry how did it happen or how does it taste like that way instead they would simply say their dumb words "its damn good, or shit what is this or wtf", by this attitude there some big big companies or politician took an advantage through it and how they can gain there profit from you, this is an irony to todays society but majority act this way "living dumb people"
davezichos555
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2010
and indeed newton & other notable catrholic popes (i will not spoonfed you search for your own risk) made an speculation about 21st dooms day, for me its not being what is your religion or who do you believe most or what race you from or your status qou in society but its more of doing good and humility to others and spread love and respect all things on this earth
Warrensn
3 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2010
You, sir, speak as a man without faith. It's a very sad existence, and I hope you get over it. Otherwise, you'll be left behind.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2010
You, sir, speak as a man without faith. It's a very sad existence
How would you know? Ah, I bet youre born again. Maybe before, you were ignorant, and now youre still ignorant, but now it doesnt bother you as much.

Ignorance is bliss when you let go and let god, eh? I say let go and let god... go.

How was church this morning? Hot I bet.
kevinrtrs
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 28, 2010
I don't see this as a bad thing seeing as he has total disregard for us if he exists.

This is the main reason most people do not believe in God:
They do not understand how God carries them each and everyday of their lives.

It seems you do not understand that either, Skeptic. Go read Isaiah and see that God right down to the individual level.
John 3:16 states it quite clearly - for God so LOVED the world that He gave his only begotten son so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Because you do not believe this you are now going about dissing everything and anything said about God. trying to dissuade anyone from even considering the love of God.

Simply because you cannot experience it yourself.

harryvincen
2 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2010
No, he is wrong. This world is gonna end in 2012. So be prepared...
http://www.health...iew.html
Vlasev
1 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2010
[Such a long discussion ... Nobody will read this anyway]
This seams worse than "the worst case scenario".
In 100 years the people might live in quite different conditions dew to rapid changes in everyday lives, but extinction... I would say this is statistically impossible.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2010
@kevintra
"John 3:16 states it quite clearly - for God so LOVED the world that He gave his only begotten son so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

-Allow me to translate... "For god so loved the WORLD, that he would promise the people upon it just about anything, including that nonsense about immortality, in order to protect IT from THEM." god in this case being the Group who concocted your idiot religion, and 'the people' being the vast bulk of humanity whose unbridled excesses threaten their very existence. Klar? This is one of the most outrageous lies in the entire bible, and the one which makes you xians grovel and salivate the most.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2010
Sorry to step on your response SH, but this verse is one of my favorites. Xians have to ask themselves just why 'god' would use the phrase 'the world' and not 'his children' or somesuch. People will read and recite this most favorite of verses 1000 times and be so smitten with 'eternal life' that they will completely fail to wonder about this.

I think the People who composed this brilliant work were very clear on what it's real Purpose was to be, and they were pretty explicit about it in the book, if we can read it with this in mind... They didn't care a whit about people were going to survive beyond death. Their concerns were wholly about what would happen in this world, about preserving a future for their own lineage, which is the only real chance any of us has at 'immortality'.
zinlavu
5 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2010
So many comments remind me of 2001 with the chimps hurling stones at a monolith. I completely agree with Dr. Fenner. I learned about the consequences of overpopulation twenty years ago and I made a conscious decision to refrain from breeding. So many people are just ruled by their biology and therefore contribute to the problems. Religion and capitalism only compound the problem because their selfish agendas require constant stream of new recruits in order to profit.

Clearly people feel guilty and are in denial because they don't want to face the fact that, just as Stephen Hawking says, we are destroying ourselves through stupidity and greed. Civilizations may not be sustainable by nature of their growth design flaw. Though humans will be extinct, the earth will abide. But even the earth will expire in another 500 million years after the sun expands and burns it up.
nada
5 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2010
A statistical sample of the responses here proves he is RIGHT!

Between the whacko religious types who believe GOD tells them to breed like rabbits and the whacko lack of self-control types who JUST WANT TO breed like rabbits, this comment thread shows that 95% fall into those 2 groups.

Yep, Humans will be extinct in 100 years. Thanks commenters for PROVING his prediction.

getgoa
1 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2010
Fenner is along the lines of Isaac Newton's 2060 when Newton said 2060 will be the "end of everything". the show aired on the History channel and Newton's read between the lines are actually for "a" church meaning most likely the Catholic Church. This is a good reason why so many discussions fall into religion rather than science since observing the commandments is expected. I don't know of any other Church that came up with 7 deadly sins for humans to live in other than John the pope from the Catholic Church?
And again there is no commandment that says prayers will do anythin' for the human saying them nor a church "a" must to observe the commandments.
enantiomer2000
1 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2010
He's right. What is commonly referred to as humans today will probably be extinct within 100 years, but not for the reasons that he imagines. Of course the planet will instead be teeming with intelligence to vast for any of today's humans to understand. Will this new intelligence consider itself human?
kevinrtrs
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 29, 2010
@otto1923: You don't love the word of God so how can you understand what it's all about?

God is LOVE. Love is about relationship between living people. The love of God for the world - is for the people has created. Everything God has done for us is so that he can be WITH us - so that we can be His people and He can be our God.

So you mis-interpretation of the meaning of "world" is actually quite laughable.

How do you interpret Jesus telling people to not love the world? or the things of the world?

Just because you hate god doesn't make you an expert at interpreting it properly. In fact your hating God guarantees that you'll skew the meaning in the word to suit your own selfish ambitions.

By the way, I use the word hate because it's exactly that - you are an enemy of God. Whoever is not for Him is against Him. There is no neutral position.

Choose you this day whom you will serve - the one and only God or man and his sinful ways.

As for science - it's for all.

kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2010
@otto1923: You don't love the word of God so how can you understand what it's all about?

God is LOVE. Love is about relationship between living people. The love of God for the world - is for the people He has created. Everything God has done for us is so that he can be WITH us - so that we can be His people and He can be our God.

So your mis-interpretation of the meaning of "world" is actually quite laughable.

How do you interpret Jesus telling people to not love the world? or the things of the world?

Just because you hate God doesn't make you an expert at interpreting it properly. In fact your hating God guarantees that you'll skew the meaning in His Word to suit your own selfish ambitions.

By the way, I use the word hate because it's exactly that - you are an enemy of God. Whoever is not for Him is against Him. There is no neutral position.

Choose you this day whom you will serve - the one and only God or man and his sinful ways.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2010
Well well, we've got a live one.
@otto1923: You don't love the word of God so how can you understand what it's all about?
I KNOW what your god is and why it was created.
God is LOVE. Love is about relationship between living people. The love of God for the world - is for the people He has created. Everything God has done for us is so that he can be WITH us - so that we can be His people and He can be our God.
All gods promise exactly the same things, for the same price. What makes you think yours is anything special?

Your ardor tells you what your book is supposed to mean rather than what it actually SAYS.
Just because you hate God doesn't make you an expert at interpreting it properly. In fact your hating God guarantees that you'll skew the meaning in His Word to suit your own selfish ambitions.
And you think your blind adoration makes you any more capable of rational interpretation? Youre an addict and Reason endangers your fix.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2010
Noch mehr...
By the way, I use the word hate because it's exactly that - you are an enemy of God. Whoever is not for Him is against Him. There is no neutral position.
Thankyou for spelling out exactly what your god was created for, and what the Price is for accepting his bribes. You and I arent that much different; while I might hate all gods, godmen, prophets and the like equally, you hate all others but your own. As do they you and yours. You might not feel it because of the Rapture your drug induces, but you would still be capable of gutting any of them and burning their entrails before their dying eyes- because god loves you so much.
Choose you this day whom you will serve - the one and only God or man and his sinful ways.
And theres the threat- always the threat. Did you wonder why your god never comes down here and does his dirty work for himself, instead of having to use people like you? Because he's weak and impotent.
http://www.youtub...TjjvfNyE
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2010
Well spoken, Otto.
And, since you've done a better job of it than I would have, I'll happily let it stand for my own sentiment.

"kevinrts" singled you out, but by extension, was leveling the same hateray at everyone here that doesn't agree with him.

Kevinrts will understand the infinite mercy and truth of his god when he's dead, but while he yet lives, he will continue to make everyone else miserable with religionistic snakeoil.

Probably still stingin' from the collapse of the multi-level marketing scam that seemed to have inordinate appeal to all the godders out there.
Hey- it works really well recruiting them, so it's worth a try on the rest of us, right?
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2010
Vielen danke, meine sehr geehrte Herr Caliban-
My blasphemy improves with practice-

Kevin wont be in much condition to understand anything when he's dead...

"sunbleached shadow, useless corpse, jesus loves you, useless corpse
lux rigor mortis, lux rigor mortis, lux rigor mortis, cinis ater et ossa

behold, one who moments ago at the height of power, received worship from kneeling crowd, now himself cast down by deaths dominion, bears mute witness to the whole worlds face: cinis ater et dessa

sack of maggots, maggotsack, hopeless pile of hopeless bones
so thin was his holy plan." -Marduk, Imago Mortis
http://www.youtub...PJky33aE

:-)
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 29, 2010
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned- Rom 5:12
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2010
Hey!
No fair Otto- the last time you posted one of these links, I spent about the next 7 hours, searching for the ultimate death/black metal. Sadly, I was unsuccessful. I think Gaahl still owns it. Was good fun, though!!!
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2010
To Fenner:

That's a goooood boy...now here's a lollipop and try to keep those depends dry at least another hour before it's time for your ensure snack...
has20birds
5 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2010
Ozymandius
by Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert...
Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings,
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains.
Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Ancient_Anomaly
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2010

You could believe that somehow one man could turn a whole nation into an army, but you couldnt accept the idea that he was assisted by a Group working behind the scenes to enable him to do so?


Existence of such group is absurd, existence of one ruler not. How could such group survive and keep its goals through generations? How could they fight their enemies, yet remain completely hidden and unknown? What you suggest would require efforts of MASSIVE scale that would be impossible to keep secret.
SteveL
2 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2010
When the radical Muslims take over the world with their caliphate, the freedom to voice disbelief will end.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2010
When the radical Muslims take over the world with their caliphate, the freedom to voice disbelief will end.

That is why we must ensure religion never becomes compulsory again.
God is LOVE.

God is man made, and imaginary.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2010
This is the main reason most people do not believe in God: They do not understand how God carries them each and everyday of their lives.
Then explain it. Oh wait, you can't explain it unless I'm preconditioned to believe that what you are saying is factual.
It seems you do not understand that either, Skeptic. Go read Isaiah and see that God right down to the individual level.
Or I could read Job and find the exact same answer I have given. Odd how your God can't seem to make up his mind.
Because you do not believe this you are now going about dissing everything and anything said about God. trying to dissuade anyone from even considering the love of God.
No, kev, if you can evidence said Love, then I'll be quiet. Until then your baseless assertions will continue to be called baseless.
Simply because you cannot experience it yourself.
If something happens in reality, everyone can experience it happening. If something happens in your mind, others cannot.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2010
Existence of such group is absurd, existence of one ruler not. How could such group survive and keep its goals through generations? How could they fight their enemies, yet remain completely hidden and unknown? What you suggest would require efforts of MASSIVE scale that would be impossible to keep secret.
What makes you think that? Common sense? It doesnt matter HOW or WHO. It only matters WHAT and WHY.

'WHAT' is the seeming Order that underlies the apparent chaos of history. 'WHY' is the undeniable potential of our rate of growth to destroy everything of Value, as it always had from the advent of agriculture until the emergence of western culture.

The truly secret societies are the ones you dont know about.

Scale is only a matter of Perspective. You can accept the very greatest power structures that youre aware of, but you cant believe there might be one more Step beyond those? You think youre aware of everything that goes on in this world?
SteveL
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2010
When the radical Muslims take over the world with their caliphate, the freedom to voice disbelief will end.

That is why we must ensure religion never becomes compulsory again.


Modern Christianity protecting your freedom to believe or disbelieve in western civilizations is the only reason its not compulsory now. Shari'ah (Al-Shari'ah) law is on its way. Your and your children's freedom to think as dictated by logic will be less than a memory.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2010
How could such group survive and keep its goals through generations?
You accept that the xian church, which you can see, has survived through the maintenance of a Philosophy. A Philosophy can be powerful enough to endure indefinitely, when the Need is great enough.
How could they fight their enemies, yet remain completely hidden and unknown?
Their enemies have always been the people They govern. They cause the people to fight each other in orderly and predictable and beneficial Ways.

Conflict is INEVITABLE given our rate of growth; They only arrange it so that the unrecoverable things the human race has developed are no longer lost because of it. That is Their Philosophy.

Ecclesiastes 3
A Time for Everything
1 There is a [PROPER] time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven

http://www.bibleg...esiastes 3&version=NIV
-read the whole thing with this in mind [hint- it was NEVER about god]
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2010
When the radical Muslims take over the world with their caliphate, the freedom to voice disbelief will end.


That is why we must ensure religion never becomes compulsory again.


Modern Christianity protecting your freedom to believe or disbelieve in western civilizations is the only reason its not compulsory now. Shari'ah (Al-Shari'ah) law is on its way. Your and your children's freedom to think as dictated by logic will be less than a memory.

You mean like it was in Europe throughout the majority of the reign of the Christian church?

Such ignorance of history is ridiculous. Don't ever forget that the punishment for apostacy in Christianity was also death for over a thousand years, with laws just as strict as Al Sharia. Don't trade one formless master for another. When you submit yourself to the metaphysical you simply have a master you can never escape.
SteveL
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
"Modern Christianity....." If I'm allowed to quote myself. I did make the distinction.

I'm not trading anything, nor am I confusing the abusive history of Christianity with the present abuses of Muslim radicalism. Hundreds of years seperate the two. Personally I'm no friend to any official religion. Faith however is a different thing altogether. Faith and religion should not be confused as being synonymous. Enough on that.

Still, my point is that the enabler for our present freedoms is rooted in a modern Christian philosophy that no longer accepts radicalism. Ancient Christian history is about as valid in this context as an ill deed performed by a child. Enough years pass and it becomes meaningless.

What is of import is what is happening today. Europe is being invaded and it's only a matter of time before the same changes will be enacted here.
ShotmanMaslo
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2010


Still, my point is that the enabler for our present freedoms is rooted in a modern Christian philosophy that no longer accepts radicalism. Ancient Christian history is about as valid in this context as an ill deed performed by a child. Enough years pass and it becomes meaningless.

What is of import is what is happening today. Europe is being invaded and it's only a matter of time before the same changes will be enacted here.


Our freedoms are rooted in ancient greek democracy and philosophy and roman law system, not in christianity. We have our freedoms DESPITE christianity, not thanks to it. Renaissance was also an anti-religious movement.

I tend to agree with you about Europe. If atheists and sane believers wont stand up against fanatics, we may very well have a new dark age, this time under muslim rule...
ronicolxuo
1.5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
Interesting info but with due apologies to the learned scientists, I have to say that it is unwise to embark on such prediction based on past trends, extrapolation of current consumption pattern to the expected demand for the enhanced population, present resource levels or even present growth levels of population etc. Because there are a lot of surprises that can be struck
http://hubpages.c...xCleanse
rvlife
not rated yet Aug 02, 2010
I have every reason to believe Dr.Fenner. Apart from population explosion and climate change, there are so many other factors, Social, religious, Economic, etc., Viewed from any angle the future looks bleak and hopeless.
Even if we last that long and in small numbers, The 90% will be muslims.
rvlife
not rated yet Aug 02, 2010
"Modern Christianity....." If I'm allowed to quote myself. I did make the distinction.

Still, my point is that the enabler for our present freedoms is rooted in a modern Christian philosophy that no longer accepts radicalism. Ancient Christian history is about as valid in this context as an ill deed performed by a child. Enough years pass and it becomes meaningless.

What is of import is what is happening today. Europe is being invaded and it's only a matter of time before the same changes will be enacted here.


Right said Steve. They are invading every country, not only Europe and America. Only that, we are blind to these invasions because of our so called secular values.
mthomasx
Aug 02, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Helvipojohan_Helvipo
Aug 06, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
krowinxz
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
Frank Fenner emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University has claimed that the human race will be unable to survive a population explosion and unbridled consumption.Homo sapiens will become extinct perhaps within 100 years Fenner said. A lot of other animals will too.
http://healthprod...-cleanse
jessica2020
1 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2010
I don't agree with scientist. This is because some claimed that earth will die but earth is still alive. Hence, i am confused.

http://hubpages.c...se-Trial