Will Humans Ever Go Extinct?

The species A wise man evolved some 300,000 years ago and has come to dominate Earth unlike any species that came before. But how long can humans last?

Eventually humans will go extinct. At the most wildly optimistic estimate, our species will last perhaps another billion years but end when the expanding envelope of the sun swells outward and heats the planet to a Venus-like state.

But a billion years is a long time. One billion years ago life on Earth consisted of microbes. Multicellular life didn’t make its debut until about 600 million years ago, when sponges proliferated. What life will look like in another billion years is anyone’s guess, though one modeling study published in 2021 in Nature Geoscience suggests that Earth’s atmosphere will contain very little oxygen by then, making it likely that anaerobic microbes, rather than humans, will be the last living Earthlings.

If surviving to see the sun fry Earth is a long shot, when is humanity likely to meet its doom? Paleontologically, mammalian species usually persist for about a million years, says Henry Gee, a paleontologist and senior editor at the journal Naturewho is working on a book on the extinction of humans. That would put the human species in its youth. But Gee doesn’t think these rules necessarily apply for H. wise

“Humans are rather an exceptional species,” he says. “We could last for millions of years, or we could all drop down next week.”

Opportunities for doomsday abound. Humans could be wiped out by a catastrophic asteroid strikecommit self-destruction with worldwide nuclear war or succumb to the ravages caused by the climate emergency. But humans are a hardy bunch, so the most likely scenario involves a combination of catastrophes that could wipe us out completely.

Pick Your Poison

Some species killers are out of our control. In a 2021 paper in the journal Icarusfor example, researchers describe how asteroids comparable to the one spanning 10 to 15 kilometers in diameter that killed off the nonavian dinosaurs hit Earth approximately every 250 million to 500 million years. In a preprint paper posted on the server arXiv.orgphysicists Philip Lubin and Alexander Cohen calculate that humanity would have the ability to save itself from a dino-killer-sized asteroid, given six months’ warning and an arsenal of nuclear penetrators to blow the space rock into a cloud of harmless pebbles. With less warning or a larger asteroid, Lubin and Cohen suggest that humanity should give up and “party” or “move to Mars or the Moon to party.” Currently, the biggest asteroid that scientists know of with the potential of striking Earth is called (29075) 1950 DA. It is a mere 1,300 meters across and has a one-in-50,000 chance of hitting our world in March 2880, according to a 2022 risk analysis by the European Space Agency.

Incoming space rocks aside, many threats to humanity are of our own making: nuclear war, the climate emergency, ecological collapse. Our own tech might do us in in the form of sentient artificial intelligence that decides to snuff out its creators, as some AI critics have suggested.

An all-out nuclear war could easily destroy humanity, says François Diaz-Maurin, associate editor for nuclear affairs at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The last time humans dropped nuclear bombs on one another, only one country, the U.S., had nuclear warheads, so there was no risk of nuclear retaliation. That’s not the case today—and the bombs are a lot bigger. Those bombs, which struck the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, packed the equivalent of 15 and 21 kilotons of TNT, respectively. Together they killed an estimated 110,000 to 210,000 people. A single modern-day, 300-kiloton nuclear weapon dropped on New York City, for example, would kill a million people in 24 hours, Diaz-Maurin says. A regional nuclear war, such as one between India and Pakistan, could kill 27 million people in the short term, whereas a full-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could cause an estimated 360 million direct deaths, he adds.

The threat to humanity’s very existence would come after the war, when soot from massive fires ignited by the bombings would rapidly alter the climate in a scenario known as nuclear winter. Fears of nuclear winter may have receded since the end of the cold war, Diaz-Maurin says, but research shows that the environmental consequences would be severe. Even a regional nuclear war would damage the ozone layer, block out sunlight and reduce precipitation globally. The result would be a global famine that might kill more than five billion people in just two years, depending on the size and number of detonations.

“That possibility of destroying humanity is still here and real,” Diaz-Maurin says.

Death by ecological contamination or the climate emergency would be slower but still within the realm of possibility. Already humans are facing health stressors from chronic pollution that have been exacerbated by the additional heat brought by climate change, says Maureen Lichtveld, dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh. Hotter temperatures force people to breathe more rapidly to dispel warmth, which draws more pollution into their lungs. The climate emergency also deepens existing problems around food security—for instance, persistent drought can devastate cropland—and infectious disease. “The interconnectedness of climate change and health inequities and inequities in general is what is impacting our global population,” Lichtveld says.

The Perfect Storm

Will these inequities eventually lead to a species-wide downfall? It’s not easy to calculate the likelihood that, say, the climate emergency will kill us all, says Luke Kemp, a research associate at the Center for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge. But it’s probably not realistic to consider risks individually anyway, Kemp says.

“When we look at the history of things like mass extinctions and societal collapses, it’s never just one thing that happens,” Kemp says. “If you’re trying to rely on a single silver bullet to kill everyone in a single event, you have to write sci-fi.”

The end of humanity is far more likely to be brought about by multiple factors, Kemp says—a pileup of disasters. Though apocalyptic movies often turn to virusesbacteria and fungi to wipe out huge swathes of population, a pandemic alone is unlikely to drive humanity to extinction simply because the immune system is a broad and effective defense, says Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease physician at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. A pandemic could be devastating and lead to severe upheaval—the Black Death killed 30 to 50 percent of the population of Europe—but it’s unlikely that a pathogen would kill all of humanity, Adalja says. “Yes, an infectious disease could kill a lot of people,” he says, “but then you’re going to have a group [of people] that are resilient to it and survive.”

Humans also have tools to fight back against a pathogen, from medical treatments to vaccines to the social-distancing measures that became familiar worldwide during the COVID pandemicAdalja says. There is one example of a mammalian species that may have been entirely wiped out by an infectious disease, he says: the Christmas Island rat (Rattus macleari), also called Maclear’s rat, an endemic island species that may have gone extinct because of the introduction of a parasite.

“We are not helpless like the Christmas Island rat who couldn’t get away from that island,” Adalja says. “We have the ability to change our fate.”

If infectious disease contributes to the downfall of humanity, it’s likely to be as just one piece of a larger puzzle. Imagine a world pushed to upheaval by sea-level rise and disruption to agriculture from climate change. The humans of this climate-ravaged world attempt a geoengineering solution that goes wrong. The situation worsens. Resources are scarce, and a bunch of countries have nuclear weapons. Oh, by the way, the mosquitos that carry yellow fever now range as far north as Canada in this scenario. It’s not hard to see how the human population could decline and disappear in the face of an arsenal of challenges, according to Kemp.

Worst-case scenarios are understudied, Kemp says. In climate science, for example, there is a lot of research into what the world might look like at two or three degrees Celsius warmer than the preindustrial average but very little looking at what an increase of five or six degrees C might look like. This is partly because scientists have a hard time predicting the effects of that much warming and partially because climate scientists feel pressure from politicians not to appear alarmist, Kemp says. Models of future worst-case scenarios also tend to do an inadequate job of predicting the cascading effects of a disaster. “The general field of existential risk is relatively new, nascent and just understudied,” he says.

There are questions as to how much humans should worry about something as big-picture as extinction. While some see the question as pressing—controversial tech billionaires such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel have funded organizations dedicated to studying the risks of transformative technologies—others argue that today’s problems are urgent enough. Already humans are heating the globe, overexploiting and destroying nature, using land and water unsustainably and creating chemicals that are harmful to all lifeoften in service to the globally well-off, says Sarah Cornell, who studies global sustainability at the Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm University.

“Today’s reality is that some human beings are undermining or even destroying living conditions of many, many other people,” Cornell says. “From a human-scale perspective, this is an existential crisis already, not a risk somewhere up ahead.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

author-avatar

    Stephanie Pappas is a freelance science journalist. She is based in Denver, Colo.

    Note: This article have been indexed to our site. We do not claim legitimacy, ownership or copyright of any of the content above. To see the article at original source Click Here

    Related Posts
    [Magazine] "40th Anniversary of Founding. The Definitive ATR of Turboprop Machines" Monthly Airline November 2009 Issue thumbnail

    [Magazine] “40th Anniversary of Founding. The Definitive ATR of Turboprop Machines” Monthly Airline November 2009 Issue

    月刊エアライン 21年11月号  月刊エアライン(イカロス出版)2021年11月号が9月30日発売。1430円(税込)。  「特集『創立40周年。ターボプロップ機の決定版 ATR』  世界のPROP路線を席巻するATR、ここ日本においては北海道エアシステム(HAC)でATR42-600の3機体制が間もなく確立する。  表紙には世界で唯一、ワンワールド塗装をまとうATR機としてフランスで完成したばかりのHAC 3号機の最新カットを選んだ。  本特集では、ATR機材の充足とともにHACから去るサーブ340B-WTの同社初号機JA01HCのラストフライト、サーブ退役プロジェクトの仕事と舞台裏も徹底レポート。  同じくJALグループでATR42-600/ATR72-600を運航する日本エアコミューター(JAC)における 「守ろう! 世界の宝」 特別塗装機の、鹿児島空港格納庫でのデカール作業にも密着した。  さらに、日本での就航から5年、航空機メーカーとしても創立40周年を迎えたATRフリートの回顧と最新トピック、キーマンである同社ステファノ・ボルトリCEOへのインタビュー、新潟空港をベースにATRで2022年夏の新規就航を目指すトキ・エアについても、担当者に話を聞いた。  一方で、日本の空のターボプロップ機はATRだけではない。那覇MRO JapanにおけるANAウイングスDHC-8-Q400への世界自然遺産登録記念デザインのデカール作業、ANAパイロットと整備士が語る Q400、今夏約3年ぶりに那覇=粟国線での運航を再開した第一航空DHC-6-400ツインオッター搭乗レポートなど、「日本の空のPROPエアライン」 を広くひも解いていく。  このほか、成田=ドーハ線QR807便で飛び現地取材したカタール航空2021年最前線、JALグループ世界自然遺産登録記念特別塗装機、JAL A350-900 10号機・11号機到着、ZIPAIR成田=シンガポール線就航などのニュースもお届けする」関連リンク月刊エアライン 2021年11月号(イカロス出版) 雑誌 ・[雑誌]「人生に役立つ マナーの達人になろう」月刊エアステージ 21年11月号 ・「防災ヘリコプター」航空情報 21年11月号 ・「日本=ハワイ最新航路図」月刊エアライン 21年10月号 ・「ブルーインパルス、オリンピック開幕を祝し東京上空に五輪を描く」航空ファン 21年10月号 ・「国際空港のいま / 国内線夏物語」航空旅行 vol.38 書籍『航空・空港政策の展望─アフターコロナを見据えて』 ・中村洋明『新・航空機産業のすべて』 ・『4発JETエンジン機 COMPLETE GUIDE』 ・鳥海高太朗『コロナ後のエアライン』 ・「世界航空機年鑑 2020〜2021年」 ・真山仁『ロッキード』 ・イカロスMOOK『ヒコーキ写真テクニック 2020 Spring Summer』 ・イカロスMOOK『CA&グランドスタッフ筆記試験問題集』 ・Pen+『完全保存版 エアライン最新案内。』 ・大宅邦子『選んだ道が一番いい道』
    Read More
    Long March 7A rocket deploys two Chinese tech demo satellites thumbnail

    Long March 7A rocket deploys two Chinese tech demo satellites

    A Long March 7A rocket lifts off Dec. 23 from the Wenchang space center. Credit: CASCChina launched two classified Shiyan satellites Dec. 23 into a geostationary transfer orbit aboard a Long March 7A rocket, one of the country’s newest launch vehicles. The mission took off from China’s Wenchang launch base on Hainan Island. The 199-foot-tall…
    Read More
    Métavers : comment Mark Zuckerberg compte gagner des milliards de dollars thumbnail

    Métavers : comment Mark Zuckerberg compte gagner des milliards de dollars

    En octobre dernier, lorsque Facebook est devenu Meta, Mark Zuckerberg a présenté en détail sa conception du métavers pour un avenir radieux... Les brevets déposés par la firme permettent un aperçu de l'envers du décor, où la moindre réaction physique pourrait être utilisée pour la publicité ciblée.Cela vous intéressera aussiLa maison mère de Facebook, désormais…
    Read More
    Your eyes and ears talk with each other, study thumbnail

    Your eyes and ears talk with each other, study

    Scientists discovered a fascinating connection between eyes and ears. Scientists can now tell where their eyes are focused simply by listening to someone. The movement of eyes, the target eyes are looking at can be identified from recordings made with a microphone in the ear canal. In 2018, scientists discovered that ears make a subtle
    Read More
    Natural gas and its dirty secret thumbnail

    Natural gas and its dirty secret

    © Ingo Bartussek - stock.adobe.com / Ingo Bartussek/stock.adobe.com Meinung Erdgas hat immerhin eine bessere CO2-Bilanz als Kohle. Klimafreundlich ist es deshalb aber noch lange nicht. Beim Fördern und beim Transport geht still und heimlich immer ein bisschen Gas verloren – und das kann verheerende Folgen haben. Kohlen sind schwarz und dreckig, Erdgas hingegen ist farb-…
    Read More
    Index Of News
    Total
    0
    Share