Humans did not exist back then smart arse. At least for a while we would linger afterward unless all the oxygen is gone. Which in the movie is probably about too anyway as there is no more plant life producing oxygen anymore. The algae they consume uses Chemosynthesis as opposed to Photosynthesis because there is virtually no sunlight that reaches the planet's surface anymore.

If the rate was really that accelerated we would already have seen over half of all flora and fauna of the Earth gone and we would already be needing exopacks to just breathe, the sky would not even be blue anymore.

Nobody but nobody has come up with a feasible scientific proof that what we see in the movie could take in just 100 years or even less as you now claim. Again I am not saying that it cannot happen but that the rate you now claim which surpasses that of the movie is pretty skewed and has no scientific basis. And again keep in mind that unlike the movie people are switching to renewable resources and so on. As you well put it the third overpopulation is unsustainable of itself. Also when it comes to really dumb people even with all the advances we have they somehow always manage to kill themselves sooner or latter you really should check out the TV show 1000 ways to die from Spike.











:P

probably were both but i choose the irst one.

I came here to have fun so I just voted for the funnier option.

Once again, I was simply disagreeing to txen's first sentence - "I don't think we could make the earth a lifeless rock if we tried."

I think Earth will clean itself... the events just started to take place. :D

Not onlly that now there is an increasing number of glaciers that are now growing and not retreating

Source

Now does this mean Global warming is not happening? Not at all as I recall one of the theories about Global warming is that it could lead to global cooling at one point. But I think that what will happen is we will see very abrupt climate changes from real cold to real hot. Problem with climate changes that fast is that nearly no fauna or flora would be able to cope with such dramatic shifts from one to the next. So I guess this proves in good part my argument about natural disasters in combination with man-made ones and what they could lead too...

If you carry on like that you're going to end up in a little dark dungeon with bars. Whether humans existed or not is not the point I was making, I was merely drawing parallels, I assumed you were above pre-school intelligence, obviously not.

I don't know how you can assume that. The population of humanity has only reached critical levels in the past 50 years. So no, your assumption is incorrect.

Actually It does have a scientific basis, its merely without proof, which is fair as I've never known a movie to compell scientists to conduct extensive scientific reports on the future of humanity. Nonetheless, these issues are well known as certain threats to humanity, they just arne't out there which is why you've obviously ridiculed them as soon as they surface, like in my blog. To be honest, if you had one ounce of logic you could work this out yourself.

And I don't see millions of 'dumb' people killing themselves, but rather them becoming a liability that humanity won't be able to manage or sustain.

Shiver me timbers who is going to put me there you? Yeah right!
Parallels? No you were not you argued and I quote that the "Permian extinction killed everything over a foot tall and that humans are taller than that" that's not drawing a parallel but drawing upon semantics to try to obscure the argument which is the fact that what we see in the movie does rival the Permian extinction and in in an insanely short amount of time.


It's the logical curve given the rate of destruction you propose within 100 years or less.

Science requires proof or at least plausibility and your argument has neither when it comes to the kind of damage you propose taking place within 100 years or less.

Now we have millions? So what do you propose? Short of making IQ tests and establish death camps?

Well, it seems I am arguing with a pre-schooler, how guilty I feel. This is what I said:

"The Permian extinction wiped out everything over 1 foot tall. Clearly humans are alot taller."

Now, what I stated here was that the permian extinction event could not possibly be labeled as 2154 earth as seen in Avatar. Why? Because humans are still alive then. Humans are over 1 foot tall. As you can see, if you had actual intelligence, I was being factual and infact, I was drawing parallels.

No, that isn't logical. More emotional and rhetorical. Baseless even.

Actually it is extremely likely, not to mention logical as well. Ask any professional to read my blog and they would most likely see logic in its points.

I don't propose anything, we will merely witness the implications this will cause. There is little we can do to stop the tide.

Wow big difference between A foot and 1 foot in terms of using a foot or feet as a measuring unit! :grolleyes:

And mind you I said it rivals the Permian extinction but in fact it surpasses it by a magnitude of 100! As you well put many creatures less than 1 foot tall survived the Permian extinction in Avatar's 2150 Earth there is only 2 lifeforms remaining Humans and Genetically enhanced Chemosynthesic algae. And truth be told the one here drawing a fit and using ad-Hominem attacks here is you not me thus you are the one acting like a preschooler



Not really not when you take into consideration the insane level of damage you propose taking place in a 100 years or less without any horribly damaging war or humongous disaster to account for it.



Not in the time-frame you propose and most certainly not without some major catastrophic war or wars and disasters to account for it

Now the funny thing here is that is not we do not agree on whether or not this could happen but on the time it would take to happen without any major war(s) or disaster(s) to account for it, is ironic that you insist to act a like a pedantic child when refuted. Maybe you should change your username because you do not deserve the name Spock.




Never the less is the logical conclusion to your observations regarding dumb people.

Your blog is full of posts of people wishing that a mayor disaster comes and wipes most of humanity out so the problem is solved lickety split.

Well, its an emperical measurment unit, so what can I say. ;)

That was infact my argument all along. My blog details events that could end up being far more devastating than the permian extinction in itself. To be honest, you just pulled the permian extiction out of your arse, it is different to 2154 earth in so many ways.

Excuse me, what? I wasn't having a fit, I was merely stating how you consistently misenterpreted what I had said. Leading me to believe that your intelligence well, you know. My use of ad-hominem was justified.

World wide war would not bring destruction on a global scale. However, the disasters I outlined in my blog are well worthy of bringing global disaster within 100 years, hey, they're especially bad when you put them all togethor.

Wars could not rought destruction on that scale, at least not enough to wipe out humanity. I've detailed scientifically viable disasters in my blog that could threaten humanity though, why should I have to repeat myself?

There would be disasters to account for it. I outlined quite a few in my blog. One or two of which had the potential to be far more devastating to humanity than any other extinction event in the past. I have also explained why I feel that the timeframe for such events will be within 100 years, its seems to me that you just don't want to face the possibility of it happening.

At no point have I acted like a pedantic child. I have merely exposed flaws within you, and your argument.

No... its not.

Come again please, this is most enjoyable.

That you argued over nothing when it came to it, that's what...

I never said it wasn't noticed I said it rivals not that it is the same as. And I used the Permian extinction as an example of just how bad things are being depicted in the movie.

No it wasn't again where we strongly disagree is the timeframe not whether or not the things you mentioned in your Blog could happen or not at all, they very well can and could just not in the timeframe you present.



All you say is that third world overpopulation will lead to the kind of world we see in the movie in 100 years or less.

And a world war in which Nukes and other WMDs are used would wreak havoc in an unimaginable scale. It would not bring about the kind of world we see in the movie but would accelerate the damage to put the world well on it's way there.

Again wars in nukes and WMDs are used in combination with both man made and natural disasters woulb be about the only thing that could accelerate damage to the extent we see in the movie.

The only factor that you place in your blog for all this happen is third world overpopulation. I counter that it would take more than that to bring about such an end.

I didn't argue over the unit of measurement.

Well, its a poor comparison as the situation in the movie is alot worse.

I'm sorry, but they could happen within that timeframe, logic leads me to believe that it will. Why don't you consider the facts instead of posting subjective rebuttals all the time.

No I didn't, I said that when our resources run dry, the current population of the planet won't be able to be supported, therefore it would be seen as overpopulation.

Again, subjective. Please explain to me your 'logic' for thinking this.

Take wars out of the equation please, you are overestimating the effect WMD's and wars have on the planets biosphere. Human induced and naturally occuring disaster, such as a basalt rift, are potentially alot more destructive.

You are forgetting the effect global warming will have on the planet, once the ocean conveyor stops, we'll be back to having 100m of ice over our heads at every point on the planet. Overpopulation will only start to present a problem when our 'finite' resources run out, which is another big problem, as humanity's economy runs on entirely finite resources.

Right!
Behold the power of... Cheese?

Considering that it is the largest mass extinction on record NO it is isn't.





Overpopulation of the third world alone? No sorry...


You are not taking into consideration the fact humanity is switching to renewable rather than finite resources



Read earlier post



Because WMDs would have a pretty big impact like it or not.



Oh wait a minute so now you are willing to allow possible natural disasters into your equation? At first you were not and in fact your Blog points exclusively to 3rd world overpopulation and the disappearance of finite resources. It does not take into account that we are switching to renewable rather than finite resources.

Thankyou for conceding this point.

....

Obviously not big enough, therefore it still isn't a good comparison.

No, there are other factors at work too.

No, this is just a ploy by the corporate sector to gain trust and popularity. The switch to renewable resources will come too late, thats of course if it even comes.

Well, you've got your scaling incorrect, WMDs would only have a minor effect.

Actually no they wouldn't. The biggest nuclear weapon ever detonated only wiped out 100km2.

You have obviously only read a small section of my blog. Overpopulation is one of my points among many others, others that include natural disasters.

This has been fun, but I can see your argument falling apart. Do you want to call it a day and avoid further shame?