Which one do you think will be the most likely one?

I choose No.7 for obvious reasons.

If you got your own statement of possibilities which isn't mentioned, do mention.

#7. Every country that is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons has a beef with every other country with nuclear weapons. China, the US, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the list goes on. All it will take is one blow-hard leader too many. Or...er...president Sarah Palin. *shudders*

The current political situation is eerily similar to the pre-Great War Fallout universe. There's even a real life Vault-Tec.

Vivos - Underground Shelter Network for Surviving 2012 and Beyond

But I've got my set of metal armor and Fat Man, so I'm ready.

#7 as a result of #9 or any other unstable political leader could be a very real possibility. But I see a viral pandemic as a much more likely scenario.

So #5

I say #2.

But there are threats to Earth that are greater than a few of the ones listed in the video.

If the end of the world means the collapse of society (with very few of us left) then I go with #5. The way we live in close proximity to each other is very conducive to disease and pathogens are subject to constant drug resistant selection by misuse of antibiotics. If a drug resistant pathogen were to spread, society would collapse and billions would die.

But I will say there are some other threats not covered in this video. As far as geological disasters go, the polar shift is a rather grim prospect.

10, 8, are full of crap and based on complete misunderstandings (LHC) and/or naive interpretations (robots).

9, ...maybe, but unlikely (they would just get destroyed, that tends to happen when you unite every nation in the world against you)

7... it's a possibility, although unlikely as even the most idiotic and psychotic countries understand the concept of mutually assured destruction.

6... unlikely but getting more plausible, I guess, although the main problem is a hostile species 1. identifying and 2. reaching Earth.

5 - getting more likely now.

4 - pure fantasy in the same way as 10.

3 - theoretically possible but very unlikely

2 - possible but unlikely without conscious effort to remove ice cover. The size of the Earth means that even a significant removal of ice (~90% of which is underwater and less dense than water therefore using more space) will not raise sea levels as much as claimed by some.

1 - more likely (numerous impacts per year, although not of a size to cause global effects), although could very well not be within humanity's lifetime and also relatively easy to mitigate given time and resources.


This video misses the real cause (overpopulation), but out of those... 5.

Just voted and then watched the clip, thinking what a saying used to "say" : "problem sits somewhere at the middle" and after seeing the clip, #5 seems more provable than the others. Why ? Because a virus doesn't destroy resources, it destroys a race, maybe more.

Anyways, another saying is that "The end of the world as we know it will be when humanity will exterminate itself". We know how to destroy ourselves, but we don't know (yet) how to heal the wounds which created our past and which creates our future.

10 -- Ignorant fearmongering

9 -- Possible, but he should be grouped under number seven

8 -- That happens in the movies

7 -- Possibility

6 -- Possibility

5 -- VERY possible

4 -- Zero possibility, see number ten.

3 -- Low probability

2 -- Possibility

1 -- Low probability of it happening, high probability that it would be "the end"


Personally, I'm going with 0, we're all not about to die. That's right, I'm sticking it to every news agency on the planet.

I also don't believe the world will end anytime soon, but I believe 1 and 5 are the most probable to be the end to humans if/when it comes. The supervolcano is a possibility as well, especially the one under Yellowstone, not sure that's powerful enough to end civilization, but the ash cloud it would leave would be quite tremendous.

If it actually erupted, it could have a huge effect, although perhaps not wipe out humanity but certainly cause massive global problems and likely an ice age, but the chance of that is on par with another large impact, which is very little chance.

I'm suprised zombies were not on that list XD

My vote was for #2, if your definition of "Global Warming" includes any and all manner of environmental destruction, deforestation, pollution, etc. that contributes to Global Warming and should be by all rights subsumed under the general rubric of "Global Warming" such that "Global Warming" becomes a catch-all term for what our species is generally doing to our planet.

We're fouling our only nest and if we don't change our ways, we're going to change our world in such a way that we won't be able to live on it anymore.

It also depends on what your definition of "End of the World" is. The planet has survived worse things than the human race (cf. Permian Mass Extinction) and will likely survive us. Whether we survive us is an entirely different question and one whose answer has yet to be arrived at.

In other words, we may very well be the cause of our extinction as a species, but that doesn't necessarily mean the "End of the World" but rather the end of the world as we knew it.

volcano

How about.... none of the above?

End of the world isn't about to happen. If it was, it wouldn't be from trivial things like nuclear war (M.A.E.D. assures it will never happen... and couldn't ever happen for the rest of humanity's existence), or AGW (too much evidence indicating the spiking temperatures and Co2 levels are part of earth's natural cycle, and are mostly due to natural occurences like volcanos, earthquakes, and even clouds).

So... I vote "No" to the end of the world.