In HR, we have a saying...

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The point is that we survived the ice age (like you mentioned), and are perfectly capable of surviving it again, just as we are capable of surviving an asteroid or... aliens? Right.

Not really. If we'd spot an asteroid the size of that dinosaur impact tomorrow that hits the Earth within a year - we'd be "like ants", because taking some space cowboys and shoot up some atom bombs to shoot it out of the sky will not help. And if it hits, we'd be as much affected as ancient people. If there would be an ice age or more to the point a severe global warming, this civilization could not deal with it at all. We'd have much less chance than our ancestors. Not for survival - some humans will likely survive, but for civilization - if massive areas of land turn from cropland to sersert or ice plains, if water levels go up or down by the tens of meters, the food supply dwindles, infrastructure is destroyed, if glaciers advance or deserts spread, this takes away land, resources, cities.
And we'd be facing as much slavery or death in the face of a superior race than anyone else.
My point was not to compare our times with ancient humans though anyways - I was just pointing out that the principal causes of the extinction of the three species mentioned would affect us severely as well...

Animals are not capable of surviving such events because they are not rational like humans are. It's the misconception that humans are equal to animals in all aspects that makes anyone think otherwise. Humans are superior. I'm sorry; we are. We're more capable, we're more equipped, and we're more intelligent.

capable, intelligent yes - more rational no way. That is a misconception that humans like to believe. If we'd truely be rational, we would not allow the plant that gives us life to be destroyed, we would not believe that infinite growth is possible on a finite planet and we would not over and over again gamble - on the economy, on the chance of our or other species' survival. A single human may be rational, but as a civilization, that rationality is basically not existing.

Originally Posted by Isard

So, we traded hundreds of thousands of very, very nasty way's to die, for one mildly nasty way to die that you MIGHT survive if you're lucky.

That is oversimplified, wrong and totally hobbesian.
a) 100.000 ways to day? Big impressive numer! But unsubstantiated.
b) cancer a mildly nasty way? Ask someone who has it and tell him that and he will throw something at you. Also add to that all kinds of accidents, diseases and the increased rate of suicide that are caused by industrial civilization.
c) It is not so much how many ways you can die but you also need to take into account what are the chances. I might die jumping out of the plane, my parachute malfunctioning, landing by chance in a tree that saves my life and then starve to death there. Nasty, but what are the chances.

Oh, and every little nasty thing you suggested? We'll fight it. Aliens, asteroids, global changes in climate. We MAY survive, primitive humans would die like ants. Scurrying around unsure of what was happening.

you have such a distorted, racist and arrogant view of aboriginal people that it is intolerable! As I said - asteroid impact - boom - we are toas as much as the dinos or "primitive" humans. Hostile aliens with superior technology? We're toast as much as the Dodo when they faced a superior predator. If you throw little metal bullets or round projectiles with bombs in it at their spaceship does not itch them as much as a bow and arrow. Climate change - nomadic tribes are much better suited to adapt to that than people whi insist building 100 level buildings right at the coast of the ocean, who construct nuclear power plants in the zone that is under water if the sea rises by just half a meter.

But the most likely cause for extinction of humans are humans.

And on your dishwasher comment... Excellent, I have been slain. Obviously the ability to automate dish washing solves the issue.

No need to be sarcastic. A wise management of power - run energy intensive machines on high production times and run critical equipment on stable supplies - makes a lot of difference.
If you have some hydropower, some geothermal, some wave and wind energy, some solar and some tidal energy, you have in that mix quite a few elements that are able to supply a constant output. The peak production by the variable sources are used by a variety of machines that are dynamically switched on or off like dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, chargers for the electric car, heat storage, ... the essential equipment (hospitals, communication) has priority on the use of the basic supply and so forth. This would not be a net anymore that just provides energy and everyone takes whenever he wants it, but a managed system that regards energy as a precious good that has to be distributed in a wise manner.

In any case, I think it is much wiser to adapt to the energy availability if it is not constant, than to force full evaiability of energy at any times by building way more power plants than one would need just in case all people in teh country decide to turn on the lights at once...

But that is the basic conflict - do we as humans take care of the places around us, adapt our life to the world, or do we force our way onto others. I am in the first, you are for the second - control, dominate, oppress, occupy. That is not my way and it is not the way that will have success...
Maybe we can automate mail systems so that the mail server won't flip on until the sun is out. "Just a few more minutes for the batteries to charge, then you can send that email!" I'd just love maintaining a system based on that.[/QUOTE]