Easter Island Shows Why Humanity Will Be Extinct Within 100 Years

originally posted by: Restricted

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: Restricted

I believe the planet would benefit greatly from our complete absence.

Benefit how? Seems to me the only reason planets exist are to be mediums by which intelligence is able to arise. Humans are by far the most important resource the Earth has ever produced. Without humans the Earth is just a rock with un-important sub-lifeforms roaming around. The Earth is lucky to have humans, we are what makes the Earth semi-relevant in the universe.

That is a brand of arrogance I haven't seen in a long time.

It's not arrogance, just the reality of the situation. What's the Earth and other planets for if not to produce sentient species' for the universe? A universe populated by un-intelligent ants and fish, what a waste, why bother?

originally posted by: Restricted

You're first on the list to go.

Talk about arrogance.

a reply to: soficrow

Once upon a time I was optimistic about humanity's prospects. However, there comes a time when one must give up childish things which often includes naive optimism.
Over the years, it has become obvious to anyone paying attention that humanity is on a downward spiral. It's practically across the board. Environmentally, socially, economically, politically, et cetera.
Could there be hope? Anything COULD be. However, realistically, I think it would be naive to think that humanity will last beyond 2200. I know, all of us will be long gone by then, so, "meh," right?
Will we be done within 100 years? Who's to say? I certainly don't think the world will be recognizable to someone living in this age a hundred years from now. I really don't.
Of course, all of this is my opinion, but it certainly doesn't look good from the bleachers.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

I think the only way to reverse the the downward spiral is to bomb humanity back to stone age.

a reply to: soficrow

Just a bit earlier this evening I was trying to explain to another ATSer that civilization doesnt stand a chance in the long run...there are simply too many things that can and eventually will go wrong.

He was super upset about politics and after I told him that we are all doomed, he addressed my poor outlook on our future....

Hey buddy, my outlook doesnt matter in the scheme of things. Facts are facts no matter what I think.

Just enjoy the ride!

Original post

a reply to: chris_stibrany

Except for the glaringly obvious, they got there in a boat, they could leave in a boat. To more resource rich lands.

Well, no they couldn't. 'Cuz they killed all the trees so no more pitch to patch the boats they already had, and no more wood to build more boats.

Just like ...We are going to leave Earth in 'boats' and find more 'islands'

Sigh

sigh

a reply to: starwarsisreal

Well, that's a distinct possibility. I can tell you this, the majority of the people in this day and age wouldn't survive the aftermath. Hell, people bitch if they have to walk a block down the road. They certainly wouldn't be able to handle living like people had to live even 100 or 150 years ago, much less the stone age.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Reminds me of One Second After. Basically, SHTF when power went out after an EMP strike and 99 percent of Americans died. The only ones that made it out alive are those who either know survival skills or lived in the Mid Western States.

In another book called Dies the Fire, it mentions the issue of Warlords establishing their mini kingdoms and in the book the Warlord happened to be a history professor who is a member of SCA (Society of Creative Anachronism) which happened to be a medieval reenactment group. He only managed to be a warlord thanks to his ruthlessness and his knowledge of medieval warfare and lifestyle (Due to his profession and hobby).

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: soficrow

The difference being we have an abundance of food on the planet more than enough to feed the entire population. We have a distribution problem that is not the same issue that is surmised to have happened on Easter Island.

I agree that right now the issue is food distribution, not overpopulation - but I think Fenner's point is that we're rapidly stripping our planet's resources, depleting the aquifers (water) for industrial use and destroying the arable land. Not to mention contaminating the air we breathe. Already, many people do not have access to needed water for themselves, never mind crops. Much farmland is destroyed, fish stocks are being rapidly depleted and won't recover....

[Do not have the heart to go on.]

We should probably just hurry it along, no need to prolong our suffering.

Think of the childrens.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

I think the only way to reverse the the downward spiral is to bomb humanity back to stone age.

I suspect that's happened a lot more times than we can remember.

Oops. Forgot. We don't even remember the last time.

Humans are not going to go extinct... they'll just do what they have always done since the first man stood upright: kill each other off until the population stabilizes. It doesn't have anything to do with carbon footprints, deforestation, famine, sea level rise... those are just excuses. It has everything to do with the fact we are social animals that are inherently anti-social.

I plan on surviving. Someone has to rebuild things.

TheRedneck

I think this is a correct prediction.

The ecosytem is just as damaged as our internal biome.

There are just too many sick people.

Look at what we eat, breathe, drink, and touch. Not very many people put into their bodies the ingredients needed to repair them. Even if you take care of your self, you still have exposure to plastics and other environmental toxins.

Those who are young, have you noticed how many of your peers have kids? Or are struggling to have kids. And those who do have kids, more often than not they either have a sick child or know someone personally who is sick.

I see the next few generations becoming sicker in both the developed and developing worlds.

a reply to: Restricted

I believe the planet would benefit greatly from our complete absence.

You're first on the list to go.

Sounds to me like you are anti-human. But then again Misanthrope is a good descriptor.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I plan on surviving. Someone has to rebuild things.

TheRedneck

OK. Well, word of advice: TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT!! What we have done for the past 150+ years isn't working, and it's not going to.

a reply to: soficrow

But of course the Easter islanders did not go extinct, once they had used up all there tree's and stripped the island down to the bone causing massive erosion there population starved, the short ears massacred the priest and royal cast the long ears and after a die off the population shrank down to a level which could self sustain on the remaining available resources, remember Easter Island was once a heavily forested island which was probably rich in fruit tree's and native forest food species, it is a vastly ancient island so sadly this human rape of the environment has deprived us of another separate and probably extremely unique view into the past similar to what New Zealand has and though far smaller Rapa Nui would have had some pretty unique stunted species of animal's or at least insect's.

I however do not believe it is a good case study, it is an isolated case study of a control sample quality human caused environmental catastrophe, indeed we will see massive famine, poverty and even state collapse over the next hundred years but I am certain that humanity is here for the long run, there numbers may well decrease or they may actually learn something and put that large brain to some use other than selfish greed and finally learn to harness and not destroy there architecture, environment and other resources in a more sustainable and growable fashion than simply corporate inspired share holder driven rape of the natural world.


The native population did go from possible more then ten thousand (one crowded little island) at it's peak to less than a few hundred which is of course a crisis and not an extinction level event but then to top it all the European sailors arrived and introduced diseases to this population which they had absolutely no immunity to and those DID nearly make them extinct but of course there is even less of a parallel to the one hundred year theme with is the new end of the world game just like the 2012 was, someone always make money off of it you know.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: Restricted

I believe the planet would benefit greatly from our complete absence.

Benefit how? Seems to me the only reason planets exist are to be mediums by which intelligence is able to arise. Humans are by far the most important resource the Earth has ever produced. Without humans the Earth is just a rock with un-important sub-lifeforms roaming around. The Earth is lucky to have humans, we are what makes the Earth semi-relevant in the universe.

semi-relevant to who? do you know something i don't regarding the status of this speck of dust floating around in the vastness of the universe. I need proof that it is semi-relevant to "others" rather than just Homosapiens

Thanks for your time

Easter island mustve been as overpopulated and crappy as the womens bathroom right after a game is over at the dome. People were leaping into the ocean off of those Easter Island heads just to escape the human stink and noise.

Land area of Easter Island: 63 square miles.
Land area of Earth: 57 million square miles.
The resources available to the extinct population of Easter Island was very limited.

A similar thing vould happen on the whole of Earth, but inside of 100 years? I don't think so.

Google says the population of Easter island is 5,761, so I don't know where our good professor got his knowledge from, as for earths population gone in 100 years, worst case scenario we will eat each other if no other food available, but there will always be food some where, this planet is full of it, its a question of harvesting or catching it.

a reply to: soficrow

Extinct probably not. At much smaller numbers and forced to rediscover how to be mutualistic with mother earth, most definitely.