It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Earth 'will expire by 2050'

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 02:16 PM
It seems like the more we advance technologically, the more we screw ourselves over in the end. So, can we really call it advancing? Personally, I don't think the world would miss the human race. If it goes extinct the ballance of nature has the potential to be restored. As long as humans continue to "advance" nature will diminish.

posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 04:38 PM
This is serious!
If we don't control ourselves, our earth is very likely to expire by the year 2050.

Just look at these facts:

- The world's population is expected to grow from 6.3 billion to 8.9 billion by 2050 if we continue to slow our rate of reproduction. If fertility remains at present levels, the population could reach 12.8 billion by 2050.

- According to the U.N., if fertility were to stay constant at 1995-2000 levels, the world population would soar to 244 billion by 2150 and 134 trillion by 2300.

- Every 20 minutes, the human population grows by about 3,000. At the same time another plant or animal becomes extinct (27,000 each year)

- Measuring from time of Christ Jesus, it took about 18 centuries for the earth to reach its first one billion inhabitants, one century to reach its second billion, one decade to get its last billion.


About United States:

- By 2050, the nation's population is projected to increase by nearly 130 million people -- the equivalent of adding another four states the size of California.

- Americans constitute five percent of the world's population but consume 25 percent of the world's energy. On average, one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese, 6 Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians, or 370 Ethiopians. The United States is responsible for 22 percent of the world's industrial carbon dioxide emissions, a leading cause of global warming. In the last 200 years, the United States has lost 50 percent of its wetlands, 90 percent of its northwestern old-growth forests, and 99 percent of its tall grass prairie. Every day, an estimated nine square miles of U.S. rural land is lost to development.


- The global economy has increased 15-fold since 1950 and this progress has begun to affect the planet and how it functions. For example, the increase in CO2 is 100 PPM and growing.

- During the 1990's, the average area of tropical forest cleared each year was equivalent to half the area of England. The impacts of global change are complex, as they combine with regional environmental stresses. Coral reefs, which were under stress from fishing, tourism and pollutants, are now under pressure from carbonate chemistry in ocean surface waters from the increase in CO2.

- The wildfires that hit the world last year were a result of land management, ignition sources and extreme local weather probably linked to climate change. Poor access to fresh water is expected to nearly double with population growth. Biodiversity losses, will be exacerbated by climate change.

- Beyond 2050, regional climate change, could have huge consequences. The Earth has entered the Anthropocene Era in which humans are a dominating environmental force. Global environmental change challenges the political decision-making process and will have to be based on risks that events will happen, or scenarios will unfold. Global environmental change is often gradual until critical thresholds are passed. Some rapid changes such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet would be irreversible in any meaningful timescale, while other changes may be unstoppable. We know that there are risks of rapid and irreversible changes to which it would be difficult to adapt. Incremental change will not prevent climate change, water depletion, deforestation or biodiversity loss.

For more info, here are the sources:

Human Behaviors Said to Make Things Worse.

* having too many children
* agricultural burning
* overconsumption of resources
* failure to re-cycle
* production/disposal of toxic waste
* improper disposal of human waste
* improper disposal of garbage
* mis-use of pesticides
* overcrowding
* economic dependence on growth
* depletion of soils by overfarming
* erosion from removal of vegetation
* urban sprawl
* over-fishing
* removal of carbon sinks (trees)
* inefficient use of fuel
* urbanizing farmland
* urban growth where water is scarce
* eating meat


posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 04:39 PM
More facts:

"Globally, the annual loss of land to urbanization and highways ranges from 10 to 35 million hectares per year, with half of this lost land coming from cropland (Doeoes, 1994). Most of the remaining land area (23%) (Figure 1), is unsuitable for crops, pasture, and forests because the soil is too infertile or shallow to support plant growth, or the climate and land are too cold, dry, steep, stony, or wet (Buringh, 1989).
The present and future availability of adequate supplies of freshwater for human and agricultural needs is already critical in many regions, like the Middle East (Postel, 1997). Rapid population growth and increased total water consumption are rapidly depleting the availability of water. Between 1960 and 1997, the per capita availability of freshwater worldwide declined by about 60% (Hinrichsen, 1998). Another 50% decrease in per capita water supply is projected by the year 2025 (Hinrichsen, 1998).
Ecosystem and species diversity serves as a vital reservoir of genetic material for the future development of agriculture, forestry, pharmaceutical products, and biosphere services. Yet, with each passing day an estimated 150 species are being eliminated because of increasing human numbers and certain human activities, including deforestation, soil and water pollution, pesticide use, urbanization, and industrialization (Reid and Miller, 1989). The rate of extinction of some groups of organisms is 1,000- to 10,000-times faster than that in natural systems (Kellert and Wilson, 1993). One factor in this high extinction rate is humans' utilization of more than 50% of the Sun's energy captured by the entire plant biomass on Earth each year to obtain all their food and fiber. This significantly reduces the photosynthetic biomass available to maintain vital natural biota (Pimentel et al., 1997b). Environmental pressure from the human population is the prime destructive force on Earth and is the primary cause of reduced biodiversity. Humans currently occupy 95% of the terrestrial environment with either managed agricultural and forest ecosystems or human settlements.
The human population has enormous momentum for rapid growth because of the young age distribution both in the U.S population and in the world population (PRB, 1996). If the whole world agreed on and adopted a policy so that only 2.1 children were born per couple, more than 60 years would pass before the world population finally stabilized at approximately 12 billion (Weeks, 1986). On the other hand, a population policy ensuring that each couple produces an average of only 1.5 children would be necessary to achieve the goal of reducing the world population from the current 6 billion to an optimal population of approximately 2 billion (Pimentel et al., 1994a). If this policy were implemented, more than 100 years would be required to make the adjustment to 2 billion people. Again, the prime difficulty in making the adjustment is the young age distribution and growth momentum in the world population (PRB, 1996; Bartlett and Lytwak, 1995; Bartlett, 1997-1998)."


Reading all this really scares me. Unless natural forces remove a large population of humans, we are going to make our earth a very unlikely place to live.

posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:55 PM
Not possible to move to another planet by that time or even 100 years from now. With our technology we cant reach Pluto. If we were to locate another planet it would take us our whole lives to travel there with the vastness of space. If we were to have some kind of great transportation. What could you fit on it? How many people? Just seems REALLY far off to me. I doubt are planet makes it that far and allows are technology to reach that point. The earth will just be a memory. But to WHO?

posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 08:53 PM
First, consider your sources. Many of them are wildlife-type organizations. Of course they are going to say these things! I don't completely discount them though. Although it is their job to look into these problems, and thus they would be a little biased, I am sure there is plenty of truth. I tend to not worry terribly much though. Ever hear of a diatom? Look it up, it is an organism in the oceans that absorbs CO2, and converts to (oxygen I believe, if not something benign). I believe that once diatoms die, they are used for the filters of pools as well (diatomaceous earth). I have read recently that the oceans are beginning to not be able to sustain the rate of absorbsion for much longer, however, scientists are working on the genetic makeup of this organism and undoubtedly trying to find ways to harness their abilities.

Also, these sources you named pointed their fingers at the US. If we are on top, China is right on our heals. Personally I have a lot of hope. Oil companies are pricing themselves out of their own market. I suspect at some point we will have a choice of fuels, and one of them will be better for everyone.

On a more ominous note though, and also getting back to a previous point I made earlier, I have read recently that the rate of increas of CO2 this past year excellerated greatly, far more than scientist expected. That being the case, we may have much to fear.


posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:34 PM

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
I don't think colonization of another planet would be feasable; We haven't yet been able to *find* any that has resources we can exploit yet, not to mention the time factor that would take for us to actually *travel* there.

IMO, if we can't learn how to control ourselves here, what would give us the right to plunder the rest of the universe with our greed? Even if there are any advanced alien races out there, I'm afraid that they'd have the same opinion of us as we have for a swarm of cockroaches...

i think we have to devote ourselves to being explorers and science and strive to recycle so there is no waste, find free non polluting energy and space exploration and offworld bases, we are too busy lining the pockets of executives that are living fat off of our resources and we are allowing them to prevent advancement that will take that money away from them and allowing so much war over resources that are detroying our world, so if we stop the war, start recycling everything, stop using wastefull destructive energy sources then we got a shot, mabey

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 12:28 AM
At some point with scarce water, air and aerable land we will be forced to do something about it.

Water fiters that are made from nanotech that will filter down to the nano-scale blocking most if not all pathogens and pollutants.

In Japan fuel cost has been through the roof, Toyota holds the record on efficient hybrids, US makers are so far behind. There's still too much money to be made on gas guzzling suvs and we still want to drive them. Ford has Escape Hybrid, give them 1 point. GM has a hybrid coming soon and at least one EV, give them a couple of points.
We, the US, are the biggest polluters and we can't even sign the Kyoto Accord.

This is the Earth ->

This is the Earth on humans ->


posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 01:41 AM
I have been lloking at these figures for like 4 years now and let me say that our old forgoten mother Nature will tak e over sooner, by 2020 or 2025 famine and wars would have killed (along with disease) close to a billion and the figure will continue till we get a balance.
another escenario is a large widespread disease that kills millions very fast, the problem with such excenario is that a lot of critical persons would die and the world would quite dangerous:

lets say there is a disease that kills you in 8 to 13 days and one infected guy gets to a nuclear reactor and ..ence he propagates the disease and everyone that works at the plant is dead in less than amonth, who would look for the reactor, who would decontaminate the place? in event of a large widespread death, the Electricity consumtion would plumet there will be fires etc and a lot of problems due to the fact of the dead people....a nightmare equealed only by hollywood flicks.......

Hang on because we may see one of those 2 escenarios in our lifetime...or mayb eJohn Titor is right in wich case we will know in less than 3 weeks!


posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 02:08 AM

Originally posted by daniel191159
It seems like the more we advance technologically, the more we screw ourselves over in the end. So, can we really call it advancing?

"All our lauded technological progress -- our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal."
-Albert Einstein

"The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human race."
-Don Marquis

"Man has always sacrificed truth to his vanity, comfort and advantage. He lives by makebelieve."
-W. Somerset Maugham

"We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins of fur and feather so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the devil in human form."
-William Ralph Inge

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams


posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 02:23 AM

Originally posted by LordGoofus
The planet will basically hit the reset button, almost every species on the planet will be wiped out, and over thousands of years, new species will arise, evolve, become dominant, start using up all the natural resources,
Not necessarily, dinosaurs developed after Permian extinction and ruled Earth 150 million years after that without destroying nature.

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 03:09 AM

Originally posted by orionthehunter
We probably don't need to worry about colonizing other planets for resources. As resources here on Earth become more scarce, we will of course have wars probably until over half the planet is dead. That will effectively solve the too many people problem for the available resources.

The same what I think, only, it is also possible, that most of the people will just die without resources, thus there will be only a few wars.

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 09:06 PM
I pray for those of you who fear the end of this world, for if you have not already accepted Christ in your heart, then you will definetly have a reason to be afraid come time of your death. Regardless of that however, I am honestly not worried much at all. For one the passing of this world will of course mean the time for me to join our Heavenly Father.

On the other hand if you think hard about, it will also mean we will finally be free. Well those of us who know how to survive anyways. I know how to grow food, fish and hunt. I can use guns very well, I am slightly skilled in mechanics but know how to use tools very well. I can build sturdy structures and when the time comes I will be better at domesticating my own animals. Anyone who has even half these skills will be far better off when this end of the world scenario is set to occur, as long as you have good people skills. In that kind of world you have to not be afraid of people and know how to interact and share resources. Im not a master of all the skills I stated above but I know I can become friendly with someone who has a better skill than I do so that we may work together.

When the time comes I wouldnt really just sit back and wait for our government and scientists to come up with some wonderful solution because it is highly likely that it will already be too late. One thing is I am already putting money away for the construction of a very suitable sustainable home in an isolated fertile property, maybe a carribean island, maybe somewhere in a forest on a mountain, the location I have yet to choose. Upon its completion though it will only be used sparingly for vacation getaway and as a last resort when society collapses on itself. These are the things you people should be thinking about instead of dreaming about travelling to some planet for salvation. I suggest if you are really truly worried about it, plan it out like I have. Otherwise just live your life the same way you have been because we are going to die regardless.

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 09:26 PM
Get real, 50 yaers, thats nothing, plus in 50 years the population will not even be double whats today.

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 09:32 PM

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
This is why I don't believe humankind is mature enough to be allowed to explore space...We can't even take care of our own home planet yet. How can we be expect anything else but to pollute the entire universe with our greed & waste?

the universe is big im sure humans would be extinct by the time we find the edge of the universe

or at least evolved enough to create their own resources

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 04:32 PM
There is no way we would have so many people that we would have to move to another planet by 2050. The only area with a seriuos problem with to many people is Asia. For the part about resources, we would just find a substitute for the resource we use up

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by nyeff
Planet hopping is a little far fetched at this time.So we better take care of the resources we have left.Otherwise the world is going to look like an African desert.

[Edited on 01-08-2002 by nyeff]

we don't have to hop to another planet but yes gong to space stations moon bases and ocean bases is one part. far the recources we can go to space and use lunar and asteroid resources. we can as we are willing and when we have to have a sollution in difficult situations mankind will prefail

[edit on 30-10-2004 by MarkLuitzen]

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 09:04 PM
Good old fashioned war - in the next 45 years how many hundreds, thousands, millions will die by this and by AIDS and BSE. Not too be completely morbid but I think the balance of numbers will be adjusted by the above mentioned causes - maybe the topic should be if we survive the next 45 years there might be a problem.

posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 09:06 AM
All I have to say is when a species is faced with great change, it either adapts or dies. Let's hope we're going to do the first one, as the apes haven't faced an ice age or similar near apocolyptic world...

posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 12:23 PM
Folks consider this.........................Humans as a carbon based species are in fact limited in how long they can exist on this planet while needing the consumption of either space and/or foodstuff to maintain carbon based existence...........whether we tap out of everything in 20yrs or 2000yrs from now we can't really determine...........odds are by the time we realize this we will have probably crossed the last threashold of sustaniablity and as a result it will probably be too late.


Humans or at least what we may call the "human experience" on a silicon based existance is a different story..........The merging of computer, mechanics and other developing technologies into our current form will eventually see the potential to "realize" human existence as an artifical form of life...............

If we reach that point........the game changes completely, no more births, almost inconcievable life spans, altered support structure, geometeric intelligent progress.........and on and on.....

Yes, this assilimation and take over of a carbon based life to one based on silicon and machine would challenge our very existence of what it means to be human anymore............Religious dogmas would be threaten to extinction.......(or maybe not??)......governments?.......schools??

Of course we are heading this direction but will we make the transition complete before we end up destroying ourselves and/or the planet??

Well the jury is still out on that one............but carbon based human won't be around as we know ourselves that much longer..............

You can be a Luddite revolutionist against the machine all you want, but technology (good or bad) continues to press on with no way short of human exitinction to stop it.........

Who knows...............perhaps artifical life will look back at us and our sickness, fears, needs, wars and insecurities and shake their heads in disgust.........

posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 04:29 PM
more doomsayers.we just don't know what is going to happen

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in