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.


Humans facing huge population cull if global temperatures rise 4C in next 100 years

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:23 AM

Humans facing huge population cull if global temperatures rise 4C in next 100 years

ALLIGATORS bask off the English coast, the Sahara desert stretches into Europe and 10 per cent of humans are left.

Science fiction?

No, this is the doomsday prediction if global temperatures make a predicted rise of 4C in the next 100 years. Some fear it could happen by 2050.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:23 AM
So they're predicting that only 10 per cent of humans might possibly be left at the end of this century. Is this merely another scare tactic promoting more climate change initiated political manoeuvring, or do you think mankind is actually facing its greatest challenge yet? If so, the next few years could be crucial in shifting tracks toward a more suitable future.

Could this have any link with 2012? Could that particular year be the point of no return for our kind (or the year we decide our fate)? Or is this media manipulation to unite humanity in fear?

I honestly think this is intimately related to the cycles of the Sun (rather than solely pollution, industrialization, forest reduction, etc.), given there could be cycles far greater in duration than the 11-year sunspot cycles we're aware of. Of course, our impact isn't really helping things, but what do you think? Any ways to avoid these dire scenarios predicted for us?
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 27/2/09 by Evasius]

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:49 AM
reply to post by Evasius

Interesting thread, Evasius. Past serious Global Climate changes have devasted species, including ours....but, there is a difference, now.

We don't just have flint-tipped spears, or bows and arrows....we are (well, will amend that....we in the Western Nations) are accustomed to a certain level of luxury.

Imagine the devastation, and horrible 'human' response.....

The so-called 'Third World' countries, and regions, may actually fair better....since they know already how to live off of the land....

Still, smacks of many a Science Fiction Novel I've read, portending the doom of the world, or end of civilization, etc, etc, etc....

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:50 AM
I would like to add that, in recorded human history, a population reduction of 90% has never occurred. That is as far as I'm aware of - if you know of an example post it here.

The only other 'natural' example I know of that comes close is the Black Death that killed over 75 million people.

The total number of deaths worldwide is estimated at 75 million people, approximately 25–50 million of which occurred in Europe. The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population. It may have reduced the world's population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million in 1400.

The Black Death plays a big role in my short story These Dark Worlds if you're in the mood for a sci-fi story.

Anyway, regarding other catastrophic examples, none parallel, but who knows what societies prior to ours had to deal with (ie, destruction of Atlantis)?

[edit on 27/2/09 by Evasius]

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:53 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Agreed, although our technological progress has brought us to the threshold of very great things, it's also left us frail, exposed, and ignorant of some basic things -- like natural cycles and how to survive them.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:58 AM
Scaremongering. 4 degrees increase = 5.4 billion deaths? Dream on.

Humans have had much hotter and much colder weather to contend with, and we've done just fine. See Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period for most recent examples.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:04 AM
reply to post by Evasius

Evasius.....I cannot remember how or where I learned this.....but, it isn't likely in recorded Human records....I think, that before our migration from Africa, there was a devastating Natural event, such as a huge volcanic eruption, that nearly wiped out Homo Sapiens Sapiens.....a documentary I once saw, but I could be mistaken.

Anyway, we were on the brink of extinction....AND our genome was horribly compromised.....if less than 100,000 individuals are left.....the diversity options are reduced.....but, here we are, 6 Billion strong!!!

Very diverse....only took about 50,000 years.....

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:07 AM
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth

I do think the idea of global warming is ridiculous after actually looking into it. Perhaps though we're headed for a period of more extreme weather than usual, maybe extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme storms...both atmospheric and geophysical, because of greater cycles the Earth regularly endures.

Scaremongering? Possibly - maybe those in-the-know are using this expected shift into extremes to their advantage in some way, to get everyone under one controlling estblishment?

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:20 AM
If there is to be a cull , I vote we start by culling the uber rich , politicians and then lawyers first.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:24 AM

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
Scaremongering. 4 degrees increase = 5.4 billion deaths? Dream on.

Humans have had much hotter and much colder weather to contend with, and we've done just fine. See Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period for most recent examples.

A project to help us produce more Oxygen since we are being depleting the Oxygen available by burning fossil fuels, creating water vapours, that will be causing more green house gases then CO2 could. The Current Oxygen levels are around 20.9%, this is well explained in Atmospheric Oxygen, Giant Paleozoic Insects and the Evolution of Aerial Locomotor Performance by R. Dudley, JExB, show a high of about 35% just before the beginning of the Permian, with a rapid decline to a low of about 13-14% near the beginning of the Triassic, then a small spike at about 17% in mid Triassic, another drop to about 14-15% early in the Jurassic, a sudden climb to about 21% by mid-Jurassic, then a gentle climb to about 26% early in the Tertiary, and a rather constant, steady decline to the present “20.9%.”Even now, we are not necessarily assured of a more-than-20-per cent oxygen level in the air at all times.

We have been losing oxygen levels due to the burning of Fossil fuels, especially Goal and Oil. This is a serious issue since we used to have 21.4% oxygen only a century ago. Should the oxygen level fall down below 19% then we would suffocate, and this could very well happen since Oxygen levels are still decreasing today, and still due to fusil fuel burning.

But then again, according to skeptics this simply cannot happen because we have technology at hand...pff what a joke.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:34 AM
I have James Lovelock's new book on order - although I did see the manuscript last August!

I admire the guy but feel I may disagree with him on some of this.

"Humans are in a pretty difficult position and I don't think they are clever enough to handle what's ahead. I think they'll survive as a species all right, but the cull during this century is going to be huge," NASA scientist James Lovelock said.

Hmmm, Lovelock is an 89 year old living in Devon, England. I don't think he's employed by NASA

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by Essan

Essan....always appreciate your posts!

It is conceivable that after OUR lifetimes, the remaining population will face a dire emergency. Barring any Thermo-Nuclear exhange....the Human species will survive, even with the hardships.

It won't be easy, of course....but, to imagine what this planet will look like in year 2100? I have no idea.....

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:09 PM

the Sahara desert stretches into Europe

This is scaremongering BS at its best.

all you have to do is look at paleoclimatology to find that this is BS.

The increase in temperatures causes a large increases in evaporation from the oceans and a large increase in rainfall worldwide.

Only if the temperatures drop will the deserts of the world increase due to decreasing evaporation and decreasing rainfall.

If the temperatures raise by 10 deg the world will be one big jungle with no deserts.

I have done my research and can spot global warming BS quickly.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by ANNED

ANNED....after the 'Miocene' era....about 23,000,000 years ago....still not sure of your point.

I mean, I agree to some extent.....that species will have to adapt to survive, else they become extinct, when there is a huge Global environmental alteration...

23 Million years Hominids existed. Again, what is your point?

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:38 PM
It was first Malthus and then Ehrlich, in his 1968 Population Bomb, that made similar, albeit ultimately mistaken conjectures. There is no reason to indicate that we are subject to the same positive checks on population growth that all other species on this planet share as a basis of commonality.

On Rationality
The solution is not in changing ourselves; that is not a fruitful investment of resources. Which of these routes seem more viable to you: promoting the occupation of personal spirituality in an attempt to reduce violent crime, or enforcing law and punishment on those who do not comply? Similarly, would you favor genetic engineering to increase cognitive alertness in an attempt to reduce possible driving accidents, or the implementation of insurance policy and behavioral restrictions, punishable by law if not obeyed?

The former are lofty ideals, yet they remain totally impractical upon review. When resources become scarce, the first person to break the rule and race toward the unused food supply and seize it for himself is infinitely better off than the person that decides to forgo the opportunity for the sake of the community. So for the sake of simplicity let's assume everyone is going to go at it for themselves. Which approach would you trust more? You can't reason with human biology, but you can create artificial selective pressures that mold these systems' behavioral patterns, in order to reduce inequality and distribute resources more efficiently. The evolution of sociability through vocal and bodily language, behavioral conventions, as well as the emergence of cultural traditions and religious organizations can all be seen as effective tools in combating the deficiency of short-term rationality. The sustained functioning of civilization requires more than just animal instincts.

Game theory analyzes the rational behavior of players, or agents. Modern economists apply game theory to the creation of policy tools, which work to allocate resources efficiently, knowing that most people would rather choose to act in their own perceived best interest (perceived because you often don't know the long-term outcome).

Policy is a wide range of tools that shifts behavioral equilibria from a point of general instability to one of long-term sustainability. Of course, changes in the dynamics of the democratic environment, for example, might put alternate pressures on policy, until new representatives are elected, and replacement legislature is passed, effectively restoring pregame conditions. Many of our daily interactions are actually social dilemmas, where our decidedly most appropriate decisions actually contribute to an overall worse-off outcome for all the parties involved. In addressing climate change we come face to face with the natural dialectic of the intelligent organism; the evolved short-term rationality (that necessary for survival in the wild) of the human organism finally confronts our ability to overcome catastrophe through the use of tools that refocus our efforts on the long-term. There is a clear dichotomy growing here and we have to pick a side quickly.

These doomsday scientists are just plain wrong. They argue that in times of duress we revert to our basic animal instincts. Of course if you model human systems as if they were animals, they would be subject to Malthusian laws, and that would obviously mean a reduction in population size.

The reality is technology will be developed, which will fall in place of our tendency to ignore long-term rationality in favor of our evolved propensity to consume in the short run. Considering the human life span is so short, we can't expect to take the time to train rationally perfect social individuals, because catastrophe will always strike before the process is complete. Few people attain such a degree of patience in one lifetime. Those that do usually give up a lot, and most people aren't willing to pursue a lifestyle, characterized by abstinence and meditation.

The demand to live is infinite. We have the capital to pursue any solution we want. Technology, where law and policy for the past few decades have abysmally failed, will ultimately correct human deficiencies in rationality. Our interactions with technology are pretty straightforward. Legal action is only so limited. And in a time of great panic and distress, in the face of so much catastrophe, we will look upon the natural world we've asked to sacrifice so much for us so far, and usurp all its bounty so as to propel us into the stars...

It's good to have these concerns. Without them, we would not inevitably come to conquer our forthcoming challenges.

On Climate Change
The problem isn't that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are actually capable of contributing to a global warming phenomenon all on their own, rather; there is a threshold beyond which the planet can not accept any more inputs into its delicate carbon feedback cycle. A rise in global temperatures are not exactly related to presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere on a linear scale. At a certain point, a very small amount of greenhouse gases will cause a very significant burst in warming.

One such feedback mechanism is the Clathrate gun hypothesis, where upon the sea reaching a certain temperature will release vast amounts of stored methane gases, resulting in exponential levels of global warming. There are massive deposits of these methane complexes all along the seafloor, and they are waiting to erupt. When this happened in the past, methane was released gradually over a period of 20,000 years, causing the Permian extinction event. Scientists estimate we can release the equivalent amount of methane in a sizable fraction of that time (possibly one lifetime), which would result in the near immediate incineration of the planet.

On Civilization

This does seem to raise an interesting question for the future of human civilization. Will all our future colonized planets be engineered to exist in a permanent Holocene-like state? Are we really that limited in our options? We must actively consider the possibility of being subjected to unfamiliar environments. Terraforming cannot be our only option. We need to utilize technology to make any inhospitable environment livable. If we can't live in a world that is merely 4ºC hotter, then we shouldn't expect to last long as a species. Constant homeostasis just isn't possible on a body (planet), which in relation to the size of an individual human being, is vastly greater in size. Bottom line, we can't live in the same world forever. We can't live within the realm of the same delusions for much longer either...

[edit on 27-2-2009 by cognoscente]

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by Evasius

I don't think it's scaremongering. The governments of the world are taking the IPCC reports pretty seriously. They're upgrading their weapons systems and tightening immigration laws.

My conspiratorial mind comes up with two other possibilities. The first (1), is that a group of mad scientists are preparing the world for a series of mass hypnoses to further their evil schemes. In requiring a general consensus of global brainwave frequencies they have come to realize this could be accomplished by shoving global warming rhetoric down everyone's throats... or (2) but on a serious note this time, global warming could be used as an excuse by major governments to increase their stockpiles of nuclear weapons and other strategic military deterrence, because for some reason they are anticipating an escalation of global conflict (the rise of industrial China and India would support such a hypothesis). This might be plausible scenario for those who outright reject global warming...

Although no decision has officially been taken, the Ministry of Defence has already embarked on a major upgrade to facilities at the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishments (AWE) at Aldermaston and Burghfield,[16] costing an extra £350m for each of the next three years. This billion pound investment will effectively double AWE's budget over the next three years,[17] and yet was awarded by the government without any parliamentary scrutiny or debate.

No scrutiny or debate? Either they know what's going down, or they're completely ignorant. I wouldn't wager on them being ignorant... It's not a very safe bet. Parliaments are very delicate things. If you've ever witnessed one in action, you would think the American Congress was comatose. The government NEVER settles for a deficit of that magnitude, and especially just to purchase weapons. With 11 different parties represented, such an action would spell the immediate end of the ruling party's power, as the other parties would swiftly form coalitions and act against them. A vote of "no confidence" would be passed within days and government would collapse. There has got to be a reason for a purchase of that scale not being debated. That shows a LOT of unity, more than anyone can really imagine. Having all those democratic forces at work, in normal times constantly pushing and pulling against each other, to agree on an issue so potentially disruptive as to halt government in its tracks... that really says something. The consensus is frightening actually.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by cognoscente]

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:00 AM
reply to post by cognoscente

Wow, this is really something

Is there further information available on this? I mean, doubling the budget for the nuke arsenal should surely leave some tidbits somewhere as to why?

top topics


log in