Which would end us all: zombies, super flu, global warming, or nuclear weapon?

[Miggz]

When we hear the term "apocalypse" we imagine the earth exploding or humanity being wiped out. I think a more accurate explanation would probably be the breakdown of our current civilization, with survivors surviving even the harshest conditions. But what's truly interesting is the methods humans resort to in order to survive in their new crippled world. But imagine if you were one of the handful who did survive. Which do you think we are more likely to see? Humans actually sticking together/uniting more then ever just to stay alive? Or would this new "hell" actually reveal the true ugliness of humanity and we all act in a "dog eat dog" world?

Now as for the title of my debate topic, I'd say a zombie outbreak (if possible) would actually be the "true" end for us all. The other day I watched 24 weeks later and the obvious theme was "survival." I found it somewhat ironic that the survivors were running from these "monsters," when some of these survivors were actually turning into monsters themselves by making cold hearted decisions. In the film, these soldiers were willing to have sex with this underage girl in order to revive the population. Could you honestly imagine yourself doing that if you were in their shoes? I barely think about sex now, so I highly doubt it would be a priority when trying to run from flesh eating zombies. But this leads back to the second element of this debate. After/during a catastrophic event, in your opinion, would humans become more aggressive for survival or rely on a more passive route and stick together?

Perhaps it would be a good idea for us to educate ourselves about how humanity coped when the comforts we have all grown to rely on are suddenly destroyed. People may actually see the rotten core of humanity, or they may see how good would triumph over evil if the human race had to get its act together and actually work together.

So whose side are you on?

 

[Vickey]

When we hear the term "apocalypse" we imagine the earth exploding or humanity being wiped out. I think a more accurate explanation would probably be the breakdown of our current civilization, with survivors surviving even the harshest conditions.

The common definition of the apocalypse is the end of humanity, the extinction of the human race. There would not be survivors.

The traditional definition is the one given by the Bible. This one states that the apocalypse is a story containing prophetic or symbolic visions, especially of the imminent destruction of the world and the salvation of the righteous. These saved would be taken into heaven, so in essence, there would be no living humans left in this definition either.

But what's truly interesting is the methods humans resort to in order to survive in their new crippled world.

Or lack of. Humans are still crippling the world. We are destroying the planet at an alarming rate, much faster than we are trying to preserve it.

But imagine if you were one of the handful who did survive. Which do you think we are more likely to see? Humans actually sticking together/uniting more then ever just to stay alive? Or would this new "hell" actually reveal the true ugliness of humanity and we all act in a "dog eat dog" world?

If this scenario did happen, people are still people. There have been many cases where people were ravaged to a point where they were desperate to survive. We have seen humanity in people even in the worse of cases. Things can go so wrong that this would happen, but there is a big possibility that people can reform civilization.

Now as for the title of my debate topic, I'd say a zombie outbreak (if possible) would actually be the "true" end for us all. The other day I watched 24 weeks later and the obvious theme was "survival." I found it somewhat ironic that the survivors were running from these "monsters," when some of these survivors were actually turning into monsters themselves by making cold hearted decisions. In the film, these soldiers were willing to have sex with this underage girl in order to revive the population. Could you honestly imagine yourself doing that if you were in their shoes? I barely think about sex now, so I highly doubt it would be a priority when trying to run from flesh eating zombies. But this leads back to the second element of this debate. After/during a catastrophic event, in your opinion, would humans become more aggressive for survival or rely on a more passive route and stick together?

Scientific research has always pointed to nuclear war, famine, plague, or a natural disaster as the most likely disasters that would destroy humanity. In the long run, the earth will not last forever anyway, the sun has a lifespan.

In my opinion, I feel war will be the most likely. It seems humans are always adapting themselves to other disasters, and moving forward. With our current fear of plagues, people are developing a number of ways to combat this. It seems that hatred amongst people is still rampant though, and it seems to get worse every time. It isn't much to believe that greed and lust for power will overtake people to a point where there will be an inevitable world war again. They have shown that the United States alone has enough explosives and nuclear weapons to blow the world up many times over. Coupled with all the other nations with nuclear weapons, the earth is a serious time bomb waiting to explode.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for us to educate ourselves about how humanity coped when the comforts we have all grown to rely on are suddenly destroyed. People may actually see the rotten core of humanity, or they may see how good would triumph over evil if the human race had to get its act together and actually work together.

So whose side are you on?

People are not animals. People will do anything to survive, but it is also human nature to value the life of others. The majority of people, while possibly putting their life before anyone else's, also sees the importance of that other person's life. It would be naive to think all people care of course, and there are serial killers to prove this. But not all people are rotten. Humans are all "human" and make mistakes, suffer from greed, envy, lust, and hate at times, but this does not make them rotten.

 

[Miggz]

The common definition of the apocalypse is the end of humanity, the extinction of the human race. There would not be survivors.

The traditional definition is the one given by the Bible. This one states that the apocalypse is a story containing prophetic or symbolic visions, especially of the imminent destruction of the world and the salvation of the righteous. These saved would be taken into heaven, so in essence, there would be no living humans left in this definition either.

Yeah but there are multiple definitions to the word apocalypse. For various reasons, not everyone follows the Bible's definitions. But from what I have rad on it, it can range from a major disruption/depletion of human civilization to absolute extinction of our kind. So I don't it would simply mean the extinction of every single human. But that's just me.

Or lack of. Humans are still crippling the world. We are destroying the planet at an alarming rate, much faster than we are trying to preserve it.

True. But the debate isn't about preserving the Earth, but rather what measures humans would take in order to survive their heavily damaged environment after the catastrophic event.

People are not animals. People will do anything to survive, but it is also human nature to value the life of others. The majority of people, while possibly putting their life before anyone else's, also sees the importance of that other person's life. It would be naive to think all people care of course, and there are serial killers to prove this. But not all people are rotten. Humans are all "human" and make mistakes, suffer from greed, envy, lust, and hate at times, but this does not make them rotten.

Technically, humans are indeed animals. Animals will superior will power and awareness, but animals nonetheless. Anyway, you are right...it would be naive to assume all people care. But you have to understand that in realty...there are some really "rotten" people out there. I've read stories about antisocial individuals and how they can harm people and feel zero remorse. So I would label someone like that as "rotten."

 

[Zero Beat]

Scratch meteorites out of the list. We've got some cool tricks up our sleeves when it comes to avoiding meteors.

The problem is that while we can deflect and mess with a few degrees of that meteor's orbit(using new laser technology), we can also target non-threatening meteors and have them on a collision course towards Earth.

That's why we have to be careful with who we have in power. Actually, there ain't **** we can do but be scared of who's in power.

A less sophisticated way would be to cause an explosion near the incoming object to slightly knock it off course.

Probably the most important factor that science is working on is coming up with a new technology to detect/predict these bad boys some 5 to 10 steps before it's too late.

 

[Miggz]

Oh sweet!

That's really cool. I had no idea. :-O

 

[BOB SAGET!]

well, i believe the #1 cause of earths end will be global warming, its very hard to stop since the effects happen slowly over tme. Greed and lazyness are what will cause global warming to continue, I doubt a nuclear war will kill everybody as people know how bad the effects will be when they drop the bomb. and by the way has anyone heard of that 2012 stuff.

 

[Eor]

Eh, I think humans will only die off it there's a massive global change along with some sort of pandemic. Most other things I could only see killing a large, large amount of people, but not everyone.

But for Earth itself, I think it's safe until the sun expands too far, outside of some freak astronomical occurrence.

 

[Zero Beat]

Bob, refer to this thread before they start jumping on you.

Please.

But for Earth itself, I think it's safe until the sun expands too far, outside of some freak astronomical occurrence.

Andromeda's merger with our galaxy happens around 1.8 billion years before the sun actually gets freaky with us.

For those of you that wonder how a galaxy merger goes/what it is:

Based on what scientists have observed on galaxies, our own may have merged with previous ones in the past, seeing as most galaxies are just not as big as our own, and other factors I just can't remember off the top of my head.

When two galaxies collide, they don't hit each other like cars. They "merge" and become one.(of course, this requires a LOT of time, and please do try to filter out how "mystical and cute" it sounds). Here's the issue with Andromeda:

Like our galaxy, it has a supermassive black hole(last time we checked, it was feeding). As far I know, there aren't any ways to determine what causes a black hole to go from dormant to active and vice versa. We(Sol system) are situated at the edge of our galaxy. While two galaxies merging isn't a direct impact, a ****load of explosions and like Eor said, astronomical freak occurrences do happen. If we're caught a the wrong edge of the galaxy when this merging occurs, then we're done for, and I'm talking about the entire Sol system, not just Earth.

Two supermassive black holes trying to become one just isn't pretty to picture.

/endlesson

 

[BOB SAGET!]

it doesnt matter ive read many articles that were on global warming and it said that even if it stops for the meantime it will end up continuing and the damage is already done.

 

[Miggz]

But although the damage is already done, there is still plenty of things we can do to "prevent" further damage.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

But although the damage is already done, there is still plenty of things we can do to "prevent" further damage.

You are correct on that statement. We can do many things to prevent global warming from killing us all. Humans have already started.

However, global warming won't stop forever. It'll probably only stop for a few years and during that time we'll still pollute more than conserve.

 

[Nysyarc]

However, global warming won't stop forever. It'll probably only stop for a few years and during that time we'll still pollute more than conserve.

The problem with humans, is that as a species, we procrastinate. We think that because another country is taking precautions against global warming, we don't have to... yet. We think that because our governments are striving to right our wrongs, we as simple citizens don't have to contribute, because what can one person do?

The fact is, each individual person makes a huge difference. If everyone reversed their mindsets, and we all started doing everything we could to help rid the world of global warming, it would end, and it likely wouldn't come back.

Two supermassive black holes trying to become one just isn't pretty to picture.

^^^ QFT

Anyways, about the 2012 deal... I think the only reason anything catastrophic would happen in the year 2012 is if some group of over-zealous believers in the armageddon (humans of course), decided to make armageddon happen themselves. One button. A nuclear destruction of our world could happen with the push of a button, and with a good enough scheme, and a group of steadfast martyrs... human fallibility could end us all.

That is my only fear of 2012. I don't believe in the Mayan predictions or any of that nonsense. Who heard the one where Barack Obama is the Antichrist? Good stuff. But I do fear that we may inflict doom upon ourselves.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

The problem with humans, is that as a species, we procrastinate. We think that because another country is taking precautions against global warming, we don't have to... yet. We think that because our governments are striving to right our wrongs, we as simple citizens don't have to contribute, because what can one person do?

The fact is, each individual person makes a huge difference. If everyone reversed their mindsets, and we all started doing everything we could to help rid the world of global warming, it would end, and it likely wouldn't come back.

Your first paragraph is correct. We humans are lazy. You tell me how many times you were too lazy to put a pepsi can into the recycling bin. Humans are contributing to the destruction of our planet. We procrastinate as well.

Techniquely one person can't make a difference. The only way he can make a difference is if everyone thinks the same way he does. I know what your trying to say but logically its wrong.

 

[Nysyarc]

I know what your trying to say but logically its wrong.

That's exactly the problem. Most people think "if everyone started working together to fix this, it would work, but logically (or realistically), that won't happen". Since most people have that rational mindset that insists human laziness will prevail, nobody acts individually.

It 's probably true that we will never act as a species to solve this or other global problems, but if that's the case, it's only because each individual person has convinced themselves that they can be of no help in the big picture.

 

[Zero Beat]

I HOPE you guys realize the Earth used to be a hell of a lot worse than it is now, WITHOUT human interaction?

If you want a good image of how bad, I'll copy and paste an old post of mine from the DH showing Venus' volcanic surface. Why Venus? Because it depicts how our own planet used to be a long long time before we existed, let along industrialized.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6122970&postcount=64

There wasn't anyone around to correct these conditions for us to exist, the planet is just a self correcting system. Trust me, the planet is A-OK at the moment if you look at it historically.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

I HOPE you guys realize the Earth used to be a hell of a lot worse than it is now, WITHOUT human interaction?

If you want a good image of how bad, I'll copy and paste an old post of mine from the DH showing Venus' volcanic surface. Why Venus? Because it depicts how our own planet used to be a long long time before we existed, let along industrialized.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6122970&postcount=64

There wasn't anyone around to correct these conditions for us to exist, the planet is just a self correcting system. Trust me, the planet is A-OK at the moment if you look at it historically.

You are correct. It was a lot worse before humans existed. The planet was just lava and was comparable to venus.

However saying we shouldn't worry and the planet is a self correcting system is wrong. The planet isn't getting warmer naturally, we are the ones who are doing it. So I think we should take more action before its too late.

 

[Nysyarc]

I HOPE you guys realize the Earth used to be a hell of a lot worse than it is now, WITHOUT human interaction?

If you want a good image of how bad, I'll copy and paste an old post of mine from the DH showing Venus' volcanic surface. Why Venus? Because it depicts how our own planet used to be a long long time before we existed, let along industrialized.

The problem with that though, is that when the Earth was similar to how Venus is now, life did not exist on Earth, as it does not exist on Venus now. The only reason Earth was like that billions of years ago is because it was just in the process of being formed. Before the Earth had a protective magnetic field (which developed as it formed and began rotating), giant asteroids struck Earth at regular intervals, constantly churning up and ruining the planet every million years or so.

Our oceans are evidence of some of the larger asteroid strikes billions of years ago. And our moon, scientists now say, was created by one such asteroid that tore a chunk out of Earth. The chunk broke apart and began to revolve around what was left of Earth, and eventually the pieces molded together to create what is now the moon. Since the moon formed, it has taken the majority of the blows from asteroids, so that Earth has been able to flourish with it's protection (along with the magnetic field and atmosphere, which were only able to form with the moon's protection).

The circumstances for life are rare, and we are lucky. It's a shame that we may end up throwing that away if we aren't careful. Take a look at this graph:



As you can see, natural carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased at each ice age through the last several thousand years. That means that naturally, we should be having an ice age twice as long and massive as those in the past right now, because carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is twice as high as it has ever been in recorded history. Instead, glaciers are melting at rapid rates. This is not good. Just the implications of that are not good; it is in direct contradiction to what nature intended.

There wasn't anyone around to correct these conditions for us to exist, the planet is just a self correcting system. Trust me, the planet is A-OK at the moment if you look at it historically.

No offense, but I'm not sure I really want to 'trust' you when it comes to the fate of our planet. Trusting any one person's opinion is a bad idea in this case. Understanding someone's opinion is always okay, but I don't personally think that the Earth is 'A-OK' right now, as I explained above. If you want me to elaborate or find more citations on the whole Earth's history part, I can.

All in all, we're in over our heads right now. I'm usually an optimistic person, but if we don't act soon and act quickly, we could easily go over the tipping point.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Yup, were screwed if we don't act quickly. Pollution is not a natural occurance, the planet will not correct itself when humans are still on Earth. The Earth doesnt need to be as hot as venus to destroy humanity. If the humanity ever does end it'll probably be due to global warming because it's scientifically proven to harm the Earth, it already started for some time and its very hard to stop.

 

[Zero Beat]

It is A-OK as opposed to how it used to be.

It did not correct itself by collecting soda cans and an abundance in plastic.

The problem with that though, is that when the Earth was similar to how Venus is now, life did not exist on Earth,

Which is my point. It did not need anything other than itself to eventually be able to support life. It was already in the habitable zone.

The circumstances for life are rare, and we are lucky. It's a shame that we may end up throwing that away if we aren't careful.

Out of the countless planets in the Milky Way galaxy, let along the universe, we've found SLIGHTLY over 300. Therefore, I don't know how rare life really is. >I don't know.< I'd only say something like that to make us feel noble. Also, by life, you mean what?? Because we may bite the dust due to an ice age or two, but extremophiles won't.

And I knew all of that history, but thank you nonetheless for being informative, as other members will certainly benefit from that post. (Not kidding)

Pollution is not a natural occurance, the planet will not correct itself when humans are still on Earth.

But a super volcano is, and if you actually research them, you'll see that if one erupts, it'll be worse than all the pollution we've managed to come up with since industrial times.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Yes but unlike a super volcano were going to keep polluting and it happens daily. So we should be worried and step up. The planet is not OKAY. The Arctic is melting, there are holes in the ozone layer, and many animal are becoming extinct and endangered because of global warming.

PS: Bob the saget? lol

 

[Eor]

 

[BOB SAGET!]

so whats that mean.

 

[Eor]

Well it's simple. Evolution means that animals will change to adapt to the environment, and those that can't will die. Bears have hunted mankind since the dawn of man, and will probably end up outlasting us. Therefore, bears will probably adapt to have chainsaws for hands and will hunt us to the child and eat us, therefore ending humanity. It's already happening, the African country of Ugandisa is already reporting 400 chainsaw bear attacks a day

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Well it's simple. Evolution means that animals will change to adapt to the environment, and those that can't will die. Bears have hunted mankind since the dawn of man, and will probably end up outlasting us. Therefore, bears will probably adapt to have chainsaws for hands and will hunt us to the child and eat us, therefore ending humanity. It's already happening, the African country of Ugandisa is already reporting 400 chainsaw bear attacks a day

thats a funny joke. (BOB SAGET! gives love, a bad name!) So do you want to debate.

 

[Zero Beat]

Saget, his argument sounds serious enough. Avoid one liners as much as possible and keep casual conversations to the PM or visitor's messaging system please.

Address his argument.

 

[Eor]

Uh, I am. I'm not making a joke at all. We will become extinct through animals

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Well, I didn't really take him seriously because he said bears will evolve with chainsaws for hands. I thought it was a joke. So anyway extinct through animals unless we are forced to live as cavemen is highly unlikely. We've come a far way from allowing animals to hunt us.

 

[Nysyarc]

Which is my point. It did not need anything other than itself to eventually be able to support life. It was already in the habitable zone.

But obviously the transformation to support life took billions of years. And besides, nothing was holding it back. No unnatural processes were preventing Earth from progressing. We provide that unnatural process. Humans are the exception to every rule of nature, and if we aren't careful, we will push our luck too far.

Out of the countless planets in the Milky Way galaxy, let along the universe, we've found SLIGHTLY over 300. Therefore, I don't know how rare life really is. >I don't know.< I'd only say something like that to make us feel noble. Also, by life, you mean what?? Because we may bite the dust due to an ice age or two, but extremophiles won't.

Yes but consider all the things that were required to spark life on Earth. I'm not going to list them, but I'm sure an article can be found that explains the long system of events that led to the first single-celled organisms appearing on Earth. I can't imagine that the process happens often. Even the structure of our solar system itself is thought to have helped. The fact that the planet Jupiter has such a powerful gravitational pull and thus draws space debris away from Earth is a factor.

I understand that the universe is immense, and that there is more than likely plenty of other inhabited planets out there; but there are almost definitely many more uninhabited planets than inhabited ones, as you proved with your statement.

Even extremophiles need certain conditions to survive. There is extreme, and then there uninhabitable. Many things are converging that would eventually make Earth uninhabitable if this keeps up.

For example, excessive CO2 in the atmosphere has caused the oceans to intake more CO2 than they should. This has caused pH levels (acidity) in the oceans to decrease. Marine life forms and ecosystems rely on a very small margin of pH in order to survive, and it is predicted that mass extinction of sea life will occur within the next 100 years or so if nothing is done about CO2 emissions very soon. The implications of that should be evident, as many other land species rely on sea life and marine ecosystems... including humans.

But a super volcano is, and if you actually research them, you'll see that if one erupts, it'll be worse than all the pollution we've managed to come up with since industrial times.

That is true, and in fact there is one super volcano I believe somewhere in Oceania if I remember correctly, that is overdue to erupt by a margin of tens of thousands of years (based on it's regular eruption rate throughout history). Although, that would be a natural occurrence that we could do nothing to prevent. Global Warming is something that we brought upon ourselves, and that we can prevent by acting quickly.

 

[Eor]

You're still missing a few points. I'm going to draw the links out

Humans, being animals (or if you wish to think we're above animals, that's fine) are apart of the environment. Animals evolve to adapt. Bears, being a huge threat, are going to adapt to us, and are already starting to. They're adapting by adding chainsaws to hands. Hopefully that'll explain the position better.

About before: Yes, we've adapted to meet nature, but it's natures time to adapt to us. Bears used to kill us, we learned to use weapons to kill bears, and now they're going to force the ladder up again.

Why bears? Bears are quadrupeds, but they are also capable of being bipedal. Being able to swap between them at will is a huge evolutionary advantage, being able to both have two hands free to interact with the environment as well as being able to run as fast as a quadrupedal animal. Bears are already at the top of the order Caniformia, and have no natural predators left other then man. They've adapted to meet the rest, they'll adapt to us.

Now what is the main use of a chainsaw? To cut down trees. Where do bears live? the forest. It's only natural that a bear will adapt to live in the forest by using wood, and to do so the bear would need to cut down the tree. The bears with the most chainsaw like hands will be able to do so, live longer, mate longer, and therefore spread on it's gene.

At the same time, these chainsaw hands will be a great use against predators. It'll help in hunting, as it'll be able to saw off meat easier, and it'll be great to fight off humans against. It only takes one bear hunting us to kill us.

And like I said, it's already happening.

 

[Zero Beat]

To Nysyarc

My point was that super volcanoes(which are worse than anything we have done up to date) have erupted in the past, and look at where we are? The planet and its organisms(mainly the ones before us, for the sake of the point) have endured worse things than what's going to be happening in 30-50 years 'because of us.'

Besides, we ARE taking action anyway. We already are, but simply to better our lives, not the environment<_<. It just sounds 'nice' and makes us look noble if we make certain ideas sound a certain way.

Watch this please:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=related

 

[BOB SAGET!]

You're still missing a few points. I'm going to draw the links out

Humans, being animals (or if you wish to think we're above animals, that's fine) are apart of the environment. Animals evolve to adapt. Bears, being a huge threat, are going to adapt to us, and are already starting to. They're adapting by adding chainsaws to hands. Hopefully that'll explain the position better.

About before: Yes, we've adapted to meet nature, but it's natures time to adapt to us. Bears used to kill us, we learned to use weapons to kill bears, and now they're going to force the ladder up again.

Why bears? Bears are quadrupeds, but they are also capable of being bipedal. Being able to swap between them at will is a huge evolutionary advantage, being able to both have two hands free to interact with the environment as well as being able to run as fast as a quadrupedal animal. Bears are already at the top of the order Caniformia, and have no natural predators left other then man. They've adapted to meet the rest, they'll adapt to us.

Now what is the main use of a chainsaw? To cut down trees. Where do bears live? the forest. It's only natural that a bear will adapt to live in the forest by using wood, and to do so the bear would need to cut down the tree. The bears with the most chainsaw like hands will be able to do so, live longer, mate longer, and therefore spread on it's gene.

At the same time, these chainsaw hands will be a great use against predators. It'll help in hunting, as it'll be able to saw off meat easier, and it'll be great to fight off humans against. It only takes one bear hunting us to kill us.

And like I said, it's already happening.

Maybe im misunderstanding you. further explain chainsaw hands. You mean bears will have their hands evolved to be flexible enough to hold a chainsaw? And stop getting their *** kicked by tigers in siberia? First of all the chainsaw theory sound ridiculous. Man has enough nuclear bombs to destroy the earth. A bear with chainsaw hands is like any idiot with a chainsaw. Gun shots, bam dead. This arguement is ridiculous in a funny way.

 

[Eor]

Man you do not understand evolution.

We have nukes, but nukes are Mutually assured destruction. Bears are everywhere, we'd nuke everything and kill ourselves. We won't do that, naturally we want to live. Bears also can resist up to 20 bullets. There are more bears that exist then bullets, and bears are born more then bullets

 

[Lovely]

Since a lot of people know the danger of using a nuclear weapon at this time plan, it can't be that to end all humanity. Super Flu is a maybe since a Super Flu could spread fast enough and won't have a cure unless a doctor works endlessly till the cure is found, but it may be too late. Global Warming is the first on my list since it still excise and with the cause of global warming could create strange weather and unusually weather on a few area's of the world like snow in Hawaii. Zombies sounds too fictional to me, though it depends on what cause the zombies to react to say if they were to be revive from the dead.

I might not understand this topic, but my clam is that global warming later on in the future will be a huge issue for the human race to control, then random storms may come and destroy everything, that's my clam of how the world might end.

 

[Nysyarc]

To Nysyarc

My point was that super volcanoes(which are worse than anything we have done up to date) have erupted in the past, and look at where we are? The planet and its organisms(mainly the ones before us, for the sake of the point) have endured worse things than what's going to be happening in 30-50 years 'because of us.'

Besides, we ARE taking action anyway. We already are, but simply to better our lives, not the environment<_<. It just sounds 'nice' and makes us look noble if we make certain ideas sound a certain way.

Watch this please:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=related

Ah, see I was under the impression that you thought we as human beings would survive global warming. Of course Earth will shrug it off. By the way, great comedian, that was good for a laugh

But in all seriousness, we as a species and most other life on Earth are royally screwed if we don't do anything about global warming. Sure, the Earth will heal itself, but it will take hundreds of millions of years to get CO2 levels in the atmosphere and oceans back to normal naturally, and even after that, who knows if intelligent life will again appear on Earth? It could end up being micro-organisms until the sun explodes.

Man you do not understand evolution.

We have nukes, but nukes are Mutually assured destruction. Bears are everywhere, we'd nuke everything and kill ourselves. We won't do that, naturally we want to live. Bears also can resist up to 20 bullets. There are more bears that exist then bullets, and bears are born more then bullets

Really?

This is ridiculous and so pointless that I didn't want to reply to you, but I think it's time for a little lecture on how evolution, or 'natural selection' really works. Even if you know how it really works and are just trying to pester the less informed among these people... I need to set things straight.

Hypothetical scenario: Two groups of animals, let's say bears for the heck of it, are living in the same forest. They are both of the same species of bear, but one group, or family, has randomly developed longer fur coats. Now, suddenly, there is an ice age (bear with me here... no pun intended), the bears with thicker fur will survive, due to better protection against the cold, and the ones with thinner fur will die off. It will take time, but eventually, only the bears with thick fur will remain, thus, evolution of the species by natural selection.

Even if it were in any way possible for a bear to have extremities that resembled chainsaws, nothing would provoke natural selection to bestow that upon them. As it is, since bears are at the top of their order (I'm taking your word for that, since I'm too lazy to look it up right now), evolution won't affect them very much, if at all, because it has no need to. Even if bears could adapt to hunt us, it would not be by gaining chainsaws for hands, and whatever it would be, would happen over hundreds if not thousands of years as a slow transformation.

The only ways that I can think of for how a bear would evolve over time to hunt us... well... there really aren't any. They can already more than match a human as long as the human did not have firearms or other such weapons (and on a side note, bears cannot withstand 20 bullets... one shot to the head or in another critical point and they will die). And someone who doesn't really know what evolution is could say "well, they can evolve tougher skin to withstand bullets", but that isn't the case, because natural selection is random, and requires survival.

Here is what I mean, hypothetical scenario #2: There are two groups of bears again, same species, in the same forest. A team of hunters with rifles approaches the bears. One of the groups of bears has slightly thicker skin, which is more resistant to claw swipes from other bears (they gained this by random genetic alteration through generations). Now, the hunters shoot all of the bears. All of the bears die. Thus, the bears that had thicker skin cannot reproduce and evolve. Even if the bears were shot and not killed, it would be of little incidence, and no evolution would spark from it, because natural selection requires thousands of years. If a bear is shot once or even three times on one occasion and survives it, there is no need for more protection against bullets.

For humans, we have put natural selection at a standstill, because instead of letting our bodies and minds adapt to our living conditions, we change our living conditions to abide by our current interest in comfort. For example, people who live near the north pole are not any more resistant to cold naturally than people who live along the equator, because they wear thick fur coats instead of letting natural selection take it's course (which, if it did over the past several thousand years, humans who live up north would likely have thick fur by now).

Hope that was helpful to anyone who was previously in the dark. And please, no more talk of bears with chainsaw hands, it's insulting to the theory of evolution and confusing to people who actually might believe you.

 

[Eor]

You must of never even heard of the Theory of evolution if you're claiming bears don't already have chainsaws for hands

 

[Nysyarc]

Back on topic. I don't think I ever actually answered the original question of this debate in all of my informative rants.

I believe global warming may destroy us, but if not, nuclear bombs will. It will be one of those two, because all other scenarios don't involve human fallibility. Global warming and nuclear weapons are both the direct result of human fallibility, negligence and ignorance... the three things that will ultimately destroy our species and possibly many other species as well.

 

[thesage]

I vote for option five, Meteor hitting the earth.

I'll explain later...

 

[BOB SAGET!]

EOR come on a bear can't evolve with chainsaws. Chainsaws are man made objects for god sake. That chainsaw theory makes no sense, a chainsaw uses chains to make the blade move. Do you really think a bear will have developed a muscle chain in his body. If a bear needed to cut down trees how the heck would it develop chainsaw hands, the bear would use brute force to cut down trees. Anyway this is way off topic so I guess if nothing kills us off in a million years we won't care if the earth gets destroyed. We''ll be like the Jetsons by then.

 

[w!zard]

what? do you even understand basic mammalian anatomy? metal chains aren't the only things that can make things move. animals have skeletal muscles, which when structured correctly can produce a rotational movement. you cannot cut down a tree with brute force. you must use a chainsaw. or in the case of bears, chainsaw hands.

 

[RDK]

I vote for option five, Meteor hitting the earth.

I'll explain later...

Warning to the Proving Grounds members: this will not win you any brownie points with the senior debaters.

Do not come in here, post one liners, and say you're going to explain later. This could technically be construed as post wh0ring, and it adds nothing to conversation if you're not going to back up your assertions.