Humans will be extinct within the next one hundred years

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Again, one of these long term predictions that no one will be alive to call the prognosticator a fraud. All of the short term predictions have failed so now they go out beyond the lifetime of those who would be affected..

SOURCE

Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years', claims leading scientist

By Niall Firth
Last updated at 1:59 AM on 19th June 2010

As the scientist who helped eradicate smallpox he certainly know a thing or two about extinction.

And now Professor Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University, has predicted that the human race will be extinct within the next 100 years.

He has claimed that the human race will be unable to survive a population explosion and 'unbridled consumption.’

Fenner told The Australian newspaper that 'homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years.'

'A lot of other animals will, too,' he added.

'It's an irreversible situation. I think it's too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.'

Since humans entered an unofficial scientific period known as the Anthropocene - the time since industrialisation - we have had an effect on the planet that rivals any ice age or comet impact, he said.

Fenner, 95, has won awards for his work in helping eradicate the variola virus that causes smallpox and has written or co-written 22 books.

He announced the eradication of the disease to the World Health Assembly in 1980 and it is still regarded as one of the World Health Organisation's greatest achievements.

He was also heavily involved in helping to control Australia's myxomatosis problem in rabbits.

Last year official UN figures estimated that the world’s population is currently 6.8 billion. It is predicted to exceed seven billion by the end of 2011.

Fenner blames the onset of climate change for the human race’s imminent demise.

He said: 'We'll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island.

'Climate change is just at the very beginning. But we're seeing remarkable changes in the weather already.'

'The Aborigines showed that without science and the production of carbon dioxide and global warming, they could survive for 40,000 or 50,000 years.

‘But the world can't. The human species is likely to go the same way as many of the species that we've seen disappear.'

article-1287643-06A92BFC000005DC-110_468x226.jpg

Their map which looks like it was made out of someone's laundry. -j

Retired professor Stephen Boyden, a colleague of Professor Fenner, said that while there was deep pessimism among some ecologists, others had a more optimistic view.

'Frank may well be right, but some of us still harbour the hope that there will come about an awareness of the situation and, as a result the revolutionary changes necessary to achieve ecological sustainability.'

Simon Ross, the vice-chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, said: 'Mankind is facing real challenges including climate change, loss of bio-diversity and unprecedented growth in population.'

Professor Fenner's chilling prediction echoes recent comments by Prince Charles who last week warned of ‘monumental problems’ if the world’s population continues to grow at such a rapid pace.

And it comes after Professor Nicholas Boyle of Cambridge University said that a 'Doomsday' moment will take place in 2014 - and will determine whether the 21st century is full of violence and poverty or will be peaceful and prosperous.

in the last 500 years there has been a cataclysmic 'Great Event' of international significance at the start of each century, he claimed.

In 2006 another esteemed academic, Professor James Lovelock, warned that the world's population may sink as low as 500 million over the next century due to global warming.

He claimed that any attempts to tackle climate change will not be able to solve the problem, merely buy us time.
 
No one around to call the prognosticator a fraud?

I say he's fulla crap right now!

There could be 22 billion people by then and the earth ability to
support us primates wouldn't even be taxed in the slightest.

Humans, we are a helluva hard infestation to eradicate.
 
The interesting thing about the Mayan date is that it is quite specific. No need to wonder when in 2012 something big may happen because they tell you it will be on December 21. What is even more interesting is that scientists do say that the planets will align just as the Mayans said they would.

Anyways, regardless of the many factors that may attribute to our demise, overpopulation is not one of them. The entire world's population can fit in the state of Texas.

Carole wrote:
> Is the World Over Populated? Lets do the math... The World Can Fit In Texas
> http://hunterkirk.livejournal.com/326561.html

> The world has a surface area of 510.072 million sq km. Well clearly we can
> not live any where on the surface of the world as the majority of it is
> water 361.132 million sq km. The remainer is the land mass 148.94 million sq
> km. So what is the population of the human race? Estimate is currently at
> 6,525,170,264 (July 2006 est.).

> Now let us do some translations. For every 148 sq km you get 37,000 acres of
> land.

> 37,000 acre = 148 sq Km meaning that the world has about 3.68*10 to the 10th
> Acres of land. I will be using 37,000,000,000 acres for the math below. Now
> if you were to split that land up between all the people of the earth and
> gave each one a share each would get 5.67 acres of land.

> 37,000,000,000/ 6,525,170,286 = 5.67 acres per person

> That does not sound like a lot does it? Some may say "Much of the land is
> unliveable" and they are right so let look at a area where we could make it
> nearly totally liveable. The Great State of Texas. Texas has a surface area
> of 261,797 square miles.
> 1 square mile = 3,097,600 square yards = 640 acres
> 640 * 261,797 = 167,550,080 acres in Texas

> Now lets say we move all the people of the world to the state of Texas. They
> would each get only .02568 acres of land.
> 167,550,080 / 6,525,170,286 = .02568 acres per person

> That does not sound like alot. But wait how much is .02568 acres?
> 1 acre = 4,840 square yards
> 4,840 * .02568 = 124.29 square yards
> 1 square foot = 1/9 square yard
> 124.29 * 9 = 1,118.61 square feet

> Thusly if we moved every living human to Texas and the split the land amoung
> them they would each get 1,118.61 square feet. Now you may say that still
> does not sound like alot. But consider the average square footage of a
> house.

> http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf
> http://www.pcdf.org/Meadows/squarefootage.htm

> "The average American house in the 1940s had an area of 1200 square feet".
> Well that means individually each person could have almost a house worth of
> space to live in. But there is more as we know most people don't live alone.

> http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/hh6.pdf

> The average population of a household in the USA is 2.5. Ok then combined
> the average household in this World Population Texas would have a living
> space of about 2,796.5 square feet. Easily a nice sized living space. But
> the "Over populated world crowd" may say "You need roads, schools and other
> things then just living space", and they would be right. Let us consider New
> York City.

> http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-NewYork.html
> http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/landusefacts/landusefactshome.shtml

> 8,143,197 People live in the area of New York City. New York City's land
> area covers 321 square miles (almost 206,000 acres or nine billion square
> feet). So how much land are does the average New York Citizen use?
> 206,000 Acres / 8,143,197 People = .02529 acres

> .02529 acres per person in a working, functional, and "Safe" city. How much
> land would the people get in our Total World Population in Texas? .02568
> acres per person. Wow nearly exactly the same amount, and in fact it would
> be a little more spaceous then New York City is.

> CONCLUSION: The total world population could move to Texas and make Texas in
> to a functional MEGA city that acre by acre would look much like New York
> City does today. Leaving the Rest of the world with out a single person on
> it. Image Russia and China devoid of people. The only humans you could find
> would live in Texas. And that city would be as safe as New York City is
> today, Skyscrapers and parks included.

> Summery: The world ISN'T over populated and has a long way to go before
> getting any where near it. The truth is that man kind is spread around and
> yet even with the spread we seem to perfer to live in cities. So we group up
> and naturalist get upset at seeing these groups and think that is a sign of
> over population. It is all a game on their part and don't buy in to it.

> * * *

> Another article at -

> IS THE WORLD OVER-POPULATED?
> http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Books_D/ENVIRON2.HTM#population

> It is certain that the world is NOT over-populated. Are you shocked by that
> statement? (as we all were when we realized that the "hole in the ozone
> layer" and the "green-house effect" were scams). The over-population scam
> follows the same sad, but horribly successful formula that these globalists
> always use to get what they want: conflict - resolution - change OR create a
> problem - advertise the problem - solve the problem. All with the cheers and
> blessing, of course, of those who so easily trust in sinful, power-hungry
> men, but cannot bring themselves to trust in God.

> Carole
> www.conspiracee.com

**********************************
This is from:
*
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
*
This is one of the worst excuses for overpopulation
ever invented, yet it keeps appearing in cornucopian
rhetoric. Its origin would be interesting to trace;
it couldn't have come from a demographer. Such
simplistic calculations ignore the vast amounts of
water, land and energy required for modern life. They
also ignore other species' need for shrinking
habitat. People have dissected the landscape, leaving
nature in broken pockets cut off by development.
People also gravitate to the most livable areas,
which further restricts land-use scenarios. For life
to be sustainable, ecosystems must remain quite large
in relation to densely populated zones. Calculations
vary, but the "ecological footprint" of the average
American is said to exceed 5 acres. For 300 million
people (as of late 2006) this equates to
1,500,000,000 acres (about 1,500 x 1,500 miles) or
80% of total U.S. land acreage. If you tried to fit
6.6 billion people (2006 world population) in Texas,
there would be about 25,000 per square mile over the
entire State. That's about 7 times as dense as the
Dallas metro area. Texas can't even sustain its
actual population without imports; true of most
modern nations. These "Texas Hold 'Em" fallacies are
mindless variations of the food distribution
arguments above.
*
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
*

Source
 
December 21st? That means I’ll miss Christmas Drat I love those turkey dinners :(
 
Would this be from the same group(s) that swore we would be out of oil in 1997?
 
the really funny part is how apocalyptic thinking makes its lovely way across both the wackiest religious stuff and scientific discourse... and then this shithead (or worse, al gore) runs with it... at least the religious nuts are sorta entertaining.
 
Humans going extinct but the birth rates are rising in 3rd world nations

we aren't out of oil?
 
Would this be from the same group(s) that swore we would be out of oil in 1997?

I do not think so. From what I can tell, the 2012 prophecy is quite ancient.

On a further note, the Mayans do not say the world will end on that date but, but that it will be an end of an age. Scientist say there could be great solar activity that year. I have heard about the theory that the sun will emit great solar flares that will knock us back to before we utilize electricity.
 
The interesting thing about the Mayan date is that it is quite specific. No need to wonder when in 2012 something big may happen because they tell you it will be on December 21. What is even more interesting is that scientists do say that the planets will align just as the Mayans said they would.

Anyways, regardless of the many factors that may attribute to our demise, overpopulation is not one of them. The entire world's population can fit in the state of Texas.



Source

The problem is not square footage, Gotho - it's food and drinkable water. If you turned PEI into cheek to jowl skyscrapers, you could fit the entire population on it. Wouldn't be comfy, but there ya go.
 
"The right to choose the timing and spacing of their children <-quote from your site.

That is precisely what birth control is all about..all forms of BC, including the one that the site is obviously against.

That is precisely what Family Planning is all about.
 
OK, let's use a condom so you don't get pregnant is a far cry from

kill it, we're not ready.
 
OK, let's use a condom so you don't get pregnant is a far cry from

kill it, we're not ready.

Stop being so Americentric, Gonz. There are a few places where overpopulation is an issue... China's got it's own way of dealing with their issue. The 'one child' rule. India doesn't have said rule, nor easy access to BC..but they're dealing with it. Family Planning as also about providing options like the condom, the pill, etc..to stop abortions from being necessary. Education is good too.

Another way of stopping it is child health. If a large pecentage of kids die before the age of 5, parents will want to make more kids to replace them.
Kids die young because of illnesses like malaria and malnutrition. Safe water and sanitation help prevent the spread of disease.

So, we're back to the problem. It's not space that's the issue..it's access to safe drinking water and food.

1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result of hunger - 700 every hour - 16 000 each day - 6 million each year - 60% of all child deaths (2002-2008 estimates)
 
"The right to choose the timing and spacing of their children <-quote from your site.

That is precisely what birth control is all about..all forms of BC, including the one that the site is obviously against.

That is precisely what Family Planning is all about.

I think you are overlooking the main point of the site which is the world is not overpopulated and there is no problem with lack of resources but access to it.

On a further note, the pill is quite unhealthy for women. Not only does it cause breast cancer, it can cause abortions in which the woman is unaware.
 
Back
Top