Ask HN: What's your personal pet theory on how humanity manages to end itself?
I honestly think eventually advancements in genetic engineering and biology will lead to more and more potent bioweapons until someone manages to make one that ends it all.
I've always had this thought in my mind since I was young but now personally seeing COVID spread across the globe in a matter of weeks/months has just reaffirmed this belief and I really think it's only a matter of time before someone bioengineers a virus to kill everyone on the planet. If something can supposedly spread from a wet market(or lab if that's more your speed) in China to the entire world through pure chance (or accident) how hard can it be to do it on purpose once the technology is mature and advanced enough?
But I'd love to hear HN's takes on this and your own theories on how we meet our self-inflicted extinction.
22 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 61.2 ms ] threadIf I were forced to choose though, I'd probably say nuclear warfare. It's just too powerful and will eventually proliferate and there's too many psychosocial risks behind their use.
What i actually think might happen is some form of evolution. Probably combined with technology. Genetic and bionic modifications will become normal and at some point in the far future, there won't be a homo sapiens anymore. Idk how to call it. Homo Machina or something? That might even get rid of certain limits of our bodies, so that a sudden extinction will be more unlikely. Can't kill what can live on almost any (solid) celestial body.
Food shortages could cause this but it would also cause riots/conflict before anything. Lack of heating could also do it. It won’t be an extinction level event, just a culling.
I foresee that before all else. It won’t take much, just sudden infrastructure shocks.
Once we reach that point, humanity will spread wide, exploration will start all over again. It will then be fairly hard for our species to disappear.
2. Once the population craters, the resources available to each person go up. In that kind of environment, populations typically grow.
But:
3. This assumes that the reason the population crashes is people choosing not to have kids. If it crashes due to environmental reasons (estrogenoid pollution, say, making males less eager to have sex and less able to reproduce), then my arguments don't work.
Read the IPCC report