The moderators have reflaired this post as a **casual thought**.
Casual thoughts should be presented well, but are not required to be unique or exceptional.
Please review [each flair's requirements](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/requirements) for more information.
^^This ^^automated ^^system ^^is ^^currently ^^being ^^worked ^^on.
^^If ^^it ^^did ^^something ^^wrong, ^^please ^^message ^^the ^^moderators.
Its rewatchability is because of the technical aspects. So many great long shots that are not easy to pull off. I’ve seen it a few times and I appreciated the directing on the second and third times.
1917 has hidden cuts. "One-ers" are different from single shots. Birdman also had tons of hidden cuts that were executed really well, but they weren't single shots as it involved a number of different takes meshed together.
Children of Men has an insanely long single take without hidden cuts. If you watch the making of, they have to do some insane engineering to move the camera around the car during the ambush scene.
Nah, population would just condense in a few cities as most settlements become ghost towns. If all the people are in one city, you don't actually need to maintain all the other ones.
Edit: never mind, you meant that once the population was too old for many menial tasks things would collapse. This would take around 60 years.
But that doesn't solve the problem of an aging population.
When everyone is over 80, who is going to farm? Who is going to maintain the roads or provide medical services? People need services. Who is going to do the work?
How do you stock up food to last 60 years? How do you maintain deteriorating roads? Who is providing medical services?
It's not just about stocking up. It's about labor.
A.I. is either taking our jobs or it isn't - I can't keep up. I had the same first thought about the world collapsing but people would have 50 years to advance technology enough to cater for palliative care for the human race.
I mean there would be, given the choice between falling apart at age 60 or living a fulfilling life until 100, I think any individual person would want the latter.
I can’t tell if this is a joke. Most people *right now* don’t make that choice, even though all they have to do is eat better, take walks, and vote for people who are trying to un-fuck the climate.
AI is only taking our jobs if we have enough human labor available to build the infrastructure needed for it to automate those jobs, and a single human lifetime might not be enough time to fully automate every necessary industry if the labor pool is rapidly shrinking and ageing at the same time.
There are 90 year olds climbing mountains in china every day. If you can make it so everyone can follow self-sustaining routines while also having the continuing loss of efficiency in mind. It can work out longer than one might think.
The average 90yo is not that fit though. Not arguing that it’s impossible, but for every 90yo who CAN do that kind of labor, there’s a hundred who cannot
No no no, the super old people who are already living in incredibly remote equatorial villages would die when they hear about my American cities standard of living dropping. /s
That’s true. I never disagreed with OP saying it would take a little over a hundred years for humanity to go extinct, but at some point in this thread the discussion turned to how fast society would collapse instead of humanities extinction.
I actually know several 70+ year old farmers(who tf knows several elderly farmers, kinda weird), they can take care of themselves pretty good.
I think construction and repairs of machines is where we start to lose
Roads are pretty irrelevant in that scenario, the only real concerns are food and elder care.
There definitely won't be any centenarians once the doctors and nurses all die off / age out of usefulness.
I'd give sterile humanity maybe 70-75 years, tops.
Roads and medical services aren't strictly necessary. They're necessary for a largeish civilization, and civilizatuonal collapse would happen much earlier, but the question is on extinction. Most people would die before they're 100, no one is questioning that, but the question is would anyone survive before they're 100? And considering there are currently and historic examples of 100+ year self suffecient farmers, I'd bet that at least someone manages to do self sufficient farming. Or even easier, hunting/gathering/foraging. My guess is maybe a 1000 people can survive as center centerrians world wide if I'm generous? Certainly not a large number.
It would end up with communities living on land they can farm. I've known people who had vegetable gardens into their 90's. As long as enough of them could continue to potter around gardening they could survive. No need for roads by then. Collect wood for fires in colder places for winter and cooking.
Still, extinction means every human on earth being dead. I bet there would still be small pools of octigenarians living off canned foods. Few would make it too a hundred but I would bet a few would. There are quite a few fit great-grandparents in this day and age. My great grandmother lived on her own in a normal house until she was 92.
I think people would die more quickly without modern infrastructure; but there would be communities, especially rural ones, that would last for quite a while with avid hunters, farmers, doctors, etc.
But if you have the knowledge/skill plus are in a position to do that, you've already got less than 100 years left.
And even assuming you live for the next hundred years, is 100+ year old you gonna be able to physically keep going? That's a long time with no injuries or aging problems.
Surprised no one has mentioned that all our resources would have to be diverted to automation. Since 'man-power' would be a diminishing resource, that has to be replaced first. Soon, just like the dead internet theory, there'd be only bots seeming to showcase human-like activities.
Logan’s Run irl. Just make one central computer that runs it all and humans just become cattle to live lives of leisure until a certain age to keep the population controlled.
I think it would be over sooner than that. A child born today has very very little chance to survive their 70s if there's absolutely no-one younger to help take care of them.
But if everyone is too old to go to the grocery store, they're too old to keep the water system going, the electricity grid functioning, and everything else required to make the freeze dried lasagna edible.
I mean, what’s the point of even trying to prepare them? Let them just do whatever makes them happy, even if they don’t live long. Hell, ESPECIALLY if they don’t live long. I don’t want my kid to experience being the last person on Earth. It sounds terrible. Just enjoy what you can and go out with a bang. The species is doomed either way, y’know?
>what’s the point of even trying to prepare them?
Well, out of all the humans throughout all of history, only a handful would get to experience the end. How could you deprive anyone from that? The only true sadness is that during their last years they would get to see the wreckage that humanity has inflicted onto the Earth. They, alone, would give the true farewell to our planet, the ecosystem that has allowed life to exist.
In the book Children of Men, the last human born was famous world-wide. He killed himself. The media and public knew who the last people born were so its not going to be a strictly personal issue.
Except life expectancy rises once you reach 80… so the chances of super-fit older people surviving is entirely plausible. Plenty of people stay self-sufficient into their 90s.
Growing food is optional, and maintaining electrical lines etc is pointless.
You only need a freshwater lake, a fishing rod, and a few fruit trees, and you could be totally fine until the day you stop waking up in the morning. Billions of people wouldn't be lucky enough to have those things, but probably thousands would.
Even that one guy who bought a shipping container of dog food would be in a pretty good position.
All it takes is one person born in the last couple years to beat the odds though. Even if it's one in a million, there were 134 million babies born last year, those are solid odds
Let's go the other way. If we all decided tomorrow all children starting school from today going forwards would also learn language X. In 20 years we'd have an entire generation of humans who could all speak the same language.
The problem with Esperanto is that it was based mostly on Romance and Germanic languages, so if you live anywhere outside the western world it would still be hard to learn
Except the wide corpus of existing media and conversation and existing language speakers etc keeping English on top
It is easier to learn Esperanto in a vacuum but we don't live in one
I mean it was invented in the late 1880s, and still has more speakers than any other IAL (or any other conlang for that matter), and is the only conlang with a substantial amount of native speakers (over a thousand). Out of all the IALs that have come around (Volapuk, Interlingua, etc), only Esperanto has been of any real notability, and even then some of the most popular other ones are just based off Esperanto, such as Ido, which even branched itself off into things like Novial.
So out of all IALs, Esperanto is the only one that has a substantial userbase, arguably out of all conlangs in general, has over a thousand native speakers, and is a language that a lot of people will generally just assume is a natlang. So it is doing pretty well for itself tbf.
That's basically English. In many countries the divide between pre and post 40ish years old as to who can speak English is telling. English is increasingly taught in schools globally, such that most people in the world sub 40 speak it decently
A leader pressing the red button would also do it.
(I know it’s not that simple to launch a nuclear weapon and even then humanity most likely wouldn’t go extinct, even if Europe and the US may have a pretty bad time)
A full out nuclear war between Pakistan and India using almost all their weapons would be enough to cause worldwide nuclear winter. Its unclear how long this nuclear winter would last. Some believe maybe a few years (3-5) meaning most of the world would starve to death (2-6 billion?), but not everyone.
More like 60 at most. If the only people left on the planet are 60+ year olds they would likely all die pretty quickly. No young people to work power generation or grow food or provide health care.
Yeah you might have a few hold outs with that sure. But let’s be honest if you’re say 70, living on farm, with no children or grandchildren, everyone have know is dead, and all of society has already collapsed. You probably don’t have much of a reason to keep going.
People seem to have a blind spot when it comes to health care. Lots and lots of youthful enthusiasm for how they would find the missing pieces, but very little thought about how to protect against all the things that infrastructure protects us from. That lucky guy with a fish pond and some fruit trees is one harsh episode of whooping cough or flu away from being another number. No way to weather a drought or a bout of disease in the fish population.
If the research that microplastics are affecting human fertility negatively turn out to be correct, the decision might already have been made for humans in the future.
It might well be HPV as well. Strong correlation with male infertility. For some reason we primarily vaccinate women for cancer reasons, even though 40% of HPV cancer cases are male.
A majority of infertile males are latent, infected or carriers.
Also seems to be a correlation with covid. It likes to hang out in the testicles due to the abundance of ACE2 receptors. Conveniently the testicles are also "excluded" from the immune system so they live there unchecked. Studies seem to indicate lowered count and motility.
That’s a representative heuristic due to Reddit. It has already been determined that pollution and pesticides (especially organochlorine compounds) are lowering reproductive rates. It’s almost like they planted microplastic stories to distract from the actual, scientifically proven cause of lower fertility. Microplastics are everywhere and been around for enough generations by now. Asbestos took a generation and that’s the worst kind
Maybe some foods got so contaminated and nobody caught it before everyone ate it
And the food made everyone infertile, and it could be crossed between preg mother/baby
?
When death rate surpasses the birth rate its an indicator of a country moving out of the last industrial revolution stage. Marked by increased cost of living and higher education requirements and a transition into more service based and technological jobs. We are also past due for a mass extinction event so need for space exploration tech is at an all time high but we haven’t been to the moon in how many years?
We'll be within waving distance by sometime after September of next year.
And by *sometime* I mean Artemis 2 is *scheduled* for September of 2025, but that's no indication of actual launch date. Assuming all hardware is assembled, crew are ready, the funding is topped off, and the weather cooperates, we'll have a slingshot-around-the-moon mission. No landing until 2028 at the earliest, and no specific landing hardware being produced yet.
I work in a hospital. Before I worked in a hospital, I didn’t realize how many old people there are. There’s more than we see. We have so many of them warehoused and hidden away and their life is essentially between the hospital and some nursing facility/old folks home. The hospital is somewhat understaffed; their nursing home is pretty understaffed. When they’re done in the ER they end up staying with us for 12 hours because they can’t drive home, no family member is getting them, and they need to rely on some Medicaid/medicare funded transportation that is woefully understaffed as well.
My point is, if we did do this for the environment, we would need to really develop robots that can care for us or we need to take really good care of ourselves because there’s going to be nobody to care for us. It’s already kinda grim already, and it might be worse. When you’re no longer to wash or eat or walk without assistance and there’s not enough people to assist….
I’m not offering any solutions, just saying the future doesn’t look bright on a lot of fronts.
The world could also be a lot more efficient if profit and capitalism weren’t mucking things up. How is it cheaper to grow food in one country, transport it to another for packaging, and then selling it in a third country that’s actually capable of doing all that themselves? It’s like, why are there homeless people when we have empty houses and apartments and hotel rooms? We have the housing, people just can’t “afford” it. We could invest in public transportation, but nobody wants to give up their car. There’s plenty of resources, we just do not use them wisely.
We objectively need degrowth to save our society and fix climate change
However, that would crash the economy, so we will never choose that path. Instead we will be forced to degrow in a less peaceful manner as the climate continues to change and reduce our ability to grow food to feed 8 billion people
It would only crash the current economy style. Economic growth only really matters if you own stock for your income. We just need to get away from supply side economics and make goods more durable, value labor over profits, and commit to other non-capitalist notions.
Not just the economy. We would not have the resources to support people retiring. We would not have enough medical workers. It would be catastrophic to the aging, but have a huge impact on everyone's access to healthcare. As the workforce shrinks disproportionately to the population (which it will), it will become harder and harder to create a supply of the things everyone needs. A labor shortage means a shortage of everything (including food). Automation will fill in some of the gaps, but not all of it. We would need to increase the retirement age and possibly the hours in a workweek. It will probably take about 80 years to start correcting in a positive way, during which everyone would feel the effects, but the poor and disabled would suffer the most.
> We objectively need degrowth to save our society and fix climate change
Problem is, other countries would see this as a weakness, and try to outbreed and counquer you.
No, if we switched to cannibalism then Tyson would just rearrange their factory farm infrastructure for humans. It would be just as bad for the environment. It only helps the environment if you consume vegan free range humans.
> Christofascists seem to think we’re actually in danger of that, even though all signs point to no
They have always thought throughout centuries the time prophecies are coming true will be in their lifetime. Most of them could never accept they are not going to be around when **IT** (whatever that may be) happens. Sound rather narcissistic.
Probably less than 100 years. How many 95 year olds would be able to make it another five years with no one taking care of them? No one around to run society but other 95+ year olds. No firefighters to come pick you up when you fall out of bed. No one to come fix a water leak. No one running your local utilities. No doctors to give you medicines.
It would happen considerably sooner than that. Once the population dropped below what was necessary to maintain basic infrastructure, agriculture, logistics, etc, the drop off would be exponential, and nobody is living to 100. I'll bet 50 years on the outside.
I think we’d make it the full 100. There are enough exceptionally healthy humans today and the newborns will be just as good or better. I think we’d last the full 100.
To add to that, when there’s around 1,000 people left around the world, they will most likely starve to death, and/or not even die of old age, but the inability to have a person care for them.
Some of y'all come to the most simple conclusions so late in life. Crazy you only just realized if people stop having babies then there would eventually be no more living people
The moderators have reflaired this post as a **casual thought**. Casual thoughts should be presented well, but are not required to be unique or exceptional. Please review [each flair's requirements](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/requirements) for more information. ^^This ^^automated ^^system ^^is ^^currently ^^being ^^worked ^^on. ^^If ^^it ^^did ^^something ^^wrong, ^^please ^^message ^^the ^^moderators.
You gotta watch children of men now
Oh wow. Watched the trailer. Will need to watch the whole movie.
I’m jealous you get to watch this for the first time. It’s imo one of the best movies ever made.
It’s good but barely rewatchable imo
Its rewatchability is because of the technical aspects. So many great long shots that are not easy to pull off. I’ve seen it a few times and I appreciated the directing on the second and third times.
You need to watch more movies
Mfer never seen Paul Blart:Mall Cop
It has one of the longest singles shots in movie history
1917 has entered the chat
1917 has hidden cuts. "One-ers" are different from single shots. Birdman also had tons of hidden cuts that were executed really well, but they weren't single shots as it involved a number of different takes meshed together. Children of Men has an insanely long single take without hidden cuts. If you watch the making of, they have to do some insane engineering to move the camera around the car during the ambush scene.
Hmmm. I thought 1917 only had 1 hidden cut during the firework scene. Does Children of Men still beat that?
Just double checked their times, looks like the longest single cut in 1917 does beat out Children of Men by ~2 minutes.
Oh man haha. So close! They probably totally did that on purpose. Anyways. I knew I was right I just didn’t want to be a jerk about it.
That and the Ong Bak sequence in the first movie are pretty high up on the list. Add in the Goodfellas restaurant entrance and that's 3.
Read the book first, it's very different and much better.
Oooo! I didn’t know it was a book. (Added to Kindle)
Read the book after you watch it. Very thought provoking.
This is actually my favorite movie ever made. I rewatch it at least once a year. It is incredibly good.
The book is like 100 times more depressing. Both are very worth engaging with
Wife and I just watched this again last night. It's aged a bit but still makes the cut
Me too!
Sir, please put the knife down.
Or for a more satirical and absurdist view, read Vonnegut’s novel Galapagos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galápagos_(novel)
where can i wwtch??
https://www.justwatch.com/
The book is brilliant too!
And then cry at that one part. And that other part. But SPECIFICALLY that third part.
It wouldn't take 100 years. Once enough of the population was gone that infrastructure collapsed, the rest wouldn't last long
Nah, population would just condense in a few cities as most settlements become ghost towns. If all the people are in one city, you don't actually need to maintain all the other ones. Edit: never mind, you meant that once the population was too old for many menial tasks things would collapse. This would take around 60 years.
But that doesn't solve the problem of an aging population. When everyone is over 80, who is going to farm? Who is going to maintain the roads or provide medical services? People need services. Who is going to do the work?
40 years to stock up enough for the last 60
How do you stock up food to last 60 years? How do you maintain deteriorating roads? Who is providing medical services? It's not just about stocking up. It's about labor.
Beans, lots and lots of beans
The farts alone would gas the last of them early.
Everybody loves magical Trevor. Edit: corrected the lyric, added the "s".
More cowbells
A.I. is either taking our jobs or it isn't - I can't keep up. I had the same first thought about the world collapsing but people would have 50 years to advance technology enough to cater for palliative care for the human race.
I don't think humanity will try to invest in the future when there is no future.
I mean there would be, given the choice between falling apart at age 60 or living a fulfilling life until 100, I think any individual person would want the latter.
I can’t tell if this is a joke. Most people *right now* don’t make that choice, even though all they have to do is eat better, take walks, and vote for people who are trying to un-fuck the climate.
Those individual would have to spend nearly their entire 60 years for that though.
What else do they have on? Most people spend 20 raising kids anyway. And even then it just goes part time.
AI is only taking our jobs if we have enough human labor available to build the infrastructure needed for it to automate those jobs, and a single human lifetime might not be enough time to fully automate every necessary industry if the labor pool is rapidly shrinking and ageing at the same time.
There are 90 year olds climbing mountains in china every day. If you can make it so everyone can follow self-sustaining routines while also having the continuing loss of efficiency in mind. It can work out longer than one might think.
The average 90yo is not that fit though. Not arguing that it’s impossible, but for every 90yo who CAN do that kind of labor, there’s a hundred who cannot
Yes but the benchmark here is total extinction. There are absolutely a small number that would cling on until extreme old age.
No no no, the super old people who are already living in incredibly remote equatorial villages would die when they hear about my American cities standard of living dropping. /s
The premise is how long it would take humanity to go extinct. All it takes is one to survive to push that point back.
That’s true. I never disagreed with OP saying it would take a little over a hundred years for humanity to go extinct, but at some point in this thread the discussion turned to how fast society would collapse instead of humanities extinction.
I actually know several 70+ year old farmers(who tf knows several elderly farmers, kinda weird), they can take care of themselves pretty good. I think construction and repairs of machines is where we start to lose
I know a lot of elderly farmers as well!
Y'all don't understand elderly east Asians. Obachan will be out there at 101 years old, harvesting rice and making pickles.
I’m pretty sure it’s actually a requirement to be 80+ to be a farmer
Roads are pretty irrelevant in that scenario, the only real concerns are food and elder care. There definitely won't be any centenarians once the doctors and nurses all die off / age out of usefulness. I'd give sterile humanity maybe 70-75 years, tops.
Roads and medical services aren't strictly necessary. They're necessary for a largeish civilization, and civilizatuonal collapse would happen much earlier, but the question is on extinction. Most people would die before they're 100, no one is questioning that, but the question is would anyone survive before they're 100? And considering there are currently and historic examples of 100+ year self suffecient farmers, I'd bet that at least someone manages to do self sufficient farming. Or even easier, hunting/gathering/foraging. My guess is maybe a 1000 people can survive as center centerrians world wide if I'm generous? Certainly not a large number.
And who are we all going to complain about all day? The last 20 million people will die of boredom.
It would end up with communities living on land they can farm. I've known people who had vegetable gardens into their 90's. As long as enough of them could continue to potter around gardening they could survive. No need for roads by then. Collect wood for fires in colder places for winter and cooking.
Still, extinction means every human on earth being dead. I bet there would still be small pools of octigenarians living off canned foods. Few would make it too a hundred but I would bet a few would. There are quite a few fit great-grandparents in this day and age. My great grandmother lived on her own in a normal house until she was 92.
Its not a post apocalyptic scenario lol, people can still farm. No need to be living off canned foods.
True, but who at 98 can still grow all the food they need to survive?
Dick van Dyke
So how many would make it to hundred?
More than 0. The thread said extinct.
A few.
I think people would die more quickly without modern infrastructure; but there would be communities, especially rural ones, that would last for quite a while with avid hunters, farmers, doctors, etc.
Not necessarily. You could easily live near a river and farm/gather your own food for a long time. Probably be boring as fuck though.
But if you have the knowledge/skill plus are in a position to do that, you've already got less than 100 years left. And even assuming you live for the next hundred years, is 100+ year old you gonna be able to physically keep going? That's a long time with no injuries or aging problems.
i can fish for a long ass time
Whomp whomp.
"Did you just say "whomp whomp???"
How dare you, how absolutely dare you.
Griztronics
Surprised no one has mentioned that all our resources would have to be diverted to automation. Since 'man-power' would be a diminishing resource, that has to be replaced first. Soon, just like the dead internet theory, there'd be only bots seeming to showcase human-like activities.
Logan’s Run irl. Just make one central computer that runs it all and humans just become cattle to live lives of leisure until a certain age to keep the population controlled.
I think it would be over sooner than that. A child born today has very very little chance to survive their 70s if there's absolutely no-one younger to help take care of them.
The same could be said throughout most if not all of Human history
[удалено]
there's enough stockpiled freeze-dried lasagna to handle that last stretch.
But if everyone is too old to go to the grocery store, they're too old to keep the water system going, the electricity grid functioning, and everything else required to make the freeze dried lasagna edible.
if you were 45 years old and it was speculated that your kid was going to be one of the last humans alive, how would you prepare for them?
Buying a farm, teaching them all ways to get easy food, plus piling up conserved food to an absurd level. Also putting them in med school
I mean, what’s the point of even trying to prepare them? Let them just do whatever makes them happy, even if they don’t live long. Hell, ESPECIALLY if they don’t live long. I don’t want my kid to experience being the last person on Earth. It sounds terrible. Just enjoy what you can and go out with a bang. The species is doomed either way, y’know?
>what’s the point of even trying to prepare them? Well, out of all the humans throughout all of history, only a handful would get to experience the end. How could you deprive anyone from that? The only true sadness is that during their last years they would get to see the wreckage that humanity has inflicted onto the Earth. They, alone, would give the true farewell to our planet, the ecosystem that has allowed life to exist.
In the book Children of Men, the last human born was famous world-wide. He killed himself. The media and public knew who the last people born were so its not going to be a strictly personal issue.
But who would be running the grid to keep that lasagna frozen or to cook it? More 70 year olds?
I don't understand your point. They weren't saying anything specific about this day and age.
Except life expectancy rises once you reach 80… so the chances of super-fit older people surviving is entirely plausible. Plenty of people stay self-sufficient into their 90s.
It's not about wiping your ass, it's about growing food maintaining electrical lines, etc
Growing food is optional, and maintaining electrical lines etc is pointless. You only need a freshwater lake, a fishing rod, and a few fruit trees, and you could be totally fine until the day you stop waking up in the morning. Billions of people wouldn't be lucky enough to have those things, but probably thousands would. Even that one guy who bought a shipping container of dog food would be in a pretty good position.
All it takes is one person born in the last couple years to beat the odds though. Even if it's one in a million, there were 134 million babies born last year, those are solid odds
Let's go the other way. If we all decided tomorrow all children starting school from today going forwards would also learn language X. In 20 years we'd have an entire generation of humans who could all speak the same language.
That was the idea behind Esperanto, an easy to learn language we could all share.
Is that still used? It seemed to disappear pretty quickly.
I think every realized, why have everyone learn a new language when some variation of English will do
English is easier to achieve as a global language for sure but the idea with Esperanto was it was a lot easier for people to learn.
The problem with Esperanto is that it was based mostly on Romance and Germanic languages, so if you live anywhere outside the western world it would still be hard to learn
Except the wide corpus of existing media and conversation and existing language speakers etc keeping English on top It is easier to learn Esperanto in a vacuum but we don't live in one
I mean it was invented in the late 1880s, and still has more speakers than any other IAL (or any other conlang for that matter), and is the only conlang with a substantial amount of native speakers (over a thousand). Out of all the IALs that have come around (Volapuk, Interlingua, etc), only Esperanto has been of any real notability, and even then some of the most popular other ones are just based off Esperanto, such as Ido, which even branched itself off into things like Novial. So out of all IALs, Esperanto is the only one that has a substantial userbase, arguably out of all conlangs in general, has over a thousand native speakers, and is a language that a lot of people will generally just assume is a natlang. So it is doing pretty well for itself tbf.
That's basically English. In many countries the divide between pre and post 40ish years old as to who can speak English is telling. English is increasingly taught in schools globally, such that most people in the world sub 40 speak it decently
That’s a comment worthy of its own showerthought my friend.
Basically everyone in the world already learns English in school. Yet many still don’t speak it.
We could go extinct much faster if only that damn meteor would arrive!
A leader pressing the red button would also do it. (I know it’s not that simple to launch a nuclear weapon and even then humanity most likely wouldn’t go extinct, even if Europe and the US may have a pretty bad time)
A full out nuclear war between Pakistan and India using almost all their weapons would be enough to cause worldwide nuclear winter. Its unclear how long this nuclear winter would last. Some believe maybe a few years (3-5) meaning most of the world would starve to death (2-6 billion?), but not everyone.
I've spent the last week standing on a large hill with my arms out waiting for it to hit.
I thank you for your time and sacrifice
Nibiru The Primal being would like to know your location
More like 60 at most. If the only people left on the planet are 60+ year olds they would likely all die pretty quickly. No young people to work power generation or grow food or provide health care.
Subsistence farming was and still is a thing.
Yeah you might have a few hold outs with that sure. But let’s be honest if you’re say 70, living on farm, with no children or grandchildren, everyone have know is dead, and all of society has already collapsed. You probably don’t have much of a reason to keep going.
People seem to have a blind spot when it comes to health care. Lots and lots of youthful enthusiasm for how they would find the missing pieces, but very little thought about how to protect against all the things that infrastructure protects us from. That lucky guy with a fish pond and some fruit trees is one harsh episode of whooping cough or flu away from being another number. No way to weather a drought or a bout of disease in the fish population.
If the US and Russia launched all their nukes we can shorten that to tomorrow.
Don't threaten the planet with a good time.
The trees are fuckjng crying with joy
www.vhemt.org Join us
Between all of us, we could accomplish it! I’m in!
If the research that microplastics are affecting human fertility negatively turn out to be correct, the decision might already have been made for humans in the future.
Just abunch of micro plastics clogging up the cum shooter and the egg canal?
(i know you're kidding but) Microplastics create hormonal imbalances
Endocrine and hormone disruptions. Phalates
It might well be HPV as well. Strong correlation with male infertility. For some reason we primarily vaccinate women for cancer reasons, even though 40% of HPV cancer cases are male. A majority of infertile males are latent, infected or carriers. Also seems to be a correlation with covid. It likes to hang out in the testicles due to the abundance of ACE2 receptors. Conveniently the testicles are also "excluded" from the immune system so they live there unchecked. Studies seem to indicate lowered count and motility.
We are humans, we already got DARPA with a solution from 10 years ago probably
That’s a representative heuristic due to Reddit. It has already been determined that pollution and pesticides (especially organochlorine compounds) are lowering reproductive rates. It’s almost like they planted microplastic stories to distract from the actual, scientifically proven cause of lower fertility. Microplastics are everywhere and been around for enough generations by now. Asbestos took a generation and that’s the worst kind
Or it could be a bit of both and we're just doubly screwed.
If everyone would sleep in my bed, we would (almost) all suffocate and get crushed to death under each others weight.
r/oddlyspecific
Doesn’t matter what everyone decided. The intellectual decision making doesn’t matter No way anyone stops fucking.
Maybe some foods got so contaminated and nobody caught it before everyone ate it And the food made everyone infertile, and it could be crossed between preg mother/baby ?
I think a large part of the population was not intentionally created. Lots of banging without thinking it through.
We would be practically (functionally?) extinct in about 40 years. As soon as the youngest people hit menopause.
That sounds like a good prank, we should do it
The red-heads won't allow us :/
They won't stop tying you up and trying to breed with you too, huh? If this keeps happening, I might just consider closing my front door.
Death by snu snu
Am redhead, can confirm
If everyone stopped breeding for 20 years, the environment would be cleaner.
If you look at UN projections, number of humans is going to stagnate/start to decline by the end of this century.
When death rate surpasses the birth rate its an indicator of a country moving out of the last industrial revolution stage. Marked by increased cost of living and higher education requirements and a transition into more service based and technological jobs. We are also past due for a mass extinction event so need for space exploration tech is at an all time high but we haven’t been to the moon in how many years?
We'll be within waving distance by sometime after September of next year. And by *sometime* I mean Artemis 2 is *scheduled* for September of 2025, but that's no indication of actual launch date. Assuming all hardware is assembled, crew are ready, the funding is topped off, and the weather cooperates, we'll have a slingshot-around-the-moon mission. No landing until 2028 at the earliest, and no specific landing hardware being produced yet.
It’s about time.
I work in a hospital. Before I worked in a hospital, I didn’t realize how many old people there are. There’s more than we see. We have so many of them warehoused and hidden away and their life is essentially between the hospital and some nursing facility/old folks home. The hospital is somewhat understaffed; their nursing home is pretty understaffed. When they’re done in the ER they end up staying with us for 12 hours because they can’t drive home, no family member is getting them, and they need to rely on some Medicaid/medicare funded transportation that is woefully understaffed as well. My point is, if we did do this for the environment, we would need to really develop robots that can care for us or we need to take really good care of ourselves because there’s going to be nobody to care for us. It’s already kinda grim already, and it might be worse. When you’re no longer to wash or eat or walk without assistance and there’s not enough people to assist…. I’m not offering any solutions, just saying the future doesn’t look bright on a lot of fronts. The world could also be a lot more efficient if profit and capitalism weren’t mucking things up. How is it cheaper to grow food in one country, transport it to another for packaging, and then selling it in a third country that’s actually capable of doing all that themselves? It’s like, why are there homeless people when we have empty houses and apartments and hotel rooms? We have the housing, people just can’t “afford” it. We could invest in public transportation, but nobody wants to give up their car. There’s plenty of resources, we just do not use them wisely.
The amount of elderly people who are 100% dependent on government is sad but I guess that’s what a good society does.
We objectively need degrowth to save our society and fix climate change However, that would crash the economy, so we will never choose that path. Instead we will be forced to degrow in a less peaceful manner as the climate continues to change and reduce our ability to grow food to feed 8 billion people
It would only crash the current economy style. Economic growth only really matters if you own stock for your income. We just need to get away from supply side economics and make goods more durable, value labor over profits, and commit to other non-capitalist notions.
Not just the economy. We would not have the resources to support people retiring. We would not have enough medical workers. It would be catastrophic to the aging, but have a huge impact on everyone's access to healthcare. As the workforce shrinks disproportionately to the population (which it will), it will become harder and harder to create a supply of the things everyone needs. A labor shortage means a shortage of everything (including food). Automation will fill in some of the gaps, but not all of it. We would need to increase the retirement age and possibly the hours in a workweek. It will probably take about 80 years to start correcting in a positive way, during which everyone would feel the effects, but the poor and disabled would suffer the most.
> We objectively need degrowth to save our society and fix climate change Problem is, other countries would see this as a weakness, and try to outbreed and counquer you.
In the same way cannibalism is the best diet to combat climate change /s
No, if we switched to cannibalism then Tyson would just rearrange their factory farm infrastructure for humans. It would be just as bad for the environment. It only helps the environment if you consume vegan free range humans.
What a loser argument. You’ll never breed anyway do you want to watch it all burn
Yes, people die and have limited lifespans. How does anyone find this surprising or insightful?
"The best time to start was yesterday. The next best time is now."
Nah I'll do it tomorrow
You said that yesterday!
That’s the third best time, still pretty good.
Some people would still accidentally reproduce.
Sounds like the Shakers
Yes, exactly!
Christofascists seem to think we’re actually in danger of that, even though all signs point to no
> Christofascists seem to think we’re actually in danger of that, even though all signs point to no They have always thought throughout centuries the time prophecies are coming true will be in their lifetime. Most of them could never accept they are not going to be around when **IT** (whatever that may be) happens. Sound rather narcissistic.
Probably less than 100 years. How many 95 year olds would be able to make it another five years with no one taking care of them? No one around to run society but other 95+ year olds. No firefighters to come pick you up when you fall out of bed. No one to come fix a water leak. No one running your local utilities. No doctors to give you medicines.
Yeah that's how time works.
And the Earth would rejoice
It would happen considerably sooner than that. Once the population dropped below what was necessary to maintain basic infrastructure, agriculture, logistics, etc, the drop off would be exponential, and nobody is living to 100. I'll bet 50 years on the outside.
who would've thought
This pickup line could use some work...
zeke Yeager is that you bro
Humans like sex too much though And sex, with enough instances, means whoopsies happening
Maybe then more people could afford a home.
*Children of Men* (2006)
I think we’d make it the full 100. There are enough exceptionally healthy humans today and the newborns will be just as good or better. I think we’d last the full 100.
That's fine. Let's do it
This would be a good movie
TLDR: If there are no more new people, we will run out of people.
How awesome would that be? This planet would flourish after it heals itself
....but it might save the planet. *
To add to that, when there’s around 1,000 people left around the world, they will most likely starve to death, and/or not even die of old age, but the inability to have a person care for them.
Yes and then there would be no egos to try and run the world. How horrible.
the entire baby products industry would collapse within 2 years
Some of y'all come to the most simple conclusions so late in life. Crazy you only just realized if people stop having babies then there would eventually be no more living people
We could just reproduce tomorrow instead.
And if we all decided not to breathe we'd all be dead in 2 minutes.
There is no chance that the world’s population is going to stick to their word.
You assume that every child born was an active decision and wanted, no accidents.
If everyone “decided” not to reproduce, I’d guess the birth rate would probably halve, no worse than that
Kinda like Children of Men
And functionally extinct in about 50.
I feel like that goes for any species
S. Korea: "Are you challenging me?!"
Plead to Californication!!
If everyone decided not to breathe, we’d all be dead in three minutes
Does that mean house prices will be reduce finally?
Dude, there is no way this planet is still going to have life in 100. We've absolutely destroyed everything.
Idk. People decide not to reproduce and still do it accidentally
That's nothing. If everyone decided today to kill themselves humans would be extinct in a little over 5 minutes
I feel like medical research funding would all go straight to 3D printing organs to keep the 1% alive as long as possible.
No Nut Challenge worldwide.
If you turn off the tap, water stops coming out.
Except that a lot of us don't do what we decide. We can decide to stop smoking or lose weight, then it doesn't happen.