Is it truly possible to wipeout the human race via chemical, biological or nuclear weapons?
Most certainly. There is a proven Nuclear Winter effect from large(over 100 megatons) nuclear explosions, and studies show that in a global thermonuclear exchange when the entire arsenal is dumped, pretty much the entire earth will be deposited with so much radioactive fallout that most advanced life on earth would be wiped out. If you add every deadly virus we know about, including smallpox, ebola virus, typhoid, the old version of the spanish flu, and we make all viruses airborne and very virulent through genetic engineering, then dump serious toxins in ever river or water source, then it is likely that we can kill 99.99999999% of all people on this earth. There may be a few in special bunkers, but if we make the world toxic enough and kill off the life forms that make oxygen, they'll die eventually. If we make a virulent virus like HIV, that has the sole effect of rendering women and men infertile, it could concievably end the human race over a few generations. Give a toxin to every human being that makes them infertile, and the job would be done.But, it would be a hard job, and carried out by enemies of mankind, not mankind itself. The motto would be: Whatever doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger. Ha Ha ha ha
What's the most dangerous biological weapon?
Dental mercury amalgam. Neurological damage, Alzheimer, autism and hundreds of other illnesses.
Will the human race ever go extinct?
Inevitable? Absolutely. This is true in both the "short"-term, and "long"-term. "Short"-term, homo sapiens as we know it won't exist. It has only been around for 200,000 to 500,000 years or so, and certainly humans will die out and be replaced by a new, more advanced species. "Long"-term, we have the sun going out in a few billion years, and the fact that proton decay and heat death are probably real means that on the scale of 10^33 years or so nothing can exist anyway.But that wasn't an answer to your question.Ultimately, this is a probability play. We have, in the past few decades, entered the phase where for the first time in history, humanity could destroy itself. If you took Earth and made a million or so copies and allowed them to run for a certain time period, there are certainly a very decent percentage which would annihilate themselves, whether accidentally or deliberately. The environmental changes aren't likely to kill all of us, though they could set us back significantly from a civilization standpoint. About the only ways we could intentionally kill ourselves rather instantly today is via nuclear, chemical or biological weapon, and that probably wouldn't get everyone.Unfortunately, we're getting better and better at designing things which could kill us all. I don't think we can entirely rule out machines turning on us and annihilating us (I'd imagine this happens on a non-zero amount of those million cloned Earths). I'd also imagine we'll invent a lot of new ways to kill ourselves in the coming decades and beyond.Will we manage to kill or harm a very real percentage of the world's population in the next decades/centuries? It is highly likely. In fact, I'd say it's more likely to happen than not.Will we manage to kill every single one of the 6.8 billion folks who live on this planet? Probably not. Frankly, that's really hard to do. Doesn't mean we can't really mess it up, however. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything and everything in our power to prevent it.
Liberalism? Conservative? What do these really mean?
Wow...good job! Pretty much sums it up and yeah...prepare to be attacked with namecalling. I'm sure they are on their way!
Do you think organized forms of human collectiveness can survive a threat of global warming or nuclear/chemical/cyber warfare? If so, what are the biggest challenges humankind faces for the XXIst century?
At 67 years of age I hold out hope, but that hope is waining. Humans have a very difficult time dealing effectively with issues which seem not to be of immediate concern.. Slowly developing threats at at the top of the list.Every action human societies engage in carries with them the potential for positive feedback and negative feedback. Humans have a tendency to ignore or deny the negatives. (Don’t worry, be happy)So, what are the major threats being largely ignored to our potential peril?The human population explosionPollution, pollution and more pollutionHuman caused climate changeNuclear war (we still have huge nuclear arsenals)Energy demand out pacing energy sourcesFresh water depletionNatural habitat destruction and loss of biodiversityPoaching and over fishingPotential for disease epidemicsTo a lesser degree of probability:Threat of Earth altering asteroid impactSuper volcanic eruption (not much we can do about that one)
Is the human race doomed to self-destruction due to overpopulation, climate change and nuclear war, or is there still a hope?
That is the consensus of a growing number of scientists. Overpopulation prevents us from doing the kinds of things that might ameliorate AGW, such as setting land aside for forests (we need all arable land for human food production), and nuclear war becomes more likely with each day that poor countries cannot feed their citizens. Those days become more frequent as AGW pushes temperatures past the point where food plants can photosynthesize. The Cassandra problemi think we have at best a 5% chance of avoiding climate collapse and human extinction, and that’s only if we begin working on it TODAY. And in the US we have a problem in that the party controlling all our government doesn’t believe it’s happening. Absent a revolution, the government cannot be constitutionally ‘flipped’ for almost four years. And the opposition party, which can pull up the right bromides on global warming on cue, have done almost nothing to save the environment—Obama signed lots of oil leases and talked about ‘clean coal’.Let me put the question back to YOU. What are YOU willing to do, understanding that individual action can’t fix things (change your lightbulbs and recycle all you want, it won’t help). If people are convinced we are going to go extinct under the current leadership, what do they want to undertake? Are you ready for revolution? You say you wanna revolution?
Can humans live another millennia (even with the existence of mass destruction weapons)?
Yes. People start wars on the basis of careful calculations. Often mistaken, but always plausible.The Cold War stayed cold because both sides knew that using nuclear weapons would cost so much that it could not be worth it.Iraq was invaded after the Western powers established it had no real Weapons of Mass Destruction. (Though they pretended otherwise.) And is anyway now seen as a major error by most people.I was and am confident that some sort of deal would be made over North Korea, because North Korea could do vast damage before being destroyed.Also even a full nuclear war would not cause human extinction, unless someone chose to use Cobalt bombs, which generate long-range and lethal radioactivity. But I can’t see why anyone would do this, apart from idea of a Doomsday Device.I can’t see anyone building a Doomsday Device, either. No one who has actually worked with computers would trust a computer to have control and not react to a false alert. There were a lot of false alerts in the Cold War, but always there were humans who stepped in and stopped things going further.Total extermination of life on Earth would become much more likely - though still improbable - if there were off-world colonies that could hope to live through it. The theme of the Bond film Moonraker.