The End

>Bunker with microecosystem and fusion reactor.
>Bunker owned by elite.
>Bunker staffed by the middle-upper and lower-upper classes.
>Impact event BTFOs Earth.
>Nearly everyone and everything surface side gets BTFO, 99.9%.
Mhm... really re-enriches my uranium.

i find as one posting on Veeky Forums this is an ironic post.

Why? Veeky Forums needs to be used too. There aren't many sites like it on the global net. I don't see how it would be ironic.

bump

>this entire thread

Why are mass extinctions bad?

They are also mass opportunities for some oppressed species to thrive

Without the Dinosaur mass extinction we would probably be a bunch of rats hiding in holes from the DMR(Dinosaur Master Race)

>muh oppression
lol, why would we care about other species when we're humans. We barely care about other humans because of the amount of melanin in their skin.

Ignorant faggots like you is why I think we won't make it.

Potentially they *could* be but aren't necessarily and I don't think a species like us will come after us by accident/evolution as we know it. It's not likely and it's nothing that should shape our practices.

It doesn't matter, faggot. Nothing in this thread is related to SCIENCE or MATH in anyway.
Once again, .

Yes it's true. When white people get pissed eventually after the race war we'll gas everyone else.

It's very much related to science as that's the means we discovered and are discovering that we we, collectively, are in great danger and as it's part of how we can overcome these threats. And in contrast nothing in this thread is related to anything "paranormal".

>Mass extinctions are not instant
That rather depends on the type of mass extinction. There are several possible ones that are not only instant, but hit us at the speed of light, and thus we'd never see coming.

Even the KT extinction event, a simple asteroid, while it is the sort of thing we could see coming, with some luck, there's quite a bit of evidence that it was rather instant from the impact on. That it wasn't a "nuclear winter" effect, but rather it kicked so much evaporated rock into orbit on impact, through the trail of vacuum it split in the atmosphere behind it, that when it cooled and rained back down, it heated the atmosphere to about 800F degrees worldwide, killing nearly everything that wasn't underground or underwater, in a mere two hours.

That theory has been gaining momentum for the most widely accepted explanation of the disappearance of the dinosaurs, plant life, and megafauna of the age, as there is no evidence in the archeological record for the slow wintery death so widely accepted in the past.

And further, you'd only need a meteor half that size to crash on land to have the same effect again.

Technology maybe tough to kill, but if it's one of those darker carbon covered asteroids, and if we thus have to survive the air going to pizza-oven temperatures in two hours with no prior warning, we ain't gonna make it to the bomb shelters.

To say nothing of GRB's, super solar flares, false vacuum, and all those other instant-death apocalypse scenarios.

Related thread:

>So fellow humans: are we dying out soon?
The article is about biodiversity loss. That doesn't necessarily say something about the state of and the functioning of the ecosystems. Nor do we know how these ecosystems malfunctioning is going to affect us.

There are also non-native species and novel ecosystems which are mostly ignored by ecologists.

That having said, the biosphere doesn't look well, but I have to say as someone studying ecology that's not so much what concerns me. What bothers me more is the state of the soil, the wasteful consumption of certain resources and climate change.

It certainly is a shame many species are doing bad, but I think nature will persist in one way or another. I am more worried about our own complex human societies.

Something, something, tipping point. (Which I don't understand, let that be clear)

All this requires us to do is throw more money in protecting the environment and animals of the top three continents: Africa, Asia, and Australia.

The loss of animals in North America and Europe compared to the other three is small.

By the way what disturbs me the most is the decline of insects.

>It's very much related to science
No it isn't.
>nothing in this thread is related to anything "paranormal"
Yes there is.

>theguardian
>scientists say

10 mil AP
>Estimated time for full recovery of biodiversity after a potential Holocene extinction, if it were on the scale of the five previous major extinction events. Even without a mass extinction, by this time most current species will have disappeared through the background extinction rate, with many clades gradually evolving into new forms (However, without a mass extinction, there will now be an ecological crisis requiring millions of years of recovery).
We /timetravelers/ nao?

I wish this was bigger in the news. But people don't really care much for things that truly matter. You don't need to read the guardian article - you can read the study linked from there directly:
>Dwindling population sizes and range shrinkages amount to a massive anthropogenic erosion of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services essential to civilization. This “biological annihilation” underlines the seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event.
This is serious.
It's not the only issue and likely not the most serious but it's the most recently reported and interconnected with other issues.

Global warming isn't real, fucking deal with the facts. This shit is science fiction, not science.

>can't even link right
Holy shit user

bait 3/10
been mostly off the site for a while now; thanks

Not bait, you can't prove global warming by citing clickbait articles. Maybe your private education you got that I HAVE TO FUCKING SPEND ON was fucking pointless. Please kill yourself so I don't have to spend another cent on you being a mentally ill NEET.

>people claim that there were 5 extinctions already and yet there was still life extinction after extinction
>somehow the sixth extinction is a bad extinction

????

can you try to stop despising nature? Extinction is just that, it is natural and there is nothing worthy of being upset. Be rational instead of being emotional.

It depends on the definition of mass extinction.

Several species are quickly going extinct, but 80% of the land animals are humans, our farm animals, and our pets. (And rats, roaches, etc.).

So, I would go say that we are in a critical decrease of biodiversity that could lead to a mass extinction, but until cows, chickens, and rats start dying by the billions, I wouldn't call it a mass extinction.

Fair point.

Though there's some question as how sustainable things would be without that diversity... And it is a bit creepy that we've cut that diversity in half in just the past fifty years - in most cases, without even really trying to do so, but instead through incidental random habitat loss.

A lot of those events wouldn't be survivable for megafauna - like us. For the first (and the worst), there was nothing on land, and come the second, next to no animals on land. On top of that, they were all comparatively minor compared to other events we know could happen.

We're also now vulnerable to major disasters that even our ancestors were immune to. An X3 solar flare, like the one recorded in the 1800's that burned out huge swaths of telegraph lines and equipment, would wipe out our power grid in such a way that it couldn't be repaired for years. That may not lead to extinction, but it certainly wouldn't be pretty - and we missed a similar one in July 2012 by five months in our orbit. An X20 solar flare, on the other hand, would funnel the plasma built up in the radiation belts to the surface, and liquify it - which would basically end everything not in the deepest ocean.

Meanwhile, in November 2003, an X45 solar flare crossed our orbit. Had it happened the same way in September instead, we wouldn't be shitposting on Veeky Forums right now.

>They are also mass opportunities for some oppressed species to thrive
Well, if you value animal life over human life - you should still value human life, and here's why:

Given how hard we are to wipe out, any event that does wipe us out, save maybe a wide selecting weaponized virus, is also going to wipe out all other complex life forms on the surface. Anything short of that, and we'll probably get back on our feet before something else evolves.

Now, it takes nearly 3 billion years, to go from ocean faring fauna to land dwelling fauna again (assuming whatever kills us allows it). After that, maybe a few million to go to life intelligent enough to have the potential spread the story of life beyond this fragile biosphere again.

But this fragile biosphere only has one billion years left in it.

Within that time, the sun is going to get so hot that the oceans will cease to be oceans and instead be atmosphere. Sure, you've got another four billion years after that, before the sun grows so large it might even envelope the Earth - but this planet ceases to be in the habitable zone well before then.

So we're the only species with any potential to carry the other's DNA to the stars (nevermind all the microbes we carry just within ourselves), as well as be aware of the need to do so - and any event violent enough to wipe us out, won't leave enough time left for any other species to grow enough to pick up that torch.

So, if you animal freaks want the animals to survive inevitable extinction - you'd best hope mankind doesn't die off. ...Even if we end up killing everything else first, at least we're keeping a genetic record, and may set it all up again elsewhere in that distant future.

>Its happened 5 times before
>O no, its the end this time!

your ignorance is a danger to society
the end of humanity; or at least its civilization; not the end of life itself; also see Interesting stuff. Haven't heard of this flare before. Do you maybe also know of any resilient designs that would allow power grids to withstand such flares when given prior warning?

>or at least its civilization
What makes you so sure.
I would imagine that if something would happen and our modern civilization would collapse, new ones would pop up.
They would not be able to reach the same technological level, but it seems possible for civilizations to develop once again.

>we had 2 chances of HAPPENINGS and we missed them both by literal inches

I'm not entirely sure about it but I consider it very likely with the likelihood only decreasing when action is taken right NOW (meaning today and its next 3 years).
For new ones springing up: this collapse would also destroy much of the groundworks of civilization in general. Destruction of the environment, exploitation of specific resources and alike might make it impossible for an advanced civilization to emerge/sustain afterwards.
Civilization is global now: prior to now all collapses of civilization we know of were only regional cultures. But maybe it depends on the cause, extent and way of collapse...we'll probably see within our lifetimes.

Relevant thread:

So, related to this, how do I go about helping colonize the moon?

To clarify/elaborate: I don't think I'm necessarily smart enough to be head space guy in charge, but my intelligence is highest in mathematics and spatial shit and the world always needs grease monkeys, so what do I need to study, what degrees to complete, to become a space monkey?

Cause I absolutely need to get off this rock.

>sixth

There's been tons of them. They don't leave much evidence the further back you go.

The first one is pretty much just after the dawn of life. Generally, anything that wipes out nearly half the life on the planet leaves a major footprint, not only an archeological record, but a geological one. Even a super virus that did that would leave behind a whole lotta odd carbon/calcium build up from so many critters dieing in such a short time.

Though, yes, there were certainly a lot of lesser extinction events, of individual and multiple species, as well as localized, sometimes continental extinction events that don't fit the category. Some of those would leave little or no evidence, yet may have been enough to at least put an end to mankind.

You can have informations on the NASA site, they tell you what they're looking for, what degrees you can have to work with them or in Space stuff.

But to be more precise : you want to be an astronaut or just working on Space Exploration ?

Your last sentence made me doubt.

>Haven't heard of this flare before. Do you maybe also know of any resilient designs that would allow power grids to withstand such flares when given prior warning?
There's been some talk about decentralizing the grid and hardening certain points, but no action as of yet. (And even then, they tend to be concentrating more on vulnerability to terrorism.)

One fundamental problem is we have to use these giant, and extremely toxic, fluorine compound transformers that grid stations require for distribution, and haven't found a better way to do it. They take about three months to build, and we don't have enough backups to replace more than a dozen or so at any given time. When they do go down, the area of the city affected tends to be dead for week or more, as they are also difficult to transport safely (being basically giant glass cases of gas that eats both flesh and concrete on contact). There are hundreds of these in every major city - and a good sized solar flare would cause all those attached to the grid to explode at once.

It's also, of course, rather nasty when they do explode:
youtube.com/watch?v=dcYrvEQvqkM (skip to 1 minute)

And yeah, all those smaller ones on the power poles are going to explode too, as well as the capacitors - so everything's going to be on fire.

You don't get a warning. We're trying to find ways to predict them, but have yet to do so, and they travel at close to the speed of light. This means you have about 8 minutes between the time they spawn and when they hit you, and even if you had a monitoring satellite in close solar orbit, it wouldn't be able to warn anyone before it was too late.

That all assumes it's an X3-X6 - anything much bigger and exploding transformers are going to be the least of your problems.

I recognize the need for our civilization to leave Earth, and want to be able to do what I can to help achieve that goal. And what I can do is on the mechanical end, I just have to know how to hone that so I can be a useful part of it.

Technology has replaced many biological functions and gives civilization a huge "evolutionary" advantage.

For example the haber process can fix a fuckton of nitrogen, not sure how it competes with rhizomes in the root nodules of beans and other such microbes in the biosphere as a whole, but it is an addition nonetheless. The energy from hydroelectric dams and such wasn't going anywhere and now it can be pumped into the biosphere with humans at the helm.

The questions is whether humans will continue to rule civilization or be replaced by genetically modified nanomachines, robots, nanomachines or some other form of life that we create. There is a good chance we will be replaced by 1000 years considering the pace of change. However there is also a chance civilization might stagnate in the next 100 years or so and humans will still be teetering about 1000 years from now with a smaller economy using renewable energy for industry. Total extinction? Not sure how that could happen unless some other entity intentionally genocides us.

genetically modified superhumans rather

>So fellow humans: are we dying out soon?

Probably not us nor life we deem valuable.

Everything is dying.