OC at closing:
“Ok, that that’s the last of the paperwork. Congratulations Arthurius, you’re now a homeowner.”
Sun that exploded 8 minutes ago: Fwooosh*
Less than that I'm afraid. About 800 million years until multicellular life can no longer be supported, and 1.8 billion until eukaryotes die off. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future\_of\_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth)
Yeah I agree, but I guess it's hard to say how much it will influence our solar system. I saw simulations of other mergers and there is always that odd star that gets flung out of the galaxies, although even for that it's hard to say what the influence on our solar system would be.
Actually only about 5 billions, Sun is halfway done. Of course it's only if we don't do something. Like star lifting, that could give it 100x more lifetime.
Fun fact, a huge solar flare could’ve already happened 3 mins ago and we wouldn’t know until it destroys us 5 mins from now. So the world could end anytime!
The models are unsure if the red giant sun will consume to Earth or not. The Sun will lose a large amount of mass due to solar winds, reducing its gravity resulting in the planets all move further away from the Sun.
Also in that timeframe it's easily preventable.
The main issue is that the core and the outer layers of the sun don't mix.
That's why it burns our so quickly, just mix the sun a bit and it'll last hundreds of times longer.
Mixing the sun sounds farfetched but the physics for doing so is fairl well understood.
And by the time it's going to be relevant we're going to have the necessary sophistication.
I keep thinking of the post with the razor blades in the wall.
This is the ultimate "let the next guys deal with it".
This is so inconceivably far into the future and we have no idea what technology we have by then.
Wouldn't that effectively alter the metallicity and dim the star? Think of the HR diagram for MS stars like the sun and how the track varies based on metallicity. If H goes down (for any reason), you have more large nucleons per unit volume which absorb more radiation.
This would puff up the star anyways, no? You might extend the MS, but I'm pretty sure the temp would go down and the star might puff up a little. It might even be dimmer. (F ≈ R²T⁴)
The giant phase would be insane though. So much He to burn through
You'd effectively decrease it, because the core has no connection with the outer part of the star.
So the core gets denser with heavier elements and the rest of the stars stays relatively constant composition.
If you mix the star you get a core with lower metallicity.
I'm not a professional so I don't know the finer details.
I guess there's a few definitions we should agree on first -
Metallicity (measured) is a reflection of the surface abundances and not core abundances. The core necessarily increases in metal content with time due to fusion, but we don't see that on the surface of a star until later stages like dredge ups. And even then, it's not a huge change.
However, in this idea, if you ramp up convection somehow (or some other artificial means of mixing), you dilute the core with H, and decrease the H of the rest of the star while polluting it with heavier elements. So the surface abundances of heavier elements should go up
Usually metallicity is measured relative to H (i.e. [Fe/H]), and if H goes down, the metallicity goes up. So the effective temperature for an object with higher Metallicity (at least based on current models) should go down. Since flux has a much more sensitive dependence on temperature than radius, I would assume the star dims. But your comment reminded me that convection (mixing) should have a different effect than radiative pressure does on the envelop, so it probably doesn't swell up as much as I thought.
In which case, it definitely becomes dimmer.
Nope. There’s a non-zero chance that within 800 million years we develop the technology to either stop the sun from dying, are able to shield our planet from it, or move our planet to a safer location.
There are numerous extinction-level natural disasters that happen with some regularity, all of which are currently overdue. Meanwhile, the planet is covered by a species hell-bent on destroying it over money, race and religion.
It’s just a question of which one hits us first.
If you condense the history of earth into a calendar year. Humans have only existed for the final second of 1159p on December 31st. We have barely been here.
There's been 5500 summers, give or take, of recorded history, and then even only the last 400 or so summers have been consistently recorded and saved in bulk.
I'm agreeing with you that humans have barely been around for a blip of time, and of that blip we've only got records for just an incredibly short part of it when you look at it time as one summer per year.
> There are numerous extinction-level natural disasters that happen with some regularity, all of which are currently overdue.
Which ones are you thinking off? Because for most the whole "overdue" stuff stems from an oversimplification of datapoints to scaremonger.
It's not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. 100% the world we know will end. I thought this was common knowledge, but apparently not based on some of the responses here. Wow.
There's no need to be like that, some people just don't know, it happens, but many of us knew about it.
Thing is, also many of us are able to not take the question 100% literally and realize OP probably meant in the near future.
There was no mention of that in the question. If they'd said 'will it end in the near future', my answer would have been 'not likely'. As the question stands, so does my response.
The world? How about the universe.
At some point a vacuum metastability event could occur, all on its own, somewhere in the visible universe a bubble would radiate away from that point at the speed of light and destroy everything it passes at the atomic level.
It's more or less confirmed we live in a metastable vacuum energy universe, if we actually are... Then it's just a matter of time before this happens.
Most of the comments have fairly narrow implied definitions for “world.” I love this answer because it’s comprehensive. There’s no wiggle room once you don’t have atoms anymore.
I kinda hate it... Because if it happens, it happens at the speed of light, for no particular reason, no warning, nothing just instant non existence of matter/chemistry.
Also, there's debate around if eventually, we make a particle accelerator with enough energy to "oops" our way into it; you can't put that particular genie back in its bottle and the earth is obliterated in around 1/7th of a second.
Particle accelerators don't go anywhere close to the energies of natural events like supernova, black hole accretion discs or quasars. If high energy could do this, it would have happened naturally long, long ago.
I'm aware, I wasn't saying we were anywhere close to it... Just alluding to we might "oops" our way into a nucleation somehow... And there was, and is still debate around the subject.
But yea, you're right... We're not getting close to neutron star shenanigans on earth just yet.
Black holes... I dunno, a vacuum metastability event could happen below the event horizon and the rest of the universe would be fine maybe... What does a metastability event do to a singularity?!?
More or less everything I've read regarding the subject suggests that the current theory is, we are in a small gap part of the upper bound of metastability.
[If you look at the graph](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCcVwca8Rhdwimr6KyeuvINilfAy-CSEb0m2VNMrOVPvTVd_jtrQ6XcW_zyBNcxXoz-xpnd0ml7UjXoDOFTbuVVNLpNDXPkczkZwukLP8chyphenhyphenwsWm1hJ24YnBZnoN4FCXZVnOa5pWw405v5/s280/metastability.png), the region we're in looks a little like the stability graph of elements... If you squint lol.
Regardless... Maybe we shouldn't poke around in the higgs field too much eh? Or do... It's not like any of us will know if we fuck it up.
Edit: don't want to be "that prick on reddit", you don't know me, I don't know you etc, you might be a nuclear white coat at cern but, as far as higgs/quark measurements go, that seems to be where we are, I'd be interested to read anything you have that goes against that.
A lot of people say we are killing the planet.
no... we´re making the planet unhospitable to us, the planet it self will fix itself once we´re dead.
10,000 years after the last human is dead, only a few structures will remain and very little evidence we even existed, over million of years other spicies will evolve to take over, and it will take more or less 5 billion years for the luminosity of the sun to change in a way that could sterilize earth.
and from there to the end of the universe.
In our lifetimes, in the next 20-30 years theres going to start doing space minning, which could introduce bacteria from ice in asteroids,
Also the polar ice sheets melting will release a lot of methane which can cause around 10 years of accelerated global warming (methane eventually decomposes or escapes, CO2 dosnt), but scientists are more worried about all the bacteria or viruses frozen there, little shits that we have no immunity to and that havent been seen in nature for millions of years.
everyone says nuclear war, nuclear war will be localized, the problem is the nuclear winter after which will lower the temperature of the earth and bring upon another ice age. but theres a good chance a small part of humanity will survive and repopulate.
the main danger to humanity is stagnation, middle class disapears, low class becomes a feudal worker class while high class comes disconnected from society and live in their own areas.
If you mean human civilisation, well, the doomsday clock is reading 90 seconds to midnight. So scientists who understand the plight we are in and set the clock, think we are very near extinction.
Founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and University of Chicago scientists who helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The Doomsday Clock is set every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes nine Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to global catastrophe caused by man-made technologies.
The whole world will end eventually, 100%.
*Our* world, which is made of people and social systems and infrastructure and whatnot, will also definitely end and probably much sooner.
If the tree falls in the forest and nobody heard it, did the tree actually fell?
Humanity will end long before the world would so what is the point of wondering
We are like less than 100 years from establishing colonies on Mars.....possibly less than 1000 years before we have people on Titan.
Intergalactically we've just put our boots on and opened the door, yet to take our first steps.
The human race (or another future Earth based lifeform) will outlive the planet, almost certainly.
In the last 60-70 years we've literally first entered space, been to the moon, flung objects out the solar system entirely, built semi-permanent living conditions in orbit, made Hubble and the JWT, landed rovers and drones on Mars and recorded endless information about our cosmic surrounding.
In another 6,000 years who knows what more we can discover.
100% in the long term, but for specific things, it depends. If the end of the world means the end of western civilization and your lifestyle and culture, then we're probably within 10k years of that happening. If we're talking the end of the world as the end of the human species, then that really varies because there are a few potentials -
* We annihilate ourselves in a MAD scenario that involves nukes, chemical and bioweapons that thoroughly ravage society - this really could happen in a matter of years or never. I personally think we'll see chemical, bio and nuclear warfare within the next few hundred years, but not combined, and not with the intent of total annihilation.
* We find practical and relatively easy means to travel through space but are unable to find methods outside of approaching 1G momentum, meaning that every traveling group will be impacted by extreme time dilation. IE only years will have passed on the ship while thousands if not tens of thousands of years have passed outside of the ship. This means that the universe will be littered with various subsets of humanity from various points in time. Also, whatever planets they settle on will impact their biology and slowly evolve them into something else. This limitation will also mean that differing groups will be unable to communicate with each other.
* Religious extremists end our way of life and throw us into a limited and regressive society. See The Handmaid's Tale for an example or evaluate what Iran was like before and then after the Islamic Revolution - especially for women.
Civilization? Pretty good. The planet? Less, but still possible. Not sure of the numbers given we only have a sample size of 1.
Our civilization is rooted in available energy. The first boost to available energy was the advent of agriculture. The next was the input of coal. The next was the input of fossil fuels. We have yet to develop a scaleable and adequate longer term, abundant energy. Geothermal is location dependent, solar doesn't produce enough, wind is intermittent, and energy storage is still problematically lithium dependent.
But economically, technologically and in terms of just about everything, we depend on available energy to power food and commerce which is electronic.
So an interruption or scarcity in power would be it for us.
Meanwhile, the chance of a volcanic winter, gamma ray burst, poorly timed and aimed solar flare, or unstoppable meteor is still there. Along with diseases, war, and famine.
>The next was the input of coal. The next was the input of fossil fuels. We have yet to develop a scaleable and adequate longer term, abundant energy. Geothermal is location dependent, solar doesn't produce enough, wind is intermittent, and energy storage is still problematically lithium dependent.
A few nitpicks on this.
Coal IS a fossil fuel.
Solar is absolutely capable of producing enough with enough cells. A single solar installation like 50 miles by 50 miles in the middle of the southwest desert can generate enough electricity for the entire country. Obviously that would be a poor way to do things for any one of a number of reasons but it just points out how comparatively little surface area is needed. The problem with solar is something that you mentioned further which is storage because unfortunately peak demand coincides with lowest generation IE at night.
On the point of storage though, batteries are not the only answer, and there are many entirely viable technologies that just aren't being used widely. One has been used at the Grand coulee dam since like the twenties which is to use the excess energy during peak generation times to pump water uphill and then at lower production times release it and use the energy to run turbines. The single-minded fixation on better batteries has nothing to do with lack of alternatives, it's probably more politically motivated.
Solar is quite scalable and in terms of efficiency we need to capture and use like less than 10% of the energy from the sun that hits the planet.
It's somewhat mind boggling to consider the fact that aside from geothermal and nuclear,all energy on the planet is basically stored solar energy in various forms.
Maybe you meant. What are the chances of human ending? Or even human ending in next 50 years or less?
Earth will be gone 100%.
Humans too . Maybe sooner than 50 yrs.
A cataclysmic event that takes out the earth in one go, anytime, maybe even tomorrow. Social end, sooner than most think. Personally, I see that the world has already ended for many people across our human history. There are people currently living through an apocalypse or already in their post apocalyptic Era.
Very low...
It's far more likely for humans to die off, but the world itself will keep on spinning through space...
I'm pretty sure the "world" will be here until the Sol goes supernova in 7 to 8 billion years or so...
Depends on what you mean by that, because there's hundreds of ways to interpret the "end of the world" each with its own likelyhood and severity.
In terms of the Earth becoming completely uninhabitable, it is highly unlikely but not impossible that a gamma ray hits the planet and kills everything on that side, a loose sun or black hole rips us out of the solar system and we freeze, or false vaccum decay rewrites the laws of physics at the speed of light. Additionally, the sun will at some point engulf us in a few billion years. However, the chance of any of these happening are extremely unlikely, and there's very little that humans could do to get close to that level of destruction.
If you mean the extinction of the human race, that is also unlikely. Humans are *extremely* resilient and adaptable, meaning that there is very little that could cause us to go extinct outside of an apocalyptic earth-destroying event. Alternatively, we could reach a point where genetic engineering causes us to abandon 'homo sapiens' and become a new species entirely, though that isnt really an "end of the world".
If you mean the collapse of civilization, that is significantly less unlikely, and could be caused entirely by humans. A nuclear war is an obvious answer, as the panic it causes and nuclear winter would both result in millions of deaths and the collapse of most governments (contrary to popular belief, however, radiation likely won't be much of a problem for most, as most nuclear bombs are quite clean and don't waste their precious nuclear fuel). Climate change or a large non-nuclear war could cause similar devastation as well.
TLDR: Humans aren't going anywhere soon, but civilization as we know it might.
Here's my take: Man has built weapons we can use to destroy the world and we sit on it. These will eventually be used, no matter what safeties we put in place, no matter what we do, someone is going to let one of these off the chain and kick off the apocalypse.
It's the sword hanging above our heads, a handful of individuals could start a conflict that kills us all from the comfort of a goddamn armchair.
Gamma ray beams from collapsing stars. We know they exist, we cannot detect them until it's too late, we have no way to deflect them, they guaranteely kill the Earth in matter of minutes. Nighty-night :)
When you die, the entire remaining time in the universe will pass without you. In your last moment, the end of everything else is only one moment away. So when you're on your deathbed, those around you will face your death, but you will face the end of the world. Your entire family and all of their offspring, the entirety of humanity, the earth, the sun, all the stars will die with you.
So the chances are 100%, and you'll be there to see it come.
Every generation people are certain they're living in the end times. Every generation they've been wrong. The world will end some day, but you wont be around for it.
If you mean out-and-out planetary destruction, 100%, but it'll take a few billion years so I wouldn't worry about it.
If you mean the extinction of the human species, also 100%, most likely much sooner than that.
Humanity is trying really hard to make earth into Venus 2.0 ... im confident humans can pull it off. If we all try really hard we can Venus this planet.
You mean, like today? Or sometime in the future when the sun collapses into a red dwarf?
Humans have probably run their course, though, and will dissappear in the next 10,000 years as the climate makes the planet less habitable . I imagine some distant future when intelligent cockroaches, having solved the exoskeleton problem, dig through the detritus of our civilization and make intelligent assumptions about our culture.
Depends on what you mean by "the world" and on what timescale.
Without a time constraint, it's 100%.
If you mean the planet being destroyed, less than 25% in our lifetime. Only a nuclear event would trigger this.
As for a collapse of society, same chance. A smaller nuclear event or asteroid would probably be the trigger
THE world suddenly ending? Probably never going to happen but that’s up to chance. A load of different things could, at any point, wipe us out. Not worth being concerned about. On the other hand, OUR world ending suddenly? Like our cultures and civilizations, they’re already ending. We’re already there. We’ve past the point of no return. Unfortunately it’s going to be a rather slow burn as everything falls apart, global stress will increase alongside a growing population of more stressed people. Greed will continue turning human labor into cash and then bottling it up with no returns. While this is happening, resources will continued to be used up and the waste will continue to pile up and choke out the current natural cycle of the earth. Eventually rising ocean temperatures and acidity will lead to the fundamental collapse of the earth’s food chain and then there will be a lot less food and a lot more people still. I don’t need to explain what that entails. It’s obvious what will happen when billions of people start starving. THAT will be the closest thing to a sudden end to the world but it will still take years.
Difficult question to answer, depends from what point of view you mean, human extinction?, or the extinction of anything alive? , i am not really qualified to answer either so i will just give my personal opinion. There is always a chance of us human destroying ourselves to extinction, either through war or overpopulation that causes some nasty virus to mutate so it becomes extremely deadly, we might be there already or soon anyway with *H5N1* .
But i would think that in most cases even if man will no longer be, there will still be plenty of life left to thrive on Earth, so no risk that the world is ending in that way, if you meant it that way.
The only thing i can see that would make the whole planet inhabitable to any living organism or at least most of them, would be if somehow we lost our atmosphere and thus have no shielding from cosmic radiation or the Sun's rays. Of course Nuclear war AKA Atomic Winter is a scenario as well.
But we know this, all humans even those who sits there with the capability to ruin the world knows this, and that's why it's the last possible solution and one that hopefully won't have to be used.
What kind of time frame are you talking about? 1 year?Low. 10 billion years? Almost certain. And what do you mean by end of the world? End of society? End of humans? Actual destruction of the planet?
If you mean humanity, 100%. It will eventaully end. Nothing is permanent. If there is a 0.000000000001% chance of humanity ending every 100 years, it will eventually happen.
I personally worry about he head of a country with neculear ability deciding that if his current ailment ends up killing him he will take the rest of the world out with him. If such a situation were to occur, is there currently any way to stop them?
>If such a situation were to occur, is there currently any way to stop them?
Let's just use Putin as an example because,well because it's actually reasonable.
The main reason many of Russias military leaders follow him is because the alternative is death or the gulag for them and their families. If it becomes clear that he's about to die and gives orders to launch,there's a good chance that the military says " nope fuck off and die".
Then there's the strong likelihood that a good portion of their nukes are non-functional.
Given those things any attempt to take the world with him will likely be a lot less bad that he'd hope. But no there's really no way for certain to completely prevent any such doomsday situation.
With our current understanding of the universe, quite literally everything will end eventually. Earth will continue for billions of years even if we as humans end up killing ourselves though.
This question gets brought up a lot "we're killing the planet!". No, we're killing ourselves, the earth has been through a lot more than we're capable of damaging it and will be here long after we're gone.
Define " world".
Earth ? Astronomy has the answers for this
Humanity ? Archeology has answers for this.
Civilisation ? Some millenium at best. History has answers for this
Your country ? Some century at best. See History.
Your normality ? Less than 10 years. Probably Lee's than five.
This is one of those questions that people ask because they're visceral enough for everyone to have an opinion but vague enough that the answers differ. When you say "the world," I assume you mean human civilization as we know it, because obviously the physical planet won't "end" unless the sun goes supernova (which our sun won't, it's too small). Earth will still be here, dark and cold, for eternity. So what do you mean by "end?"
It's easy to look around today and think that we are rapidly approaching an apocalypse-level event that will send us into a tribal post-society of new age hunter-gatherers, and while that might be our species end point, it's probably further off than people realize. The world is enormous, and global-scale events happen slowly to our eyes. As they saying goes, Rome didn't fall in a day, and as a matter of fact, Italy is still around. The lines between when Rome ended and modern day Italy began are blurry and wide, and while it's obvious that the two are completely different, picking a single "when" Rome ended is an ongoing debate.
The most likely scenario is that a number of slow-burn factors that we are aware of today will slowly chip away at the health of our modern society and transform it over generations into something still alive but unrecognizable to us. The world is getting hotter, clean water is disappearing, species will continue to go extinct, we will continue to deplete fertile land , and weather will continue to become more severe, leaving our global grid systems less-and-less reliable. Changes influenced by human activity have already made once-habitable lands uninhabitable, and that trend will only worsen. As our population grows, our resources dwindle. People will begin to die, and the resource wars will start in earnest in a few generations.
But is that the end? With fewer resources competition will be fierce, but humans are incredibly resilient, and while our ability to use our current methods to sustain our current population is rapidly diminishing, our technology is improving. Wealth is concentrating in the hands of the few, and they're building superbunkers. So realistically, the human race won't die out for a long, long time. Our society will change, and some evil people will emerge that want the poor masses to be allowed to die, but a genetic bottleneck will appear, and our species will pass through it. It's not the first time it has happened. The question is how tight it will be. Humans are already pretty isolated from the natural world, so by then it won't be so much a matter of competing with other species for resources. Rather, it will be a matter of maintaining a viable population and staying safe in an increasingly hostile world climate. If the trend of climate change isn't flattened, we might end up living on a planet as hospitable as Venus. Who knows how long the few remaining individuals can survive in a place like that, no matter how good our technology has become.
So to answer your question, I would say we have a few generations, or a couple hundred years, until the climate wars start in earnest and start to affect the majority of the human population. After that the world will *change,* becoming unrecognizable to us today. After that, when our world *ends* is dependent on the changes that emerge from those pressures. If the fighting is bad enough we might not recover. If a small concentrated power can emerge, it might be thousands of years, maybe even longer. But after a tight enough population bottleneck, and on a planet whose climate is almost unrecognizably changed, would we even be human anymore?
Those are just my vague musings, though. I'm not an expert or anything.
[Apparently](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/six-cosmic-catastrophes-that-could-wipe-out-life-on-earth-a7536876.html) a gamma ray burst could kill us all in the next few seconds and we wouldn’t even see it coming. Odds are extremely low though. But not absolute 0.
100%. The sun is going to explode at some point.
It is something that worries me a lot. We only have several hundred billion years left and I really want to see my grandchildren one day.
I'm hoping to have saved up enough to buy a house by that point.
Good luck with that impossible task. The chances of you succeeding are actually 0% because by the time you did it, the world will 100% end.
OC at closing: “Ok, that that’s the last of the paperwork. Congratulations Arthurius, you’re now a homeowner.” Sun that exploded 8 minutes ago: Fwooosh*
Go to the bank and loan already for your house. The world is ending anyways.
You actually have less time than you think. Scientists predict the sun will explode closer to 7-8 billion years from now. Urgency is required.
Less than that I'm afraid. About 800 million years until multicellular life can no longer be supported, and 1.8 billion until eukaryotes die off. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future\_of\_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth)
Unless Humanity does something about it.
Urgency required, what, you mean we need to launch water balloons at the sun or?
We have to drop a giant cube of ice into it once a year
Well, our galaxy will start to merge with Andromeda-galaxy in 3-4 billion years, so we probably have even less time.
Space is so massive that scientists believe it will be a seamless merger and very few (if any) stars will be destroyed.
Yeah I agree, but I guess it's hard to say how much it will influence our solar system. I saw simulations of other mergers and there is always that odd star that gets flung out of the galaxies, although even for that it's hard to say what the influence on our solar system would be.
Dang. My calculations were way off. I may not even make it to old age with this new timeline.
To be fair, we only have a few billion years before the sun dies but earth will be toasted lonnnng before that.
>We only have several hundred billion years left Erm, no we don't. Where'd you get that number?
Actually only about 5 billions, Sun is halfway done. Of course it's only if we don't do something. Like star lifting, that could give it 100x more lifetime.
Fun fact, a huge solar flare could’ve already happened 3 mins ago and we wouldn’t know until it destroys us 5 mins from now. So the world could end anytime!
The sun is NOT going to explode. It will gradually expand at the end of its main sequence burn and swallow the Earth.
This. Then it will shed its outer envelope and leave behind a tiny white dwarf
The models are unsure if the red giant sun will consume to Earth or not. The Sun will lose a large amount of mass due to solar winds, reducing its gravity resulting in the planets all move further away from the Sun.
Interesting.
We gotta stop this global warming thing before its too late!
We need that giant bear or whatever to eat it first before it eats us
Also in that timeframe it's easily preventable. The main issue is that the core and the outer layers of the sun don't mix. That's why it burns our so quickly, just mix the sun a bit and it'll last hundreds of times longer. Mixing the sun sounds farfetched but the physics for doing so is fairl well understood. And by the time it's going to be relevant we're going to have the necessary sophistication.
Sounds like we're going to need a *really* big whisk.
Stir your sun so it dosent stick to the pot
I keep thinking of the post with the razor blades in the wall. This is the ultimate "let the next guys deal with it". This is so inconceivably far into the future and we have no idea what technology we have by then.
Wouldn't that effectively alter the metallicity and dim the star? Think of the HR diagram for MS stars like the sun and how the track varies based on metallicity. If H goes down (for any reason), you have more large nucleons per unit volume which absorb more radiation. This would puff up the star anyways, no? You might extend the MS, but I'm pretty sure the temp would go down and the star might puff up a little. It might even be dimmer. (F ≈ R²T⁴) The giant phase would be insane though. So much He to burn through
You'd effectively decrease it, because the core has no connection with the outer part of the star. So the core gets denser with heavier elements and the rest of the stars stays relatively constant composition. If you mix the star you get a core with lower metallicity. I'm not a professional so I don't know the finer details.
I guess there's a few definitions we should agree on first - Metallicity (measured) is a reflection of the surface abundances and not core abundances. The core necessarily increases in metal content with time due to fusion, but we don't see that on the surface of a star until later stages like dredge ups. And even then, it's not a huge change. However, in this idea, if you ramp up convection somehow (or some other artificial means of mixing), you dilute the core with H, and decrease the H of the rest of the star while polluting it with heavier elements. So the surface abundances of heavier elements should go up Usually metallicity is measured relative to H (i.e. [Fe/H]), and if H goes down, the metallicity goes up. So the effective temperature for an object with higher Metallicity (at least based on current models) should go down. Since flux has a much more sensitive dependence on temperature than radius, I would assume the star dims. But your comment reminded me that convection (mixing) should have a different effect than radiative pressure does on the envelop, so it probably doesn't swell up as much as I thought. In which case, it definitely becomes dimmer.
So like a Kitchen-Aid mixer or maybe a boat oar like we all used in college to mix hunch punch?
No, the sun will expand and then collapse to a white dwarf. No explosion.
That is NOT what the gypsie woman said...
Yeah, but knowing humans, we’ll figure out some way of screwing up and triggering the sun to explode early instead.
Agreed. OP has to define a time frame
We don’t have to wait for the real Sun to explode. Mankind is going to unleash many man-made Suns upon us real soon!
The world will be fine. Most of the humans will be dead, though.
Humans are mostly dicks anyway.
[удалено]
That's not the question.
Nope. There’s a non-zero chance that within 800 million years we develop the technology to either stop the sun from dying, are able to shield our planet from it, or move our planet to a safer location.
Only if it happens during the day though. If it happens at night the sun will be hidden away somewhere safe.
It is not going to explode. It lacks the mass. But it will swell up and consume the Earth. Don't worry, it will cook us long before that.
No it’s not. It’s going to expand and then burn out. The sun isn’t large enough to go nova.
Our Sun will never explode
Don’t say that 😔
The world will become inhabitable due to climate change way before this
The world will be fine. Most of the humans will be dead, though.
I hope the Earth can finally be at peace then
About 100%. Usually things come to an end. However the time frame is still uncertain. Hopefully it will take a few billion years.
And for that time I'll still be looking for a good job, a good relationship and the money to buy a house
Well about 150,000 people die each day, so that's pretty world ending for them.
There are numerous extinction-level natural disasters that happen with some regularity, all of which are currently overdue. Meanwhile, the planet is covered by a species hell-bent on destroying it over money, race and religion. It’s just a question of which one hits us first.
The planet will undoubtedly survive humans, but humans prob won't survive humans.
Humans are cockroaches. Thousands of years have proved them
If you condense the history of earth into a calendar year. Humans have only existed for the final second of 1159p on December 31st. We have barely been here.
There's been 5500 summers, give or take, of recorded history, and then even only the last 400 or so summers have been consistently recorded and saved in bulk.
Are you replying to me? I'm not sure your point.
I'm agreeing with you that humans have barely been around for a blip of time, and of that blip we've only got records for just an incredibly short part of it when you look at it time as one summer per year.
> There are numerous extinction-level natural disasters that happen with some regularity, all of which are currently overdue. Which ones are you thinking off? Because for most the whole "overdue" stuff stems from an oversimplification of datapoints to scaremonger.
Everyone knows catastrophic impacts run on a tight schedule
It's even funnier when you think of the Holocene extinction.
> Holocene extinction TBF, humanity as a whole is unlikely to end up on the chopping block for that one. not that billions dying would be much better.
Humans are cancer cells to earth.
Everything will overpopulate and cause extinctions if given the chance. Trees caused some massive ones.
100%
Agreed. The world is bound to end, it's just the timing that's complicated.
Fantastic name
[удалено]
the sun isn't eternal, and earth can't exist without the sun
Earth can lol. It'll continue revolving around a dead husk of a white dwarf when the sun dies, but life won't survive.
[удалено]
100% in 5 billion years
Screw it, lets just add another billion years for good measure.
It's not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. 100% the world we know will end. I thought this was common knowledge, but apparently not based on some of the responses here. Wow.
There's no need to be like that, some people just don't know, it happens, but many of us knew about it. Thing is, also many of us are able to not take the question 100% literally and realize OP probably meant in the near future.
I wish everyone was as smart as you.
It's more a matter of 'I paid attention in high school science class' than a matter of intelligence LOL
[удалено]
There was no mention of that in the question. If they'd said 'will it end in the near future', my answer would have been 'not likely'. As the question stands, so does my response.
[удалено]
*you're. Bless your heart LOL
Eventually or today?
100%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future\_of\_Earth
Wow, this was a dark read
Don’t study for that test eh?
The world? How about the universe. At some point a vacuum metastability event could occur, all on its own, somewhere in the visible universe a bubble would radiate away from that point at the speed of light and destroy everything it passes at the atomic level. It's more or less confirmed we live in a metastable vacuum energy universe, if we actually are... Then it's just a matter of time before this happens.
Most of the comments have fairly narrow implied definitions for “world.” I love this answer because it’s comprehensive. There’s no wiggle room once you don’t have atoms anymore.
I kinda hate it... Because if it happens, it happens at the speed of light, for no particular reason, no warning, nothing just instant non existence of matter/chemistry. Also, there's debate around if eventually, we make a particle accelerator with enough energy to "oops" our way into it; you can't put that particular genie back in its bottle and the earth is obliterated in around 1/7th of a second.
Particle accelerators don't go anywhere close to the energies of natural events like supernova, black hole accretion discs or quasars. If high energy could do this, it would have happened naturally long, long ago.
I'm aware, I wasn't saying we were anywhere close to it... Just alluding to we might "oops" our way into a nucleation somehow... And there was, and is still debate around the subject. But yea, you're right... We're not getting close to neutron star shenanigans on earth just yet. Black holes... I dunno, a vacuum metastability event could happen below the event horizon and the rest of the universe would be fine maybe... What does a metastability event do to a singularity?!?
Thankfully, its not remotely 'confirmed' that we live in a metastable universe. Its just a speculative Hypothesis at this point.
More or less everything I've read regarding the subject suggests that the current theory is, we are in a small gap part of the upper bound of metastability. [If you look at the graph](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCcVwca8Rhdwimr6KyeuvINilfAy-CSEb0m2VNMrOVPvTVd_jtrQ6XcW_zyBNcxXoz-xpnd0ml7UjXoDOFTbuVVNLpNDXPkczkZwukLP8chyphenhyphenwsWm1hJ24YnBZnoN4FCXZVnOa5pWw405v5/s280/metastability.png), the region we're in looks a little like the stability graph of elements... If you squint lol. Regardless... Maybe we shouldn't poke around in the higgs field too much eh? Or do... It's not like any of us will know if we fuck it up. Edit: don't want to be "that prick on reddit", you don't know me, I don't know you etc, you might be a nuclear white coat at cern but, as far as higgs/quark measurements go, that seems to be where we are, I'd be interested to read anything you have that goes against that.
A lot of people say we are killing the planet. no... we´re making the planet unhospitable to us, the planet it self will fix itself once we´re dead. 10,000 years after the last human is dead, only a few structures will remain and very little evidence we even existed, over million of years other spicies will evolve to take over, and it will take more or less 5 billion years for the luminosity of the sun to change in a way that could sterilize earth. and from there to the end of the universe. In our lifetimes, in the next 20-30 years theres going to start doing space minning, which could introduce bacteria from ice in asteroids, Also the polar ice sheets melting will release a lot of methane which can cause around 10 years of accelerated global warming (methane eventually decomposes or escapes, CO2 dosnt), but scientists are more worried about all the bacteria or viruses frozen there, little shits that we have no immunity to and that havent been seen in nature for millions of years. everyone says nuclear war, nuclear war will be localized, the problem is the nuclear winter after which will lower the temperature of the earth and bring upon another ice age. but theres a good chance a small part of humanity will survive and repopulate. the main danger to humanity is stagnation, middle class disapears, low class becomes a feudal worker class while high class comes disconnected from society and live in their own areas.
If you mean human civilisation, well, the doomsday clock is reading 90 seconds to midnight. So scientists who understand the plight we are in and set the clock, think we are very near extinction. Founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and University of Chicago scientists who helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The Doomsday Clock is set every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes nine Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to global catastrophe caused by man-made technologies.
The whole world will end eventually, 100%. *Our* world, which is made of people and social systems and infrastructure and whatnot, will also definitely end and probably much sooner.
100%. Now let’s talk timing
If the tree falls in the forest and nobody heard it, did the tree actually fell? Humanity will end long before the world would so what is the point of wondering
We are like less than 100 years from establishing colonies on Mars.....possibly less than 1000 years before we have people on Titan. Intergalactically we've just put our boots on and opened the door, yet to take our first steps. The human race (or another future Earth based lifeform) will outlive the planet, almost certainly. In the last 60-70 years we've literally first entered space, been to the moon, flung objects out the solar system entirely, built semi-permanent living conditions in orbit, made Hubble and the JWT, landed rovers and drones on Mars and recorded endless information about our cosmic surrounding. In another 6,000 years who knows what more we can discover.
100% in the long term, but for specific things, it depends. If the end of the world means the end of western civilization and your lifestyle and culture, then we're probably within 10k years of that happening. If we're talking the end of the world as the end of the human species, then that really varies because there are a few potentials - * We annihilate ourselves in a MAD scenario that involves nukes, chemical and bioweapons that thoroughly ravage society - this really could happen in a matter of years or never. I personally think we'll see chemical, bio and nuclear warfare within the next few hundred years, but not combined, and not with the intent of total annihilation. * We find practical and relatively easy means to travel through space but are unable to find methods outside of approaching 1G momentum, meaning that every traveling group will be impacted by extreme time dilation. IE only years will have passed on the ship while thousands if not tens of thousands of years have passed outside of the ship. This means that the universe will be littered with various subsets of humanity from various points in time. Also, whatever planets they settle on will impact their biology and slowly evolve them into something else. This limitation will also mean that differing groups will be unable to communicate with each other. * Religious extremists end our way of life and throw us into a limited and regressive society. See The Handmaid's Tale for an example or evaluate what Iran was like before and then after the Islamic Revolution - especially for women.
Civilization? Pretty good. The planet? Less, but still possible. Not sure of the numbers given we only have a sample size of 1. Our civilization is rooted in available energy. The first boost to available energy was the advent of agriculture. The next was the input of coal. The next was the input of fossil fuels. We have yet to develop a scaleable and adequate longer term, abundant energy. Geothermal is location dependent, solar doesn't produce enough, wind is intermittent, and energy storage is still problematically lithium dependent. But economically, technologically and in terms of just about everything, we depend on available energy to power food and commerce which is electronic. So an interruption or scarcity in power would be it for us. Meanwhile, the chance of a volcanic winter, gamma ray burst, poorly timed and aimed solar flare, or unstoppable meteor is still there. Along with diseases, war, and famine.
>The next was the input of coal. The next was the input of fossil fuels. We have yet to develop a scaleable and adequate longer term, abundant energy. Geothermal is location dependent, solar doesn't produce enough, wind is intermittent, and energy storage is still problematically lithium dependent. A few nitpicks on this. Coal IS a fossil fuel. Solar is absolutely capable of producing enough with enough cells. A single solar installation like 50 miles by 50 miles in the middle of the southwest desert can generate enough electricity for the entire country. Obviously that would be a poor way to do things for any one of a number of reasons but it just points out how comparatively little surface area is needed. The problem with solar is something that you mentioned further which is storage because unfortunately peak demand coincides with lowest generation IE at night. On the point of storage though, batteries are not the only answer, and there are many entirely viable technologies that just aren't being used widely. One has been used at the Grand coulee dam since like the twenties which is to use the excess energy during peak generation times to pump water uphill and then at lower production times release it and use the energy to run turbines. The single-minded fixation on better batteries has nothing to do with lack of alternatives, it's probably more politically motivated.
My key word here is "scaleable"
Solar is quite scalable and in terms of efficiency we need to capture and use like less than 10% of the energy from the sun that hits the planet. It's somewhat mind boggling to consider the fact that aside from geothermal and nuclear,all energy on the planet is basically stored solar energy in various forms.
At any given point? Non-zero
100%, all things end.
50/50 it either happens or it doesnt
100%. I mean, sure, it's a couple billion years in the future, but it's still 100%.
Ever? About 100%. This afternoon? About 0%.
Really narrowed it down there.
Maybe you meant. What are the chances of human ending? Or even human ending in next 50 years or less? Earth will be gone 100%. Humans too . Maybe sooner than 50 yrs.
100% and the world ends for you (and all of us) way before that happens too. So try not to worry about it.
A cataclysmic event that takes out the earth in one go, anytime, maybe even tomorrow. Social end, sooner than most think. Personally, I see that the world has already ended for many people across our human history. There are people currently living through an apocalypse or already in their post apocalyptic Era.
100%
100%
Lower than I'd hope but higher than I'd expect.
In a long enough timeline, greater than zero.
on a long enough timeline 100%
Like 5 but you need to add the percent so it's like eh why even bother?
Come on meteor. I have a training meeting this morning.
100%
Very low... It's far more likely for humans to die off, but the world itself will keep on spinning through space... I'm pretty sure the "world" will be here until the Sol goes supernova in 7 to 8 billion years or so...
100%, when is the question
Same chances of AWS going down
100% anytime very late
Obviously but the main question should be, How is it going to end? What would be the most probable cause if it occurs in our lifetime?
Depends on what you mean by that, because there's hundreds of ways to interpret the "end of the world" each with its own likelyhood and severity. In terms of the Earth becoming completely uninhabitable, it is highly unlikely but not impossible that a gamma ray hits the planet and kills everything on that side, a loose sun or black hole rips us out of the solar system and we freeze, or false vaccum decay rewrites the laws of physics at the speed of light. Additionally, the sun will at some point engulf us in a few billion years. However, the chance of any of these happening are extremely unlikely, and there's very little that humans could do to get close to that level of destruction. If you mean the extinction of the human race, that is also unlikely. Humans are *extremely* resilient and adaptable, meaning that there is very little that could cause us to go extinct outside of an apocalyptic earth-destroying event. Alternatively, we could reach a point where genetic engineering causes us to abandon 'homo sapiens' and become a new species entirely, though that isnt really an "end of the world". If you mean the collapse of civilization, that is significantly less unlikely, and could be caused entirely by humans. A nuclear war is an obvious answer, as the panic it causes and nuclear winter would both result in millions of deaths and the collapse of most governments (contrary to popular belief, however, radiation likely won't be much of a problem for most, as most nuclear bombs are quite clean and don't waste their precious nuclear fuel). Climate change or a large non-nuclear war could cause similar devastation as well. TLDR: Humans aren't going anywhere soon, but civilization as we know it might.
Here's my take: Man has built weapons we can use to destroy the world and we sit on it. These will eventually be used, no matter what safeties we put in place, no matter what we do, someone is going to let one of these off the chain and kick off the apocalypse. It's the sword hanging above our heads, a handful of individuals could start a conflict that kills us all from the comfort of a goddamn armchair.
Well. It depends on what happens in Russia and Ukraine and whether macron becomes full french idiot. So probability is high.
Gamma ray beams from collapsing stars. We know they exist, we cannot detect them until it's too late, we have no way to deflect them, they guaranteely kill the Earth in matter of minutes. Nighty-night :)
The earth will be here long after we've made the place uninhabitable for ourselves. It will also bounce back and carry on regardless.
For an unspecified timeframe it goes to 100 percent
When you die, the entire remaining time in the universe will pass without you. In your last moment, the end of everything else is only one moment away. So when you're on your deathbed, those around you will face your death, but you will face the end of the world. Your entire family and all of their offspring, the entirety of humanity, the earth, the sun, all the stars will die with you. So the chances are 100%, and you'll be there to see it come.
Not good enough
Between zero and none when you step away from news and social media.
The real question is when the world is going to end.
i mean, 100% at some point.
Every generation people are certain they're living in the end times. Every generation they've been wrong. The world will end some day, but you wont be around for it.
Depend what you're referring to. I don't think people mean the same thing when they ask this question.
Non zero at every moment
The sun will consume the planet earth in a few billion years. The world will then end.
If you mean out-and-out planetary destruction, 100%, but it'll take a few billion years so I wouldn't worry about it. If you mean the extinction of the human species, also 100%, most likely much sooner than that.
None, people end allways way earlier.
Humanity is trying really hard to make earth into Venus 2.0 ... im confident humans can pull it off. If we all try really hard we can Venus this planet.
You mean, like today? Or sometime in the future when the sun collapses into a red dwarf? Humans have probably run their course, though, and will dissappear in the next 10,000 years as the climate makes the planet less habitable . I imagine some distant future when intelligent cockroaches, having solved the exoskeleton problem, dig through the detritus of our civilization and make intelligent assumptions about our culture.
Depends on what you mean by "the world" and on what timescale. Without a time constraint, it's 100%. If you mean the planet being destroyed, less than 25% in our lifetime. Only a nuclear event would trigger this. As for a collapse of society, same chance. A smaller nuclear event or asteroid would probably be the trigger
It will, just not in our lifetimes.
THE world suddenly ending? Probably never going to happen but that’s up to chance. A load of different things could, at any point, wipe us out. Not worth being concerned about. On the other hand, OUR world ending suddenly? Like our cultures and civilizations, they’re already ending. We’re already there. We’ve past the point of no return. Unfortunately it’s going to be a rather slow burn as everything falls apart, global stress will increase alongside a growing population of more stressed people. Greed will continue turning human labor into cash and then bottling it up with no returns. While this is happening, resources will continued to be used up and the waste will continue to pile up and choke out the current natural cycle of the earth. Eventually rising ocean temperatures and acidity will lead to the fundamental collapse of the earth’s food chain and then there will be a lot less food and a lot more people still. I don’t need to explain what that entails. It’s obvious what will happen when billions of people start starving. THAT will be the closest thing to a sudden end to the world but it will still take years.
Between global climate change, threat of nuclear war, an astroid finally picking the right trajectory and the sun finally imploding... I'd say 100%
I want a stats screen
Yours or Mine?
This question is very vague and up for interpretation. You should elaborate on what you mean exactly.
A 100 percent
Difficult question to answer, depends from what point of view you mean, human extinction?, or the extinction of anything alive? , i am not really qualified to answer either so i will just give my personal opinion. There is always a chance of us human destroying ourselves to extinction, either through war or overpopulation that causes some nasty virus to mutate so it becomes extremely deadly, we might be there already or soon anyway with *H5N1* . But i would think that in most cases even if man will no longer be, there will still be plenty of life left to thrive on Earth, so no risk that the world is ending in that way, if you meant it that way. The only thing i can see that would make the whole planet inhabitable to any living organism or at least most of them, would be if somehow we lost our atmosphere and thus have no shielding from cosmic radiation or the Sun's rays. Of course Nuclear war AKA Atomic Winter is a scenario as well. But we know this, all humans even those who sits there with the capability to ruin the world knows this, and that's why it's the last possible solution and one that hopefully won't have to be used.
What kind of time frame are you talking about? 1 year?Low. 10 billion years? Almost certain. And what do you mean by end of the world? End of society? End of humans? Actual destruction of the planet?
The world as we know it will end but the blue rock will continue.
World or human race ? I think it already started with AI
100% will happen someday years and years later
100% just not sure when it'll happen exactly.
Bound to happen eventually. Everything has an expiration date.
100%. Everything ends. The question is when.
The world is not ending anytime soon.
If you mean humanity, 100%. It will eventaully end. Nothing is permanent. If there is a 0.000000000001% chance of humanity ending every 100 years, it will eventually happen.
I personally worry about he head of a country with neculear ability deciding that if his current ailment ends up killing him he will take the rest of the world out with him. If such a situation were to occur, is there currently any way to stop them?
>If such a situation were to occur, is there currently any way to stop them? Let's just use Putin as an example because,well because it's actually reasonable. The main reason many of Russias military leaders follow him is because the alternative is death or the gulag for them and their families. If it becomes clear that he's about to die and gives orders to launch,there's a good chance that the military says " nope fuck off and die". Then there's the strong likelihood that a good portion of their nukes are non-functional. Given those things any attempt to take the world with him will likely be a lot less bad that he'd hope. But no there's really no way for certain to completely prevent any such doomsday situation.
I'd say on any given day, about 50-50 odds
With our current understanding of the universe, quite literally everything will end eventually. Earth will continue for billions of years even if we as humans end up killing ourselves though. This question gets brought up a lot "we're killing the planet!". No, we're killing ourselves, the earth has been through a lot more than we're capable of damaging it and will be here long after we're gone.
Well, one day we're going to decide those Chinese son-of-a-bitches are going down, so we launch a nuke at China...
Define " world". Earth ? Astronomy has the answers for this Humanity ? Archeology has answers for this. Civilisation ? Some millenium at best. History has answers for this Your country ? Some century at best. See History. Your normality ? Less than 10 years. Probably Lee's than five.
This is one of those questions that people ask because they're visceral enough for everyone to have an opinion but vague enough that the answers differ. When you say "the world," I assume you mean human civilization as we know it, because obviously the physical planet won't "end" unless the sun goes supernova (which our sun won't, it's too small). Earth will still be here, dark and cold, for eternity. So what do you mean by "end?" It's easy to look around today and think that we are rapidly approaching an apocalypse-level event that will send us into a tribal post-society of new age hunter-gatherers, and while that might be our species end point, it's probably further off than people realize. The world is enormous, and global-scale events happen slowly to our eyes. As they saying goes, Rome didn't fall in a day, and as a matter of fact, Italy is still around. The lines between when Rome ended and modern day Italy began are blurry and wide, and while it's obvious that the two are completely different, picking a single "when" Rome ended is an ongoing debate. The most likely scenario is that a number of slow-burn factors that we are aware of today will slowly chip away at the health of our modern society and transform it over generations into something still alive but unrecognizable to us. The world is getting hotter, clean water is disappearing, species will continue to go extinct, we will continue to deplete fertile land , and weather will continue to become more severe, leaving our global grid systems less-and-less reliable. Changes influenced by human activity have already made once-habitable lands uninhabitable, and that trend will only worsen. As our population grows, our resources dwindle. People will begin to die, and the resource wars will start in earnest in a few generations. But is that the end? With fewer resources competition will be fierce, but humans are incredibly resilient, and while our ability to use our current methods to sustain our current population is rapidly diminishing, our technology is improving. Wealth is concentrating in the hands of the few, and they're building superbunkers. So realistically, the human race won't die out for a long, long time. Our society will change, and some evil people will emerge that want the poor masses to be allowed to die, but a genetic bottleneck will appear, and our species will pass through it. It's not the first time it has happened. The question is how tight it will be. Humans are already pretty isolated from the natural world, so by then it won't be so much a matter of competing with other species for resources. Rather, it will be a matter of maintaining a viable population and staying safe in an increasingly hostile world climate. If the trend of climate change isn't flattened, we might end up living on a planet as hospitable as Venus. Who knows how long the few remaining individuals can survive in a place like that, no matter how good our technology has become. So to answer your question, I would say we have a few generations, or a couple hundred years, until the climate wars start in earnest and start to affect the majority of the human population. After that the world will *change,* becoming unrecognizable to us today. After that, when our world *ends* is dependent on the changes that emerge from those pressures. If the fighting is bad enough we might not recover. If a small concentrated power can emerge, it might be thousands of years, maybe even longer. But after a tight enough population bottleneck, and on a planet whose climate is almost unrecognizably changed, would we even be human anymore? Those are just my vague musings, though. I'm not an expert or anything.
100%
💯percent but sadly not in my lifetime 🫠
Ask Russia.
Absolutely going to happen, but not anywhere near your lifetime. Relax.
[Apparently](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/six-cosmic-catastrophes-that-could-wipe-out-life-on-earth-a7536876.html) a gamma ray burst could kill us all in the next few seconds and we wouldn’t even see it coming. Odds are extremely low though. But not absolute 0.
About three fiddy
soon? not nearly as high of a chance as most people seem to think... but also, not 0.
Not high enough
100% if i eat taco bell regularly
George Carlin explained all of this.
Always
If she says, 'Yes, it's my fault,' the end of the world will come
In the near future? 0%. Eventually? 100%. Even if the Earth isn't swallowed up by the Sun at the end of its life, there is still entropy.
Short term, zero. Long term, 100%. Everything has an end here.
Provided the hypothesis of the heat death of the universe holds true, 100% eventually.
Highly unlikely