Probability of the near destruction of humanity?

[Darnoc]

In his sci-fi novel "Manifold 1: Time", Stephen Baxter portraits an interesting theory. The idea comes from the book "The End of the World" by John Leslie.

 

In his book, Stephen Baxter describes an event which he calls "Carter Catastrophe". The theory is based on Bayes' Theorem. To better show what is meant, the following mind-experiment is used:

 

Think of a box in which you could place thousands of little globes. Now do also assume that you don't know how many globes are acctually in there, you only know that there are either one thousand or ten. On one of the globes, an "x" is drawn upon. Now there is a little lever and when you pull it, one of the globes comes out. After three times pulling this level, the globe with the "x" on it comes out.

 

Which is now more probable: That there are a thousand or that there are ten globes in the box?

 

Now let us assume that the globe with the "x" on it is you and that the number of globes in the box stands for the time which humanity will exist.

 

If humanity will be able to exist for billions for years, we now live at the very beginning of humanity. Based on the fact that you exist right now and not during some other time in the billion-years-existence of humanity makes it more probable that humanity will be destroyed in the near future than that it will exist for a very long time.

 

So, as it is more likely that there are ten globes in the box than a thousand, it is more likely that humanity will be destroyed soon than that it will go on existing for millions or even billions of years.

 

Of course, there is an almost uncountable number of destruction scenarios. But are there acctually scenarios/solutions which could help humanity to survive? Or is humanity doomed without any way to save it? And if there are solutions, shouldn't it be time to think about them and try to realize them?

 

Isn't it time to remind humanity that it should clearly begin to think about its own future right now and as a whole species or face its probable inevitable destruction? Shouldn't we begin to plan our future and take steps in order to secure our own survival?

 

Interestingly, Stephen Baxter describes two possible survival-scenarios in his book. The first one is the stagnation-scenario. Humanity stays on earth, learns to live with the few ressources available and how to recycle them and stops multiplying. The other is the spreading-scenario. In order to overcome stagnation, humanity must colonize and exploit space.

 

What do you think? Are we doomed and is there no way out or are there solutions? And if there are, what are the solutions?

[Peregrine]

Your entire argument makes no sense. There is no reason why the time of our existence alone would be enough to predict how long humanity will last. This is a perfect case of philosophy taken to an extreme without a foundation in facts.

[Darnoc]

There is no reason why the time of our existence alone would be enough to predict how long humanity will last.

 

You didn't read the argument carefully. The argument is not that humanity will not last long, the argument is that it is more probable that humanity will not last long. So therefore it is not a prediction, it is a matter of probability.

 

And it makes perfect sense, if you would read it more carefully. Let us assume that humanity will exist for one billion years. You could live anywhere during this time period, but you do live almost at the beginning (about two million years after humanity began to evolve). So, is it probable that humanity will exist for a billion years?

[Dark0ne]

And it makes perfect sense, if you would read it more carefully. Let us assume that humanity will exist for one billion years. You could live anywhere during this time period, but you do live almost at the beginning (about two million years after humanity began to evolve). So, is it probable that humanity will exist for a billion years?

 

I don't think it make sense either.

 

Humanities Timeline.

 

0--------------------- - - - ---- 1,000,000,000

 

<--------!------------ - - - ---->

 

Are you saying that, because we live where the exclamation mark is, near the beginning, it's unprobable humanity is going to survive the whole timeline drawn there? On what grounds?

[Bullet_shrapnel]

No species in the entire existance of the planet has ever lasted more than about 2/3 million years, maybe?

[Dark0ne]

I know Rhinoes have been around for over 10 million years. And I think Crocodiles have been around a lot longer than that...

[draighox]

Let's return to the globes. I'm not very good at the theory of chances, but I think, that there is equal chance for the x globe to come out, and for the specific globe with no x to come out. And you have equal chances to live at the beginning of humanity, at the middle, or at the end.

[Malchik]

I think I must be particularly dim today. I can't see the connection. However with all the idiocies human beings are perpetrating on the planet I'll go along with the suggestion that we're approaching the end of our dominance. Insects will rule - yeah!

[Switch]

Interesting theory. But it seems like an intellectual and yet somewhat pointless pursuit by someone with too much time on their hands to me... >.> <.<

 

The simple answer is we can't know. We can't see into the future and there's no way of determining how long we're going to last. From a Christian person's point of view, we will last until we've ended up fulfilling the conditions in Revelations, maybe not literally, but in some way. But I've observed more than once that religion isn't considered relevant here, so nevermind. :P

[ThetaOrionis01]

Neither your argument nor your analogy make any sense, and I'm not sure what probability theory you've applied there.....

 

Actually, the inverse of your conclusion is more applicable. If you postulate that an intelligent species has a certain lifespan, and that at some point during this lifespan it will meet with an extinction event which ends this species' lifespan, then the closer this species is to the end of its lifespan the more likely it is that an extinction event will be imminent.

 

Let's say you have a species lifespan of 2 billion years. For a civilisation at the beginning of this lifespan, the probability of an extinction event happening within the next year is 1 in 2 billion. For a civilisation which has already survived 1 billion years, there's only 1 bilion years left in which the postulated extinction event can happen - so their chances of encountering such an event within the next year is 1 in 1 billion.... And the closer you get to the end of this postulated lifespan, the more likely the event is to happen.

 

 

If you could compile statistics regarding the lifespans of many intelligent species (if, of course, you had such data available) like most things you'd probably find them conforming to a normal distribution curve - ie extremely long-lived and extremely short-lived civilisations are extremely rare, and most civilisations will have lifespans around the average (and whoever decided on the 'billions of years'?!?). So it is statistically very unlikely that humanity should be extremely short-lived.

 

So, I think your argument that humanity is likely to be shortlived because we are near the beginning of our species' lifespan is, to put it politely, a piece of flawed thinking.