Will humanity really die out through its own fault? There are both pros and cons. The scientific journal Spektrum presents the personal opinion of the scientist: he is sure that we will all die. The history of the Earth convincingly proves this: no species can exist indefinitely. How much do we have left?
Humanity will die out, that's for sure. The history of the Earth convincingly proves that species cannot exist indefinitely, and the idea that we, for some internal reasons, are an exception to this rule, belongs rather to the field of religion. It is only unclear when and how the end will come.
But the thesis that humanity can die as a result of climate change is fundamentally not so absurd, if only because abrupt climate change and extinction of species in the history of our planet are closely interconnected. But it is difficult to say whether humanity is waiting for such a fate.
Currently, there are almost 8 billion people living on Earth, and it is almost impossible for all of them to die within a few months or years as a result of some kind of terrible catastrophe, as shown in apocalyptic films. Perhaps only a really large asteroid or 15 thousand atomic bombs around the world have a chance to do something like that. But the former is highly unlikely, and the latter is just a guess.
Extinction remains a mystery
Much more interesting is the question of whether the same will happen to us as to other species that have become extinct as a result of climate change on the planet. It is not as spectacular as in the movies, but in itself it is quite interesting. Why species are becoming extinct - as a result of climate change or for other reasons - is still a mystery.
In the history of the Earth, extinction, if viewed over time, is a statistical process that occurs by chance. But at certain times due to crises - like now, for example - significantly more species die out than on average. Unfortunately, only in isolated cases is it known as a result of the action of which specific mechanisms in the course of the history of the Earth the extinction of species occurred and, first of all, which species were discussed in certain circumstances. Many species survived one crisis only to die in the next under certain conditions. It is possible that it really was a matter of luck.
Promotional video:
On the other hand, you can identify patterns that indicate certain patterns. The exact characteristics of a species - size, feeding and breeding patterns, and so on - are likely to influence the risk of extinction during a crisis. Numerous studies are underway in this area, because today, due to abrupt changes in the environment, many species of animals and plants are subject to serious problems. There is evidence that climate change and species extinction are linked in a certain way: the faster and more climate changes occur, the higher the likelihood of mass extinction of species.
Who will survive crises
Besides, climate is only part of the problem. Called a "biodiversity crisis," the devastation of ecosystems, an abnormal increase in new infectious diseases affecting not only humans, and dramatic changes in the nitrogen cycle are also putting pressure on many species. It would be interesting, of course, to find out if mankind will ever manage to get into the Red Book.
The first counterargument that comes to mind is that we are purposefully changing the environment to our advantage and therefore we simply won't face this problem. But I think this argument is unconvincing. Firstly, because the concept of “to your advantage” includes many different motivations, not least the development of the economy and the acquisition of new living space, and secondly, such changes have unpredictable consequences.
But the good news is that the factors that are likely to make animals more vulnerable to crises are not ours. It is practically generally accepted that the small number of individuals, their small distribution area and the inability to travel long distances indicate that the chances of this species becoming extinct are very high. But the species widespread throughout the world with 8 billion individuals, of which, according to statistics, half of them travel through space every year using jet engines, does not fall into this category of increased risk.
But our other qualities are somewhat problematic. We humans are a fairly numerous and long-lived species, producing few offspring, but with a high chance of survival. Unlike us, mice live for about one year and produce new mice every two weeks. Which of these two strategies for coping with the crisis is better is unclear.
About people and mice
On the one hand, animal populations with short reproductive cycles are subject to greater fluctuations and thus have a high chance of dying out in unfortunate circumstances. On the other hand, long-lived organisms take significantly longer to recover from a crisis and are therefore more susceptible to painful repetitions for longer. Another possible factor is basal metabolic rate, that is, the minimum amount of energy required to ensure the normal functioning of the body under standard conditions. If it is extremely high, as in our case, then the risk of extinction increases, as in molluscs. The unusual body size in mammals - both very large and very small - can also be viewed in our time as a disadvantage that increases the risk of extinction, and this also speaks not in our favor.
The question remains open whether technology and culture will help us survive or, on the contrary, will make us more vulnerable. On the one hand, for many millennia, technical means have made us more independent from environmental fluctuations, and it will be the same in the future. On the other hand, culturally and socially, we are becoming increasingly dependent on them. This means: if the technical infrastructure stops functioning for a long time, it will be difficult for us to exist at a lower level, because we do not have the corresponding know-how.
In addition, many high-density societies without this infrastructure are unable to meet the basic needs for water and food. This is likely to lead to chaos and reduce people's ability to cope with the crisis through technical and cultural interventions.
I personally don’t believe technology and culture will make a big difference. The time periods with which we are dealing in this case are too different. Now it is difficult for human societies to imagine what will happen even in a hundred years, and possible extinction is a process that will occur during the life of five to ten, or even more generations and which can be prevented over the same period of time. In addition, there is a risk that the attempt to cope with climate change by targeted action due to unforeseen effects will end in failure.
No guarantees
But all this is ultimately pure speculation - in one direction or another. As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence today that the climate in the future will seriously threaten the existence of humanity. While rapid and noticeable climate change increases the risk for all species, the knowledge we have accumulated so far about extinction gives us the right to think that we are among the less endangered species.
Whether the less endangered species are really not threatened depends, of course, on how rapidly the crisis develops. In addition, there are a number of warning signals that can indicate associated risks. But it's not just climate change that can play a fatal role. It is enough that they aggravate other processes. For example, conflicts that can lead to a global nuclear war. But all this, as already mentioned, is an assumption.
But even without the influence of the climate, the widespread multiple increase in mortality in almost all groups of animals is a serious cause for concern. And with a rapid climate change, the situation will not change for the better. Biotic crises are bad for food webs, and the one who is at the top in them will sink below. In addition, we simply do not know why the survival and death of species in the phases of extinction really depends, so it would be hasty to consider the knowledge available today as sufficiently reliable.
Lars Fischer