<BTW, in your opinion, is there anything we could do to harm the nature? Do you think if put our mind into it we could destroy our environment enough to bring our own extinction (no short cuts like nuking ourselves to oblivion allowed in the answer)? >
I don't think so. We'd have to quite deliberately commit suicide and it's tough to get 6 billion people to agree to that. Nearly everyone intensely prefers to be alive to dead.
They'll fight to prevent somebody doing something, such as inventing viruses which kill us all, or stopping CO2 production and causing an ice age [which would only do a poor job as we'd all just move towards the equator again].
We could invent a DNA untangler, which would kill all living things. Well, it wouldn't, as we'd miss something. Which would then come back. But we could kill most things as they mostly have to eat other DNA species.
Humans are not having children like the good old days, so keeping the human population up will be doubtful.
In 100 years, assuming cyberspace artificial intelligence and so on don't make huge inroads and our DNA stays more or less the same, DNA engineering making substantial changes but unlikely to do away with lungs and so on, then there might be only a few hundred million people. Or a billion.
N5H1 and the like could yet reduce human population a lot. Though we'd go to war with that more enthusiastically than catching Osama.
Over and out,
Mqurice
PS: Even nukes all going off to maximum effect would be a half-baked effort and 30 years later, there would be plenty of life to be going on with, including humans, who would soon be squabbling over land and who owns what. There would be umpty million humans left. Maybe even a billion. Well, maybe not a billion. Certainly a good gene pool. |
