I don't think we will extint that easily, but could be a mass dead in global scale.
Even after a nuclear holocaust some people would survive in anti-nuclear shelters with long food and stations to recycle air and water.
The bad use of technology, and the bad investment or lack of good investments to make technology better in some aspects, like cleaner and new technologies to cleam air and water and recycle trash (especially plastic).
In the case of a nuclear doom they should have a sellection of better people for the shelter, more inteligent and civilized people. At least if the world will bloom aways they can't miss the chance of reduce criminal and sociopath incidence among human population.
The problem ithe human neurology. People are not really affected by be aware of the dead of children and sufsering. If the gradual changes, nature destruction have a constant and direct effect of a particular private thing of each person/citizen, people would be more participative.
For example if web signal fall and somone lost their Candy Crush game, they every time nature get worse, they would be more eco green citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
That's an interesting question; are we (humanity) more resilient to extinction due to our advanced technology, or more prone to extinction due to it?
My assumption is that most people who believe global warming is the biggest problem probably also believe technology is largely to blame.
|