How do you think the world will end?

so whats it going to be, guys:
nuclear holocaust Mad Max style? a giant solar flare? asteriod attack? alien invasion?

*lights fart*

Bye.

this is how the world ends
this is how the world ends
this is how the world ends
not with a bang but a light fart

http://www.livescience.com/technology/destroy_earth_mp-1.html

#2 is still my prime contender

von Neumann machines ftw

Depends on what you mean by world and what you mean by end.

There's a wonderful SciFi short story about the end of the world that ends by revealing to the reader that the end of the world means to the characters the end of the exclusivity of Earth as our home. The final line, paraphrased is: "So the world ended and the universe opened up."

But a classical "end of the world" scenario I'd have to pick something very sudden. If by human means it would have to be nuclear war, the sheer military force of various governments would halt anything else.

An asteroid might do it, if it happens relatively soon, let's say within 75 years or so.

On the optomistic side the end of the world might be a technological singularity that ends the world in the sense that we no longer need it, humanity matures technologically to the point that we are freed from dependence on the Earth. Or, perhaps more realistically, a technology that accelerates transhumanism so that we're no longer traditionally human. Thus wiping us out without harming anyone.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.livescience.com/technology/destroy_earth_mp-1.html

#2 is still my prime contender

von Neumann machines ftw

Couldn't we just make anti-VNMs?

The Earth will burn up when the sun moves into the red giant stage of it's life. That will be about 3 billion years from now.

All the fat people eat our food. We died of starvation.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Couldn't we just make anti-VNMs?

they would have to destroy VNMs faster than they could recreate themselves, and probably before some critical threshold of VNMs were created.

also, the anti-VNMs would require, hypothetically, resources from the Earth to create, potentially speeding up the process by which Earth is dismantled as new anti-VNMs must be created to stop the actual VNMs... and I just wrote a best selling sci-fi novel, or a really bad Dr. Who episode.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Depends on what you mean by world and what you mean by end.

There's a wonderful SciFi short story about the end of the world that ends by revealing to the reader that the end of the world means to the characters the end of the exclusivity of Earth as our home. The final line, paraphrased is: "So the world ended and the universe opened up."

But a classical "end of the world" scenario I'd have to pick something very sudden. If by human means it would have to be nuclear war, the sheer military force of various governments would halt anything else.

An asteroid might do it, if it happens relatively soon, let's say within 75 years or so.

On the optomistic side the end of the world might be a technological singularity that ends the world in the sense that we no longer need it, humanity matures technologically to the point that we are freed from dependence on the Earth. Or, perhaps more realistically, a technology that accelerates transhumanism so that we're no longer traditionally human. Thus wiping us out without harming anyone.

I guess it depends if we are talking about a) the end of human civilization, b) the extinction of man, c) the end of all life on earth, or d) the destruction of the Earth itself.

I tend to think a virus outbreak is the most likely for a), and b) is, imho, impossible without also having c) or d) occur. c) could possibly be caused by nuclear war, but even then, my thoughts are that, unless wiping out all forms of exotic life were the expressed purpose of the nuclear conflict, cave dwellers, deep ocean dwellers and the like would remain. d) I don't feel humans have the technology for, with the exception of just ejecting the mass of the earth into space piece by piece.

Well, if global warming renders the Earth uninhabitable in 100 years, and at the time we have colonies on the moon and have to live there, would that qualify as the world "ending?"

I wouldn't call the extinction of man the end of the world...

sun implosion in 5 billion years
overpopulation as at the forfront
nuclear holocaust doesn't seem likely
pollution/global warming is a maybe
manly natural disasters or outside factors for me

Originally posted by gobstakid777
manly natural disasters

durhulk

So we are talking about the Earth like totally being obliterated? Like Alderran?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So we are talking about the Earth like totally being obliterated? Like Alderran?

that is what I think of when I hear "end of the world"

though, there are many possibilities

Originally posted by inimalist
that is what I think of when I hear "end of the world"

though, there are many possibilities

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I don't think it'll happen.

it sort of has to, eventually, be it when our sun expands, or, failing that, when the universe itself exerts so much force in expanding that it rips apart the atomic bonds of all mater, or shrinks all the matter in the universe to the size of a singularity.

Human extinction is way more likely /shrug

Prolly. We'll all be gone, moot point.

word!