>>> I think the single greatest threat is whatever people are most scared 
>>> of.
>>
>> No.
>> Of course not :-).
>
> I don't agree. My 2-minute theory reasons that humans will probably be
> involved in our own demise, and that sufficiently maiming and killing
> a very large number of humans can, for most of us, be considered just
> as good as extinction. (Do I care what it is if I'm dead?)

This is somewhat an issue of logical process and topic at hand.
If you want to define a topic as being something else completely different 
or somewhat different or just as good as etc, and if you want to apply 
personal perspectives, as is the general trend in many 'modern' 'eveything 
is realtive' / 'my truth is right for me' approaches, then you are 
absolutely correct, or partially correct, or completely wrong, entirely as 
adjudged by you and as you wish, or not.

However, if we are talking about what are liable to be the things most 
likely to exterminate all human life on earth, or all life, then you are 
necessarily wrong.

Any threat not capable of achieveing mass extinction at all doesn't feature 
on the list.
After that it's a matter of probabilities.

Nuclear weapons may work if all life agreed to huddle close to all bombs 
while all bombs are detonated. Anything much less than that wouldn't work.

GM has a fair crack at all human life, a lesser crack at all surface and 
ocean life, and actually not much chance at life inside the earth (eg 
withinn "solid" rock etc.) It's been suggested that there is more life by 
mass living inside rock than on the whole of the rest of the planet.

That pretty much leaves a large impactor - comet or whatever. Easy enough to 
destroy all human life.  Less so all 'surface life'. Would need to be very 
very large to deal with "all" life. Things are looking better all the time 
:-).


   Russell

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist