(April 25, 2011 at 4:49 am)Chuck Wrote: A death toll of a million would be a staggering humanitarian catastrophe. A death toll of a billion would be an unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe. BBut a humanitarian catastrophe is not a species survival catastrophe. Out of a total population of 6 billion, a death toll of even 5.9 billion will not begin to endanger the survival of our species. It take a death toll of 5.99999 billion to genuinely emperile our specie's survival.
Point taken. However, homo sapien species didn't have to deal with a world that had been ravaged of all resources and by possible nuclear war. When people run out of food there's going to be war. Entire countries will see no worse fate than dying of starvation; so exceptional means will be taken to secure their "right to live". Thus lets say those 5.9 billion people do die as a combined result of worldwide nuclear war and lack of resources. It's very probable that the survivors of this hypothetical time are not hunter/gatherers. These people are not farmers or woodsman. These are not homo sapiens trained in the art of survival. Many of these people will have 'unlearned' those 'primitive' skills in trade for knowing how to program their Ipod. Add to that, that the world of the homo sapien no longer exists and that their is only nuclear fallout and a complete lack of resources.... maybe their odds aren't so good.
Of course, I'm only playing devil's advocate here though, cause I think it is possible that the human race will survive .... I just don't seem to be quite so sure of it as you may possibly be.