Human Extinction Essay

Decent Essays
Mass Extinction of the Human Species

The future is not guaranteed for individuals, and the same is true for all of humanity. Of the millions of species that exist on this planet humans are known as the most intelligent, but maybe this is a misconception. While mankind carries on its activities, the chance of a mass extinction grows with every misuse of the earth. It is more likely that humans will cause their own extinction than it is that they would be wiped out by a natural catastrophe. Humans are also known as a violent species so it is not unreasonable for one to analyze the threat of a mass extinction due to a nuclear war. Humanity is looking into biological warfare as well, and it would be foolish to ignore the risks and the
…show more content…
Our environment is also impacted by the ever growing human population. Some people believe that there is nothing wrong with our habits and reckless behavior, but scientists have proven that ongoing extinctions are caused by humans. We also know that know that the present extinction rate is greater than the background rate of extinction - the rate that species die out under normal conditions (Wilson). This increased rate is caused by human activity, and one example of a human caused mass extinction is the wipeout of several pollinator species due to the uprooting of pollinated varieties of apples. These plants were uprooted because there was a demand for specific apples in the 1980s, so farmers made room for these particular plants by getting rid of the others (Assessment, Millennium …show more content…
The article “It is Extremely Unlikely Human Beings Will Become Extinct” claims that humans will not die out due to a natural event. They also believe that a mass extinction of humans would have to be planned by humans themselves. Their research has led them to believe that there would have to be a series of fatalistic events in order to destroy mankind (Payne); however, the issues they accounted for do not factor in the damage created by human activity. We may not become extinct because of natural events, but there is nothing natural about a nuclear war, biologically enhanced pathogens, or a poisoned

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    During this age, the situation does not call for an even more powerful weapon. This and the fact, countries settle disputes rather than going to war, and if they do go to war, they may not use nuclear weapons. The reason is because “neither the United States nor its enemies will ever start a nuclear war because the other side will retaliate massively and unacceptably”(Parrington). This means that for fear of utter destruction from the other side, countries will not start a massive war. Having little to no wars means that actually using weapons are unnecessary.…

    • 1048 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Although it is true that proliferation may prevent wars through deterrence, and that eradicating nuclear weapons will lead to a lower sense of security, the negative consequences outweigh the benefits. Nuclear proliferation can lead to catastrophic devastation to the entire human population through the deaths of millions of people and losses of trillions of dollars in property. The chances of nuclear terrorism and the growth of a nuclear black market will increase significantly if proliferation occurs in new countries. Furthermore, the deterrence theory does not apply to terrorists and dangerous proletariats such as North Korea due to the huge role psychological mindset plays for the success of the deterrence theory. The growth of nuclear weapons can be countered by a policy of conservative internationalism.…

    • 1231 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The connection of the previous arguments against the use of nuclear weapons to the requirements of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello is that nuclear weapons do not accomplish with the main purpose of Just War Tradition, which is preventing and saving innocent lives. The long-term dangers of radioactive fallout and environmental contamination potentially affect innocent people, allies, enemies, or even one’s own population. Hence, since the side effects of nuclear weapons can’t be measure or controlled, can’t be ever justifiable. The psychologist Eric Fromm supports part of this view by claiming that logic of the way that wars back in the day used to be, are not the same, nor hold for the same standards for modern nuclear wars. The pacifist position argues that the use of nuclear weapons will always be morally wrong because: “1) their use will result in widespread noncombatant deaths and 2) the destructive effects of such weapons will necessarily be out of proportion to any political or military objectives achieved” (p.208).…

    • 1702 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Issue behind dealing with the Threat of Nuclear Wars Nuclear war is a very interesting topic. Everyone agrees that nuclear weapons are dangerous but the issue comes in with how to deal with a nuclear threat. Some debaters believe that nuclear weapons should be banned because humanity cannot survive a nuclear war. The sources I have found for these type of debaters are “Nuclear War: A Greater Threat than Ebola” and “How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb: Toward An Achievable Ban on the Testing of Nuclear Weapons”. Other arguers believe that nuclear weapons do not have to be banned because humanity can survive a nuclear war through shelter.…

    • 1131 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    There are clearly many cons to dropping a very powerful atomic bomb on hundreds of thousands of civilians. Innocent people are not the ones who should be targeted and killed. However, Truman felt like making a statement that would be a sure fire way…

    • 1537 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In addition to reaping economic advantages and increased influence in international politics, these countries, through the development of nuclear weapons, will also gain a sense of security that they will be able to retaliate if attacked. Therefore, proponents of proliferation advocate that robbing countries of these advantages proliferation has to offer is simply…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The people who support utilitarianism, however, argue that at a global scale, the nuclear bombing had actually reduced potential harms done to many countries if the war had continued for several more years. In such argument, the utilitarianism gives a room for benefit of the doubt to the act of nuclear bombing that maybe it was a right action for the time being, neglecting the fact that the intention of nuclear bombing itself was to injure innocent people and win the war. Consequentialism could be helpful in assessing the situation and analyze if it did any good or bad to the society; however, actions cannot be evaluated solely on the results as the intentions or nature of an action is a very important factor in ethics. If a person tried to kill another but instead…

    • 1257 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If people do not die in a nuclear war, they can die at home by exposure to nuclear sites. In that sense, nuclear weapons do not necessary make the world a safer place. It only makes the world a different kind of place. Then, there is also the risk of the weapons getting into the wrong hands. Every country wants WMD, but they also do not want everyone else to have them.…

    • 1073 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If the attack would’ve consisted of regular bombs, the actions of the Japanese would have been similar, but there would have been fewer casualties and a lower chance of future world destruction. With the knowledge of nuclear fission and the power that comes with it, countries are constantly threatening each other with nuclear war. If a future nuclear war were to take place, there would be hardly anything left growing or living. Humanity wouldn’t necessarily be wiped out, but the world would not be a pleasant place to live any longer. Also, scientists working on the bomb were not fully aware of what they were dealing with.…

    • 977 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    And even if we never go to war with our weapons, Worldwide transgressions and arguments are solved easier because they know of our power. On the other hand people who believe our nuclear weapons should be dismantled state their view that nuclear weapons only cause problems. They make other nations not like us because nuclear weapons are very hostile and have nothing friendly about them and hurt the morals of our nation and others ( Pros and Cons of Nuclear Weapons Paragraph 8 ). North Korea feels the need to make more nuclear weapons because of ours. The United States should retain their nuclear arsenal because they help keep our nation safe, If we go to war we can use them to scare off other nations or worst case scenario, use the weapons, and nuclear weapons are more cost efficient than some may…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays