Bioterrorism.
Climate change will be inconvenient and may cause a war, but it won't end us on its own. And natural plagues happen all the time. Nuclear war is pretty likely, but a full-scale nuclear war is less so.
But if a bioterrorist released smallpox, it could wipe out over 90% of the population. We no longer have any resistance to the virus, especially if it engineered. And the technology to engineer superviruses is becoming more and more widespread. All it takes is one "evil" person to go to one airport, and within weeks, the entire globe will start dying.
2007-01-15 11:38:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
A or B. First, climate change. that is a big deal but some people dont think its really happening. Soon, the water will flood the lands and that wont b good. Second, the plaque. It COULD happen. But it might only happen in poor countries. The nuclear war...i have to say no. But what is the point of wars that has something that could kill u
2007-01-15 20:37:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by jeff 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
D) None of the above. None of them will result in a complete destruction of mankind, and certainly none of them would even come close to a complete destruction of the planet Earth. However, in the spirit of this poll, I pick B) as the one that will come closest to throwing civilization back to the Dark Ages, since, as Chernobyl has shown, entire regions can end up being inhospitable to (normal) life for decades. At least plagues historically have had only temporary, even if severe, impact on human civilizations, which rebound pretty well from them. Studies of virulent epidemics show that they tend to be short lived, because evolutionarily speaking, viruses that are too successful in killing off the hosts usually become extinct, or revert to a less virulent form. Climate change at its worst will just cause a prolonged period of adjustment, and if people would finally wise up, they can reverse it, so I put it at the bottom of threat level.
2007-01-15 19:39:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by Scythian1950 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Global warming is already being repaired. The most likely way out of that 3 would be Plague, A Biovirus released to combat an enemy... GONE WRONG
2007-01-15 19:38:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by Chaotic Melody 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since none of those options can actually end the Earth, I would have to say D.) The enevitable expansion of the Sun in about 5 billion years.
2007-01-15 21:44:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by ohmneo 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The earth could survive all three disasters. It is just a floating mass in the solar system. It is life on earth that may not survive them.
2007-01-15 20:16:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
North Korea and Iran blowin' up the world most definitely.
2007-01-15 19:38:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ethan S 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
My bet would be on 'C'
But it, like the others would not mean the end of our world. Just the end of humanity as we know it.
Who would survive? And why would they want to?
Imagine such a miserable existance? (survival)
2007-01-15 19:35:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
All three of them.Add bio-disasters.
2007-01-15 19:31:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by Michael V 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I say GLABAL WARMING. And that's true!
2007-01-15 19:31:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by AD 4
·
0⤊
0⤋