give justification for the following statement: human beings are going to die out soon.?

Answer 1

I don't know that such a statement could be justified, because there is no known way for humans to become extinct that has more than a trivial chance of happening.

Global climate change won't do it. Even the worst-case scenarios (which are themselves rather unlikely) would at most involve a disruption to our civilization, but not our extinction or even a high casualty number.

A global pandemic won't do it. Humans are both too genetically diverse and too geographically spread out for any pathogen to get all of us. Also, unlike other animals we can actually fight back.

An asteroid strike could, but the odds of such an event happening in the next century are quite slim, and beyond a century we should be able to foresee a future collision with enough time to do something about it, plus we'll have more mature technology then too.

A full-scale nuclear war might, but again, such an event just isn't in the cards. The cold war is over, and the major nuclear powers have matured enough to realize that a nuke war is in nobody's interest. Also, there are enough humans in remote pockets of the Earth that even if such a thing were to happen, there should be a few survivors.

Any other possible cause of near-term human extinction I can think of is just too remote and implausible to even consider.

Answer 2

My son's philosophy on that one is true. He feels that the population explosion will kill out humankind. He also is very much into the theory that first California, then the rest of the US will be under water in the future.

He feels people should not have children if they are not readily able to provide for them...that people on drugs should not be making babies...that there's just not enough room, food, and other resources for everyone.

I'm not saying I agree with his ideas, but I have been thinking about them...his theories are not impossible, that's for certain.

Answer 3

Well, something could cause "Homo sapiens sapiens" to die out, but not every single man in existence would die, and the new "man" who came along would be called "Homo something-or-other." It has already happened many times. The first was Homo habilis.
Why did I include "sapiens" twice as Man's definition? Because Homo sapiens died tens of thousands of years ago. We are his only living cousin. The double "sapiens" indicates that we have consciousness of our own consciousness, something not provable with our ancient cousin.

Answer 4

Atoms progressed by using the years from much less progressed debris, yet organic methods guided this progression. Or, atoms progressed by using the years from much less progressed debris yet organic methods had no area in progression. Or, organic methods created atoms of their present day style interior the final 10,000 years, or because of the fact the tip of the final ice age.

Answer 5

Depends on what you call soon.
If by soon you mean the next few hundred years i'd have to agree.

Answer 6

False..