Where is that number from?
http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest
.
.
.
Why restrict yourself to the real world?
It is probably beneficial to maintain contact with the real world at least once a day. I find that this works for me. Also it is useful in conversation as their are common frameworks of reference.
]]>Roaches also survive without their head for some time.
]]>Still shouldn't a game be in keeping with scientific and economic possibility.
Why restrict yourself to the real world?
Also the rainforests contribute about a quarter of the earths oxygen.
Where is that number from?
Soroban, that sounds frighteningly familiar to a common creationist argument. See this video.
]]>No, growing up in a really big metropolis, I saw people actually killing other people. Still shouldn't a game be in keeping with scientific and economic possibility. Unless you are writing a cartoon, we draw a big hammer and use it to smash the earth. Fine for Bugs Bunny but not realistic.
No need for a correction these bacteria are the forerunners of plants. They derive energy through photosynthesis. Also the rainforests contribute about a quarter of the earths oxygen.
]]>It's a game, and nothing more. Have you never played a game where you had to kill other people? Same idea, not real.
Edit: And I would like to correct one misconception. Cyanobacteria are responsible for producing the majority of the Earth's oxygen, not plants. Indeed, it was cyanobacteria which changed primordial earth from it's harsh atmosphere where aerobic bacteria thrived into the oxygen rich atmosphere we have today.
]]>Do you really believe that we could survive as the only species left. Even if we achieved that idea, don't plants produce all the world oxygen. Biologists worry about removing a single species from the food chain and you speak of killing everything.
]]>I think suicidal bombardment is the 'best' way humans could try to eradicate another species. They would succeed with most species, but not with all.
Certainly it would be the "finale". But there is plenty of destruction we could do before hand. For example, build a massive city in some resource rich country like US, Russia, or China. This could be a base of operations, and it's sole purpose would be (1) to keep the population alive (i.e. food, water, etc) and (2) produce nukes, jets, and other weapons of destruction.
But instead of sending all the nukes at once, we could instead just do an area at a time. The great thing about radiation is that nothing will be able to grow there for 100 years or so. Any plants that do try to reemerge will be killed, any seeds that attempt to lie dormant likewise. Now there is an awful lot of life underground (deep underground) that won't be immediately effected. I'm thinking along the lines of bacteria. But even that should be killed off by radiation, no?
So how many nukes would it take to cover all the earth?
In the meantime, we could be thinking of other ways too. Is it possible to mass produce bromine, or some other extremely toxic chemicals? How much DDT would it take to eliminate life in the ocean?
]]>I don't know which species would survive, but an ice age has occurred before, and obviously certain species did survive.
It's worse than that (for the person who wants to kill everything ). There is evidence to suggest that at one point in time the entire surface of the Earth was covered in ice. It has been hypothesized that life survived this time period in the water near the equator where the ice was thin enough to let the sun light through. I would imagine that life would also have survived in deep ocean vents, if it was there at that time. I don't really recall, I'd have to do some research on it.
Life can be rather... stubborn.
]]>The nuclear winter would be more catastrophic however, it could plunge the whole world into a possible ice age. Humans would likely not survive. But an ice age has occurred before, and those lucky enough to be adapted to it will survive. In particular, I've heard that co.ckroaches are specially adapted to survive nuclear fallout.
I don't know which species would survive, but an ice age has occurred before, and obviously certain species did survive.
I think suicidal bombardment is the 'best' way humans could try to eradicate another species. They would succeed with most species, but not with all.
]]>New idea to deal with these ocean-dwellers: how possible would it be to boil the seas?
Thank you! Someone is trying to play along...
I did some quick calculations, starting with these assumptions:
Average temperature of the ocean: 4C
Volume of the ocean: 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters
Specific heat of ocean water: 4.186 J/gram C (note this is the specific heat of pure water)
Average payload of a nuclear weapon: 1000 TJ
Percent efficiency (the amount of heat that actually gets in the water): 20%
It seems like this is a reasonable upper bound, assuming the nukes are evenly distributed across the ocean. The number I arrive at is 2.530.000.000.000.000 nukes. Please check my work.
]]>Did you guys know that PETA has a Human Voluntary Exctinction
program on its site (or a link to it). Why don't we leave the mice and rabbits alone and go for the gusto.
Sounds plausible.
]]>"Kill Krill"
]]>