Future vision

Yea we can destroy our planet alone! We don't your help with that!

Ayy lmao?

the planet isn't going anywhere. if anything is in danger, it's you, fucktard.

Unless nukes render the world uninhabitable, the perpetuity of mankind will probably be ensured by preppers.

YO, ITS 3030. I WANT YA'LL TO MEET DELTRON 0, AND AUTOMATOR.

this.

That's the future if libertarianism takes over

I think that there's a possibility that we'll find a way to colonize another planet and/or live in space. This will become a priority by the year 2150, when it is clear that there is a threat to humanity: Earth becomes uninhabitable for the unluckiest 10% of the human race due to pollution, global warming, overpopulation, war, famine, etc.

Progress will begin slowly, though by 2200 there will be huge leaps of success that make the idea seem real. Unfortunately, as the population continues to suffer through the 2200s, progress will slow.

If we can overcome deterioration well enough to maintain order and the scientific community is able to maintain progress, we can GTFO of Earth before it becomes completely barren. I set the theoretical deadline at the year 2350.

If we haven't left by then, the human race will fall into social disarray and all hopes of science saving us will vanish. By 2400, we'll see the vast majority of people living in third-world-like conditions. There will still be a few wealthy individuals who live well, and they will run the show for the remaining 99%. Government will cease to function. Population, life expectancy and birth rates will be dramatically reduced by then, and the last traces of humankind will begin to vanish by 2500.

If, however, we've managed to colonize another planet by 2350, our success depends on a few factors:
1. Quantity of people we've sent to live there. More is better. A few hundred is a minimum for a successful seeding of an entirely new civilization, with a few thousand bringing superior diversity and faster colonization.
2. Quality of the people we've sent there. We should strive to send superlative examples of our species, with priorities including health, intelligence, leadership abilities, etc.
3. Whether a good government is put into effect. There are lots of opportunities for fuck-ups here.

There are a lot of other things that could affect the outcome, but those are some of the most important in my opinion. If we get it right, humankind could prosper for thousands more years, and from the remote location perhaps find solutions to Earth's problems.

Even then we'll still probly live. We can survive in the bunkers longer than the radiation would feasibly last.

How long could the fallout feasibly last? All answers I could find just talked around the question and never directly answered the question.

I've seen estimates of 1 to 5 years for lingering damage.

It's important to note that while nuclear blasts are huge, their effects are still relatively localized: only people within a few miles will surely die, and provided people can take cover for the first 7-49 hours they stand a good chance of avoiding acute radiation sickness. The area downwind from the bomb will experience lingering radioactive effects for the full 1-5 years, but we're still only talking on the scale of a major metropolitan area.

In other words, if people within a few miles can survive the blast, take cover for a day or two, and then leave the area, they'll be fine.

There aren't enough nuclear weapons in the world to make the world (or even a country the size of the USA) uninhabitable, since each bomb would only have lasting effects within a few hundred miles.

On the other hand, however, the targets of said blasts would determine the impact on society:

For example, if 50 bombs were distributed equally by area over the entire continental USA and impacted at the same time, hundreds of thousands of people would die. Harmful radiation would blanket the country, but it would be patchy. Government and social order would be lightly disrupted, and the American way of life would be preserved after a few years of rehabilitation.

If the same 50 bombs targeted major cities, such as NYC, Washington D.C., state capitals, centers for commerce, other highly-populated areas, etc., we'd lose tens of millions of lives AND the social order would be reduced to chaos.

If the same bombs all targeted power plants, water treatment facilities, and other key utilities, the death toll would probably again range in the hundreds of thousands, but the quality of life for everyone in the country would be ruined.

Good thing I don't live in the USA.

Barring some insane Ozymandias level plot for world peace, I think we'll all be dead by 3000. We finally have the technology to destroy ourselves. Enough nukes to completely cover the planet MULTIPLE TIMES OVER. WWIII, when it happens (and it will happen), will probably wipe us all out.

please stop conflating libertarianism with anarchism

that's what the anarchists want.

The thing about radioactive isotopes is the longer they take to decay, the less harmful they are (as a general rule, not all types of radiation are equal).
Fear mongers LOVE to mention how certain isotopes will last billions of years, but these are the kinds of elements that you can spend prolonged periods of time around and have no ill effects. Some of the elements will give you cancer within seconds of exposure, but these will only take a few seconds to decay (many of them decay in microseconds). The danger zone is isotopes with half lives within the decades range. They're gonna give you some ill effects within a couple minutes of being around them an they'll contaminate the area for a couple decades. Nukes don't put these out in terribly large quantities though, they're much more common in nuclear power plants. That's why Chernobyl took so long to become safe for humans to be in. On top of that, many bugout bunkers across the US and other countries are stocked with enough food to keep people alive for this time.

I've made several posts on Holla Forums using the USA as an example, and the first reply is always "I don't live in the USA." Whenever I use an imperial measurement, the first reply is always something like "What the fuck is a yard?"

Does the world hate us enough that the mere mention of anything American turn people into babies?

Maybe I'm overreacting here. I digress.

I used USA as the example because it kinda seems like we're the most likely target for nukes right about now.

This is true, and I failed to mention a half-life vs. acute danger synopsis in my post. The end result is the same no matter what though: if people can survive the initial blast, stay relatively well-shielded for a couple days (until the dust settles) AND relocate in a timely fashion to an area determined to be safe, they'll be fine.

I mentioned not being from the US because clearly, the US will be more fucked than rural Norway in the case of nuclear war.

In that case, I apologize for my inappropriate reaction, good sir.

It really does happen a lot though.

And yes, we are fucked. I'm very upset about the current state of the USA, especially since most of the idiots who live here don't even care that their ridiculously-unqualified president is sticking his tongue out at North Korea while they claim to have a loaded gun under their jacket pointed right at us.

That's because the rest of the world actually doesn't know what a yard is. Like it seems roughly similar to a metre, but my yard is a lot bigger than that. Do Americans have such tiny yards? I thought it was a big country with lots of space.

The choice was between either an idiot, or someone who cheated in the primary elections. No matter what you say about the idiot, if you let someone who got caught cheating in an election become your president, that's it, that's the end of your country's democracy, or any pretense of it that may have existed.

I'm not American, which means that my country's media and government got even more triggered over Trump than yours, but although I don't agree with all his policies, that's frankly irrelevant. A vote for Trump was quite literally a vote for democracy, and I'm glad you guys were able to stop the actual undemocratic candidate from winning. It's just too bad that your system is so fucked that this was the only choice you were left with after she cheated the only other real candidate out of the race. I mean the Republicans tried their best to rig their own primaries against Trump, so if any of them won it would have arguably been as bad as Clinton. Trump and Sanders were the only ones not cheating.

in the future jews will birth you like good goyim cattle in test tubes and they will live forever with cybernetics
welcome to hell