[geeks] Mr Bill?

[wa2egp at att.net]

> I think it's a defensible position that we already do.  There is no
> creature on the planet that can even come close to threatening our
> position at the top of the food chain (which is about the closest thing
> to a species-neutral definition of ruling the world that I've been able
> to come up with).  Other humans aside, the only things that have killed
> substantial fractions of humanity have been diseases, and even they
> haven't reached very high kill rates.  Even the worst epidemics rarely
> get above about 30-35 percent local kill, and epidemics that bad are
> usually so geographically limited they are barely noticable on a global
> scale.  It takes an endemic disease, like malaria (historical) or AIDS
> (current Africa) to have much effect.

Try the Black Plague.

> > and also take good care of it at the same time, and get obliterated
> > by a big chunk of rock that hits Earth a little too hard.
> 
> It would take a really big chunk.  Humanity's principal trait is
> adaptability; it would take a hell of a thwack to disrupt the planet
> badly enough to do away with the human race.  (It wouldn't take much to
> kill off most of us and make life unpleasant and probably short, by
> modern standards, for most of the remainder.  But to leave not even a
> few enclaves?  Or to be so hard on them that they couldn't wait it out?
> That would be tough.  For example, I don't think a repeat of the
> Cretaceous extinction event, whatever it was, could do it.)

I dunno.  Our social structure is a little wobblely and our bunching up in cities is not very forgiving of massive change.  I fear more would die than necessary.  And if the number left is below what is necessary to build up the population, we're screwed.  Don't want to find out.

Bob