I read “2/3 of humans will be in the final 2⁄3 of humans” combined with the term “doomsday” as meaning that there would be 2⁄3 of humanity around to actually witness/experience whatever ended humanity. Thus, we should expect to see whatever event does this. This obviously makes no sense. The actual meaning is simply that if you made a line of all the people who will ever live, we’re probably in the latter 2⁄3 of it. Thus, there will likely only be so many more people. Thus, some “doomsday” type event will occur before too many more people have existed; it need not affect any particular number of those people, and it need not occur at any particular time.
It’s not necessary that 2⁄3 of the people who ever live be alive simultaneously. It’s only necessary that the last humans not a) all die simultaneously and b) constitute more than 2⁄3 of all humans ever. You can still have a last 2⁄3 without it being one giant Armageddon that kills them in one go.
I agree in principle, but I’m curious as to how much one is stretching the term “doomsday.” If we never develop true immortality, 100% of all humans will die at some point, and we can be sure we’re part of that 100%. I don’t think “death” counts as a doomsday event, even if it kills everyone. Similarly, some special virus that kills people 5 minutes before they would otherwise die could kill 100% of the future population, but I wouldn’t really think of it as a doomsday virus. Doomsday need not kill everyone in one go, but I don’t think it can take centuries (unless it’s being limited by the speed of light) and still be properly called a doomsday event.
That said, I’m still curious as to what evidence supports any claim of such an event actually happening without narrowing down anything about how or when it will happen.
Sure. But the human species can go extinct on one day without a vast number of humans dying on that day. Maybe it’s just one little old lady who took a damn long time to kick the bucket, and then finally she keels over and that’s “doomsday”.
Edit again: OK, I get it. That was kind of dumb.
I read “2/3 of humans will be in the final 2⁄3 of humans” combined with the term “doomsday” as meaning that there would be 2⁄3 of humanity around to actually witness/experience whatever ended humanity. Thus, we should expect to see whatever event does this. This obviously makes no sense. The actual meaning is simply that if you made a line of all the people who will ever live, we’re probably in the latter 2⁄3 of it. Thus, there will likely only be so many more people. Thus, some “doomsday” type event will occur before too many more people have existed; it need not affect any particular number of those people, and it need not occur at any particular time.
It’s not necessary that 2⁄3 of the people who ever live be alive simultaneously. It’s only necessary that the last humans not a) all die simultaneously and b) constitute more than 2⁄3 of all humans ever. You can still have a last 2⁄3 without it being one giant Armageddon that kills them in one go.
I agree in principle, but I’m curious as to how much one is stretching the term “doomsday.” If we never develop true immortality, 100% of all humans will die at some point, and we can be sure we’re part of that 100%. I don’t think “death” counts as a doomsday event, even if it kills everyone. Similarly, some special virus that kills people 5 minutes before they would otherwise die could kill 100% of the future population, but I wouldn’t really think of it as a doomsday virus. Doomsday need not kill everyone in one go, but I don’t think it can take centuries (unless it’s being limited by the speed of light) and still be properly called a doomsday event.
That said, I’m still curious as to what evidence supports any claim of such an event actually happening without narrowing down anything about how or when it will happen.
Unless I missed something, “doomsday” just means the extinction of the human species.
Doesn’t it refer to the day of the extinction? “Doomsmillenium” doesn’t sound nearly as good, I think.
Sure. But the human species can go extinct on one day without a vast number of humans dying on that day. Maybe it’s just one little old lady who took a damn long time to kick the bucket, and then finally she keels over and that’s “doomsday”.
That’s what Psychohistorian was saying shouldn’t be called doomsday, and I tend to agree.
Yes, and the doomsday argument is not in regards to whether or not doomsday will occur, but when.