That’s the question posed by a Scientific American article published on May 12, 2021 (read it here). The author adopts a statistical approach, which isn’t quite satisfying, because it doesn’t fully take into account the, well, human factor.
Hard to tell, actually, because: “Wise public policy could mitigate the risk from technological catastrophes associated with climate change, self-inflicted pandemics or wars.” So far humanity’s track record on that isn’t real encouraging.
The author suggests colonizing space to establish new habitats before we totally trash this one. He acknowledges one could ask, “Why waste valuable time and money on space ventures that are not devoted to our most urgent needs right here on planet Earth?” But argues that,
“Before surrendering to this premise, we should recognize that attending strictly to mundane goals will not provide us with the broader skill set necessary to adapt to changing circumstances in the long run. A narrow focus on temporary irritants would resemble historical obsessions that ended up being irrelevant, such as “How can we remove the increasing volumes of horse manure from city streets?” … or “How do you construct a huge physical grid of telephone landlines?”
— problems that were solved by inventing the automobile and cellphone. He doesn’t go into the new problems created by automobiles and cellphones. Rather, he says,
“True, we must focus our immediate attention on local problems, but we also need inspiration that elevates our perspective to a grander scale and opens new horizons. Narrowing our field of view drives us to conflicts because it amplifies our differences and limited resources. Instead, a broader perspective fosters cooperation in response to global challenges. And there is no better fit for such a perspective than science, the “infinite-sum game” that can extend the life span of humanity. As Oscar Wilde noted: ‘We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars’. Here’s hoping for more of us looking up.”
I, like you, read this article expecting to find a prediction about species survival as it relates to homo sapiens.
It seems what we got, instead, is a sales pitch for telescopes.
Nature offers no reason why evolution can’t go in reverse, and casual observation suggests that process may already be underway (image below). But this isn’t just conjectural; recent research confirms humans are, on average, getting dumber (see article here).
There are a number of scenarios involving just natural events that happen on Earth or could happen that suggest we don’t have all that time. Perhaps getting to other planets will help, but like Pacific mariners not all discovered Pacific islands were paradise, and there was no guarantee of continued connections. Species typically last five million years or so. Species go extinct. There are exceptions like crocodiles.
Yes we are mammals with atomic and hydrogen bombs and it is unlikely all nations with them or having the capacity to build them will give them up. Yet only two have been dropped in war. Maybe if each nation had like 10 warheads that could create peace. At least we have not