Little known, relatively unlikely, but scientifically plausible, apocalyptic (or near apocalyptic) events












3












$begingroup$


We know the common tropes for an apocalyptic event: meteor/asteroid hits earth; crazy infectious virus/bacteria; AI takes over; we nuke ourselves; climate change; hostile aliens. But what are some other, less known but still plausible, ways an apocalyptic event could go down.



Requirements:




  • Human populations must experience a devastating blow (say at least 75% dead, and does not need to be evenly spread out) or be completely eliminated

  • The blow to humans can be direct (e.g. radiation poisoning) or indirect (e.g. starvation because no arable land)

  • All other plants and animals may or may not be affected (this is unimportant)

  • This has to be somewhat plausible according to today's science (e.g. no time-traveling humans from the future, no we all get sucked into a parallel universe)

  • This can't be a super popular or well known apocalyptic premise (e.g. no hostile AI takeover)


I'm looking for things like: Phytophthora, a water-mould genus that affects a wide range of food crops (think potato famine) mutates and destroys crops worldwide. Or a rogue planet enters the solar system and takes earth out of orbit. Or the whole gamma-ray burst thing. Or a super-volcano goes off. Basically anything that is somewhat scientifcally plausible but not (very) common knowledge. Please also give evidence as to why this event could be feasible (though I would also be interested in well theoriezed events without as much evidence)










share|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You have pretty much hit all the major categories. Anything else would be a variation of them.
    $endgroup$
    – Sonvar
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Various short- or long-term dangers (including those that take a long time to occur) to human civilization have been detailed by people interested in the study or prevention of existential risks, like Nick Bostrom's list here. Evolutionary and cultural pressures might cause long-term civilizational erosion, for example.
    $endgroup$
    – parasoup
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @parasoup I like the idea of cultural collapse induced apocalypse. The fall of the Roman Empire, although it was not entirely an apocalypse, was fairly devastating to those that relied on it for survival.
    $endgroup$
    – Sonvar
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @parasoup Very interesting, I'm having a read and already finding new ideas (e.g. grey goo)
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Agrajag I never said "new". I used phrases like "little known", "not (very) common knowledge", and in my requirements I said "can't be a super popular..." I guess I just mean if you asked the average lay person on the street they would likely not have heard of grey goo or a gamma-ray burst. I don't expect Worldbuilding to come up with completely unheard of theories. I read a lot of sci-fi but don't watch as much on TV - I hadn't even heard of Stargate before (sorry).
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    2 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


We know the common tropes for an apocalyptic event: meteor/asteroid hits earth; crazy infectious virus/bacteria; AI takes over; we nuke ourselves; climate change; hostile aliens. But what are some other, less known but still plausible, ways an apocalyptic event could go down.



Requirements:




  • Human populations must experience a devastating blow (say at least 75% dead, and does not need to be evenly spread out) or be completely eliminated

  • The blow to humans can be direct (e.g. radiation poisoning) or indirect (e.g. starvation because no arable land)

  • All other plants and animals may or may not be affected (this is unimportant)

  • This has to be somewhat plausible according to today's science (e.g. no time-traveling humans from the future, no we all get sucked into a parallel universe)

  • This can't be a super popular or well known apocalyptic premise (e.g. no hostile AI takeover)


I'm looking for things like: Phytophthora, a water-mould genus that affects a wide range of food crops (think potato famine) mutates and destroys crops worldwide. Or a rogue planet enters the solar system and takes earth out of orbit. Or the whole gamma-ray burst thing. Or a super-volcano goes off. Basically anything that is somewhat scientifcally plausible but not (very) common knowledge. Please also give evidence as to why this event could be feasible (though I would also be interested in well theoriezed events without as much evidence)










share|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You have pretty much hit all the major categories. Anything else would be a variation of them.
    $endgroup$
    – Sonvar
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Various short- or long-term dangers (including those that take a long time to occur) to human civilization have been detailed by people interested in the study or prevention of existential risks, like Nick Bostrom's list here. Evolutionary and cultural pressures might cause long-term civilizational erosion, for example.
    $endgroup$
    – parasoup
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @parasoup I like the idea of cultural collapse induced apocalypse. The fall of the Roman Empire, although it was not entirely an apocalypse, was fairly devastating to those that relied on it for survival.
    $endgroup$
    – Sonvar
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @parasoup Very interesting, I'm having a read and already finding new ideas (e.g. grey goo)
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Agrajag I never said "new". I used phrases like "little known", "not (very) common knowledge", and in my requirements I said "can't be a super popular..." I guess I just mean if you asked the average lay person on the street they would likely not have heard of grey goo or a gamma-ray burst. I don't expect Worldbuilding to come up with completely unheard of theories. I read a lot of sci-fi but don't watch as much on TV - I hadn't even heard of Stargate before (sorry).
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    2 hours ago














3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


We know the common tropes for an apocalyptic event: meteor/asteroid hits earth; crazy infectious virus/bacteria; AI takes over; we nuke ourselves; climate change; hostile aliens. But what are some other, less known but still plausible, ways an apocalyptic event could go down.



Requirements:




  • Human populations must experience a devastating blow (say at least 75% dead, and does not need to be evenly spread out) or be completely eliminated

  • The blow to humans can be direct (e.g. radiation poisoning) or indirect (e.g. starvation because no arable land)

  • All other plants and animals may or may not be affected (this is unimportant)

  • This has to be somewhat plausible according to today's science (e.g. no time-traveling humans from the future, no we all get sucked into a parallel universe)

  • This can't be a super popular or well known apocalyptic premise (e.g. no hostile AI takeover)


I'm looking for things like: Phytophthora, a water-mould genus that affects a wide range of food crops (think potato famine) mutates and destroys crops worldwide. Or a rogue planet enters the solar system and takes earth out of orbit. Or the whole gamma-ray burst thing. Or a super-volcano goes off. Basically anything that is somewhat scientifcally plausible but not (very) common knowledge. Please also give evidence as to why this event could be feasible (though I would also be interested in well theoriezed events without as much evidence)










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




We know the common tropes for an apocalyptic event: meteor/asteroid hits earth; crazy infectious virus/bacteria; AI takes over; we nuke ourselves; climate change; hostile aliens. But what are some other, less known but still plausible, ways an apocalyptic event could go down.



Requirements:




  • Human populations must experience a devastating blow (say at least 75% dead, and does not need to be evenly spread out) or be completely eliminated

  • The blow to humans can be direct (e.g. radiation poisoning) or indirect (e.g. starvation because no arable land)

  • All other plants and animals may or may not be affected (this is unimportant)

  • This has to be somewhat plausible according to today's science (e.g. no time-traveling humans from the future, no we all get sucked into a parallel universe)

  • This can't be a super popular or well known apocalyptic premise (e.g. no hostile AI takeover)


I'm looking for things like: Phytophthora, a water-mould genus that affects a wide range of food crops (think potato famine) mutates and destroys crops worldwide. Or a rogue planet enters the solar system and takes earth out of orbit. Or the whole gamma-ray burst thing. Or a super-volcano goes off. Basically anything that is somewhat scientifcally plausible but not (very) common knowledge. Please also give evidence as to why this event could be feasible (though I would also be interested in well theoriezed events without as much evidence)







science-based hard-science apocalypse






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 3 hours ago









B.KenobiB.Kenobi

1735




1735












  • $begingroup$
    You have pretty much hit all the major categories. Anything else would be a variation of them.
    $endgroup$
    – Sonvar
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Various short- or long-term dangers (including those that take a long time to occur) to human civilization have been detailed by people interested in the study or prevention of existential risks, like Nick Bostrom's list here. Evolutionary and cultural pressures might cause long-term civilizational erosion, for example.
    $endgroup$
    – parasoup
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @parasoup I like the idea of cultural collapse induced apocalypse. The fall of the Roman Empire, although it was not entirely an apocalypse, was fairly devastating to those that relied on it for survival.
    $endgroup$
    – Sonvar
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @parasoup Very interesting, I'm having a read and already finding new ideas (e.g. grey goo)
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Agrajag I never said "new". I used phrases like "little known", "not (very) common knowledge", and in my requirements I said "can't be a super popular..." I guess I just mean if you asked the average lay person on the street they would likely not have heard of grey goo or a gamma-ray burst. I don't expect Worldbuilding to come up with completely unheard of theories. I read a lot of sci-fi but don't watch as much on TV - I hadn't even heard of Stargate before (sorry).
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    2 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    You have pretty much hit all the major categories. Anything else would be a variation of them.
    $endgroup$
    – Sonvar
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Various short- or long-term dangers (including those that take a long time to occur) to human civilization have been detailed by people interested in the study or prevention of existential risks, like Nick Bostrom's list here. Evolutionary and cultural pressures might cause long-term civilizational erosion, for example.
    $endgroup$
    – parasoup
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @parasoup I like the idea of cultural collapse induced apocalypse. The fall of the Roman Empire, although it was not entirely an apocalypse, was fairly devastating to those that relied on it for survival.
    $endgroup$
    – Sonvar
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @parasoup Very interesting, I'm having a read and already finding new ideas (e.g. grey goo)
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Agrajag I never said "new". I used phrases like "little known", "not (very) common knowledge", and in my requirements I said "can't be a super popular..." I guess I just mean if you asked the average lay person on the street they would likely not have heard of grey goo or a gamma-ray burst. I don't expect Worldbuilding to come up with completely unheard of theories. I read a lot of sci-fi but don't watch as much on TV - I hadn't even heard of Stargate before (sorry).
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    2 hours ago
















$begingroup$
You have pretty much hit all the major categories. Anything else would be a variation of them.
$endgroup$
– Sonvar
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
You have pretty much hit all the major categories. Anything else would be a variation of them.
$endgroup$
– Sonvar
3 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
Various short- or long-term dangers (including those that take a long time to occur) to human civilization have been detailed by people interested in the study or prevention of existential risks, like Nick Bostrom's list here. Evolutionary and cultural pressures might cause long-term civilizational erosion, for example.
$endgroup$
– parasoup
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Various short- or long-term dangers (including those that take a long time to occur) to human civilization have been detailed by people interested in the study or prevention of existential risks, like Nick Bostrom's list here. Evolutionary and cultural pressures might cause long-term civilizational erosion, for example.
$endgroup$
– parasoup
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
@parasoup I like the idea of cultural collapse induced apocalypse. The fall of the Roman Empire, although it was not entirely an apocalypse, was fairly devastating to those that relied on it for survival.
$endgroup$
– Sonvar
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@parasoup I like the idea of cultural collapse induced apocalypse. The fall of the Roman Empire, although it was not entirely an apocalypse, was fairly devastating to those that relied on it for survival.
$endgroup$
– Sonvar
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
@parasoup Very interesting, I'm having a read and already finding new ideas (e.g. grey goo)
$endgroup$
– B.Kenobi
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@parasoup Very interesting, I'm having a read and already finding new ideas (e.g. grey goo)
$endgroup$
– B.Kenobi
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
@Agrajag I never said "new". I used phrases like "little known", "not (very) common knowledge", and in my requirements I said "can't be a super popular..." I guess I just mean if you asked the average lay person on the street they would likely not have heard of grey goo or a gamma-ray burst. I don't expect Worldbuilding to come up with completely unheard of theories. I read a lot of sci-fi but don't watch as much on TV - I hadn't even heard of Stargate before (sorry).
$endgroup$
– B.Kenobi
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Agrajag I never said "new". I used phrases like "little known", "not (very) common knowledge", and in my requirements I said "can't be a super popular..." I guess I just mean if you asked the average lay person on the street they would likely not have heard of grey goo or a gamma-ray burst. I don't expect Worldbuilding to come up with completely unheard of theories. I read a lot of sci-fi but don't watch as much on TV - I hadn't even heard of Stargate before (sorry).
$endgroup$
– B.Kenobi
2 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Here are a few:




  1. Super massive solar flare removes most of our atmosphere/scorches the earth. Hard to balance between everything destroyed and nothing destroyed, the earths magnetic field stops most solar wind from doing damage, but it could be overwhelmed.


  2. Cult like religion takes over with a goal of depopulation. No explanation needed.


  3. Collapse of an overly centralized system. Say technology advances to the point of completely replacing human labour. To counteract the massive loss of jobs, the government takes control of production. If the government was then to collapse, the supply of everything could disappear. Even if the production mechanism is fixed, the complete disappearance of the food supply for example would do massive damage in just a week (though a couple months would be where the real collapse would probably peak).


  4. Widespread use of a flawed genetic procedure. Say a gene editing program begins to give everyone a gene that prevents cancer. It turns out the gene is flawed and stops the ability to reproduce after a number of generations. It is likely that technology would also then be able to remove the gene, but this can be an odd one.







share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I really like number 3 - I hadn't thought of/heard of that before. I have heard of solar flares potentially disrupting things on earth but didn't know they could be that catastrophic. Thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @B.Kenobi It is called a systems collapse I think. It does not actually require centralization, just a complex network of dependencies that means that failures cascade across the system and reinforce each other. Late Bronze Age collapse is maybe the most common speculation of it. The way a relatively minor event caused war declarations cascade across Europe for World War One is probably the same phenomenon.
    $endgroup$
    – Ville Niemi
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Ville Niemi Very Cool about the Bronze Age collapse. I didn't know about that and am reading about it on wiki and its possible causes (including the 'general systems collapse' theory). Thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    1 hour ago



















2












$begingroup$

Artificially generated Peak Oil event.



One of the trickiest technological approaches to problem solving, and the one that has consistently generated the bulk of our unanticipated consequences, has been the introduction of biological controls into the ecosystem. That said, we continue to develop such controls because they tend to be quite effective, at least in the short term.



So; enter Alcanivorax borkumensis, a bacteria that literally eats oil and has been designed to help with environmental contamination scenarios when oil tankers & rigs spill massive amounts of oil into the ecosystem.



We are now working on a transition away from fossil fuels globally but setting up new infrastructure, bringing costs of new technology down etc. takes time and the world isn't ready for an instant peak oil event.



But, if this bacterium got out into the ecosystem in an uncontrolled manner and infected all the oil reserves globally at the same time, we could end up with oil depletions on a massive scale within months.



Believe it or not, this would be every bit as devastating as a human infection. For a start, your 75% death rate would be achieved relatively quickly by virtue of the lack of food getting into large cities. Oil (read as petrol) is now a critical part of the food chain because of the food distribution requirements of larger population centres. Large cities simply don't produce much food, but they consume massive amounts of it. Disrupt fuel supplies for a month, and you'll face a complete and total breakdown of law and order and city life, triggering massive unrest, deaths from starvation and civil disobedience, and a mass exodus from the cities into country locatinos without the infrastructure to support the survivors. Not to mention that most farms today are 'productive' thanks to fuel and technology that is no longer available.



Also, many modern farms contain genetically modified seed stocks that can't be replenished through 'seed cropping' and the fertiliser needs of the soil are massive, meaning that without a functioning distribution network the farms simply couldn't support the populations coming out of the cities even if they wanted to - farming looks too different from 100 years ago when all those people could have been put to work on the farms instead of machines.



This is not a total extinction event by any means, and certainly pockets of civilisation would survive because of the use of nuclear and renewable electrical grids and the uptake in certain areas of electric vehicles, but planes would be grounded, we don't really have a functioning electric heavy vehicle infrastructure in place and many societies still rely on petrol as a key driver of their infrastructure. As such, you'll find that your society would face massive losses in the short term, and significant losses over the medium term, if all the oil on earth just suddenly vanished.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    In the webcomic Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life, humanity just felt in such an hedonic state that people stopped reproducing. They would have robots serving and pleasing them in all ways possible and lost interest in human reproduction. Eventually humans all died out.



    This is tangentially aligned with the V.H.E.M.T., which is a thing in the real world:




    The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      The problem as I see it with VHEMT is that the people willing to contribute to it are exactly the people you want reproducing, and the people who won't are the people you want to constrain in terms of their contribution to the gene pool. Just look at birth rates across the world for countries with strong education regimes and gender equality in the workplace to prove it. Your answer is actually right, but VHEMT would kill off humans much faster than natural attrition because those left end up having all the violent and ignorant types overly represented in the next generation.
      $endgroup$
      – Tim B II
      2 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @TimBII answers that are right in the worst way are my specialty :D
      $endgroup$
      – Renan
      1 hour ago












    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143172%2flittle-known-relatively-unlikely-but-scientifically-plausible-apocalyptic-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    Here are a few:




    1. Super massive solar flare removes most of our atmosphere/scorches the earth. Hard to balance between everything destroyed and nothing destroyed, the earths magnetic field stops most solar wind from doing damage, but it could be overwhelmed.


    2. Cult like religion takes over with a goal of depopulation. No explanation needed.


    3. Collapse of an overly centralized system. Say technology advances to the point of completely replacing human labour. To counteract the massive loss of jobs, the government takes control of production. If the government was then to collapse, the supply of everything could disappear. Even if the production mechanism is fixed, the complete disappearance of the food supply for example would do massive damage in just a week (though a couple months would be where the real collapse would probably peak).


    4. Widespread use of a flawed genetic procedure. Say a gene editing program begins to give everyone a gene that prevents cancer. It turns out the gene is flawed and stops the ability to reproduce after a number of generations. It is likely that technology would also then be able to remove the gene, but this can be an odd one.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I really like number 3 - I hadn't thought of/heard of that before. I have heard of solar flares potentially disrupting things on earth but didn't know they could be that catastrophic. Thanks :)
      $endgroup$
      – B.Kenobi
      2 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @B.Kenobi It is called a systems collapse I think. It does not actually require centralization, just a complex network of dependencies that means that failures cascade across the system and reinforce each other. Late Bronze Age collapse is maybe the most common speculation of it. The way a relatively minor event caused war declarations cascade across Europe for World War One is probably the same phenomenon.
      $endgroup$
      – Ville Niemi
      2 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Ville Niemi Very Cool about the Bronze Age collapse. I didn't know about that and am reading about it on wiki and its possible causes (including the 'general systems collapse' theory). Thanks :)
      $endgroup$
      – B.Kenobi
      1 hour ago
















    3












    $begingroup$

    Here are a few:




    1. Super massive solar flare removes most of our atmosphere/scorches the earth. Hard to balance between everything destroyed and nothing destroyed, the earths magnetic field stops most solar wind from doing damage, but it could be overwhelmed.


    2. Cult like religion takes over with a goal of depopulation. No explanation needed.


    3. Collapse of an overly centralized system. Say technology advances to the point of completely replacing human labour. To counteract the massive loss of jobs, the government takes control of production. If the government was then to collapse, the supply of everything could disappear. Even if the production mechanism is fixed, the complete disappearance of the food supply for example would do massive damage in just a week (though a couple months would be where the real collapse would probably peak).


    4. Widespread use of a flawed genetic procedure. Say a gene editing program begins to give everyone a gene that prevents cancer. It turns out the gene is flawed and stops the ability to reproduce after a number of generations. It is likely that technology would also then be able to remove the gene, but this can be an odd one.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I really like number 3 - I hadn't thought of/heard of that before. I have heard of solar flares potentially disrupting things on earth but didn't know they could be that catastrophic. Thanks :)
      $endgroup$
      – B.Kenobi
      2 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @B.Kenobi It is called a systems collapse I think. It does not actually require centralization, just a complex network of dependencies that means that failures cascade across the system and reinforce each other. Late Bronze Age collapse is maybe the most common speculation of it. The way a relatively minor event caused war declarations cascade across Europe for World War One is probably the same phenomenon.
      $endgroup$
      – Ville Niemi
      2 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Ville Niemi Very Cool about the Bronze Age collapse. I didn't know about that and am reading about it on wiki and its possible causes (including the 'general systems collapse' theory). Thanks :)
      $endgroup$
      – B.Kenobi
      1 hour ago














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    Here are a few:




    1. Super massive solar flare removes most of our atmosphere/scorches the earth. Hard to balance between everything destroyed and nothing destroyed, the earths magnetic field stops most solar wind from doing damage, but it could be overwhelmed.


    2. Cult like religion takes over with a goal of depopulation. No explanation needed.


    3. Collapse of an overly centralized system. Say technology advances to the point of completely replacing human labour. To counteract the massive loss of jobs, the government takes control of production. If the government was then to collapse, the supply of everything could disappear. Even if the production mechanism is fixed, the complete disappearance of the food supply for example would do massive damage in just a week (though a couple months would be where the real collapse would probably peak).


    4. Widespread use of a flawed genetic procedure. Say a gene editing program begins to give everyone a gene that prevents cancer. It turns out the gene is flawed and stops the ability to reproduce after a number of generations. It is likely that technology would also then be able to remove the gene, but this can be an odd one.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Here are a few:




    1. Super massive solar flare removes most of our atmosphere/scorches the earth. Hard to balance between everything destroyed and nothing destroyed, the earths magnetic field stops most solar wind from doing damage, but it could be overwhelmed.


    2. Cult like religion takes over with a goal of depopulation. No explanation needed.


    3. Collapse of an overly centralized system. Say technology advances to the point of completely replacing human labour. To counteract the massive loss of jobs, the government takes control of production. If the government was then to collapse, the supply of everything could disappear. Even if the production mechanism is fixed, the complete disappearance of the food supply for example would do massive damage in just a week (though a couple months would be where the real collapse would probably peak).


    4. Widespread use of a flawed genetic procedure. Say a gene editing program begins to give everyone a gene that prevents cancer. It turns out the gene is flawed and stops the ability to reproduce after a number of generations. It is likely that technology would also then be able to remove the gene, but this can be an odd one.








    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 3 hours ago









    XRFXRF

    78516




    78516












    • $begingroup$
      I really like number 3 - I hadn't thought of/heard of that before. I have heard of solar flares potentially disrupting things on earth but didn't know they could be that catastrophic. Thanks :)
      $endgroup$
      – B.Kenobi
      2 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @B.Kenobi It is called a systems collapse I think. It does not actually require centralization, just a complex network of dependencies that means that failures cascade across the system and reinforce each other. Late Bronze Age collapse is maybe the most common speculation of it. The way a relatively minor event caused war declarations cascade across Europe for World War One is probably the same phenomenon.
      $endgroup$
      – Ville Niemi
      2 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Ville Niemi Very Cool about the Bronze Age collapse. I didn't know about that and am reading about it on wiki and its possible causes (including the 'general systems collapse' theory). Thanks :)
      $endgroup$
      – B.Kenobi
      1 hour ago


















    • $begingroup$
      I really like number 3 - I hadn't thought of/heard of that before. I have heard of solar flares potentially disrupting things on earth but didn't know they could be that catastrophic. Thanks :)
      $endgroup$
      – B.Kenobi
      2 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @B.Kenobi It is called a systems collapse I think. It does not actually require centralization, just a complex network of dependencies that means that failures cascade across the system and reinforce each other. Late Bronze Age collapse is maybe the most common speculation of it. The way a relatively minor event caused war declarations cascade across Europe for World War One is probably the same phenomenon.
      $endgroup$
      – Ville Niemi
      2 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Ville Niemi Very Cool about the Bronze Age collapse. I didn't know about that and am reading about it on wiki and its possible causes (including the 'general systems collapse' theory). Thanks :)
      $endgroup$
      – B.Kenobi
      1 hour ago
















    $begingroup$
    I really like number 3 - I hadn't thought of/heard of that before. I have heard of solar flares potentially disrupting things on earth but didn't know they could be that catastrophic. Thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    2 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    I really like number 3 - I hadn't thought of/heard of that before. I have heard of solar flares potentially disrupting things on earth but didn't know they could be that catastrophic. Thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    2 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @B.Kenobi It is called a systems collapse I think. It does not actually require centralization, just a complex network of dependencies that means that failures cascade across the system and reinforce each other. Late Bronze Age collapse is maybe the most common speculation of it. The way a relatively minor event caused war declarations cascade across Europe for World War One is probably the same phenomenon.
    $endgroup$
    – Ville Niemi
    2 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @B.Kenobi It is called a systems collapse I think. It does not actually require centralization, just a complex network of dependencies that means that failures cascade across the system and reinforce each other. Late Bronze Age collapse is maybe the most common speculation of it. The way a relatively minor event caused war declarations cascade across Europe for World War One is probably the same phenomenon.
    $endgroup$
    – Ville Niemi
    2 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @Ville Niemi Very Cool about the Bronze Age collapse. I didn't know about that and am reading about it on wiki and its possible causes (including the 'general systems collapse' theory). Thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    1 hour ago




    $begingroup$
    @Ville Niemi Very Cool about the Bronze Age collapse. I didn't know about that and am reading about it on wiki and its possible causes (including the 'general systems collapse' theory). Thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – B.Kenobi
    1 hour ago











    2












    $begingroup$

    Artificially generated Peak Oil event.



    One of the trickiest technological approaches to problem solving, and the one that has consistently generated the bulk of our unanticipated consequences, has been the introduction of biological controls into the ecosystem. That said, we continue to develop such controls because they tend to be quite effective, at least in the short term.



    So; enter Alcanivorax borkumensis, a bacteria that literally eats oil and has been designed to help with environmental contamination scenarios when oil tankers & rigs spill massive amounts of oil into the ecosystem.



    We are now working on a transition away from fossil fuels globally but setting up new infrastructure, bringing costs of new technology down etc. takes time and the world isn't ready for an instant peak oil event.



    But, if this bacterium got out into the ecosystem in an uncontrolled manner and infected all the oil reserves globally at the same time, we could end up with oil depletions on a massive scale within months.



    Believe it or not, this would be every bit as devastating as a human infection. For a start, your 75% death rate would be achieved relatively quickly by virtue of the lack of food getting into large cities. Oil (read as petrol) is now a critical part of the food chain because of the food distribution requirements of larger population centres. Large cities simply don't produce much food, but they consume massive amounts of it. Disrupt fuel supplies for a month, and you'll face a complete and total breakdown of law and order and city life, triggering massive unrest, deaths from starvation and civil disobedience, and a mass exodus from the cities into country locatinos without the infrastructure to support the survivors. Not to mention that most farms today are 'productive' thanks to fuel and technology that is no longer available.



    Also, many modern farms contain genetically modified seed stocks that can't be replenished through 'seed cropping' and the fertiliser needs of the soil are massive, meaning that without a functioning distribution network the farms simply couldn't support the populations coming out of the cities even if they wanted to - farming looks too different from 100 years ago when all those people could have been put to work on the farms instead of machines.



    This is not a total extinction event by any means, and certainly pockets of civilisation would survive because of the use of nuclear and renewable electrical grids and the uptake in certain areas of electric vehicles, but planes would be grounded, we don't really have a functioning electric heavy vehicle infrastructure in place and many societies still rely on petrol as a key driver of their infrastructure. As such, you'll find that your society would face massive losses in the short term, and significant losses over the medium term, if all the oil on earth just suddenly vanished.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      Artificially generated Peak Oil event.



      One of the trickiest technological approaches to problem solving, and the one that has consistently generated the bulk of our unanticipated consequences, has been the introduction of biological controls into the ecosystem. That said, we continue to develop such controls because they tend to be quite effective, at least in the short term.



      So; enter Alcanivorax borkumensis, a bacteria that literally eats oil and has been designed to help with environmental contamination scenarios when oil tankers & rigs spill massive amounts of oil into the ecosystem.



      We are now working on a transition away from fossil fuels globally but setting up new infrastructure, bringing costs of new technology down etc. takes time and the world isn't ready for an instant peak oil event.



      But, if this bacterium got out into the ecosystem in an uncontrolled manner and infected all the oil reserves globally at the same time, we could end up with oil depletions on a massive scale within months.



      Believe it or not, this would be every bit as devastating as a human infection. For a start, your 75% death rate would be achieved relatively quickly by virtue of the lack of food getting into large cities. Oil (read as petrol) is now a critical part of the food chain because of the food distribution requirements of larger population centres. Large cities simply don't produce much food, but they consume massive amounts of it. Disrupt fuel supplies for a month, and you'll face a complete and total breakdown of law and order and city life, triggering massive unrest, deaths from starvation and civil disobedience, and a mass exodus from the cities into country locatinos without the infrastructure to support the survivors. Not to mention that most farms today are 'productive' thanks to fuel and technology that is no longer available.



      Also, many modern farms contain genetically modified seed stocks that can't be replenished through 'seed cropping' and the fertiliser needs of the soil are massive, meaning that without a functioning distribution network the farms simply couldn't support the populations coming out of the cities even if they wanted to - farming looks too different from 100 years ago when all those people could have been put to work on the farms instead of machines.



      This is not a total extinction event by any means, and certainly pockets of civilisation would survive because of the use of nuclear and renewable electrical grids and the uptake in certain areas of electric vehicles, but planes would be grounded, we don't really have a functioning electric heavy vehicle infrastructure in place and many societies still rely on petrol as a key driver of their infrastructure. As such, you'll find that your society would face massive losses in the short term, and significant losses over the medium term, if all the oil on earth just suddenly vanished.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        Artificially generated Peak Oil event.



        One of the trickiest technological approaches to problem solving, and the one that has consistently generated the bulk of our unanticipated consequences, has been the introduction of biological controls into the ecosystem. That said, we continue to develop such controls because they tend to be quite effective, at least in the short term.



        So; enter Alcanivorax borkumensis, a bacteria that literally eats oil and has been designed to help with environmental contamination scenarios when oil tankers & rigs spill massive amounts of oil into the ecosystem.



        We are now working on a transition away from fossil fuels globally but setting up new infrastructure, bringing costs of new technology down etc. takes time and the world isn't ready for an instant peak oil event.



        But, if this bacterium got out into the ecosystem in an uncontrolled manner and infected all the oil reserves globally at the same time, we could end up with oil depletions on a massive scale within months.



        Believe it or not, this would be every bit as devastating as a human infection. For a start, your 75% death rate would be achieved relatively quickly by virtue of the lack of food getting into large cities. Oil (read as petrol) is now a critical part of the food chain because of the food distribution requirements of larger population centres. Large cities simply don't produce much food, but they consume massive amounts of it. Disrupt fuel supplies for a month, and you'll face a complete and total breakdown of law and order and city life, triggering massive unrest, deaths from starvation and civil disobedience, and a mass exodus from the cities into country locatinos without the infrastructure to support the survivors. Not to mention that most farms today are 'productive' thanks to fuel and technology that is no longer available.



        Also, many modern farms contain genetically modified seed stocks that can't be replenished through 'seed cropping' and the fertiliser needs of the soil are massive, meaning that without a functioning distribution network the farms simply couldn't support the populations coming out of the cities even if they wanted to - farming looks too different from 100 years ago when all those people could have been put to work on the farms instead of machines.



        This is not a total extinction event by any means, and certainly pockets of civilisation would survive because of the use of nuclear and renewable electrical grids and the uptake in certain areas of electric vehicles, but planes would be grounded, we don't really have a functioning electric heavy vehicle infrastructure in place and many societies still rely on petrol as a key driver of their infrastructure. As such, you'll find that your society would face massive losses in the short term, and significant losses over the medium term, if all the oil on earth just suddenly vanished.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Artificially generated Peak Oil event.



        One of the trickiest technological approaches to problem solving, and the one that has consistently generated the bulk of our unanticipated consequences, has been the introduction of biological controls into the ecosystem. That said, we continue to develop such controls because they tend to be quite effective, at least in the short term.



        So; enter Alcanivorax borkumensis, a bacteria that literally eats oil and has been designed to help with environmental contamination scenarios when oil tankers & rigs spill massive amounts of oil into the ecosystem.



        We are now working on a transition away from fossil fuels globally but setting up new infrastructure, bringing costs of new technology down etc. takes time and the world isn't ready for an instant peak oil event.



        But, if this bacterium got out into the ecosystem in an uncontrolled manner and infected all the oil reserves globally at the same time, we could end up with oil depletions on a massive scale within months.



        Believe it or not, this would be every bit as devastating as a human infection. For a start, your 75% death rate would be achieved relatively quickly by virtue of the lack of food getting into large cities. Oil (read as petrol) is now a critical part of the food chain because of the food distribution requirements of larger population centres. Large cities simply don't produce much food, but they consume massive amounts of it. Disrupt fuel supplies for a month, and you'll face a complete and total breakdown of law and order and city life, triggering massive unrest, deaths from starvation and civil disobedience, and a mass exodus from the cities into country locatinos without the infrastructure to support the survivors. Not to mention that most farms today are 'productive' thanks to fuel and technology that is no longer available.



        Also, many modern farms contain genetically modified seed stocks that can't be replenished through 'seed cropping' and the fertiliser needs of the soil are massive, meaning that without a functioning distribution network the farms simply couldn't support the populations coming out of the cities even if they wanted to - farming looks too different from 100 years ago when all those people could have been put to work on the farms instead of machines.



        This is not a total extinction event by any means, and certainly pockets of civilisation would survive because of the use of nuclear and renewable electrical grids and the uptake in certain areas of electric vehicles, but planes would be grounded, we don't really have a functioning electric heavy vehicle infrastructure in place and many societies still rely on petrol as a key driver of their infrastructure. As such, you'll find that your society would face massive losses in the short term, and significant losses over the medium term, if all the oil on earth just suddenly vanished.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 hours ago









        Tim B IITim B II

        32.2k672127




        32.2k672127























            2












            $begingroup$

            In the webcomic Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life, humanity just felt in such an hedonic state that people stopped reproducing. They would have robots serving and pleasing them in all ways possible and lost interest in human reproduction. Eventually humans all died out.



            This is tangentially aligned with the V.H.E.M.T., which is a thing in the real world:




            The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind.







            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              The problem as I see it with VHEMT is that the people willing to contribute to it are exactly the people you want reproducing, and the people who won't are the people you want to constrain in terms of their contribution to the gene pool. Just look at birth rates across the world for countries with strong education regimes and gender equality in the workplace to prove it. Your answer is actually right, but VHEMT would kill off humans much faster than natural attrition because those left end up having all the violent and ignorant types overly represented in the next generation.
              $endgroup$
              – Tim B II
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @TimBII answers that are right in the worst way are my specialty :D
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              1 hour ago
















            2












            $begingroup$

            In the webcomic Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life, humanity just felt in such an hedonic state that people stopped reproducing. They would have robots serving and pleasing them in all ways possible and lost interest in human reproduction. Eventually humans all died out.



            This is tangentially aligned with the V.H.E.M.T., which is a thing in the real world:




            The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind.







            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              The problem as I see it with VHEMT is that the people willing to contribute to it are exactly the people you want reproducing, and the people who won't are the people you want to constrain in terms of their contribution to the gene pool. Just look at birth rates across the world for countries with strong education regimes and gender equality in the workplace to prove it. Your answer is actually right, but VHEMT would kill off humans much faster than natural attrition because those left end up having all the violent and ignorant types overly represented in the next generation.
              $endgroup$
              – Tim B II
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @TimBII answers that are right in the worst way are my specialty :D
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              1 hour ago














            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            In the webcomic Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life, humanity just felt in such an hedonic state that people stopped reproducing. They would have robots serving and pleasing them in all ways possible and lost interest in human reproduction. Eventually humans all died out.



            This is tangentially aligned with the V.H.E.M.T., which is a thing in the real world:




            The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind.







            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            In the webcomic Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life, humanity just felt in such an hedonic state that people stopped reproducing. They would have robots serving and pleasing them in all ways possible and lost interest in human reproduction. Eventually humans all died out.



            This is tangentially aligned with the V.H.E.M.T., which is a thing in the real world:




            The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind.








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 2 hours ago









            RenanRenan

            52.2k15119259




            52.2k15119259












            • $begingroup$
              The problem as I see it with VHEMT is that the people willing to contribute to it are exactly the people you want reproducing, and the people who won't are the people you want to constrain in terms of their contribution to the gene pool. Just look at birth rates across the world for countries with strong education regimes and gender equality in the workplace to prove it. Your answer is actually right, but VHEMT would kill off humans much faster than natural attrition because those left end up having all the violent and ignorant types overly represented in the next generation.
              $endgroup$
              – Tim B II
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @TimBII answers that are right in the worst way are my specialty :D
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              1 hour ago


















            • $begingroup$
              The problem as I see it with VHEMT is that the people willing to contribute to it are exactly the people you want reproducing, and the people who won't are the people you want to constrain in terms of their contribution to the gene pool. Just look at birth rates across the world for countries with strong education regimes and gender equality in the workplace to prove it. Your answer is actually right, but VHEMT would kill off humans much faster than natural attrition because those left end up having all the violent and ignorant types overly represented in the next generation.
              $endgroup$
              – Tim B II
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @TimBII answers that are right in the worst way are my specialty :D
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              1 hour ago
















            $begingroup$
            The problem as I see it with VHEMT is that the people willing to contribute to it are exactly the people you want reproducing, and the people who won't are the people you want to constrain in terms of their contribution to the gene pool. Just look at birth rates across the world for countries with strong education regimes and gender equality in the workplace to prove it. Your answer is actually right, but VHEMT would kill off humans much faster than natural attrition because those left end up having all the violent and ignorant types overly represented in the next generation.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim B II
            2 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            The problem as I see it with VHEMT is that the people willing to contribute to it are exactly the people you want reproducing, and the people who won't are the people you want to constrain in terms of their contribution to the gene pool. Just look at birth rates across the world for countries with strong education regimes and gender equality in the workplace to prove it. Your answer is actually right, but VHEMT would kill off humans much faster than natural attrition because those left end up having all the violent and ignorant types overly represented in the next generation.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim B II
            2 hours ago




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @TimBII answers that are right in the worst way are my specialty :D
            $endgroup$
            – Renan
            1 hour ago




            $begingroup$
            @TimBII answers that are right in the worst way are my specialty :D
            $endgroup$
            – Renan
            1 hour ago


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143172%2flittle-known-relatively-unlikely-but-scientifically-plausible-apocalyptic-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            الفوسفات في المغرب

            Four equal circles intersect: What is the area of the small shaded portion and its height

            بطل الاتحاد السوفيتي