I don't think the seeding will take millions of years. It will take much much less, in the order of hundreds or thousands of years.
We don't know whether life was seeded or it originated in our world. That's my point.
It could have been seeded somehow (by a comet or another civilisation???) Or it might have been spontaneous to Earth. We don't know, but that doesn't mean seeding is impossible
I didn't said that.
There is only so much resources on this planet such as oil and minerals that we are expending faster than what the Earth can make up.
Resources' availability depends on technology. For example, if we used breeder reactors, there is enough uranium available for us for providing electricity to mankind for more than 5 billion years: http://sustainablenu...d11983cohen.pdf
We are chopping trees down at a rate of around 11 million per day, a lot more than gets replanted or grown.
Mankind survival doesn't depend on having big forests. Losing so many trees is not good, for many reasons, but it will not make us extinct.
Our population is increasing sure, and so exponentially is our reliance and dependence on finite resources.
Nope. As I said, resource usage dependes on technology. If oil is exhausted, we will simply switch to electric or hydrogen cars, etc. Also, population is not increasing exponentially anymore. It will level-off around year 2050 and then slowly decay: https://en.wikipedia...lation_(UN).svg
Also due to the way our economy works we have become a throw away society and manufactures ensure that all products we buy have a 'planned obsolescence'. You cant just buy a fridge, washing machine or phone and expect it to last you 20-30 years. They ensure it will not function that long and a simple part makes buying a brand new one a cheaper option. The world can not sustain its current population and especially our throw away lifestyle. The population is said to stabilise at around 11-12 billion people. Do you believe we have the resources for 12 billion people all living and demanding the lifestyle 1st world countries enjoy today? And 12 billion people demanding centuries old lifespans?
Huh? Why do you think the "throw away" lifestyle will continue unchanged, even in a scenario of extinguishing mankind?
The problem with the waning of war graph is that all it takes is a trigger happy, childish North Korean despot to launch a nuclear device at its neighbour or a terrorist buying a nuclear weapon (and we know they are trying) to start an apocalyptic and biblical style war that they desire and that graph will be turned on its head. The Mutually Assured Destruction policy only ensures there wont be much left of the human race should anything happen. There is a lot of 'profit' for war machines to continue. Until man kind grows up and works toward a common goal for a greater good beyond ones self, I cant see a bright future for the human race.
A nuclear war can't extinguish us. It can kill a lot of people, but any single person alive in the world? Not at all. See for example this simulation of a USA-Russia nuclear war using all the bombs they had in 2007:
It shows the amount of smoke caused by the bombs and the fires caused by them. 150 teragrams of black carbon particles will be injected into the atmosphere. That smoke will cause a global nuclear winter, but the south hemisphere is much less affected, and people there will have a week to get prepared (animation by Luke Oman, NASA, from data in http://onlinelibrary...06JD008235/full ). See also http://www.nasa.gov/...ar-climate.html for other scenarios. Citing from that:
We studied the scenario of using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs, the fires from which would inject upward of 5 teragrams (megatons) of black carbon particles into Earth's upper troposphere. Observations of forest fires have shown this to occur on much smaller scales.
On the ground, global temperatures would fall by a little over 1 degree Celsius © (1.8 Fahrenheit (F)) over first three years. In contrast, aerosols from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo contributed to about 3/10 of a degree C (~ 0.5 F) of cooling over one year. Black carbon particles are smaller than sulfate particles and can be lofted much higher by solar heating, where their influence on climate can last up to a decade.
Let's assume anyway that the bombing kills in a few days or weeks 75% of the northern hemisphere population and 25% of the southern hemisphere population. That would be around 5 billion deaths. Next, let's assume that the nuclear winter, diseases provoked by radiation, socioecomic crisis and general chaos kills 50% of the remaining world population. Still, there would be around 1 billion people alive, the same that in 1810, when Napoleon annexed the kingdom of Holland and Argentina became the first South American state to proclaim independence from Spain. In some decades, human population would recover and the nuclear war would be teached to bored students like those events from 1810.
LongeCity
.svg){kind=link}