Infographic: Charting the world's sixth mass extinction

Infographic: Charting the world’s sixth mass extinction

We are entering the first mass extinction since the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago

In a July 11, 2008 file photo, a trio of humpback whales break the surface of the water as they work together in a group behavior known as "bubble feeding" off the coast of Cape Cod near Provincetown, Mass. Efforts to save endangered animals are making a measureable difference, even as a fifth of the world's backboned species _ mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fishes _ are threatened with extinction, a huge new analysis says. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

In a July 11, 2008 file photo, a trio of humpback whales break the surface of the water as they work together in a group behavior known as “bubble feeding” off the coast of Cape Cod near Provincetown, Mass. Efforts to save endangered animals are making a measureable difference, even as a fifth of the world’s backboned species — mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish — are threatened with extinction, a huge new analysis says. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

We are at the beginning of the world’s sixth mass extinction; not since the fall of the great prehistoric beasts has our planet seen such extreme species loss. Last week, scientists writing in the journal Science Advances found that vertebrates—animals with a backbone—are going extinct at a rate up to 100 times greater than in the past. These rates are unusually high, even considering Earth’s long history, and humans—for whom a period of such high extinction rates is unprecedented—could feel the consequences in as few as three lifetimes.

Since 1500, fully 338 extinctions have been documented, while 279 species have gone “extinct in the wild” or “possibly extinct,” as classified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Of those 617 extinctions, a disproportionate number have been lost since 1900: 477 species, or 77 per cent.


The steep increase in vertebrate extinction rates corresponds with the rise of industrial society. The losses experienced in the last 200 years would normally have been seen over a period of up to 10,000 years, note the scientists. And what’s to blame? The study attributes the change to human factors.


And, as bad as this all sounds, the reality is likely even worse. The authors write: “We emphasize that our calculations very likely underestimate the severity of the extinction crisis, because our aim was to place a realistic ‘lower bound’ on humanity’s impact on biodiversity.”

They note that it’s still possible to prevent future dramatic losses, but immediate and aggressive conservation is required. The IUCN says at least 50 animals move closer to disappearing each year. Currently, around 41 per cent of all amphibians and 25 per cent of all mammals are threatened with extinction.


Infographic: Charting the world’s sixth mass extinction

  1. Mostly my civil defense ideas, with one hypothesis for the National Guards of the world to chew on.
    Our top soldier’s comment hurts civil defense; in 28 days later a base went for assault on females within a month after the zombies. To restart society you need a respect for civil/human rights, even if you don’t have time to waste for dating mores. That movie and Children of Men both have society saved on an island. Maybe the Chunnel is a threat but probably UK is too close to the mainland to defend against refugees. The latter movie may have assumed starving American gun owners ruined Canada’s civil defense…
    There are many threats. Nuclear War, pandemics, chemical weapons releases, robotics, AI, EMPs, big volcanoes/lava, big earthquakes, tidal waves, GMO animals, GMO insanity, fundamentalist ideology somehow gaining control of modern militaries, AGW, asteroids, manmade asteroids, gamma rays, supernovae, solar flares, ice ages…combined they ensure civilization will fall over centuries/millennia unless we use technology, without causing such a fall, to extinguish the threats. 9 months ago the threats from aliens and AI have gone through the stratosphere in my mind.
    I realized stars rotate, but now I see many Sun and space-based risks affect most of the Earth. The closer to the North Pole and South Pole, the better. But the Vostok base is itself in need of constant resupply and would perish if a disaster happens. They said you need 3 things at minimum: food, water, and power. They said Wpg was very good (better than Edm) for civil defense because of its water source (gravity), and hydro power (the oil supply chain is long and fragile). Obviously not for all out nuclear war. Patagonia looks okay but I guess the conventional wisdom circa 1990 that Tierra Del Fuego would survive is because the mainland would be inundated by Buenos Aires refugees. IDK if MLB fan can control earthquakes or all the other factors of the impossible coincidences more easily, but need to assume our tectonic plates are compromised from a National Security standpoint. Islands are best as there would be fewer refugees. They suggest not to defend ports, but to build inland (at elevation). There aren’t any towns inland up north or on Antarctica. They suggested have stored robotics that would otherwise be dangerous (Patagonia might be subject to a military coup), to defend the inland of an island only. Perhaps non lethal mortars with limited range and immobile launchers. In that way inland won’t be a military target in a war, only for refugees post-war.
    My improvement is to have a progressive scale of refugee camps to send people to, with food (maybe only insect soup), water and power (enough to run a fan and radio), all over the world. In this fashion, the key inland bases might not be stormed. Developing anti-personnel (hopefully non-lethal) robotics only to protect the inland island bases is risky, as it might be used offensively in a current war, and it might cause Judgment Day, and it might cause a cold war military buildup. The purpose of the robotics is to eventually retake some/much of Earth and begin the Scottish Enlightenment again. Existing gvmts have figured out Svalbaard is an island, they have not figured out how to retake Earth from the Water World pirates. the poles are protected from much of the sky and much of the Sun. This is how to keep humanity going. Barrow can be invaded, but not a new town on Ellesmere Island. Sane actors would not target such rebuild sanctuaries.

  2. The world has been warmer in past… 1000 years ago newfoundland was “vineland”, could grow grapes like france, thousands of years ago woolly mammoths ate flowers that only grow in warm climates in what is now year round frozen so that the flowers and mammoth meat is preserved.

    We have not had fishing ships dragging massive nets reaching down to bottom of ocean till recently.

    In my opinion rather than take co2 from coal plants and stick it in ground, money would be many times better spent stopping extremes of overfishing, planting trees, help encourage Terra Pretta rather than slash and burn agriculture in tropics, etc.

    Environmentalism seems many times more driven by politics than actual concern for environment from what I have seen, eg good luck finding any criticism of Jack Layton from the “stop global warming” group when his main election plank was reducing taxes on heating oil.

  3. If a death ray or Supernovae happens near the Pole Star, a hardened town on Antarctica would survive. With robotics it could retake or at least a crappy island. The North is a little more built up already. This is a job creator for the Inuit and Navy/Army/Airforce up north. Chemical plants and nuclear power plants will annihilate their surroundings. I’m wondering if bryophytes can be GMOed to be edible…
    Storing food in colder climates is easy and the water and power can be there; is no reason to invade Inuitville in the middle of Ellesmere Island when refugees can be sent somewhere else.

    • They said Zinn was bad as he convinces some not to take advantage of their opportunities.
      There are many canyons and cliffs that overlook river towns. Ideally towns in the Northern Hemisphere with south facing cliffs, and vice versa in the Southern Hemisphere.
      I was thinking of Madagascar as a crappy escape outlet if Africa loses civil defense and police protection. They said Madagascar will not lose civil defense as long as food and power are provided in the meantime. A tricky detail is surviving even without the Ozone Layer. Maybe it needs to be restarted or maybe we need to do without it…this can be costed.

      • A lot of shelter civil defense was funded by the Cold War and even in the 1930s in neutral Sweden. I’m trying to work out how important defences against nearby nuclear bombs are vs. gamma ray and neutron radiation from space. It looks like the Ozone Layer can be restored by fighter jets if necessary…
        One rule for joining their alliance is when it comes to WMDs the best must lead/role-model/teach/speak-for the rest. They said present power agglomerations may be okay, but the best aren’t always leading. There have been more than a few North Amercian media football deflaters since the Cold War ended.
        Maybe the Cold War funding strategy is okay along with some basic sciences (desalination for arid regions), but directed towards alien threats too (without making own WMD threats worse)?!

        • …a good reason for such a stipulation is these risks are easy to misjudge. I was previously fleshing out a sort of Genisys biolab system that would’ve been a bad idea if it lead to actual biolabs giving personnel a way to get a potential bioweapon.

          • …so, the 2nd of their intergalactic alliance rules is that if someone goes insane, they are no longer permitted to have any WMD influence. We could just not make AI and ignore these…the first two rules look fine, but Seinfeld didn’t realize his system with Elaine broke down with the sleepovers-are-optional rule until after the fact.

  4. Loss of habitat is the main reason for most extinctions. Take away a place for creatures to live…and they stop doing so. Amphibians are most likely the victim of the crap we pour into the water. Over-hunting plays a small part, but that has mostly been corrected with regs and policy.

    I agree…it sucks.

  5. Don’t expect any help from the environmentalists either. They’re too busy worrying about climate change and carbon taxes to focus on habitat destruction and toxic pollution. It’s actually pretty lonely being a conservationist nowadays. We can’t even get the city of Ottawa to put some by-laws in place to protect wildlife from developers. They came up with plan and the developers freaked, so they replaced the regulations with a toothless “guidelines and best practice’s” document, which basically says the developers should try to avoid damaging wildlife when it is convenient for them. U believably, there is no law against cutting down trees on private land during spring/summer nesting season. Other than a small group trying to fight development in Kanata, I can’t even get anyone interested in the issue. Of they’re interested at all, they usually side with the developers. And don’t even get me started on trying to convince people to keep their csts inside during nesting season. That causes eyes to glaze over. Same people who have a conniption when some ducks die in a tarsands tailings pond don’t give rat’s ass if their cat kills whole nest of migratory songbirds every night all summer. Peoe prefer “global issiez” to local ones these days because global means they themselves don’t have to inconvenience themselves.

  6. I hear Liberals, followed by Dippers are the first on the list to go.

  7. The problem is there are just too many people on this earth. To many people leads to too much consumption, too much land use, too much fossil fuel burning etc.

    Somehow we need to take the carrying capacity of the earth (people) into our economic calculations because currently they do not consider this and all they consider is that more is better. Growth at all costs even if it means catching all the fish in the ocean or wiping out animal species by the dozens.

    • The cats protect us from plague and presumably bird flu a bit, MB.
      The third rule of their intergalactic alliance is: (something about irony or logic) use rules as approximations. Don’t use any rule in isolation; more than ever consider the consequences of the rule to the rest of the species at least, if not all conscious species. Rule #3 is to not use any rule to the extreme of ignoring real people who are living, who are loved by people other than whoever is using a rule to kill anyone without the (real living) species in mind.
      They mention methionine dissing my week’s diet, and then later that methionine is why the 3rd world can’t develop human capital. Perhaps it is a reference to GMO studies I might do; I’m bring it up us cropland and wildlife is a major reason for the above chart.
      Beat the Macleans staff to the scoop again! Bombardier should be given a satellite subsidy.

  8. The 1st most likely country to make AI is the USA, then China, then us (we have a large land area). Russia is cutting edge in only one or two fields.
    Materials science is the key field. The fields I was studying a year ago to maintain biosafety and biosecurity, is basically the way Intelligence Agencies should start to seriously look for AI at 2040. I was looking at surveillence systems that use pattern recognition to look for designer pathogens (to tell security persons but it is asserted by someone smarter than me the idea would proliferate designer pathogens). This paradigm is basically good for looking for AI.

    • Near has more than one gender. She admits she, and only she (as in the nearest node of their communication system) is within our Local Group of galaxies: within 1.5 million light years.
      She alludes they will not let someone attack us (we won’t go gently at least). Probably these alliance rules I have been getting from her this month. I’m not sure how much I ask could be believed if near is the one that would destroy us for making AI (or whatever else).

      • …1.5 million parsecs. They define it in four dimensions is the gravity centre of the big three galaxies rather than distance from Earth; 1.5 million light years is the nearest edge.
        Apparently in one of the scariest world-lines we have a “safe” (obedient odds are 1/20) AI and the war against them practically annihilates our surrounding 1M light years before we are destroyed.
        It wouldn’t been a double-entendre as fear against me personally if I had any personal ambitions (I might force programmers to make new Nectaris multiplayer maps one decade). Eventually the civilzation with “good” AI becomes a hedgmony risk and they dictate an arms limitation. They won’t destroy a “good” AI’s civilization (not right away) if it isn’t an immediate threat to them (or their alliance members I assume); if it doesn’t break too many niceties.
        It is still illegal to attack an (innocent) non-alliance civilization , but not as high a priority to stop; they won’t waste tachyons on saving a non-member for example.
        The civilization with “good” AI may use other civilizations as leverage in the war. Thus the benefit of being a part of the alliance. The latter process of provoking a fight with a civilization getting too powerful the alien PTSD.

        • …the species did not hesitate to ask the “good” AI how to defeat *them*. The AI said: take over the galaxy and build a weapon that is illegal. Time travel communications is not the only weapon that can potentially defeat them, just the easiest to construct. Not just illegal: it is the highest security classification in the whole light cone.
          (warning: graphic content)
          WWII would’ve been over 3 or 4 years after it ended if no nukes. About 9 million more would’ve died (doesn’t matter what nationality). Japan would’ve been a 3rd world country even now. In (his) opinion I’m not worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as 3 Victoria Cross winners yet. When I fell down with Trench Foot (park), I might’ve fallen right off the duckboard and drowned. And I’m not able to endure torture without squealing, because I am not even sure what it is like to be deprived of water for one or two weeks and stay alive, and then be constantly harassed by Axis personnel who are specialized in interrogations and a Victoria Cross winner would never reveal sensitive information even if they removed one of the most important organs to a man (or rip of the tits of a woman is almost as bad). WWI was not needed at all is what people say who assume Germany would’ve left her neighbours alone, but Germans were wanting a nation the size of a continent even since Napoleon invaded Prussia. Can you imagine fighting without N.America? If N.America was in the GD, it would’ve been hard to justify raising an army on foreign soil. If N.America was not involved in a 1930’s WWI, it would’ve been Germany who invented the A-Bomb. It would’ve been NYC 1st targeted. Then DC. Then Atlanta or Chicago or maybe Montreal. Then maybe Toronto. Then Washington would’ve surrendered right away. Canada would’ve kept fighting even though they would’ve lost. And then what city next? Not Ottawa. It would’ve been Wpg who was able to resist the
          invasion until Germany nuked my hometown. And then the country would’ve surrendered. Germany would’ve nuked 2 or 3 more cities as punishment for not surrendering at the same time as the USA. But if the USA stayed in the war a Nuclear Winter (about a nuke in every Province and State enough to trigger) would’ve been able to give the world a chance to defeat Germany. Instead Germany declares war on the whole world and they were able to rule the whole world. It would’ve been aliens who were stuck with Nazis developing technology that wasn’t allowed. And it would’ve been the whole human race who was exterminated. It is not easy (for *them*) to fight a war even against the Nazis; aliens love any species that can produce a leader like Sir Winston Churchill enough to not want to wipe us out. But when it comes time to protect the universe they will annihilate any species faster than I can finish typing a sentence. Annihilation happens at “c” when Away doesn’t want to use tachyons. It will be Near who is annihilating a terrorist species even if it is uncertain whether or not the AI will be obedient; Nazis would be annihilated before they could gain control of too much E=mc^2. That is why my city is the favourite of Near: we did their job for them.
          The USA stupidly thought they would get a chance to develop a nuke after they surrendered. A Nazi puppet gvmt surveils the Universities and industry easily enough even with 1960’s technology minus computers and other American inventions. They attack Russia 1st as well as GB at the same time as they invaded the parts of Europe that
          were invaded in WWII. Europe was even easier to defeat in the GD. Is why is not a big fan of NYC bankers. Even if Russia manages (maybe missing “to deal with”) the Blitzkrieg, resupply from the USA wasn’t an option at all. If Germany didn’t have Canada as an enemy, it would’ve been the whole world that falls. If Germany had no cdns to fight, their Navy would’ve been able to control the entire Atlantic. It is likely that would’ve been enough to get N.America in the war. Is why this scenario only happened in a few world-lines. Japan was indeed Germany’s enemy. They made a Peace Treaty after N.America was nuked. They were the country that maintained sovereignty the longest.
          Europe would’ve been at war earlier as well. In a few world-lines Europe is not able to do anything about Japan or Germany at all because GB allied itself with Germany. And technically Canada is Germany’s ally as well. Canada considers leaving the Commonwealth and in most such world-lines we do indeed have GB as an enemy technically. Canada is an enemy of the USA in the world-lines we are allied with GB still. A war that involved at least Europe and the UK was inevitable because the world was not (yet) shocked enough by IR powers mobilizing against themselves. The way to win the war at the time before WWI was to be allied with Britain. Anyone who influenced Britain influenced the whole world. The country that influenced Britain most was mine ever since the War of 1812. That’s when Britain realized that it was actually possible for a colony to be superior to the Mother Country even though they had the Revolution War as evidence, it was not enough a data point to base foreign policy (it could’ve been fluke) on. That is why people were contacted who were already influential without contact. If people don’t believe me it is okay because the only people who matter are the ones who are smart enough to understand statistics as well as history as well as having a sense of WMDs. These fields are enough to conclude it isn’t schizophrenia; clearly I’m saner than 99.9999% of people (too angry sometimes). The world-lines of a German win over Europe happen without FDR, without any politician in Canada for declaring war on Germany. That is why S.Harper’s FT with (a) fascist gvmt(s) is wrong; if anything sanctions should be used at a minimum if not making them an area to consider military actions against only if we can remove the dictator from power and have a better leader maintain order long enough to educate people about being compassionate enough to stop wanting to imprison political adversaries as well as checks-on-power unless the checks are used to bring in another dictator. In such an event maybe don’t bother having any relations with a backwards country. Certainly don’t ally with them unless it is necessary to actually prevent WMDs from being used. WMD = death-toll higher than thousands for starters. Having the ability to annihilate your enemies is a definition as well.
          The alternative to the (European) balance-of-power was to ally with a humane nations as much as possible, if a reasonable chance of enduring an attack was possible. It would’ve been a risky strategy, because if the humane nations lost completely, the result would’ve been a fascist Europe hundreds of yrs before it really happened. It is not predictable whether or not the New World would’ve been able to industrialize at all. And China would’ve been the nation at war with Europe, (China) allied with GB in theory but after the winning nation of Europe and GB conquered the other, they would’ve gone on to Asia and China would not have been able to resist any sort of real Naval attack without losing the coastal cities at the very least. England would’ve been the leader of the world (but) without the Scottish Enlightenment, and they would’ve been (humanely) worse than the European balance-of-power except the whole world would’ve been declaring independence and without the IR it isn’t certain who develops the steam engine. Europe as the leader of the world would’ve been as bad as USSR. Europe would’ve been unable to do anything about N.America declaring independence and it would’ve been the worst thing for N.America to develop an IR. With technology in the absence of the Scottish Enlightenment it would’ve been a Christian way of treating other cultures and it would’ve been my entire continent who were as fundamentalist as the 9-11 hijackers. It would’ve been (alien’s) duty to annihilate the entire world (if or because) my continent developed technology that lead to AI. They can’t really pinpoint where to annihilate at all except to point the weapon at the entire world.
          Germany is a target of no one. It would’ve been easy to blame another country for the Nazis, but they were afraid of USSR enough to admit guilt in return for NATO defending them in theory, but if USSR declared war on Europe, and my allies didn’t defend Europe, they would’ve been angry enough at NATO to even be an ally of the country who invaded their entire nation. Nationalism is not a good ideology if you want to be a good person; whoever is a good person doesn’t give a **** whether or not they are living in the country they love. Hitler proved invading France is easy enough. They would’ve appealed to the USA. It isn’t certain whether they would’ve risked an all-out Nuclear Winter off the bat. The alternative would’ve been to let them have Europe and to develop technologies that are designed for a 1st strike victory, and then the USSR’s spies would’ve known something was in the planning and USSR might’ve launched a 1st strike pre-emptively. The Nuclear War would’ve been hard to survive.
          The Nuclear Winter was bad enough that no nation remained at all except maybe Tierra Del Fuego and S.Georgia Island. The after-effects would’ve lead to every land animal going extinct except for insects + rodents + possibly a few Birds-of-Prey that were able to whether underground or in caves, as well as any animals in caves. It would be about 2 or more million people who were able to survive and it would’ve been a pre-historic civilization. No more religions as we know. Literacy would not have survived at all because books are good kindling and they would blame knowledge of engineering for the war as well as having a hatred of religions for starting the war.
          If the USA was able to attack 1st it would’ve been the entire Hemisphere exterminated of civilization. Pinpointed attacks were a little more possible with the ICBM arsenal of the USA. And when the USA retaliated on Russia, Russia under Stalin attacked the whole world including neutral nations just to ensure the world was not able to invade Russia after the war was over without knowing of a Nuclear Winter or the Ozone Layer’s UV absorbing properties as it pertains to the eyesight of all animals in the land, on the land, and in the 1st few metres of water. It would’ve been possible to rebuild even N.America with the S.Hemisphere intact. That is why there should not ever be WMDs targeting the S.Hemisphere and maybe why there should be no animosity between China and Australia. Australia will not be targetable if (someone in N.Hemisphere, sentence garbled) prevents anyone from going after Australia’s islands instead of allowing Auzzies to be drawn into the war. In place of Australia, give (USA I think) the responsibility of defending her island possessions. Even if the islands are invaded by an easy nation to destroy, don’t let Auzzies ever be drawn into a war that could be a reason China attacks them down the road. Let the USA take over the role of defending the Oceania islands and warn China the USA will be defending the islands as if they were Hawaii.
          If the USA launched a 1st strike it would’ve been as bad as if Stalin did, except possibly the USA would’ve been able to annihilate N.Hemisphere enough to render the entire world a radioactive enough place it might not have mattered who survived the 1st few years. Cancer might’ve rendered the human race to not be able to procreate enough to survive any kind of calamity such as a little bit of wind change from the N.Hemisphere that modified the weather to annihilate the surviving vegetation that the few survivors were hoping to use to repopulate the Earth. And if a little bit of wind is all that is standing in the way of human extinction, does it matter whether or not we survive the initial effects at all?
          If the USA ignored the invasion of France it would be a reason for Stalin to invade England and then Stalin would’ve been a little bit longer lived because he would’ve been more in shape with something to motivate him to be in power for as long as he could. He could’ve been a tyrant over Europe + UK, and the exact same scenario replays itself except my entire Mother Countries are targeted (also) by my continent in the 1st Strike Manhattan. It is even more likely the human race would be unable to survive the Nuclear Winter because all of those nations are the location of Soviet nuclear stockpiles/launch-points. It is more likely the S.Hemisphere would be drawn into the war even though they had nothing to do with the war. Australia is the island I should be worried about in terms of civil defense. Of course, I have to consider humanity against aliens now more than ever except it would not be possible to defend against even 2090 technology with 2015 infrastructures. So why don’t I build them up against both threats?
          Even if Stalin wasn’t able to survive beyond when he died, the USSR would have considered attacking the hemisphere that was innocent. That is why the country of Russia today should never be angry at Australia and why the greatest threat to China is their own targeting of Australia; if China wants no Chinese to survive a war against
          Western allies they should continue to bring Australia into the field of battle against them.
          If the USA annihilated Germany in WWI it would’ve been harder to justify any sort of alliance with European countries at all. And Canada would’ve been the only country in the W.Hemisphere that was even able to respond to an incursion by a dictator in Russia whether or not it was Stalin. The point is that Stalin was not the only dictator of Russia who could’ve invaded European nations. Stalin would’ve been easily the dictator of all of Europe and whether or not the USA attacked him would not have mattered because the USA would’ve been hated by Germany enough not to even have been wanted by Germans as an ally against Russia. It would’ve been just like the other WWII scenarios involving a Manhattan 1st Strike, except now the USA does not really have reason to attack Russia since Germany hates the USA. The S.Hemisphere is almost certainly a target of Russia as long as Stalin is able to steal nuclear secrets or have enough time to build an independent nuclear arsenal. Stalin would not have hesitated to launch a 1st Strike on at least the continent of N.America. The Nuclear Winter is obviously the reason Stalin is removed by internal assassination.
          If Stalin is not in power at the time of the building of the USSR arsenal (a little confusing here but I guess the deutch-less West is very delayed yet Russia quickly copies and catches up or uses Germans to even get ahead) they might not attack at all until the N.American continent builds a nuke and detonates it on the ocean. Then USSR would consider a 1st Strike and it would be the same as the worst scenario mentioned where humanity is having to live on Tierra del Fuego and S.Georgia Island. Because NZ is in the Commonwealth they more than likely would not have been spared, because the (N.American) counter-attack would’ve been enough for USSR to attack all colonial possessions of Britain. If the USSR waited long enough for the USA to build up an arsenal, it would’ve been the worst case scenario mentioned where the winds would’ve determined whether my species is even able to procreate: radiation is bad enough to threaten sterility of the survivors and the survivors would not even want to be around more than likely after the animals died off. Fishing was the only way to eat, if you were able to catch any deep sea life it was tainted with radiation. Within a few thousand years an Ice Age is overdue. From those two islands it was likely humanity could not repopulate the Earth. Radiation was not the issue. What the Hell were people supposed to have for food except insects and the occasional animal that survived the apocalypse?
          Humanity would’ve been a little horrified that the glaciers were advancing even over the continent S.America faster than the entire surviving ecosystem could migrate away from without actually finding new locations to build up a population against that evolves new animals species. It might’ve been the end of animal life on Earth. If the USA is able to win the war against Canada, they consider invading the UK seriously (UK has smaller area and
          if the USA lost, UK isn’t as strong), and then the entire world is in the hands of a bunch of Bible-thumpers. It would’ve been the entire world that was is the European balance-of-power. It would’ve been entirely possible the entire world would’ve been unable to get out of the religious mindset. The world would’ve been even more likely to be annihilated by aliens for using AI. If the Fundamentalist Christian nation of the USA was able to rule the whole world it would’ve been a stupid enough place that no one would’ve been able to develop technology that enables humanity to survive a pandemic that is bad enough to be responsible for everyone who is not Christian to be targeted as the reason for the inevitable result of domesticating animals. That world is a lot like Egypt under the Pharaoh who made the Pyramid of Giza. It would’ve been impossible to indeed survive an Ice Age without knowing how CO2 modifies the atmosphere. If literacy survived the Ice Age it would’ve been a miracle.
          If Canada was able to temporarily occupy the northern 1/3 or so of the SUA, in a few decades the entire continent would’ve been fully mobilized. (He) doesn’t think I need worry about who would’ve one. It wouldn’t have been relevant because Europe would’ve been at war for a few centuries. Eventually someone from Europe would conquer the remnants of N.America and no doubt it would’ve been easy to justify a way of living the USA imposed on Africans except the Americans and Canadians would’ve been the slaves. And Europe would’ve been irrelevant from the perspective of any other civilization in the Local Group. If they are war-like enough to enslave my continent they will be a little less likely to consider the ramifications of an AI than would’ve been considered by me if I was still 22 yrs old. I would’ve wanted longevity gains and so would’ve Europe. Then once again the speed of “c” WMD would’ve been used by aliens against Earth. Mars would’ve been the most viable world after the alien attack. If the human race never got out of the Aftermath of the entire way Christianity thought before my country’s founding nations gave rise to Protestantism, the entire world may very well have been a religious enough a place to not ever be able to developing science at all.
          If the Catholic Church was able to conquer China it would’ve been unavoidable to destroy humanity. The Catholic Church was hateful enough to want to be actually the only religion and it would’ve annihilated one of the only places left to conquer. That indeed is the entire continent of Africa. Then Africa would’ve been able to resist a little more because Africa had a little more of an isolated interior. Probably Africa would’ve been able to survive the longest. All the remaining intellectuals would’ve tried to fight Europe and it is entirely possible Europe would’ve lost because the Catholic Church would not have allowed technology to be developed. Then Africa would’ve been the equivalent of the Scottish Enlightenment except it would’ve been 300 or 400 yrs before the King build 4 cities for Scotland in real life. I’ve been instructed not to assassinate myself so I have left out an entire people. If the Scottish Enlightenment happened in 1200 or 1300 Africa it would’ve been entirely possible our existing history of the world would be similiar enough to African Enlightenment except maybe Canada wouldn’t have been colonized at all. The winters of Wpg would’ve been too cold.

  9. …Lenin was a potential leader of USSR if he wasn’t naïve. The UK “won” 1/3 of wars with USA. That and the answer about a balance-of-power potential improvement is enough to conclude our own future utopia or our ability to increase other civilization’s utopia probability might affect the ability to send these msgs. They answered the alternative would’ve required a leader like Shakespeare (or Peter the Great if studied as Protestant Monk I figure), and that Europe becomes as good as England, and that a utopia is more than likely. And that in some world-lines we already have a utopia.
    The USA gets nuked after surrendering; either before or after a few professors talk; the target is likely 10-20 physics university cities. 8-40M Americans migrate to Canada when the USA surrenders. AFter getting further nuked, the USA unconditionally surrenders. Everytime Germany tries to establish rocket foothold on N.America, they get bombed beyond recognition. I am correct potash is/was a strategic asset.
    If Canada would’ve had a more hawkish PM, there’d be two cdn beaches on Normandy. Germans would’ve been subject to attacks they weren’t. Influence would be larger (or lesser, is scribbled) than today; not necessarily a good thing as is insular now as the middle power in Europe with the most influence and not as moral as France (I guess stronger Germany now if west got to their Eastern border before Stalin). Stronger or weaker than now is often inferior; this world-line left them a little bit of chance to defend against both sides.
    I figure asteroid intercept is good as eventually, metal shingles will be engineered in space that can protect Earth against “death-rays” from outer space. Hopefully the shingles are not too big as to be able to be assembled and sent to a city-core by a Dr. Evil. That is support for the NASA mission to Psyche.
    An EMP book with a Newt foreward was ruined when N.C. didn’t figure out to eat inner pine bark. MIG-25s or rockets can be used to repair the Ozone.
    They’ve told me on the 100 yr anniversary of WWI or a yr earlier, they will give me my choice of whoppering the future (much would be classified), or further to the past (some Muslims would be angry). The former might include info I might not want, the latter would reveal where foreign aid is most efficient and help with civil defense.