Little known, relatively unlikely, but scientifically plausible, apocalyptic (or near apocalyptic) eventsIs there a scientifically plausible way to wipe out power & communications in an urban-fantasy Earth?What would make telepathy and clairvoyance scientifically plausible?Could a dryad species be scientifically plausible?

How do I handle a potential work/personal life conflict as the manager of one of my friends?

How does a predictive coding aid in lossless compression?

Is it acceptable for a professor to tell male students to not think that they are smarter than female students?

Examples of smooth manifolds admitting inbetween one and a continuum of complex structures

Why is this clock signal connected to a capacitor to gnd?

Why was the shrinking from 8″ made only to 5.25″ and not smaller (4″ or less)?

What is the most common color to indicate the input-field is disabled?

How can I deal with my CEO asking me to hire someone with a higher salary than me, a co-founder?

How to prevent "they're falling in love" trope

Plagiarism or not?

What does “the session was packed” mean in this context?

What mechanic is there to disable a threat instead of killing it?

Alternative to sending password over mail?

Are there any examples of a variable being normally distributed that is *not* due to the Central Limit Theorem?

Is there a hemisphere-neutral way of specifying a season?

Do UK voters know if their MP will be the Speaker of the House?

When is человек used as the word man instead of человек

Watching something be piped to a file live with tail

What about the virus in 12 Monkeys?

Should I tell management that I intend to leave due to bad software development practices?

How can I determine if the org that I'm currently connected to is a scratch org?

ssTTsSTtRrriinInnnnNNNIiinngg

How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?

Can my sorcerer use a spellbook only to collect spells and scribe scrolls, not cast?



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


Is there a scientifically plausible way to wipe out power & communications in an urban-fantasy Earth?What would make telepathy and clairvoyance scientifically plausible?Could a dryad species be scientifically plausible?













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
    4 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
    4 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
    3 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
    4 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
    4 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
    3 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 4 hours ago









B.KenobiB.Kenobi

1835




1835











  • $begingroup$
    You have pretty much hit all the major categories. Anything else would be a variation of them.
    $endgroup$
    – Sonvar
    4 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
    4 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
    3 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    You have pretty much hit all the major categories. Anything else would be a variation of them.
    $endgroup$
    – Sonvar
    4 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
    4 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
    3 hours ago















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




$begingroup$
You have pretty much hit all the major categories. Anything else would be a variation of them.
$endgroup$
– Sonvar
4 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
4 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
4 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
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
3 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
    3 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
    3 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
      3 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @TimBII answers that are right in the worst way are my specialty :D
      $endgroup$
      – Renan
      2 hours 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
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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
    3 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
    3 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
    3 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
    3 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 3 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
              3 hours ago






            • 1




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






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @TimBII answers that are right in the worst way are my specialty :D
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              2 hours 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 3 hours ago









            RenanRenan

            52.3k15119259




            52.3k15119259











            • $begingroup$
              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
              3 hours ago






            • 1




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






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @TimBII answers that are right in the worst way are my specialty :D
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              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
            3 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
            3 hours ago




            1




            1




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




            $begingroup$
            @TimBII answers that are right in the worst way are my specialty :D
            $endgroup$
            – Renan
            2 hours 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

            Францішак Багушэвіч Змест Сям'я | Біяграфія | Творчасць | Мова Багушэвіча | Ацэнкі дзейнасці | Цікавыя факты | Спадчына | Выбраная бібліяграфія | Ушанаванне памяці | У філатэліі | Зноскі | Літаратура | Спасылкі | НавігацыяЛяхоўскі У. Рупіўся дзеля Бога і людзей: Жыццёвы шлях Лявона Вітан-Дубейкаўскага // Вольскі і Памідораў з песняй пра немца Адвакат, паэт, народны заступнік Ашмянскі веснікВ Минске появится площадь Богушевича и улица Сырокомли, Белорусская деловая газета, 19 июля 2001 г.Айцец беларускай нацыянальнай ідэі паўстаў у бронзе Сяргей Аляксандравіч Адашкевіч (1918, Мінск). 80-я гады. Бюст «Францішак Багушэвіч».Яўген Мікалаевіч Ціхановіч. «Партрэт Францішка Багушэвіча»Мікола Мікалаевіч Купава. «Партрэт зачынальніка новай беларускай літаратуры Францішка Багушэвіча»Уладзімір Іванавіч Мелехаў. На помніку «Змагарам за родную мову» Барэльеф «Францішак Багушэвіч»Памяць пра Багушэвіча на Віленшчыне Страчаная сталіца. Беларускія шыльды на вуліцах Вільні«Krynica». Ideologia i przywódcy białoruskiego katolicyzmuФранцішак БагушэвічТворы на knihi.comТворы Францішка Багушэвіча на bellib.byСодаль Уладзімір. Францішак Багушэвіч на Лідчыне;Луцкевіч Антон. Жыцьцё і творчасьць Фр. Багушэвіча ў успамінах ягоных сучасьнікаў // Запісы Беларускага Навуковага таварыства. Вільня, 1938. Сшытак 1. С. 16-34.Большая российская1188761710000 0000 5537 633Xn9209310021619551927869394п

            Беларусь Змест Назва Гісторыя Геаграфія Сімволіка Дзяржаўны лад Палітычныя партыі Міжнароднае становішча і знешняя палітыка Адміністрацыйны падзел Насельніцтва Эканоміка Культура і грамадства Сацыяльная сфера Узброеныя сілы Заўвагі Літаратура Спасылкі НавігацыяHGЯOiТоп-2011 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2013 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2016 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2017 г. (па версіі ej.by)Нацыянальны статыстычны камітэт Рэспублікі БеларусьШчыльнасць насельніцтва па краінахhttp://naviny.by/rubrics/society/2011/09/16/ic_articles_116_175144/А. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Спробы засялення краю неандэртальскім чалавекам.І ў Менску былі мамантыА. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Старажытны каменны век (палеаліт). Першапачатковае засяленне тэрыторыіГ. Штыхаў. Балты і славяне ў VI—VIII стст.М. Клімаў. Полацкае княства ў IX—XI стст.Г. Штыхаў, В. Ляўко. Палітычная гісторыя Полацкай зямліГ. Штыхаў. Дзяржаўны лад у землях-княствахГ. Штыхаў. Дзяржаўны лад у землях-княствахБеларускія землі ў складзе Вялікага Княства ЛітоўскагаЛюблінская унія 1569 г."The Early Stages of Independence"Zapomniane prawdy25 гадоў таму было аб'яўлена, што Язэп Пілсудскі — беларус (фота)Наша вадаДакументы ЧАЭС: Забруджванне тэрыторыі Беларусі « ЧАЭС Зона адчужэнняСведения о политических партиях, зарегистрированных в Республике Беларусь // Министерство юстиции Республики БеларусьСтатыстычны бюлетэнь „Полаўзроставая структура насельніцтва Рэспублікі Беларусь на 1 студзеня 2012 года і сярэднегадовая колькасць насельніцтва за 2011 год“Индекс человеческого развития Беларуси — не было бы нижеБеларусь занимает первое место в СНГ по индексу развития с учетом гендерного факцёраНацыянальны статыстычны камітэт Рэспублікі БеларусьКанстытуцыя РБ. Артыкул 17Трансфармацыйныя задачы БеларусіВыйсце з крызісу — далейшае рэфармаванне Беларускі рубель — сусветны лідар па дэвальвацыяхПра змену коштаў у кастрычніку 2011 г.Бядней за беларусаў у СНД толькі таджыкіСярэдні заробак у верасні дасягнуў 2,26 мільёна рублёўЭканомікаГаласуем за ТОП-100 беларускай прозыСучасныя беларускія мастакіАрхитектура Беларуси BELARUS.BYА. Каханоўскі. Культура Беларусі ўсярэдзіне XVII—XVIII ст.Анталогія беларускай народнай песні, гуказапісы спеваўБеларускія Музычныя IнструментыБеларускі рок, які мы страцілі. Топ-10 гуртоў«Мясцовы час» — нязгаслая легенда беларускай рок-музыкіСЯРГЕЙ БУДКІН. МЫ НЯ ЗНАЕМ СВАЁЙ МУЗЫКІМ. А. Каладзінскі. НАРОДНЫ ТЭАТРМагнацкія культурныя цэнтрыПублічная дыскусія «Беларуская новая пьеса: без беларускай мовы ці беларуская?»Беларускія драматургі па-ранейшаму лепш ставяцца за мяжой, чым на радзіме«Працэс незалежнага кіно пайшоў, і дзяржаву турбуе яго непадкантрольнасць»Беларускія філосафы ў пошуках прасторыВсе идём в библиотекуАрхіваванаАб Нацыянальнай праграме даследавання і выкарыстання касмічнай прасторы ў мірных мэтах на 2008—2012 гадыУ космас — разам.У суседнім з Барысаўскім раёне пабудуюць Камандна-вымяральны пунктСвяты і абрады беларусаў«Мірныя бульбашы з малой краіны» — 5 непраўдзівых стэрэатыпаў пра БеларусьМ. Раманюк. Беларускае народнае адзеннеУ Беларусі скарачаецца колькасць злачынстваўЛукашэнка незадаволены мінскімі ўладамі Крадзяжы складаюць у Мінску каля 70% злачынстваў Узровень злачыннасці ў Мінскай вобласці — адзін з самых высокіх у краіне Генпракуратура аналізуе стан са злачыннасцю ў Беларусі па каэфіцыенце злачыннасці У Беларусі стабілізавалася крымінагеннае становішча, лічыць генпракурорЗамежнікі сталі здзяйсняць у Беларусі больш злачынстваўМУС Беларусі турбуе рост рэцыдыўнай злачыннасціЯ з ЖЭСа. Дазволіце вас абкрасці! Рэйтынг усіх службаў і падраздзяленняў ГУУС Мінгарвыканкама вырасАб КДБ РБГісторыя Аператыўна-аналітычнага цэнтра РБГісторыя ДКФРТаможняagentura.ruБеларусьBelarus.by — Афіцыйны сайт Рэспублікі БеларусьСайт урада БеларусіRadzima.org — Збор архітэктурных помнікаў, гісторыя Беларусі«Глобус Беларуси»Гербы и флаги БеларусиАсаблівасці каменнага веку на БеларусіА. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Старажытны каменны век (палеаліт). Першапачатковае засяленне тэрыторыіУ. Ксяндзоў. Сярэдні каменны век (мезаліт). Засяленне краю плямёнамі паляўнічых, рыбакоў і збіральнікаўА. Калечыц, М. Чарняўскі. Плямёны на тэрыторыі Беларусі ў новым каменным веку (неаліце)А. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў, М. Чарняўскі. Гаспадарчыя заняткі ў каменным векуЭ. Зайкоўскі. Духоўная культура ў каменным векуАсаблівасці бронзавага веку на БеларусіФарміраванне супольнасцей ранняга перыяду бронзавага векуФотографии БеларусиРоля беларускіх зямель ва ўтварэнні і ўмацаванні ВКЛВ. Фадзеева. З гісторыі развіцця беларускай народнай вышыўкіDMOZGran catalanaБольшая российскаяBritannica (анлайн)Швейцарскі гістарычны15325917611952699xDA123282154079143-90000 0001 2171 2080n9112870100577502ge128882171858027501086026362074122714179пппппп

            ValueError: Expected n_neighbors <= n_samples, but n_samples = 1, n_neighbors = 6 (SMOTE) The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InCan SMOTE be applied over sequence of words (sentences)?ValueError when doing validation with random forestsSMOTE and multi class oversamplingLogic behind SMOTE-NC?ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_1 to have shape (7,) but got array with shape (1,)SmoteBoost: Should SMOTE be ran individually for each iteration/tree in the boosting?solving multi-class imbalance classification using smote and OSSUsing SMOTE for Synthetic Data generation to improve performance on unbalanced dataproblem of entry format for a simple model in KerasSVM SMOTE fit_resample() function runs forever with no result