See, this is something we don't know.
We could be the only intelligent race in the whole damn universe and therefore the one species most important to protect.
We sure as hell are unique on earth and therefore we could be only past the first percentile of the species lifespan with great and wonderful things in store if we don't fuck it up.
Even if we are only at the first percentile of our species (though genus might be a better measure here as species is a bit nebulous in evolutionary terms over long periods) lifespan it would still be a pretty huge failure by paleontological standards. 20 million years? Shit there were dinosaur species that were around for 100. Compare that to something like sharks or crocodiles. Hell, horseshoe crabs. And getting into single celled organisms, archea. Some of them have been around in pretty much the same general form for 1.5 billion years.
Regardless though, it doesn't matter, because the human species will be made or broken in the next 1000 years. At the rate of technological progression, at that point, either we will have spread out into space, making ourselves virtually unkillable as a species barring cosmic phenomena, or we'll all have killed each other.
Regardless though, it doesn't matter, because anyone reading this forum will be lucky to live 80 more years. Enjoy the time you've got.
On-global warming:
Man-made disasters and environmental concerns have a way of working themselves out as technology progresses. One hundred years ago the big problem was that industrial cities were covered with soot and people were getting lung cancer. Another problem was that tanners were dumping mercury into rivers. Another was that horses shit in the street, causing very much displeasure to all concerned.
Two-hundred years ago the forests of europe were being clear cut to build ships. Deforestation was rampant.
Three-hundred years ago it was that major cities had human shit running through the streets as cities had not been designed with sewers yet. This caused obvious problems such as cholera and hepititis outbreaks, etc.
Well, steel-making technology advanced, leatherworking methods improved, cars came along, ships begain being made from iron, sewers were constructed, etc. These advancements didn't come along so much due to government mandates but because they were generally desirable by everyone. Conservation efforts were definately important, yes, but ultimately the main actor in solving these problems was not that people decided to stop polluting, but that better options came along. No one had to tell people to stop building ships out of wood, or stop using horse-drawn carriages.
50 or 100 years from now a cheap alternative to burning fossil fuels will come along, which will perform better for the purposes fossil fuels are used for now that fossil fuels do. 200 years from now we'll all be looking back at global warming in the same way we do naval deforestation or equine fecal contamination now.
The important factor then becomes: Will global warming cause substantial damage to human civilization?
(Not the planet, as nothing humanity could do short of intentionally nuking every inch of land surface could impact the planet all that much. There are birds living and happilly reproducing in the dead radioactive husk of chernobyl right now. Most animals don't have such human concerns as needing or desiring long cancer free lifespans. At worst we mess up land usage and kill some species which live in environments that no longer exist, for which replacements will evolve within a few million years after we die out.)
Well, the average temp in the 20th century increased 0.6 degrees C. The entire history of human industrialization has increased co2 levels by about 100ppm, from 280ppm to 380ppm. Computer estimates project in the next 100 years, at the current rate of economic growth, the temperature will increase maybe 3.4C., with CO2 levels increasing to 540 ppm
(source -
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12065912%255E1702,00.html - this article is also an excellent example of alarmism, in 2001 estimates were 2-5C, a new set of computer models come out which estimates global warming at 2-11C, but with a median and average of around 3.4. Headlines read "global warming estimates double" because it gets more buys than "global warming estimates statistically exactly the fucking same".)
What will 3.4C in a global rise in temperature mean to us? The answer lies somewhere around "No one has any clue at all". Well, we've got 100 years to find out. We certainly have an answer to the question "what will 0.6C in global temperature rise mean to us?" Which is "not a whole fucking lot".
Ultimately the important question, though, is "Will the benefit from cutting fossil fuel related production lead to a better and longer life for more people than the goods and economic benefit provided from that production?"
If you can answer that one you should stop reading this and go pick up your nobel prize, and get to work on that middle east thing.
Author
