Could a Weapon of Mass Destruction, targeting only humans, be developed?With current technology, genetically modified virus able to end mankindCould “soylent” or “body fuel” be mass produced cheaply without the reliance on agriculture?Could a plant lure humans in by using 'sex pheromones'?Genetic engineering as an alternative to magnetosphere (radiation protection)Speculative weapon of mass destructionWhat weapon of mass destruction could theoretically vaporize a whole solar system?Could the city of Boston, Mass avoid rising sea levels by building levees?How to realistically implement magic-users in medieval warfare?Wormholes as Weapons of Mass DestructionCould genetic engineering enable humans to make use of titanium or some similar material instead of calcium for bone formation?
How can my story take place on Earth without referring to our existing cities and countries?
Why transcripts instead of degree certificates?
One folder two different locations on ubuntu 18.04
When are digital copies of Switch games made available to play?
Who gets an Apparition licence?
Why isn’t the tax system continuous rather than bracketed?
Mean Value Theorem: Continuous or Defined?
Averting Real Women Don’t Wear Dresses
What could a reptilian race tell by candling their eggs?
Understanding Lasso Regression's sparsity geometrically
Can a Federation colony become a member world?
3D nonogram, beginner's edition
Did Wakanda officially get the stuff out of Bucky's head?
Needle Hotend for nonplanar printing
Does Anosov geodesic flow imply asphericity?
How can a valley surrounded by mountains be fertile and rainy?
Most importants new papers in computational complexity
How exactly is a normal force exerted, at the molecular level?
Could human civilization live 150 years in a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier colony without resorting to mass killing/ cannibalism?
Why do I need two parameters in an HTTP parameter pollution attack?
Should I report a leak of confidential HR information?
What's the easiest way for a whole party to be able to communicate with a creature that doesn't know Common?
How to expand abbrevs without hitting another extra key?
Which resurrection spells are valid to use with the Zealot's 'Warrior of the Gods' Feature?
Could a Weapon of Mass Destruction, targeting only humans, be developed?
With current technology, genetically modified virus able to end mankindCould “soylent” or “body fuel” be mass produced cheaply without the reliance on agriculture?Could a plant lure humans in by using 'sex pheromones'?Genetic engineering as an alternative to magnetosphere (radiation protection)Speculative weapon of mass destructionWhat weapon of mass destruction could theoretically vaporize a whole solar system?Could the city of Boston, Mass avoid rising sea levels by building levees?How to realistically implement magic-users in medieval warfare?Wormholes as Weapons of Mass DestructionCould genetic engineering enable humans to make use of titanium or some similar material instead of calcium for bone formation?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
Specifically, if deployed on a town. The buildings, animals (flora and fauna) would be completely untouched, but not a single human would survive the blow.
Secondly, if this is possible, what gene, DNA, and/or disease, would the weapon target in order to specifically target humans?
If it's not possible to wipe out humans without affecting the ecosystem, what gene could be targeted to do the maximum damage to humans and minimal damage to surrounding environment? How would environment be impacted?
warfare environment biochemistry weapon-mass-destruction genetic-engineering
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
CherryCherry
213 bronze badges
New contributor
Cherry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Specifically, if deployed on a town. The buildings, animals (flora and fauna) would be completely untouched, but not a single human would survive the blow.
Secondly, if this is possible, what gene, DNA, and/or disease, would the weapon target in order to specifically target humans?
If it's not possible to wipe out humans without affecting the ecosystem, what gene could be targeted to do the maximum damage to humans and minimal damage to surrounding environment? How would environment be impacted?
warfare environment biochemistry weapon-mass-destruction genetic-engineering
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
CherryCherry
213 bronze badges
New contributor
Cherry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Pretty sure this is a dupe, but I don't have that privilege level yet. The easiest way, as done in several SciFi stories as well as "Children of Men," is to render everyone sterile and wait 100 years or so.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Very feasible for a biological agent, but it has to be attuned to human DNA. And it will be very hard (if not impossible) for a non-biological weapon (maybe excluding some sophisticated DNA-sensing nanobots) to selectively affect only humans.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Alexander Actually biological agents that are attuned to human DNA, like the common cold, are rarely fatal it's the ones that aren't attuned to a human host but able to reproduce in one that are the killers.
$endgroup$
– Ash
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The Black Death killed one half of the population of Europe (and more than one fifth of the entire human population of the world) in the 14th century. Many villages were completely deserted -- Wikipedia says that only in England 1300 villages were completely abandoned. Other than killing lots of humans and some rats the plague had no effect on the environment.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ash "DNA tuning" is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement. If a disease can reproduce in 99%+ humans, then it is de facto attuned.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Specifically, if deployed on a town. The buildings, animals (flora and fauna) would be completely untouched, but not a single human would survive the blow.
Secondly, if this is possible, what gene, DNA, and/or disease, would the weapon target in order to specifically target humans?
If it's not possible to wipe out humans without affecting the ecosystem, what gene could be targeted to do the maximum damage to humans and minimal damage to surrounding environment? How would environment be impacted?
warfare environment biochemistry weapon-mass-destruction genetic-engineering
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
CherryCherry
213 bronze badges
New contributor
Cherry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Specifically, if deployed on a town. The buildings, animals (flora and fauna) would be completely untouched, but not a single human would survive the blow.
Secondly, if this is possible, what gene, DNA, and/or disease, would the weapon target in order to specifically target humans?
If it's not possible to wipe out humans without affecting the ecosystem, what gene could be targeted to do the maximum damage to humans and minimal damage to surrounding environment? How would environment be impacted?
warfare environment biochemistry weapon-mass-destruction genetic-engineering
warfare environment biochemistry weapon-mass-destruction genetic-engineering
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
CherryCherry
213 bronze badges
New contributor
Cherry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
CherryCherry
213 bronze badges
New contributor
Cherry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
CherryCherry
213 bronze badges
New contributor
Cherry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
CherryCherry
213 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
CherryCherry
213 bronze badges
213 bronze badges
New contributor
Cherry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Cherry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
Pretty sure this is a dupe, but I don't have that privilege level yet. The easiest way, as done in several SciFi stories as well as "Children of Men," is to render everyone sterile and wait 100 years or so.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Very feasible for a biological agent, but it has to be attuned to human DNA. And it will be very hard (if not impossible) for a non-biological weapon (maybe excluding some sophisticated DNA-sensing nanobots) to selectively affect only humans.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Alexander Actually biological agents that are attuned to human DNA, like the common cold, are rarely fatal it's the ones that aren't attuned to a human host but able to reproduce in one that are the killers.
$endgroup$
– Ash
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The Black Death killed one half of the population of Europe (and more than one fifth of the entire human population of the world) in the 14th century. Many villages were completely deserted -- Wikipedia says that only in England 1300 villages were completely abandoned. Other than killing lots of humans and some rats the plague had no effect on the environment.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ash "DNA tuning" is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement. If a disease can reproduce in 99%+ humans, then it is de facto attuned.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Pretty sure this is a dupe, but I don't have that privilege level yet. The easiest way, as done in several SciFi stories as well as "Children of Men," is to render everyone sterile and wait 100 years or so.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Very feasible for a biological agent, but it has to be attuned to human DNA. And it will be very hard (if not impossible) for a non-biological weapon (maybe excluding some sophisticated DNA-sensing nanobots) to selectively affect only humans.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Alexander Actually biological agents that are attuned to human DNA, like the common cold, are rarely fatal it's the ones that aren't attuned to a human host but able to reproduce in one that are the killers.
$endgroup$
– Ash
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The Black Death killed one half of the population of Europe (and more than one fifth of the entire human population of the world) in the 14th century. Many villages were completely deserted -- Wikipedia says that only in England 1300 villages were completely abandoned. Other than killing lots of humans and some rats the plague had no effect on the environment.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ash "DNA tuning" is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement. If a disease can reproduce in 99%+ humans, then it is de facto attuned.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Pretty sure this is a dupe, but I don't have that privilege level yet. The easiest way, as done in several SciFi stories as well as "Children of Men," is to render everyone sterile and wait 100 years or so.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Pretty sure this is a dupe, but I don't have that privilege level yet. The easiest way, as done in several SciFi stories as well as "Children of Men," is to render everyone sterile and wait 100 years or so.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Very feasible for a biological agent, but it has to be attuned to human DNA. And it will be very hard (if not impossible) for a non-biological weapon (maybe excluding some sophisticated DNA-sensing nanobots) to selectively affect only humans.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Very feasible for a biological agent, but it has to be attuned to human DNA. And it will be very hard (if not impossible) for a non-biological weapon (maybe excluding some sophisticated DNA-sensing nanobots) to selectively affect only humans.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Alexander Actually biological agents that are attuned to human DNA, like the common cold, are rarely fatal it's the ones that aren't attuned to a human host but able to reproduce in one that are the killers.
$endgroup$
– Ash
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Alexander Actually biological agents that are attuned to human DNA, like the common cold, are rarely fatal it's the ones that aren't attuned to a human host but able to reproduce in one that are the killers.
$endgroup$
– Ash
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
The Black Death killed one half of the population of Europe (and more than one fifth of the entire human population of the world) in the 14th century. Many villages were completely deserted -- Wikipedia says that only in England 1300 villages were completely abandoned. Other than killing lots of humans and some rats the plague had no effect on the environment.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
The Black Death killed one half of the population of Europe (and more than one fifth of the entire human population of the world) in the 14th century. Many villages were completely deserted -- Wikipedia says that only in England 1300 villages were completely abandoned. Other than killing lots of humans and some rats the plague had no effect on the environment.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ash "DNA tuning" is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement. If a disease can reproduce in 99%+ humans, then it is de facto attuned.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ash "DNA tuning" is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement. If a disease can reproduce in 99%+ humans, then it is de facto attuned.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Viruses are highly species-specific, i.e. a human virus will only kill humans. So a biological weapon will do the job. The best virus to use is beyond my knowledge, and I am a bit concerned a terrorist would read this. If we stick to sci-fi convention, then zombie virus is the most obvious choice. But realistically, even the deadliest viruses leave some survivors who happen to be immune.
It is not possible to "to wipe out humans without affecting ecosystem". We are part of the ecosystem. Accidents at factories and power plants will generate a ton of immediate environmental damage. Nuclear station meltdowns, oil spills, fires, chemical factories exploding, etc. Dam breaks will wipe everything downstream. Rain will wash trash and debris into rivers and oceans.
Farming industry will have longer effects: lots of animals will die, creating temporary feeding ground for scavengers, and then starvation and death once no more animals are available. Other animals will escape, probably briefly consuming all plants in immediate area.
Our pets (as long as they can get out) will be an interesting addition to wildlife.
But in 10-20 years, nature will recover and take over. Are you willing to wait that long?
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Bald BearBald Bear
7,66913 silver badges28 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So the premise of my world is the following. This theoretical weapon that targets only humans it is accidentally deployed and the surface of the earth becomes unlivable for humans for the next 150 years. The animals are also effected but mutate to survive.
$endgroup$
– Cherry
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Technically no, a weapon of mass destrcution (WMD) has to devastate the scenery and everything in it, a mass casualty weapon that only kills humans is pretty easy though. This is going to be a biological weapon, Smallpox is a good candidate as are Ebola and Marburg, they may infect other animals but are only really lethal to humans.
answered 8 hours ago
AshAsh
30.1k4 gold badges73 silver badges165 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Unless the bioweapon was released simultaneously, I don't think it would be effective in wiping out the humans. If a city was targetted, humans would study the effects and look for ways to survive and counter the weapon.
A biological weapon that targeted the human reproductive cycle might be more effective. If it was highly contagious and initially had no side effects, or very few, but prevented the pregnancy from coming to term, might infect a large percentage of the population before anyone was aware of it. If it scared the uterus of an infected woman that became pregnant, then they would not be able to get pregnant later, if the humans worked out a cure. In a generation or two, you could wipe the humans from the planet.
answered 8 hours ago
EDLEDL
2,4193 silver badges13 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is likely going to be a disease
Human-only disease. A highly virulent and highly lethal disease which affects only humans can devastate the entire world before humans can do anything to react to it. Incubation period should be long enough that normal quarantine methods are not going to be very effective. The downside here is that there inevitably be a large number of survivors that would isolate themselves from the rest of the world, and once everyone affected would die, the survivors will just start over.
A disease that is fatal to humans only. Imagine a disease that infects all mammals, but is fatal to humans only. Without having a cure, a world in which every animal presents mortal danger would be very hard and perhaps not survivable for humans. If disease's Natural reservoir is very large, it just can't be eliminated, and pockets of human survivors would be doomed as well.
Nanobots. Today, the world "nanobots" is very generic and almost synonymous with "magic". Anything that is scientifically doable, can be performed by nanobots. So imagine zillions of nanobots infecting all living things on Earth, checking their DNA and mercilessly killing them if it has human composition.
All mass destruction methods that don't have DNA tuning are not going to be selective enough to avoid large collateral damage among animals. And I also assume that dying off of the farm animals and pets is acceptable.
answered 7 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
23.1k5 gold badges37 silver badges90 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Targeted robotic micro cluster munitions.
Some humans might be resistant to a biological weapon, or be able to be isolated before infection sets in. Few humans will be resistant to a micro shaped charge to the head...
Designed as hoppers, such devices could be sized such that they wouldn't leave notable damage to any part of the surrounding environment.
For slightly more alignment and targeting effort they could employ a contained "bolt gun", and each munition could be reusable.
If employed using a non- learning AI, then there is effectively zero target drift as could be found in a biological weapon.
After initial deployment the munitions could remain in standby mode to catch any straggling basement dwellers, or remotely disabled to allow the region to be occupied.
They could also be programmed to only activate on "safe" targets to avoid collateral damage. No killing people driving cars on the highway or anyone at home with a stove on kind of thing.
answered 4 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1,4932 silver badges11 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
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
);
);
Cherry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f149579%2fcould-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction-targeting-only-humans-be-developed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Viruses are highly species-specific, i.e. a human virus will only kill humans. So a biological weapon will do the job. The best virus to use is beyond my knowledge, and I am a bit concerned a terrorist would read this. If we stick to sci-fi convention, then zombie virus is the most obvious choice. But realistically, even the deadliest viruses leave some survivors who happen to be immune.
It is not possible to "to wipe out humans without affecting ecosystem". We are part of the ecosystem. Accidents at factories and power plants will generate a ton of immediate environmental damage. Nuclear station meltdowns, oil spills, fires, chemical factories exploding, etc. Dam breaks will wipe everything downstream. Rain will wash trash and debris into rivers and oceans.
Farming industry will have longer effects: lots of animals will die, creating temporary feeding ground for scavengers, and then starvation and death once no more animals are available. Other animals will escape, probably briefly consuming all plants in immediate area.
Our pets (as long as they can get out) will be an interesting addition to wildlife.
But in 10-20 years, nature will recover and take over. Are you willing to wait that long?
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Bald BearBald Bear
7,66913 silver badges28 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So the premise of my world is the following. This theoretical weapon that targets only humans it is accidentally deployed and the surface of the earth becomes unlivable for humans for the next 150 years. The animals are also effected but mutate to survive.
$endgroup$
– Cherry
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Viruses are highly species-specific, i.e. a human virus will only kill humans. So a biological weapon will do the job. The best virus to use is beyond my knowledge, and I am a bit concerned a terrorist would read this. If we stick to sci-fi convention, then zombie virus is the most obvious choice. But realistically, even the deadliest viruses leave some survivors who happen to be immune.
It is not possible to "to wipe out humans without affecting ecosystem". We are part of the ecosystem. Accidents at factories and power plants will generate a ton of immediate environmental damage. Nuclear station meltdowns, oil spills, fires, chemical factories exploding, etc. Dam breaks will wipe everything downstream. Rain will wash trash and debris into rivers and oceans.
Farming industry will have longer effects: lots of animals will die, creating temporary feeding ground for scavengers, and then starvation and death once no more animals are available. Other animals will escape, probably briefly consuming all plants in immediate area.
Our pets (as long as they can get out) will be an interesting addition to wildlife.
But in 10-20 years, nature will recover and take over. Are you willing to wait that long?
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Bald BearBald Bear
7,66913 silver badges28 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So the premise of my world is the following. This theoretical weapon that targets only humans it is accidentally deployed and the surface of the earth becomes unlivable for humans for the next 150 years. The animals are also effected but mutate to survive.
$endgroup$
– Cherry
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Viruses are highly species-specific, i.e. a human virus will only kill humans. So a biological weapon will do the job. The best virus to use is beyond my knowledge, and I am a bit concerned a terrorist would read this. If we stick to sci-fi convention, then zombie virus is the most obvious choice. But realistically, even the deadliest viruses leave some survivors who happen to be immune.
It is not possible to "to wipe out humans without affecting ecosystem". We are part of the ecosystem. Accidents at factories and power plants will generate a ton of immediate environmental damage. Nuclear station meltdowns, oil spills, fires, chemical factories exploding, etc. Dam breaks will wipe everything downstream. Rain will wash trash and debris into rivers and oceans.
Farming industry will have longer effects: lots of animals will die, creating temporary feeding ground for scavengers, and then starvation and death once no more animals are available. Other animals will escape, probably briefly consuming all plants in immediate area.
Our pets (as long as they can get out) will be an interesting addition to wildlife.
But in 10-20 years, nature will recover and take over. Are you willing to wait that long?
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Bald BearBald Bear
7,66913 silver badges28 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Viruses are highly species-specific, i.e. a human virus will only kill humans. So a biological weapon will do the job. The best virus to use is beyond my knowledge, and I am a bit concerned a terrorist would read this. If we stick to sci-fi convention, then zombie virus is the most obvious choice. But realistically, even the deadliest viruses leave some survivors who happen to be immune.
It is not possible to "to wipe out humans without affecting ecosystem". We are part of the ecosystem. Accidents at factories and power plants will generate a ton of immediate environmental damage. Nuclear station meltdowns, oil spills, fires, chemical factories exploding, etc. Dam breaks will wipe everything downstream. Rain will wash trash and debris into rivers and oceans.
Farming industry will have longer effects: lots of animals will die, creating temporary feeding ground for scavengers, and then starvation and death once no more animals are available. Other animals will escape, probably briefly consuming all plants in immediate area.
Our pets (as long as they can get out) will be an interesting addition to wildlife.
But in 10-20 years, nature will recover and take over. Are you willing to wait that long?
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Bald BearBald Bear
7,66913 silver badges28 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
Brythan
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
22.2k8 gold badges43 silver badges88 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Bald BearBald Bear
7,66913 silver badges28 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Bald BearBald Bear
7,66913 silver badges28 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Bald BearBald Bear
7,66913 silver badges28 bronze badges
7,66913 silver badges28 bronze badges
$begingroup$
So the premise of my world is the following. This theoretical weapon that targets only humans it is accidentally deployed and the surface of the earth becomes unlivable for humans for the next 150 years. The animals are also effected but mutate to survive.
$endgroup$
– Cherry
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So the premise of my world is the following. This theoretical weapon that targets only humans it is accidentally deployed and the surface of the earth becomes unlivable for humans for the next 150 years. The animals are also effected but mutate to survive.
$endgroup$
– Cherry
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
So the premise of my world is the following. This theoretical weapon that targets only humans it is accidentally deployed and the surface of the earth becomes unlivable for humans for the next 150 years. The animals are also effected but mutate to survive.
$endgroup$
– Cherry
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
So the premise of my world is the following. This theoretical weapon that targets only humans it is accidentally deployed and the surface of the earth becomes unlivable for humans for the next 150 years. The animals are also effected but mutate to survive.
$endgroup$
– Cherry
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Technically no, a weapon of mass destrcution (WMD) has to devastate the scenery and everything in it, a mass casualty weapon that only kills humans is pretty easy though. This is going to be a biological weapon, Smallpox is a good candidate as are Ebola and Marburg, they may infect other animals but are only really lethal to humans.
answered 8 hours ago
AshAsh
30.1k4 gold badges73 silver badges165 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Technically no, a weapon of mass destrcution (WMD) has to devastate the scenery and everything in it, a mass casualty weapon that only kills humans is pretty easy though. This is going to be a biological weapon, Smallpox is a good candidate as are Ebola and Marburg, they may infect other animals but are only really lethal to humans.
answered 8 hours ago
AshAsh
30.1k4 gold badges73 silver badges165 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Technically no, a weapon of mass destrcution (WMD) has to devastate the scenery and everything in it, a mass casualty weapon that only kills humans is pretty easy though. This is going to be a biological weapon, Smallpox is a good candidate as are Ebola and Marburg, they may infect other animals but are only really lethal to humans.
answered 8 hours ago
AshAsh
30.1k4 gold badges73 silver badges165 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Technically no, a weapon of mass destrcution (WMD) has to devastate the scenery and everything in it, a mass casualty weapon that only kills humans is pretty easy though. This is going to be a biological weapon, Smallpox is a good candidate as are Ebola and Marburg, they may infect other animals but are only really lethal to humans.
answered 8 hours ago
AshAsh
30.1k4 gold badges73 silver badges165 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
AshAsh
30.1k4 gold badges73 silver badges165 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
AshAsh
30.1k4 gold badges73 silver badges165 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
AshAsh
30.1k4 gold badges73 silver badges165 bronze badges
30.1k4 gold badges73 silver badges165 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Unless the bioweapon was released simultaneously, I don't think it would be effective in wiping out the humans. If a city was targetted, humans would study the effects and look for ways to survive and counter the weapon.
A biological weapon that targeted the human reproductive cycle might be more effective. If it was highly contagious and initially had no side effects, or very few, but prevented the pregnancy from coming to term, might infect a large percentage of the population before anyone was aware of it. If it scared the uterus of an infected woman that became pregnant, then they would not be able to get pregnant later, if the humans worked out a cure. In a generation or two, you could wipe the humans from the planet.
answered 8 hours ago
EDLEDL
2,4193 silver badges13 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Unless the bioweapon was released simultaneously, I don't think it would be effective in wiping out the humans. If a city was targetted, humans would study the effects and look for ways to survive and counter the weapon.
A biological weapon that targeted the human reproductive cycle might be more effective. If it was highly contagious and initially had no side effects, or very few, but prevented the pregnancy from coming to term, might infect a large percentage of the population before anyone was aware of it. If it scared the uterus of an infected woman that became pregnant, then they would not be able to get pregnant later, if the humans worked out a cure. In a generation or two, you could wipe the humans from the planet.
answered 8 hours ago
EDLEDL
2,4193 silver badges13 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Unless the bioweapon was released simultaneously, I don't think it would be effective in wiping out the humans. If a city was targetted, humans would study the effects and look for ways to survive and counter the weapon.
A biological weapon that targeted the human reproductive cycle might be more effective. If it was highly contagious and initially had no side effects, or very few, but prevented the pregnancy from coming to term, might infect a large percentage of the population before anyone was aware of it. If it scared the uterus of an infected woman that became pregnant, then they would not be able to get pregnant later, if the humans worked out a cure. In a generation or two, you could wipe the humans from the planet.
answered 8 hours ago
EDLEDL
2,4193 silver badges13 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Unless the bioweapon was released simultaneously, I don't think it would be effective in wiping out the humans. If a city was targetted, humans would study the effects and look for ways to survive and counter the weapon.
A biological weapon that targeted the human reproductive cycle might be more effective. If it was highly contagious and initially had no side effects, or very few, but prevented the pregnancy from coming to term, might infect a large percentage of the population before anyone was aware of it. If it scared the uterus of an infected woman that became pregnant, then they would not be able to get pregnant later, if the humans worked out a cure. In a generation or two, you could wipe the humans from the planet.
answered 8 hours ago
EDLEDL
2,4193 silver badges13 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
EDLEDL
2,4193 silver badges13 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
EDLEDL
2,4193 silver badges13 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
EDLEDL
2,4193 silver badges13 bronze badges
2,4193 silver badges13 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is likely going to be a disease
Human-only disease. A highly virulent and highly lethal disease which affects only humans can devastate the entire world before humans can do anything to react to it. Incubation period should be long enough that normal quarantine methods are not going to be very effective. The downside here is that there inevitably be a large number of survivors that would isolate themselves from the rest of the world, and once everyone affected would die, the survivors will just start over.
A disease that is fatal to humans only. Imagine a disease that infects all mammals, but is fatal to humans only. Without having a cure, a world in which every animal presents mortal danger would be very hard and perhaps not survivable for humans. If disease's Natural reservoir is very large, it just can't be eliminated, and pockets of human survivors would be doomed as well.
Nanobots. Today, the world "nanobots" is very generic and almost synonymous with "magic". Anything that is scientifically doable, can be performed by nanobots. So imagine zillions of nanobots infecting all living things on Earth, checking their DNA and mercilessly killing them if it has human composition.
All mass destruction methods that don't have DNA tuning are not going to be selective enough to avoid large collateral damage among animals. And I also assume that dying off of the farm animals and pets is acceptable.
answered 7 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
23.1k5 gold badges37 silver badges90 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is likely going to be a disease
Human-only disease. A highly virulent and highly lethal disease which affects only humans can devastate the entire world before humans can do anything to react to it. Incubation period should be long enough that normal quarantine methods are not going to be very effective. The downside here is that there inevitably be a large number of survivors that would isolate themselves from the rest of the world, and once everyone affected would die, the survivors will just start over.
A disease that is fatal to humans only. Imagine a disease that infects all mammals, but is fatal to humans only. Without having a cure, a world in which every animal presents mortal danger would be very hard and perhaps not survivable for humans. If disease's Natural reservoir is very large, it just can't be eliminated, and pockets of human survivors would be doomed as well.
Nanobots. Today, the world "nanobots" is very generic and almost synonymous with "magic". Anything that is scientifically doable, can be performed by nanobots. So imagine zillions of nanobots infecting all living things on Earth, checking their DNA and mercilessly killing them if it has human composition.
All mass destruction methods that don't have DNA tuning are not going to be selective enough to avoid large collateral damage among animals. And I also assume that dying off of the farm animals and pets is acceptable.
answered 7 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
23.1k5 gold badges37 silver badges90 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is likely going to be a disease
Human-only disease. A highly virulent and highly lethal disease which affects only humans can devastate the entire world before humans can do anything to react to it. Incubation period should be long enough that normal quarantine methods are not going to be very effective. The downside here is that there inevitably be a large number of survivors that would isolate themselves from the rest of the world, and once everyone affected would die, the survivors will just start over.
A disease that is fatal to humans only. Imagine a disease that infects all mammals, but is fatal to humans only. Without having a cure, a world in which every animal presents mortal danger would be very hard and perhaps not survivable for humans. If disease's Natural reservoir is very large, it just can't be eliminated, and pockets of human survivors would be doomed as well.
Nanobots. Today, the world "nanobots" is very generic and almost synonymous with "magic". Anything that is scientifically doable, can be performed by nanobots. So imagine zillions of nanobots infecting all living things on Earth, checking their DNA and mercilessly killing them if it has human composition.
All mass destruction methods that don't have DNA tuning are not going to be selective enough to avoid large collateral damage among animals. And I also assume that dying off of the farm animals and pets is acceptable.
answered 7 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
23.1k5 gold badges37 silver badges90 bronze badges
$endgroup$
This is likely going to be a disease
Human-only disease. A highly virulent and highly lethal disease which affects only humans can devastate the entire world before humans can do anything to react to it. Incubation period should be long enough that normal quarantine methods are not going to be very effective. The downside here is that there inevitably be a large number of survivors that would isolate themselves from the rest of the world, and once everyone affected would die, the survivors will just start over.
A disease that is fatal to humans only. Imagine a disease that infects all mammals, but is fatal to humans only. Without having a cure, a world in which every animal presents mortal danger would be very hard and perhaps not survivable for humans. If disease's Natural reservoir is very large, it just can't be eliminated, and pockets of human survivors would be doomed as well.
Nanobots. Today, the world "nanobots" is very generic and almost synonymous with "magic". Anything that is scientifically doable, can be performed by nanobots. So imagine zillions of nanobots infecting all living things on Earth, checking their DNA and mercilessly killing them if it has human composition.
All mass destruction methods that don't have DNA tuning are not going to be selective enough to avoid large collateral damage among animals. And I also assume that dying off of the farm animals and pets is acceptable.
answered 7 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
23.1k5 gold badges37 silver badges90 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
23.1k5 gold badges37 silver badges90 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
23.1k5 gold badges37 silver badges90 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
23.1k5 gold badges37 silver badges90 bronze badges
23.1k5 gold badges37 silver badges90 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Targeted robotic micro cluster munitions.
Some humans might be resistant to a biological weapon, or be able to be isolated before infection sets in. Few humans will be resistant to a micro shaped charge to the head...
Designed as hoppers, such devices could be sized such that they wouldn't leave notable damage to any part of the surrounding environment.
For slightly more alignment and targeting effort they could employ a contained "bolt gun", and each munition could be reusable.
If employed using a non- learning AI, then there is effectively zero target drift as could be found in a biological weapon.
After initial deployment the munitions could remain in standby mode to catch any straggling basement dwellers, or remotely disabled to allow the region to be occupied.
They could also be programmed to only activate on "safe" targets to avoid collateral damage. No killing people driving cars on the highway or anyone at home with a stove on kind of thing.
answered 4 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1,4932 silver badges11 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Targeted robotic micro cluster munitions.
Some humans might be resistant to a biological weapon, or be able to be isolated before infection sets in. Few humans will be resistant to a micro shaped charge to the head...
Designed as hoppers, such devices could be sized such that they wouldn't leave notable damage to any part of the surrounding environment.
For slightly more alignment and targeting effort they could employ a contained "bolt gun", and each munition could be reusable.
If employed using a non- learning AI, then there is effectively zero target drift as could be found in a biological weapon.
After initial deployment the munitions could remain in standby mode to catch any straggling basement dwellers, or remotely disabled to allow the region to be occupied.
They could also be programmed to only activate on "safe" targets to avoid collateral damage. No killing people driving cars on the highway or anyone at home with a stove on kind of thing.
answered 4 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1,4932 silver badges11 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Targeted robotic micro cluster munitions.
Some humans might be resistant to a biological weapon, or be able to be isolated before infection sets in. Few humans will be resistant to a micro shaped charge to the head...
Designed as hoppers, such devices could be sized such that they wouldn't leave notable damage to any part of the surrounding environment.
For slightly more alignment and targeting effort they could employ a contained "bolt gun", and each munition could be reusable.
If employed using a non- learning AI, then there is effectively zero target drift as could be found in a biological weapon.
After initial deployment the munitions could remain in standby mode to catch any straggling basement dwellers, or remotely disabled to allow the region to be occupied.
They could also be programmed to only activate on "safe" targets to avoid collateral damage. No killing people driving cars on the highway or anyone at home with a stove on kind of thing.
answered 4 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1,4932 silver badges11 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Targeted robotic micro cluster munitions.
Some humans might be resistant to a biological weapon, or be able to be isolated before infection sets in. Few humans will be resistant to a micro shaped charge to the head...
Designed as hoppers, such devices could be sized such that they wouldn't leave notable damage to any part of the surrounding environment.
For slightly more alignment and targeting effort they could employ a contained "bolt gun", and each munition could be reusable.
If employed using a non- learning AI, then there is effectively zero target drift as could be found in a biological weapon.
After initial deployment the munitions could remain in standby mode to catch any straggling basement dwellers, or remotely disabled to allow the region to be occupied.
They could also be programmed to only activate on "safe" targets to avoid collateral damage. No killing people driving cars on the highway or anyone at home with a stove on kind of thing.
answered 4 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1,4932 silver badges11 bronze badges
answered 4 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1,4932 silver badges11 bronze badges
answered 4 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1,4932 silver badges11 bronze badges
answered 4 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1,4932 silver badges11 bronze badges
1,4932 silver badges11 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Cherry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Cherry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Cherry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Cherry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f149579%2fcould-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction-targeting-only-humans-be-developed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
Pretty sure this is a dupe, but I don't have that privilege level yet. The easiest way, as done in several SciFi stories as well as "Children of Men," is to render everyone sterile and wait 100 years or so.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Very feasible for a biological agent, but it has to be attuned to human DNA. And it will be very hard (if not impossible) for a non-biological weapon (maybe excluding some sophisticated DNA-sensing nanobots) to selectively affect only humans.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Alexander Actually biological agents that are attuned to human DNA, like the common cold, are rarely fatal it's the ones that aren't attuned to a human host but able to reproduce in one that are the killers.
$endgroup$
– Ash
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The Black Death killed one half of the population of Europe (and more than one fifth of the entire human population of the world) in the 14th century. Many villages were completely deserted -- Wikipedia says that only in England 1300 villages were completely abandoned. Other than killing lots of humans and some rats the plague had no effect on the environment.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ash "DNA tuning" is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement. If a disease can reproduce in 99%+ humans, then it is de facto attuned.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
8 hours ago