The world in 4000

[ScylaX]

Then again, please argument your position. Because there, we're going on a debate that is more speculative than factual or relative to a structure.
Because this is also a point of view I counter-argumented :

But you may be thinking the civilization will end because of the human being because "we have more technical means to do it than before, we can even blow up the whole planet with the weapons we have". Some dispositions may effectively cause us to pollute the planet (note : or to make it blow up ten times over again, it's just an example) and all, but you're making a slippery slope thinking that "this is going on like that, then this will be going on like this, and this, and this" because that's a totally gratuitous conjecture and the relation between the assertions is only ensured by the slim causal correlation they have.
Also, thinking that, because we possibly can make this happen, we will make this happen one day or another is an appeal to probabilities and is another logical fallacy.

Don't forget the "human nature" is too ambiguous to be reducible to a "violent and destructive species" - there are primitive pulsions that may make an individual violent at times, but we're talking about GROUPS of people deciding upon the fate of the entire world for this. No citizen have the power to possess something of that amplitude and terrorists have so limited means it's almost ridiculous to think they could blow up an entire country or make something that would have enormous consequences for the planet.

We wouldn't launch a nuclear warhead for any reason - first because they aren't weapons that are meant to be used in the first place, but they're here as a mean of dissuasion and pacification to exactly favor diplomatic outcomes instead of more wars with more men involved. Because I HIGHLY DOUBT that the persons that can launch that kind of technology would be motivated by impulsive influences. Really.
Once again, you should properly re-calculate the actual possibilities for something of that magnitude to happen, because all the current conditions are basically vector of peace, or at least, not to a point that would lead the world to apocalyptic consequences. Catastrophism isn't an option because it's seriously influenced by the "Slippery slope" sophism.

The more powerful that mean is, the more secured it will be (and this is justly to avoid really ugly consequences - and of course, exceptions are bound to happen, Fukushima or Three Miles Island for instance, and yes there are human reasons behind it. And if we talk about it, it's because of how grave it is considered among every single reasonable individual on the planet ; that - maybe - is because it's not considered as a norm, but as a very grave phenomenon), because anybody at that level is absolutely conscious of the consequences it can cause. Don't fall in that rhetorical topic of the "silly politician" or "man at the head of a country".
I don't say that this is impossible to happen (because that's a rule of the critical mind), but considered all the conditions, all the different factors that are playing in it (when you get to seriously think about it), it pretty much boils down the probabilities of this happening A LOT to the benefit of other thesis, that I consider to be more rationnal and more objective (and thus, probably more abstract because carefulness).