Could our species survive an extinction level event?

[Robotengineer]

Could our species survive an extinction level event with prep time of 2-5 years? Be it an asteroid, comet or the Moon spontaneously exploding. The event would be severe enough to make the Earth uninhabitable for thousands of years, forcing humanity into space (or underground) for centuries. We only have 2-5 years to plan, build and install the infrastructure that will be needed to last thousands of years, what should we do? 

I just finished reading the first two parts of Seveneves and it has got me thinking about this issue, which got me wondering what the KSP community would think would be the best way to survive an extinction level event. 

[steve_v]

No idea. Call me a pessimist, but I doubt it.
I am, however, getting that book.

[Shpaget]

in just 5 years of preparation? I don't think so.

[Frozen_Heart]

Depends what kind of extinction level event. Any of the previous mass extinctions humans could survive.

However it could also be taken to mean a black hole flying through the system and sucking up earth. We wouldn't survive that.

 

[Frybert]

Species? Yes. Without a doubt. We have come along far enough technologically speaking and have enough knowledge about what would be required to sustain human life that we could survive pretty much anything that doesn't wipe us out off the bat. Our society would likely change greatly however.

[Scotius]

A disaster leaving entire Earth uninhabitable? With only 5 years to prepare for it? We would try, certainly. Would we make it? Doubtful.

[Robotengineer]

@Those of you who think we doubt we could prepare in 5 years,

How far in advance would we have to know to be able to prepare adequately? 

[Alias72]

Like previously mentioned it depends so much on the nature of the event. Every extinction level event to date is survivable by humans today. Catch 22 is they would still be a mass casualty events. We can even survive nuclear war (though that one is a major problem).

 

If we had 5 years of prep time.... Maybe. The issue is that we could only save a small percentage of the population and that will likely upset a lot of people. I can imagine a large group of people who don't stand a chance at survival will try and ruin any chance of the rest surviving. Then there are the doomsday cults and profiteers who wouldn't be very helpful in the construction of large underground bunkers.

 

One other thing is certain. Life would be Sh^&

[Nibb31]

None of the extinction events that the Earth has gone through in the past had ever left it uninhabitable. There are nearly 8 billion of us. If something wiped out even 90% of the population, there would still be more of us left over the globe than the entire population 2000 years ago.

[Hysterrics]

I doubt it. There would be way too many issues. The world would divide mainly because of personal reasons(e.g politics, religions, yadayadayada). We could try but many would fight, crime would likely go up and no one would get anywhere. In a large, global event humans can just not work together, unfortunately.

[Scotius]

What makes you say that? So far every major disaster like the Indonesia tsunami, Ebola outbreak in Liberia or Fukushima disaster after the major earthquake  was answered by widespread drive to help. Money, supplies, rescue teams were being sent from every corner of the world - even from the countries that had their own problems. Despite what movie industry tries to shove at us, in case of threat people do not struck immediately on their own. We are hardwired to help each other, because we need at least barebone society around us to survive.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Scotius

[cubinator]

All the scientists, doctors, and engineers would live, and all the conspirators, denialists, politicians, and newspeople would die off.

[Just Jim]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

None of the extinction events that the Earth has gone through in the past had ever left it uninhabitable. There are nearly 8 billion of us. If something wiped out even 90% of the population, there would still be more of us left over the globe than the entire population 2000 years ago.

I also think it would depend on the event.  But there is a hypothesis that what you propose nearly happened: the Toba Super volcano event.

From what I understand the hypotheses is this super volcano called Toba in Indonesia blew up so bad about 70,000-75,000 years ago it killed off the entire human population except maybe 3,000-1000 survivors.  It's called the genetic bottleneck theory.  If it did happen, and the theory is correct, then our ancestors, with none of our current technology, already survived an apparently monstrous planet-wide catastrophe that must have nearly wiped out everything.

Makes me think, and hope, that in the end us dumb ol' humans are a lot tougher than we give ourselves credit for. 

[silversliver]

Since you said that you read Seveneves, I assume that the thing I'm going to say are not spoilers.

I personally think that the book is quite over optimistic.

Do you remember the thing about the Argentine ships threatening Kourou space center and Julia fending them off with napalm and nuclear weapons?

I personally believe that the same thing would happen on a global scale.

 

[Kerbart]

3 hours ago, Frybert said:

Species? Yes. Without a doubt. We have come along far enough technologically speaking and have enough knowledge about what would be required to sustain human life that we could survive pretty much anything that doesn't wipe us out off the bat. Our society would likely change greatly however.

I agree with "species." But stating that "Our society would likely change" is overly optimistic since I think that will be wiped out completely. Cities will collapse first (as they require an extremely complex infrastructure) and I suspect we'd be thrown back to medieval times or even stone-age. With the challenge of kickstarting a technologically advanced society without easily accessible resources as we've already used those up.

[Nibb31]

4 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I think that will be wiped out completely.

 

4 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I suspect we'd be thrown back to medieval times or even stone-age.

Does not compute. If we are thrown back to the stone age we are not wiped out.

[Hysterrics]

51 minutes ago, Scotius said:

What makes you say that? So far every major disaster like the Indonesia tsunami, Ebola outbreak in Liberia or Fukushima disaster after the major earthquake  was answered by widespread drive to help. Money, supplies, rescue teams were being sent from every corner of the world - even from the countries that had their own problems. Despite what movie industry tries to shove at us, in case of threat people do not struck immediately on their own. We are hardwired to help each other, because we need at least barebone society around us to survive.

That's because those things happened. If it was announced that planet Earth as we know it is being destroyed in 5 years then many people will simply just not believe it. Like I said, for their own personal reasons.
Not to mention the people helping the other people in those disasters likely helped because of sympathy. There were no conflicts with what they believed in. The transaction to them was: Disaster Happens > Check with my beliefs > No Conflict > Help. Where as in something like the Earth being destroyed, the transaction to some would be: Officials Claim that disaster is going to happen > Check with my beliefs > Conflict > Argue and Discourage the idea. I hope that makes sense.

People could have reason not to trust officials when they say something major will happen. Again, personal issues. Whether or not that reasoning is valid will not be something I will get into.

So an isolated disaster happening and a global disaster that could happen are two different things that you can't really compare.

Quote

We are hardwired to help each other, because we need at least barebone society around us to survive.

You are 100% correct, and I agree! We as humans just naturally help each other, if they know what's happening can actually threaten life. If they don't believe it's going to happen(Personal reasons: Politics, Religion) then they won't help. They believe that there is no reason to help if nothing is going to happen. To try to further explain my point: [Trustworthy Organization] claims that [disaster] will happen. Life as we know it is done for. Joe doesn't believe this because his [insert faith here] contradicts that.

For many it's faith over everything. No matter what is said, if it conflicts with their faith then it's false.

Disclaimer: Not religious or political debate is trying to be started. I'm really trying to make my point but tread very lightly here.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Sequinox

[Nuke]

survival yes. but life will be more regimented than a fremen warrior with a little morlock thrown in for good measure.

[Just Jim]

4 minutes ago, Nuke said:

survival yes. but life will be more regimented than a fremen warrior with a little morlock thrown in for good measure.

Ouch.... I would pay good money to watch that movie....

[Findthepin1]

Survival I agree with. Survival as in the humans in Wall-E. Otherwise, I doubt it.

[Nuke]

2 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

Ouch.... I would pay good money to watch that movie....

a certain scene from one of the terminus episodes of the walking dead comes to mind.

[Mazon Del]

5 years is probably not enough yet for us to do anything to terribly significant offworld. Could we set up some bunkers filled with a bunch of nice survivalist toys and resources? Quite easily. How well they'd do is another question. Especially if anybody outside survived, they'd probably not be too terribly happy that they were abandoned to die, so any sort of alliances and such would be difficult to manage.

In 5-10 years, assuming that SpaceX and similar continue on their schedules for rocket development and habitat R&D, then it could be possible, just barely, to create a self sufficient human colony on somewhere like the moon, given only 5 years warning. It wouldn't be very easy though.

[Frybert]

1 hour ago, Mazon Del said:

5 years is probably not enough yet for us to do anything to terribly significant offworld. Could we set up some bunkers filled with a bunch of nice survivalist toys and resources? Quite easily. How well they'd do is another question. Especially if anybody outside survived, they'd probably not be too terribly happy that they were abandoned to die, so any sort of alliances and such would be difficult to manage.

In 5-10 years, assuming that SpaceX and similar continue on their schedules for rocket development and habitat R&D, then it could be possible, just barely, to create a self sufficient human colony on somewhere like the moon, given only 5 years warning. It wouldn't be very easy though.

I'm quite curious to know what type of disaster would actually be made better by leaving the earth?

 

Edit: Actually I had a thought in the shower. I wonder if it indeed WOULD be feasible to establish a large network of green houses on the moon to supply the people of earth with food in the event the sun gets blocked out. I was initially thinking it would be better to create artificial sunlight on the surface, but that would take EXTREME levels of energy to maintain. 

Edited January 5, 2016 by Frybert

[Temstar]

There's a documentary on this topic called Evacuate Earth which posits a scenario that a neutron star is set to plow through the solar system with 80 years advanced warning. Thus its not possible to survive by moving some fraction of the human population to another planet or moon within the solar system as they too will be messed up by the passage of the neutron star.

The documentary goes on to say that it should be possible (but just barely) in this case for mankind to build an interstellar ark consisting of an O'neill cylinder mated to a large orion drive and head for an earth-like planet around Barnard's Star just under six light years away. The trip is estimated to take 80 years which means the ark have to build up to something like 10% speed of light on the way and coast.

[Robotengineer]

6 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

None of the extinction events that the Earth has gone through in the past had ever left it uninhabitable. There are nearly 8 billion of us. If something wiped out even 90% of the population, there would still be more of us left over the globe than the entire population 2000 years ago.

I suppose I left a little to much up for debate while trying not to spoil the book. The sort of event I was imagining is one that would wipe out all human presence on the surface of the Earth. Going under would obviously be an option, but the feasibility of it would depend on the sort of event. 

3 hours ago, Sequinox said:

That's because those things happened. If it was announced that planet Earth as we know it is being destroyed in 5 years then many people will simply just not believe it. Like I said, for their own personal reasons.
Not to mention the people helping the other people in those disasters likely helped because of sympathy. There were no conflicts with what they believed in. The transaction to them was: Disaster Happens > Check with my beliefs > No Conflict > Help. Where as in something like the Earth being destroyed, the transaction to some would be: Officials Claim that disaster is going to happen > Check with my beliefs > Conflict > Argue and Discourage the idea. I hope that makes sense.

People could have reason not to trust officials when they say something major will happen. Again, personal issues. Whether or not that reasoning is valid will not be something I will get into.

So an isolated disaster happening and a global disaster that could happen are two different things that you can't really compare.

You are 100% correct, and I agree! We as humans just naturally help each other, if they know what's happening can actually threaten life. If they don't believe it's going to happen(Personal reasons: Politics, Religion) then they won't help. They believe that there is no reason to help if nothing is going to happen. To try to further explain my point: [Trustworthy Organization] claims that [disaster] will happen. Life as we know it is done for. Joe doesn't believe this because his [insert faith here] contradicts that.

For many it's faith over everything. No matter what is said, if it conflicts with their faith then it's false.

Disclaimer: Not religious or political debate is trying to be started. I'm really trying to make my point but tread very lightly here.

That was one of the things I found to be lacking in the book, it way overestimated the willingness of most people to accept their imminent doom, or at the very least chose not to pay any attention to it. We have people who believe the world is flat, we never went to the Moon and a myriad of other conspiracy theories, we can hardly expect them to accept evidence of an extinction level event from a credible source. 

1 hour ago, Frybert said:

I'm quite curious to know what type of disaster would actually be made better by leaving the earth?

 

Edit: Actually I had a thought in the shower. I wonder if it indeed WOULD be feasible to establish a large network of green houses on the moon to supply the people of earth with food in the event the sun gets blocked out. I was initially thinking it would be better to create artificial sunlight on the surface, but that would take EXTREME levels of energy to maintain. 

Some sort of long duration meteorite shower that would cause Earth's atmosphere to overheat, as well as scorching the entire surface of the planet bare and killing basically all life. 

On your edit, the extreme levels of energy could possibly be created by nuclear reactors. Why would you create artificial sunlight on the surface rather than in insulated greenhouses buried in the regolith? Or did I not understand you correctly?

2 hours ago, Mazon Del said:

5 years is probably not enough yet for us to do anything to terribly significant offworld. Could we set up some bunkers filled with a bunch of nice survivalist toys and resources? Quite easily. How well they'd do is another question. Especially if anybody outside survived, they'd probably not be too terribly happy that they were abandoned to die, so any sort of alliances and such would be difficult to manage.

In 5-10 years, assuming that SpaceX and similar continue on their schedules for rocket development and habitat R&D, then it could be possible, just barely, to create a self sufficient human colony on somewhere like the moon, given only 5 years warning. It wouldn't be very easy though.

Assuming that the event doesn't happen in the next 5-10 years do you all think that it makes sense to start putting survival infrastructure into place ahead of time, before we even know of an extinction level event?