Could our species survive an extinction level event?

[GeneralVeers]

On 1/5/2016 at 9:23 AM, Nibb31 said:

United Nations Conference on Climate Change that took place in Paris last month. It pretty much proved that humans as a group are incapable of rising to a challenge when their entire existence is in balance.

Wrong. People don't rise to a challenge when their entire existence is NOT hanging in the balance. And here's a news flash: the majority of the attendees at said conference don't think human survival is threatened by global warming. Most of them SAID it is, because that's what the general public wants to hear, but that's not what they're THINKING. In reality most nations attended Paris in the hopes of getting free funding, ostensibly for anti-climate-change boondoggles, that they can then swipe for other projects.

Edit:

On further reflection, it's likely there's a bit of what I shall call "E.L.E. poker" going on. Everyone already knows a lot of people are scared of climate change (whether it's actually a threat is irrelevant here--this is about what people THINK). If you can rely on other people to solve the problem for you, then you don't have to do anything. They pay the tab and you get the bennies. And this isn't just true for climate change. With pretty much any impending major disaster, in a world with multiple governments all of whom want to be top dog, there's going to be a game of bluffing: who's going to be the one who steps up, spends themselves bankrupt to solve the problem, and then gets bounced out of the top spot.....?

Edited January 7, 2016 by WedgeAntilles

[fredinno]

5 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Wrong. People don't rise to a challenge when their entire existence is NOT hanging in the balance. And here's a news flash: the majority of the attendees at said conference don't think human survival is threatened by global warming. Most of them SAID it is, because that's what the general public wants to hear, but that's not what they're THINKING. In reality most nations attended Paris in the hopes of getting free funding, ostensibly for anti-climate-change boondoggles, that they can then swipe for other projects.

Edit:

On further reflection, it's likely there's a bit of what I shall call "E.L.E. poker" going on. Everyone already knows a lot of people are scared of climate change (whether it's actually a threat is irrelevant here--this is about what people THINK). If you can rely on other people to solve the problem for you, then you don't have to do anything. They pay the tab and you get the bennies. And this isn't just true for climate change. With pretty much any impending major disaster, in a world with multiple governments all of whom want to be top dog, there's going to be a game of bluffing: who's going to be the one who steps up, spends themselves bankrupt to solve the problem, and then gets bounced out of the top spot.....?

The thing is, often in the earlier days, Global Warming's impact in the future was often overestimated- with people showing worst-case scenarios of futures that would take over 40 years in many cases to materialize. Then, fast forward several years later, Global Warming's impact is thought by the General public to be less then thought- due to change not really being linear, and the 'worst-case' scenarios being prevented (by numerous things, global economy stagnating, greater green energy investments, etc). This really softened the view of climate change on these people.

 

On the other hand, there are many who will block even pipeline projects to replace the use of Eastern Canada's imported oil for domestic oil (even though carbon emissions are actually about just as bad), highway construction (in Vancouver, where traffic is excrements), or even renewable energy projects, and take environmentalism as some sort of religion. You really can't take an extreme- especially since we want to stop the worst of global warming without ruining the economy, and taking more impressionable people to dislike those changes.

[GeneralVeers]

For the love of bleepity bleep, I hate this new editor.  How the hell did that double post happen??

(and where's the "delete post" command?? this editor doesn't seem to have one)

Edited January 7, 2016 by WedgeAntilles

[GeneralVeers]

53 minutes ago, fredinno said:

You really can't take an extreme- especially since we want to stop the worst of global warming without ruining the economy

The general word on the street is "hey, this is a problem we have to stop even if it does ruin the economy".

That's kind of the principal campaign plank that climate conferences generally run on, and it's the plank that allows various nations to play E.L.E. poker.

The human race is playing poker with the asteroid thing, too. If there's a real-world Dottie out there somewhere, heading our way, we can't wait until we see it when it's 18 days away and then pull a Bruce Willis maneuver. We need to have some kind of weapon ready well in advance, but nobody's spending the resources to build it.

[Nibb31]

You see, people can't agree on global warming because there are economical interests that cause some people to not want to believe that it's happening. The same would be true with any threat, including a Big Fraking Asteroid headed to Earth, because as soon as you are going to want to divert money and resources from other sectors of the economy into risk mitigation, some people are going to start spending a whole lot of money in denial and counter-studies.

Seriously, do people really think that all humanity can ever unanimously agree on something? When was the last time that happened?

[GeneralVeers]

11 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

You see, people can't agree on global warming because there are economical interests that cause some people to not want to believe that it's happening.

In one of this site's previous threads on that topic, I found proof positive that global warming is bogus. So there are other reasons besides economic. Here's one: in some poorer parts of the world, people think global warming is a hoax created by the rich to prevent the poor from developing and becoming a threat, or some such conspiracy-theory malarkey. Probably that same reason would come up if an asteroid were about to hit the Earth, because last I checked, Nigeria didn't have a space telescope or satellites that could actually see that asteroid. They'd have to take the United States at its word, and you know how that sort of thing has been going lately......

In any case, it's been 65 million years since an asteroid caused an E.L.E. on Earth, and when you consider that the majority of humans have much more immediate problems (such as starving to death) it should be no surprise most humans don't give a bleep about asteroids.

Random side note on global warming: Bjorn Lomborg (before he sold out to the alarmists, that is) had it right: the effects of global warming will occur over decades or centuries, giving humans plenty of time to adapt, move, or simply build around the problems (much of San Francisco is on reclaimed land stolen from the ocean!). So I say global warming doesn't even qualify as an E.L.E.

[Gojira1000]

With 2-5 years you'd have wealthy groups/nations building suitable bunkers that would probably be inhabited by either the elites or the guards that offed them just prior to sealing them up. So yes, as a species I think humans would survive. 

Of course, if the bunkers are built by Vault-Tech, all bets are off.

[Rucki]

Reminds me of the tv show " ARK the 100" where whole earth was doomed in an nuclear war and i think about 2000 people were rescued to gigantic spacestations in LEO until its suitable for humans again.

Well whats with that scenario: The whole earth has 5 years build a gigantic ISS with space for 500 people, enough animals, and some spare room for parts, technology ect.
Assuming that growing food in a space station for 500 people would be possible ( i think we should forget about that aspect )

Dont you think it would be possible in common ? Im only talking about the " Work ", not about if its possible for humanity to live in a space station for lets say 100 years and then come back to earth, though a little chance should be isnt it ?
 

[fredinno]

14 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

You see, people can't agree on global warming because there are economical interests that cause some people to not want to believe that it's happening. The same would be true with any threat, including a Big Fraking Asteroid headed to Earth, because as soon as you are going to want to divert money and resources from other sectors of the economy into risk mitigation, some people are going to start spending a whole lot of money in denial and counter-studies.

Seriously, do people really think that all humanity can ever unanimously agree on something? When was the last time that happened?

When they all agreed that survival was important.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

When they all agreed that survival was important.

Some still don't.... But that has a lot of sad things involved.

Some will inevitably deny it. Exploitation of nonbelievers would be a big industry. Same for believers. But at least the believers would be right. Hopefully.

Hech, all of the recent apocalypses might dissuade lots of people.

[GeneralVeers]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

When they all agreed that survival was important.

Not gonna happen. Remember, there's a large percentage of the Earth's human population (mostly in the Eastern hemisphere) who don't consider survival important. They value other things much more. Whether they should is irrelevant (gee, there's the S-word again!)

 

37 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Hech, all of the recent apocalypses might dissuade lots of people.

You know that's not true. For this reason: those past threads in which you and I got into heated arguments which came to nothing. Which have led to me saying, in my previous post in this thread, the one thing you don't want to be hearing.

For that reason alone (no others are needed) you know that this particular "might" isn't going to happen.

[Bill Phil]

11 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Not gonna happen. Remember, there's a large percentage of the Earth's human population (mostly in the Eastern hemisphere) who don't consider survival important. They value other things much more. Whether they should is irrelevant (gee, there's the S-word again!)

 

You know that's not true. For this reason: those past threads in which you and I got into heated arguments which came to nothing. Which have led to me saying, in my previous post in this thread, the one thing you don't want to be hearing.

For that reason alone (no others are needed) you know that this particular "might" isn't going to happen.

No, it's logic. Some people will be dissuaded by previous apocalyptic prophecies having not come true. Our past arguments have nothing to do with that, it's just what's going to happen, we're only two people. Since we have nothing to do with it, how is that in any way a reason...?

And please specify what I don't want to hear. Because I don't want to continue in some arguments when it's not going to change a thing. It'd be wasted energy. Those arguments came to nothing because of many reasons. In some cases you were not willing to have an open mind, and I can be equally accused, I'm sure. With good cause, since I'm not an amazing communicator. I'm not the best, but I try to be a good communicator. A good communicator listens and tries to understand the other side just as much as they present their point.

[GeneralVeers]

6 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

No, it's logic. Some people will be dissuaded by previous apocalyptic prophecies having not come true.

Sigh. Crossed wires. Your words the first time were "Hech, all of the recent apocalypses might dissuade lots of people." Note the lack of a "not happening" phrase.

 

6 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

And please specify what I don't want to hear. Because I don't want to continue in some arguments when it's not going to change a thing. It'd be wasted energy.

Then you would be an exception to the rule. The constant worldwide (failed) attempts to convert global warming skeptics is proof that most alarmists don't consider it "wasted energy".

That's the trick to E.L.E. poker; the skeptic knows the world at large cannot be brought into complete agreement that an E.L.E. is on the way; somebody will feel compelled to act unilaterally (and pay the bill) to stop the threat; therefore the game-winning move is to do nothing so the other guy stops the threat for you, free of charge.

Hell, I once met a guy who doesn't even bother to conceal his figuratve poker hand. He makes it a point to tell people who worry about global warming that he doesn't give a damn about it. As he described to me, his game plan is this: if they know he won't do anything about it, they feel compelled to double up on their efforts to reduce their emissions. That way they solve the problem for him and he gets to keep his SUV. Well, actually, I think he was just being snarky with the bit about having an SUV, but the point was made. That guy is a pro at E.L.E. poker.

That's how most of the world thinks. Why don't you look up the number of times "the threat of incoming asteroids" has come up in any U.S. Presidential election debate? Or any other election anywhere else on the planet, for that matter? Without even bothering to check, I say the answer is "zero". The lobbyists say the money should be spent on national defense, or Medicare, or stopping abortion, or green energy (got a few hot-button issues for both sides in there). Politicians never have "I will create a weapon to stop asteroid impacts" as campaign planks. The voters at large don't care.

[Spaceception]

On 1/5/2016 at 6:34 PM, Temstar said:

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.

That was a good docudrama, but they took it of of netflix:(