Evacuate Earth

[Pawelk198604]

Recently I found a very interesting National Geographic movie on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95n9BclgBUM

What if Earth ware doomed and only chance to survival is super mega giant nuclear propelled Generation Ship as international effort to save mankind , which contain everything you need to survival, the saddest part is it can carry only 250 thousands people, a only fraction of Earth population.

In my opinion the best part of this movie is 42 minutes, The selection process is based on genetic profiling so only healthiest people ( so probably no apsies, adhd, neurotic or bi-polar ) of all races would go. The question is you are not selected, does you would try every effort to sabotage project.

I if i don't go nobody would go

Edit: New working link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YVQJA8HNB0

Edited January 17, 2014 by Pawelk198604

[crazyewok]

Hell yeah.

You just know the Rich and powerfull will be the first to get tickets, health or not.

No way im staying and dieing while they run off.

Il take them down with me

[ANWRocketMan]

I found the documentary pretty ridiculous. Do note I watched it like a year or something ago. Might re-watch tomorrow and re-report in.

[9911MU51C]

I'd let it go. Any humans alive is better than none

[Nibb31]

Diversity and imperfection are what make us human. I'd rather see Humanity go extinct than watch it turn into genetically-selected fascist dystopia.

[m4v]

(Disclaimer: I didn't watch the video)

I don't get it, if we have thr technology to build a giant generation ship for evacuate 250k people, why can't we do the same underground and live through the worst of the calamity? what, is it underground more inhospitable and dangerous than the void of space?

edit: ok, I watched the first 6 minutes and stopped because really is just a bad scifi drama show and not a documentary, neutron stars shooting themselves into space? someone will have to explain that to me because I don't understand how can that happen.

Edited January 8, 2014 by m4v

[Themohawkninja]

I've always been a supporter of scientifically sound genetic profiling.

Granted, it has gotten me called sexist a dozen or so times by feminists and other people who hate the idea of "separate but equal", but alas, if science says so, I see no reason why no to go for it.

So no, I wouldn't sabotage the project.

[grawl]

(Disclaimer: I didn't watch the video)

I don't get it, if we have thr technology to build a giant generation ship for evacuate 250k people, why can't we do the same underground and live through the worst of the calamity? what, is it underground more inhospitable and dangerous than the void of space?

In this movie, a tiny supermassive star is heading towards earth and will inevitably suck it in its gravity field.

So no hope in staying underground. Might as well enjoy the show on the surface

Haa, the smell of gamma rays in the morning...

[Warhorse]

Unless the tiny supermassive star is going to wreck the sun, too, it would save a lot more people to build a bunch of space stations in solar orbit instead. If you can build the life support system for a generation ship, planets are redundant.

[Albert VDS]

What I would like to say is: WTH is wrong with you people who want to sabotage our survival as a species? Are you that selfish? So what if there are rich people among the survivors, it's not a fact that they will give birth to the mini careless version of themselves. Also 250 people is not a large genpool, at least not large enough to mitigate inheritable deceases. You can't expect them to survive if theres a chance of them dying or being incapable of functioning.

I think you have pretty wacky standards if you think that your life is more important than continuing life which began as simple cells 3.6 billion years ago.

[Thiel]

Also 250 people is not a large genpool,

250 000 people

[Brotoro]

I wouldn't get to go (no need to take the color blindness gene along), but I'd help build the ship.

[Pawelk198604]

What I would like to say is: WTH is wrong with you people who want to sabotage our survival as a species? Are you that selfish? So what if there are rich people among the survivors, it's not a fact that they will give birth to the mini careless version of themselves. Also 250 people is not a large genpool, at least not large enough to mitigate inheritable deceases. You can't expect them to survive if theres a chance of them dying or being incapable of functioning.

I think you have pretty wacky standards if you think that your life is more important than continuing life which began as simple cells 3.6 billion years ago.

Let's put it's more simply

If i would be among this people who are not selected, because i'm not enough super-human.

I would try all my effort to blow this bloody thing up:-)

"If I will not use this, no one would use"

[Albert VDS]

Which translates to "If I can't have a cookie then no one can have a cookie".

[Themohawkninja]

What I would like to say is: WTH is wrong with you people who want to sabotage our survival as a species? Are you that selfish? So what if there are rich people among the survivors, it's not a fact that they will give birth to the mini careless version of themselves. Also 250 people is not a large genpool, at least not large enough to mitigate inheritable deceases. You can't expect them to survive if theres a chance of them dying or being incapable of functioning.

I think you have pretty wacky standards if you think that your life is more important than continuing life which began as simple cells 3.6 billion years ago.

Actually, as I recall, statistically speaking, 50 people is the minimum needed to keep from inbreeding a significant part of the population. Therefore, 250 is plenty, especially if many races are represented.

[Drunkrobot]

It is fascinating thinking about which people deserve a spot the most. The human race would have to make a lot of very important decisions, during construction, the flight, and colonization.

Do we chose who goes completely at random, by lottery, or do we pick from a list of candidates? If we decide to pick specific people, what factors go into deciding who? If it's a global project, are countries given seats proportional to their population or the resources they put into the mission? Should Heterosexuals be given preference, since they desire the least equipment-intensive method of reproduction (other orientations require in-vitro or similar to have kids, others are not interested in having kids at all.) Should the ratio of men to women be 1:1, or should we abandon monogamy and have several women to each man, since women are the reproductive bottleneck? Which professions will be highest priority? Farmers and engineers will be important, but with no entertainers onboard, all books and movies in human history coming from dead people that lived on a now-fried world could lead to extreme boredom, even depression.

What about other lifeforms, which of the 2,000,000 known species be taken with us?

What about government, will the countries that exist today live on with those countries survivors, or would several generations of working together towards this single goal make a "global" nation viable? Or economics, would Capitalism vanish, by nationalizing the worlds industry to build the ship, and by the very limited nature of life on the ship lending towards a more communal system? How about law, would the death penalty be more widespread in the ship society, because we simply couldn't handle the strain once petty crimes has on available resources? Or would execution practicaly vanish, being replaced by "service to the community", since dead people can't breed?

Someone ought to start a discussion thread on how society would be effected by a planetary evacuation.

[Albert VDS]

So imagine if you have 250000 people on this ship. Imagine that one person has an inheritable dominant decease. Imagine this ship has a population limit so you can only have 2 children.

After 18 generations everyone would have this decease, which translates into 450 years.

Or would you rather avoid that disaster altogether by making sure no has this decease?

[SargeRho]

It might be better to send a small crew, and store the DNA of as many people, animals and plants as possible, and clone them at the destination. 75 years from now, that shouldn't be a hard thing to pull off, since we can already do something similar. If it is possible to store ones personality, memories, etc. and somehow transplant them into the clones, that should be done as well.

Think of the ISV Venture Star from Avatar. An ISV class ship has enough cargo to carry the equipment to build a functioning base on another planet, and can carry 200 passengers in cryosleep. It's also significantly less ressource intensive than the ship proposed in the documentary. The antimatter engine part might be beyond our capabilities by 2085 however.

Edited January 8, 2014 by SargeRho

[Themohawkninja]

So imagine if you have 250000 people on this ship. Imagine that one person has an inheritable dominant decease. Imagine this ship has a population limit so you can only have 2 children.

After 18 generations everyone would have this decease, which translates into 450 years.

Or would you rather avoid that disaster altogether by making sure no has this decease?

What? No.

That's making the assumption that everyone ends up inbreeding and that 18 generations of people are inbreeding with everyone.

Between statistics and the incest taboo, that just won't happen.

Also, if genetics is the basis for who goes and who dies, a person with a genetically inherited disease wouldn't get chosen.

[Albert VDS]

To keep it simple, if someone with the decease mates with a healthy person then the kids would get this dominant decease. I don't know why you are mentioning incest, because this has nothing to do with that.

I mentioned it as a reason why there would need to be a selection based on genetics.

[Tarrow]

Crew composition would be.... interesting to say the least. There would after all be no reason to evacuate someone, no matter their "genetic profile", if they don't have any useable skills.

Think of all the multimillionaire footballers that's skills extend to "kick ball, fall over, cry about it to get a penalty".

Think of all of the managers that's skills extend to "I've been answering phones longer than you so I'm the boss!".

The entire banking industry.

From a certain point of view something like this would be the best thing that could happen to us as a species.

lil edit: inheritable disease may not be such an issue, you could easily take enough stored sperm and ova along to ensure that the following generations have absolutely no genetic relation to their "parents" if you so wished. Gene therapy can also be used to prevent conditions passing between generations.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Tarrow

[Themohawkninja]

To keep it simple, if someone with the decease mates with a healthy person then the kids would get this dominant decease. I don't know why you are mentioning incest, because this has nothing to do with that.

I mentioned it as a reason why there would need to be a selection based on genetics.

You mentioned it as "inherently dominant", which to me sounded like genetically-based. Henceforth they shouldn't be chosen.

[Mitchz95]

Crew composition would be.... interesting to say the least. There would after all be no reason to evacuate someone, no matter their "genetic profile", if they don't have any useable skills.

Think of all the multimillionaire footballers that's skills extend to "kick ball, fall over, cry about it to get a penalty".

Think of all of the managers that's skills extend to "I've been answering phones longer than you so I'm the boss!".

The entire banking industry.

From a certain point of view something like this would be the best thing that could happen to us as a species.

lil edit: inheritable disease may not be such an issue, you could easily take enough stored sperm and ova along to ensure that the following generations have absolutely no genetic relation to their "parents" if you so wished. Gene therapy can also be used to prevent conditions passing between generations.

I'm sure people of all kind of trades will be in demand on an interstellar ark. Really, it wouldn't be that different from living on Earth except smaller and with less sickness.

[Helix935]

so probably no apsies, adhd, neurotic or bi-polar

aw dang it i don't get a ticket

[Seret]

Any idea of building an ark to save humanity is pure sci-fi unfortunately. We don't have the technology to build a closed-circuit environment capable of supporting 2 people, let alone 250,000. Until we crack that problem any kind of ark is off the table.

If a big nasty was coming along to gobble the Earth our fate would be sealed: extinction ahoy.

But if we're prepared to delve into fantasy: IIRC the minimum for a genetically viable population is about 100-200, so call it 250 to give some redundancy and build half a dozen of them to hedge your bets. Some in orbit around the sun, some in the asteroid belt, some on/around places like Titan. The long-term strategy would depend on whether the disaster would make Earth permanently uninhabitable or whether a return was on the cards at some point.