Astronaut: 'Single-Planet Species Don't Last'

An anonymous reader writes "Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle astronaut John Young, due to retire in two weeks, says that the human species is in danger of becoming extinct: 'The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455. How does that relate? You're 10 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you are getting killed in a commercial airline crash.' He says that the technologies needed to colonize the solar system will help people survive through disasters on Earth. Young has written about this topic before in an essay called 'The Big Picture'." In related news, the Shuttle overhaul program is on track for a May 2005 launch.

Comments

Prove it

[stecoop]

What other higher order specie that has multi planet colonization did he do his evaluation against? What was the success rate of the multi planet effort - would it have been better to spend those resources maintaining quality on one planet?

So he writes about volcanic activity, planetoid impacts and solar disasters. What if we spent all our resources on keeping the planet safe? We could drill out pressure of volcanoes and build super bombs for planetoids. If our sun goes all bets are off though we need to find another solar system but I bet we could figure out something in 4.5 billion years.

But all in all he is correct I am just point out a con; however, I don't think that ~5 billion people could be wiped out by any single event that left the planet habitable afterwards.

Re:Prove it

[Bimo_Dude]

It seems to me that the real threat to the species is the species itself. At some point, we will probably make ourselves extinct, as well as make the planet uninhabitable. What a shame.

Re:Prove it

[dastardly_villain]

Yeah, what evidence does this guy have? I can watch "Armeggeddon" and come to the same conclusion! Bottomline is, science needs to always be prepared for the worst. In this case the 'worst' could be a bio terrorism outbreak, volcanic activity, nuclear war, global warming, asteroids, a sudden collapse of our atmosphere, the sun going nova....the same things scientists work at everday to provide solutions for. What's his point?

Re:Prove it

[I don't want to spen]

... I don't think that ~5 billion people could be wiped out by any single event that left the planet habitable afterwards...
You don't work in the PR department for the dinosaur government do you?

Re:Prove it

[Kardamon]

If our sun goes all bets are off though we need to find another solar system but I bet we could figure out something in 4.5 billion years.

We already have a spare solar system, it's called Jupiter. The only thing we need to do is to transform it into a star an off we fly...

Re:Prove it

[LiquidCoooled]

I believe his hypothosis comes from the same logical thinking as:

Dont put all your eggs into one basket.

Re:Prove it

[Jhon]

What other higher order specie that has multi planet colonization did he do his evaluation against? What was the success rate of the multi planet effort - would it have been better to spend those resources maintaining quality on one planet?

I don't think he needs to. There have been several events in our worlds past that would have wiped us out were we around -- and ended up wiping out most everything alive at the time.

I question the "1:455" chance for us to get wiped out in the next 100 years, but what is being suggested *IS* sound -- "don't keep all your eggs in one basket".

Re:Prove it

[kyouteki]

You read too much Arthur C. Clark. :p Or probably others, but I don't read enough...

Re:Prove it

[calibanDNS]

What's his point?

His point is that we aren't funding this type of research enough. Also, he seems very concerned (and rightly so) that most of our species are blissfully ignorant of the dangers that we impose on ourselves, for example by relying so heavily on fossil fuels.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Struct]

I agree, we definitely could go a long way to defending the planet from these types of events, and it's certainly not a bad idea to pursue that. But in the end, it comes back to all of our eggs being in one basket. It's hard to comprehend, much less respond to every potential threat that might come along and wipe out the planet. As Mr. Miyagi says, 'best defense - no be there'.

I'd also go so far as to say that colonizing other planets is now the most important thing mankind can achieve. Purely from the perspective of preserving our species, it's the next critical step. If you consider how susceptible we are not only to external threats (meteors, epidemics, space locusts, etc), but also just the day-to-day concerns that we might accidentally annihilate ourselves with the war-de-jour, the best way to increase our chances for survival is to spread out a little bit and prevent an accident like that from doing us all in at once. Bottom line is, if you're all about doing something great for mankind, this is a really important problem to solve.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

He's the Dinosaurian Information Minister!

Re:Prove it

[DrFrob]

No, I didn't RTFA, but 1 in 455 over the next 100 years is obvious bullshit. People have been around for far longer than 45,500 years and we're still here.

Re:Prove it

[dastardly_villain]

"don't keep all your eggs in one basket."

What solution is this guy proposing that hasn't been proposed elsewhere? He's pointing out things that have already been actively considered and theorized by many others, for what?

I'm not saying he's wrong in opening a discussion, I'm just not sure how useful this is. The technology just isn't here yet.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

but I bet we could figure out something in 4.5 billion years.

Statements like that worry me. Since the technology that might be needed to sustain life outside this solar system is speculative at best currently, what's to say it won't take us 4.51 billon years to make it reality?

I'd prefer to have a solution billions of years too early than 6 months too late.

Re:Prove it

[NoOneInParticular]

I'm pretty sure that save for actually breaking up the planet in tiny little pieces and distribute these through the solar system, bacteria, cockroaches and scorpions are pretty safe for anything we can throw at them.

Re:Prove it

[Cade144]

So, if we colonize one or two other planets, that just gives us a few more baskets. What we need are hundreds or thousands of baskets.

In fact, we should probably abandon planets altogether.

There are tons and tons of nice organics and water waiting for us in the Kupier Belt. Sitting at the bottom of a gravity well, dependent on one biosphere for all your free oxygen is just asking for trouble.

All we need to do is:

• Develop fusion technology
• invent entire engineering disciplines based on zero-gravity industry/construction/living technologies
• Move a substantial representation of our gene- and meme- pools up out of Earth's gravity well
• Live for a few centuries in the Kupier Belt and Oort Clouds
• Spread to other solar systems like a fungus, possibly using Von Neuman Machines to soften up / improve target planetary systems
• Exist!

Re:Prove it

[rusty0101]

I would just be happy to prove him wrong by living through the next hundred years.

Part of the issue with a couple of them is that a super-volcano eruption can easily make earth 'habitable' but not for us.

Likewise for asteroid impacts.

Leaving the earth "Habitable" does not mean that we can comfortably (or for that matter uncomfortably) live on earth for some period after the event. Earth happens to be "habitable" for a lot of creatures that happen to be extinct because of our own hand right now. Dodos, Passenger Pigeons, etc. As well as being theoretically habitable to creatures we may, or may not have a hand in making extinct, such as Mamoths, and Sabertooth tigers.

The fact that we are at the top of the food chart at the moment doesn't mean that we have to be here.

Super-bombs for astroids, and drilling out preasure for volcanos sounds reasonable, however the fact remains that you still need to find a way to deploy that super-bomb, and get it to the astroid to push it out of it's path towards us. What exactly are you going to do with the preasure you 'drill' out of the volcano? Do you have a plan for it, or are you thinking you can just "release" it in a controlled manner? Kilauea's ben activly erupting since 1983. You can go and watch eruptions relatively safely. It's considered a mild form of a volcano. Mt. St. Helens has had activity overthe past year, and no-one is recomending you be anywhere near it when it erupts. Mt. St. Helens is a small volcano compared to the area considered to be the volcano at Yellowstone. Drilling either to "reduce the preasure" seems a bit unlikely to me.

As far as astroids are concerned, you want to start moving them out of an impact path as far away as possible. Launching a 'super bomb' from earth is a nice idea, but it would be better to have such devices off earth at the time they are needed. (Get them out of the gravitational hole where you have a really small launch window to get them on target.) This means you now have to contend with the activists who are going to fight against the launching of whatever type of 'super-bomb' you plan on putting into orbit. Have fun.

Then again, that's just me.

-Rusty

Re:Prove it

[TristanGrimaux]

What we do know now is that our specie is reaching the category of planetary plague, and everything we do endangers the survival of life on Earth. As we start colonization of oceans, we discover how much more fragil is this environment and how far we are from making a god job on settling without destroying. As a lonely specie, or as lonely as *we* fill, we have to trust on our on judgement and be bold enough to imagine what is beyond our behaviour without having any kind of experience on multi planet colonization species. Remarking on that, is sad and unnecesary. All your arguments are clever, but wrong. It is deadly dangerous to have the misfortune of owning them.

Re:Prove it

[Kardamon]

Yep, that's right.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that the real threat to the species is the species itself.

I've been of this thought for a long time. Anybody who passed high school biology should realize that the human race is already in serious shape. Think about it:

• Starvation - In nature populations are kept in check by starvation. Starvation is running rampant in third world countries. The world population is growing so rapidly that it's becoming more and more difficult to adequately feed everybody.
  
• Disease - In nature populations are thinned out by disease. Mankind has managed to effectively fight disease for decades and thereby help increase the population. The flu used to kill hundreds of thousands of people but now it's more of an inconvenience. Smallpox is all but gone. Nature responds to this by introducing AIDS, SARS, Ebola, etc. If the avian flu manages to jump into the human species (not unlikely) then new flu outbreaks could kill millions.
  
• Fertility - The fertility levels in many species drop when they become overpopulated. Mankind has done a good job of creating fertility drugs, etc. to allow continued growth of the population. Mankind seems to think it's a right to have offspring, despite what nature may be telling them.
  
• Homosexuality - There are theories that nature uses homosexuality to help control population sizes. The basic theory is that when a population reaches a size that can no longer be naturally supported by the environment that homosexual tendencies become more prevelant. Of course it could just be that the percentage of gay people hasn't changed, it's just that there are more now since the overall population is growing.
  

IMHO these are all signs that the human population is reaching a breaking point. It may not happen in the next 50 years but it wouldn't surprise me at all if within the next 200 years or so there's some major population-thinning event like a pandemic, massive starvation, etc.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

But all in all he is correct I am just point out a con; however, I don't think that ~5 billion people could be wiped out by any single event that left the planet habitable afterwards.

I have a hunch that life is actually a fluke, but happens regardless...

However that said a neutron star passing within the vicinity of the solar system or cosmic pulse could sterilize our solor system in a milisecond. Which why you should have colonists on mars... Oh wait.

Re:Prove it

[Entrope]

It is clearly bullshit: Asteroid impacts are memoryless, and more terrestrial causes probably are.

1 in 455 chance of effective human extinction within a century means the expected interval between events like that is 31,500 years (100 years * log(0.5) / log(454/455)). Over the past 600 million or so years, there have been six definite mass extinctions (Cambrian, Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic, Cretaceous), with some scientists suggesting there have been more, occurring on a 26 million year cycle. Even those estimates are three orders of magnitude rarer than "1 in 455" suggests.

In contrast, we would have almost a 37% chance of surviving 45,500 years with the 1-in-455 odds.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

And that he would benefit financially if this type of research was better funded.

Re:Prove it

[Porn Whitelist]

This stat is pure bullshit (quote):

The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455.

Even a nuclear war wouldn't completely wipe out humans. Sure, civilization wouldn't survive, but there's a big difference between survival of civilization and survival of the species.

We'd still survive as a species, along with the rats and the cockroaches. As a species, we're amazingly tough.

Re:Prove it

[CreatureComfort]

You are absolutely right. He does not have one single shred of evidence to back up his wild postulations about multi-planet species.

I am sure you will join me in recommending that we immediatly fund a large, well organized effort to do further investigation into these so-called "colonizations", including multiple on-site visits, and perhaps permanent research stations to study any indigenous species we find during this effort.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea how big a billion is?
You could spend your entire life trying to, and failing, to count the years we have left...

Re:Prove it

[brsmith4]

I always thought a Von Neuman machine was just a computer where the data and the instructions to be executed were stored in some temporary storage medium, like RAM...

Link

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

• ???
• Profit!

Re:Prove it

[berj]

The fact that we are at the top of the food chart at the moment doesn't mean that we have to be here.

This happens to be one of my pet peeves. Anyone who thinks that humans are at the top of the (supposed) food chain (or chart as you call it) has never been stalked by a cougar or a bear.

I'm not sure when/where the idea of a food chain with a bottom and a top arose but it's poppycock. There is a food *cycle* in which every thing is food for something else (what do you think happens when you die and they put you in that hole in the ground?) and humanity's place in it is no more special than a carrot's or a tiger's.

If you're talking about predator/prey relationships then humans still don't win. If anything sharks would win there (anyone out there know if Great Whites have any natural predators besides humans?)

Berj

Re:Prove it

[B'Trey]

Dinosaur's were huge and highly specialized for their environment. They were vulnerable to any serious alteration to their habitat. Humans are the ultimate in generalists. We can survive in anything from tropical jungles to frozen tundra. Starvation due to huge decreases in the amount of food available would sharply reduce our population, but if anything more advanced than insects and grasses survive, there's every reason to believe we will too. Philosophers are divided on whether or not this is a good thing.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact the parent post has been moderated up to a high "Insightful" shows how stupid the average Slashdoter is. We know for a fact thousands of species on Earth have been made extinct by the sort of events being talked about.

We also know for a fact that the amount of energy required to avert an incoming asteroid far exceeds what we have available or are likely to have available in a useful form (i.e., there might be enough geothermal energy available but we couldn't extract it fast enough). Blowing up such an object wouldn't change the course of the majority of the fragments which will still destroy us. The notion of drilling out the pressure of volcanos just displays an ignorance of geology.

To the average Slashdot reader: please either get educated to the point where your comment on issues such as this matters (i.e., become an engineer or at least a physicist) or leave such issues to those who have a clue.

Re:Prove it

[UnknowingFool]

But all in all he is correct I am just point out a con; however, I don't think that ~5 billion people could be wiped out by any single event that left the planet habitable afterwards.

It's just not that a single event can wipe out all humanity or leave the planet uninhatitable instantly. It's that there are more events that can cause extinction over time. Despite our ingenuity and technology we may not be prepared to save enough people to guarantee survival of the species.

Suppose a large asteroid hits. Based on simulations, the sun is blocked out for years and crops fail worldwide. The entire planet is engulfed in a Antartic-like winter for years. Initially not many people are killed; however, it may take decades or centuries for the sun to return. What about food? Energy? Pharmaceuticals?

True pockets of populations might adapt and survive, but will they be enough to ensure the species continues?

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea how to sustain life off of Earth?
You could spend your entire life trying to, and failing...

Re:Prove it

[AlphaJoe]

I thought he left that post to become the communications director for Iraq...

Re:Prove it

[Malawar]

Yes, but people have not had the ability to wipe each other out en masse 45,500 years ago..

Re:Prove it

[Malawar]

Yes, I realize that my previous sentence is the worst grammar ever. Didn't get enough sleep. What I meant to say was, People have not had the ability to wipe each other out, en masse, for 45000 years. :P

Re:Prove it

[Kombat]

I'd also go so far as to say that colonizing other planets is now the most important thing mankind can achieve. Purely from the perspective of preserving our species, it's the next critical step.

While I believe you are correct, I don't think mankind is there yet. Look at it in perspective. What we're talking about here would take global cooperation of the scale never seen before. We can't even wipe out AIDS or world hunger or war, how are we going to work together to colonize another planet?

I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot," and the profound wisdom of his words:

"The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds."

How do you convince a culture like that to put aside the generations of bigotry and hatred, and to work together for something truly noble? Think about your target audience. You have 10th generation racists, anti-gay bigots, xenophobic taxpayers who all demand that their way be the way because "I pay taxes, dammit!"

In one sense, you can look back through history and believe that mankind has come a great distance, but when you consider things on a cosmic scale, you realize we've barely advanced at all. We still have war, racism, hatred, disease, even though eliminating all of those things has been without our reach for several decades now.

In the end, it will not be the asteroid that dooms us. The asteroid is merely a statistical inevitability. They've hit before and they'll hit again. What will really doom us is our self-absorbed inability to recognize the inevitability of our impending doom, and act on it. Our own selfish need to be "on top" of this rock will prevent us from conceiving of an existance beyond this rock. We will continue going on, pretending that maybe that last asteroid was really the last one, and the next 4.5 billion years will be smooth sailing. Could we really be that naive? I believe, "yes."

Re:Prove it

[Mysticalfruit]

Though what this guy is saying is that not only is the technology not there, nobody is doing enough bottom floor research for that technology.

Re:Prove it

[SilenceEchoed]

"What solution is this guy proposing that hasn't been proposed elsewhere?"

None, but then again, that wasn't his point. Inhabitting other planets has long been a dream of, among other groups, NASA, but this has always been a "wouldn't it be cool" kind of thing. This guy is saying that it's more along the lines of "If we don't, we will go extinct."

As others have already pointed out, he does hold a very valid point. There have been events in Earth's history, and presumably will be more in the future, that simply are unsurvivable. Besides the repeat of past events, we also know things that will happen, like our sun going nova, which there is NO solution, real or hypothetical, for other than getting the heck out of dodge.

Re:Prove it

[AviLazar]

I'm all for this idea. So what are the steps
1. Get lots of money
2. Do lots of research
3. ?????(results of research)
4. Make baskets
5. Make profit

If we had the ability to inhabit other planets/systems right now we would - just because we could. I would be happy if we could get a moon colony, make it work so it is independent then ship some people to mars....spread like wildfire, and eventually hit a new solar system. The only thing I might seen in my lifetime is the moon colony as well as possibly a mars colony. Other then that - well you better have a long freaking life span

Re:Prove it

[lack1uster]

You've got it all wrong. We've only been around for about 6,000 years. Just ask lil' Suzy.

Re:Prove it

[MonkeyCookie]

I'm in complete agreement. How can he predict doom and gloom when we are the only sentient species we know of? Sure disasters happen: I could be hit by a meteor or an ebola-infected monkey could bite me while typing this - but it's not likely.

Somehow humanity has managed to survive as long as it has without being wiped out by some catastrophic event.

All the millenia humans have existed, we were blissfully unaware of any danger from space. Now that we are aware, something is going to happen any day now?

Come on people! Just because you fear it doesn't mean it's more likely it will happen. I'm not terribly worried about catastrophic meteor impacts are anything like that.

Sure, it might be nice to have something in case a nasty rock comes along, but it's a low priority thing in my opinion.

Re:Prove it

[NewtonTwo]

Do you have any idea how big a billion is?

billion = 1,000,000,000. Or approximately 1/6th of the current world population.

Re:Prove it

[Bilzmoude]

We are also highly specialized for our environment. In our current incarnation, we would surely not survive long. We are way too reliant on our technology to go any further than a few weeks.

We all (mostly) rely on our food being delivered to us via trucks to the grocery store... which needs electricity to function. If our major power sources fail, we will fail too.

Last August, much of the northeast USA got hit by a blackout. This blackout lasted about 2 days for most people in Detroit (where I am). In that time, we ran out of gas, we were unable to travel (due to lack of gas), stores were not open for food, and everything came to a halt.

Take that example, but assume it happens at a global scale due to a massive earthquake, planetoid strike, or volcano the size of Yosemite. The entire system would likely fail without the ability to recover. All of us in the cities would surely starve to death.

You may say that we could adapt to the threat, but unfortunately, there will be no adaptation time. It is most probable that our warning time for such an event would be as little as one second, or one minute. A planetoid large enough to take out the dinosaurs would come with no warning, and hit with such force, that if it landed in the center of the US, it would likely kill every living being from coast to coast within minutes (via the shockwave).

We, as modern humans are terrible at surviving without our technologies.

No, not everyone would die in the end, but sure 5 out of 6 billion people probably would.

Re:Prove it

[akepa]

Some dinosaurs did survive. They're called birds now.

Re:Prove it

[arminw]

...population is growing so rapidly...

What a bunch of BS. There were fear mongers 40-50 years ago telling us about the population bomb and that before the year 2000 comes the world will be depopulated by hunger and disease and other dreadful stuff. Well we are still here and the world's people's living conditions have much improved, abeit much more slowly than could have been the case if human greed for wealth and power were not present.

Re:Prove it

[Total_Wimp]

So, if we colonize one or two other planets, that just gives us a few more baskets. What we need are hundreds or thousands of baskets.

Well put. But if a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, so must we find some kind of real begining for our extraplanetary colonization efforts.

It will be much easier to convince regular folk to put up the money to colonize the moon or mars, our first step, then to convince them to take the whole journey, site unseen.

TW

Re:Prove it

[DunbarTheInept]

Of course it could just be that the percentage of gay people hasn't changed, it's just that there are more now since the overall population is growing.

A more likely explanation is that the percentage hasn't changed but the social acceptability of admitting to homosexuality has, hence it is being more accurately reported now.

Re:Prove it

[TheMeddler]

It isn't about personal survival - it's about the survival of the species. A species isn't extinct until the last member dies.

Re:Prove it

[Kombat]

Launching a 'super bomb' from earth is a nice idea, but it would be better to have such devices off earth at the time they are needed. (Get them out of the gravitational hole where you have a really small launch window to get them on target.) This means you now have to contend with the activists who are going to fight against the launching of whatever type of 'super-bomb' you plan on putting into orbit. Have fun.

If done early enough, they wouldn't have to be "super bombs." They could simply be small thrusters. If you nudge the asteroid early enough, you can prevent the collision.

Take an example. Say two cars are speeding straight towards each other on a foggy one-lane road one night, with their headlights out. They're a mile apart and they're both going 60 mph, straight at each other. By the time they see each other, they'll need to slam on the breaks or crank the wheel hard, expending a tremendous amount of energy to avoid the collision. However, if they knew from the beginning, when they were a mile apart, that they were on a collision, course, all one of them would have to do would be to turn their steering wheel 1 measly degree, and they'd miss each other. Sure, it would be close, but they'd still miss, and never cross paths again. THAT is the approach we need to take to asteroids. We don't need to obliterate them or split them in half. We need to see far enough away (10 years) that a collision is imminent, and "nudge" it a little. Just slow it down by a few miles-per-second such that instead of smacking into Earth when we come around, we'll have already passed by, and it will miss.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

> > .. I don't think that ~5 billion people could be
> > wiped out by any single event that left the
> > planet habitable afterwards...
> You don't work in the PR department for the
> dinosaur government do you?

No. I work for the PR department department for the mice and cockroach government. Why did you ask?[1]

[1] If humanity goes extict, we take over the world. But until that day, we'll have to rely on the Brain.

Re:Prove it

[hostyle]

Starvation - In nature populations are kept in check by starvation. Starvation is running rampant in third world countries. The world population is growing so rapidly that it's becoming more and more difficult to adequately feed everybody.

The world has more than enough food to feed everyone on it many times over - food doesn't just run out, its a highly renewable resource. The problem is greed - human, corporate and government greed. "Its our food, if you want it pay us for it" attitudes. There are food surplus "mountains" in every first world country, doing nothing but rotting. Other problems are war - take Sudan for instance, where lots of relief food arrives, but bever reaches those who need it. Its stolen or destroyed by the warlords.

Re:Prove it

[JustOK]

Don't put all your eggs in one gravity well.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

To be strict about it, the species is extinct when its numbers have been so reduced as to no longer possess the necessary genetic variability required for successful reproduction and production of offspring without overbearing detrimental mutations.

Re:Prove it

[Zeromous]

Definately interesting thoughts,

But you are kidding yourself if you think we will wipe out hunger, and war prior to colonizing another planet. Ever read the Moon is a Harsh Mistress?

Re:Prove it

[DunbarTheInept]

Any such pockets that survive would still outnumber the puny amount of people we could support in an off-earth colony any time in the near future. It would take hundreds of years at the minimum before we could make a colony be self-sustaining without resupply from earth, to the point where its population could grow organically at the normal exponential rate. Until then, this doesn't make a good plan for species survival. (Don't get me wrong - there are still good reasons to do it, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.)

Re:Prove it

[madprof]

"Are we all going to die from a super-volcano?"
"Our initial assessment is they will all die...oops sorry force of habit!"

Re:Prove it

[Cade144]

Yes you are correct. It also refers to any self-replicating machine.

From the Wikipedia

The term von Neumann machine also refers to self-replicating machines. Von Neumann proved that the most effective way large-scale mining operations such as mining an entire moon or asteroid belt can be accomplished is through the use of self-replicating machines, to take advantage of the exponential growth of such mechanisms.

A few self-replicating space probes, Von Neuman pondered, could explorethe galaxy in only a few hundred thousand years.

Re:Prove it

[chris_mahan]

Yes.

We've been at this for 2 million plus years and have "made it" through several ice ages, some of them thousands of years long.

I can imagine that in 50,000 years, the Homo Sapiens Sapiens Sapiens will remember us fondly as brutes with mildly sloping foreheads, weird sexual urges, and a propensity for using more resources that we really need.

In reality... If we all die... So what? Think about it. In 150 years, all of us reading this message will be dead, long gone.

Like the writer said, so the specie: "So long, and thanks for all the fish."

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem! Just let me get physics out of the way first...

Re:Prove it

[phoenix321]

Humans are no tougher than civilization as a whole. Civilization will form again, but much different than now. No matter what, I prefer civilization. Survival of the fittest is a rather hard task without civilization when you're living in northern Europe. Not that I'm not strong enough or what, but bears to hunt for their warm skin are rather sparse here at the moment.

Re:Prove it

[Cro Magnon]

Yeah, and I hate getting those dinosaur droppings on my clean car!

Re:Prove it

[aichpvee]

I think you're forgetting about ninjas!

Re:Prove it

[B'Trey]

Funny, you seem to be arguing with me but you also seem to be repeating everything I said.

Suppose a large meteor did take out he US. Our population is a little under 300 million. That only leaves about 6 billion other people to try an muddle through without us.

A sufficiently severe catastrophe, whether an asteroid hit or something else, could take out 99% of the human population and still leave some 63 million people.

Americans, Europeans and many others are certainly dependent on technology. Most of us wouldn't know which end of a seed to plant in the ground. But there are huge populations of the world who still live fairly primitively.

The question wasn't whether we'd just shrug it off and continue like nothing happened. The question was whether the human race would go extinct. You know, every last member of the species dead? That kind of extinct?

About the only thing which would kill us without completely destroying the world would be some sort of super flu or other bug which was universally fatal to us but not to other species. (Another possibility would be one which was not fatal but caused universal sterility.) The odds of that are extremely tiny - there seems to always be some fraction of the population that are somehow immune to any specific disease.

Saying that we won't be driven to extinction doesn't rule out the possibility of any of a plethora of catastrophes. It just says that, as a species, we'll almost certainly survive anything short of complete destruction of the planet. Our civilization may not, but we will.

Re:Prove it

[arminw]

...If you're talking about predator/prey relationships then humans still don't win....

Humans will generally win if they have a powerful enough gun and plenty of ammo.

Re:Prove it

[jacksonj04]

What he's describing isn't homophobia - it's simply a theory as to why there *are* homosexual people.

Re:Prove it

[beelsebob]

I believe what he is referring to is the fact that Yellowstone national park is way way way over due for a massive eruption. There are signs that the lava dome is begging to lift and that an eruption is reasonably imminent.

Bob

Re:Prove it

[BorgCopyeditor]

A few self-replicating space probes, Von Neuman pondered, could explorethe galaxy in only a few hundred thousand years.

Paging Fred Saberhagen. Dr. Saberhagen, phone 322.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Killer Whales. :)

Re:Prove it

[AnonymousKev]

> It's good to know you've got a scientific basis for your homophobia...

I didn't see any fear of homosexuality in the parent post, but I do have a question. Why is any level of disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle immediately branded as a phobia? It seems like the term is overused and misused an awful lot.

Re:Prove it

[shimmin]

Fermi's paradox concerns me ... if intelligent life is more common than 1 species / galaxy / Gyr or so, and this is feasible, then someone else ought to have already done it.

Unless we are the descendents of those who have already done it, or intelligent life is vanishingly rare, then we must conclude that galactic colonization is infeasible.

Perhaps the first ones to have the ability to do so declined to do so, but in doing so took measures so that no one else would.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct. He's talking out his ass....

Re:Prove it

[OmniVector]

if the majority of the world thought as you (and i do) we'd be in a much better position to attempt something like colonizing the moon.

i hope education and the "crock pot" effect of race merging can remove these sorts of problems over time, and that one day people won't be so divided. the gay marriage thing is a perfect example of how stupid people can be. people vote down something that shouldn't (and doesn't) effect their rights as citizens, but denies the rights of others just because they don't agree with their predisposition for sexual preference. these same people, if in reverse rolls, would suddenly be the ones clamoring for justice.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

It is naive to separate war from survival when the entirety of the former is to ensure the latter against opposition. Achievements are compared what has been recorded as achieved in the past, not an imaginary optimum society or philosophical republic. I would even go so far as to comment that to compare the wonders of progress to an imaginary point that is designed in imagination to be the optimum is self defeating and serves no productive or intellectual purpose but self debasement. All that matters, that is all that has significant value, is what can be done-including what can be done to be able to do more along concrete and general and precise lines.

Re:Prove it

[SmokeHalo]

You forgot one last thing...

• Profit!

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Struct]

No doubt, everything you're saying here is 100% true. Whether or not the world will ever be unified enough to focus their collective attention on a problem like this is way up in the air. Still, it doesn't take a unified world to accomplish something great, and we'll probably still be fighting disease and poverty the same day we begin colonizing another planet (assuming it ever happens, of course).

Purely from a survival perspective, it makes the most sense to attack the colonization problem as early as possible in hopes of finding a solution before the statistical inevitability occurs. The more practical question of whether or not we can, or even deserve to find a solution to that problem is, like you suggest, open for a considerable amount of debate.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought billion was more like
1,000,000,000,000

or approximately 166 times the population of the world

Re:Prove it

[Zangief]

Have you found any black monoliths lately?

AFAIK Jupiter needs a LOT of extra mass to become a star. The process would take millions of years, and its satellites would be crushed in the process...

Oh, ti's joke...mod parent funny.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

The basic theory is that when a population reaches a size that can no longer be naturally supported by the environment that homosexual tendencies become more prevelant. Of course it could just be that the percentage of gay people hasn't changed, it's just that there are more now since the overall population is growing.

I'd argue the latter, and that they're just more visible now that civil rights have become an issue. I don't see any hard evidence backing up the former, and I've seen overpopulations of wildlife (e.g. the deer at the Air Force Academy).

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

> volcano the size of Yosemite.

Yellowstone. Yosemite is a big valley.

Re:Prove it

[pinkocommie]

took measures to prevent colonization? Mind if i ask what that could possibly ne?

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good to know you have no basis for your ad hominems...

Re:Prove it

[Jim Starx]

Homosexuality was lumped in along with 3 other examples of dangers to the human race that we have overcome. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed to me like he was saying homosexuality is a problem that needs to be overcome.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

What the grandparent describes is simply a theory. But he uses it as an example of what the human race has overcome to be on the top. That's homophobia.

Re:Prove it

[Camel Pilot]

Say what your doing in 2008? Consider running for public office - you have my vote. In the not so distant future our decendants will study our history and wonder with amazement how we could be so short sighted that we actually used technology and a considerable amount of our collective intellegence to kill and maimed each other over limited resources.

Re:Prove it

[PalmKiller]

Hes retiring in two weeks AC, so I doubt he cares. He just decided to speak out now that its not going to harm is work status

Re:Prove it

[Mantorp]

OK, I've never been stalked by a cougar or a bear, but I was almost run over by a moose once, though I doubt she would have eaten me.

Let me get this straight though in a battle to extinction between sharks and humans, you bet your money on the sharks?

Re:Prove it

[PalmKiller]

I think you mean Von Neumann, not Von Neuman

Re:Prove it

[Rei]

Current models of solar system formation put the heavier elements in the inner solar system. That doesn't bode well for a Kupier society, unless we want to start tree farms and build our spaceships out of pykrete or something.

(yeah, yeah, I know - if there's carbon out there, we can build all sorts of carbon based structural materials; however, modern human society is based on a whole lot more than bulk structural materials.)

Re:Prove it

[Bilzmoude]

Yeah, what you said :) Typo. Thanks :)

Re:Prove it

[EvilAlien]

No, he was saying that homosexuality, which will tend towards pair bonds not producing offspring, may emerge as a way of maintaining species population at a somewhat sustainable level. There was no mention of fear, nor any value judgement in the parent post. Please set mode -troll.

Homosexuality was also not put forth as a danger to the human race. It was listed as an example of emergent issues that help keep populations in check. Political correctness does not trumpt science, reality, or reason. It is possible to think about and try to understand why successful species (i.e., species that survive and reproduce) have sub-populations that pair bond in ways that will tend away from reproducing. There is nothing homophobic, biased, or discriminatory in try to understand how and why this happens.

Another issue to factor in to our understanding of these emergent homeostatic mechanisms is why heterosexual pair bonds who are naturally equiped (and actively engaging in the requisit behavior) to reproduce choose not to.

Re:Prove it

[technothrasher]

This happens to be one of my pet peeves. Anyone who thinks that humans are at the top of the (supposed) food chain (or chart as you call it) has never been stalked by a cougar or a bear.

Yes, I think there is a general misunderstanding of the term 'food chain'. The position on the food chain refers to the distance your energy source is from the sun.

The textbook view is that Producers (e.g. plants) are at the bottom of the chain, Consumers (e.g. animals) are in the middle, and Decomposers (e.g. bacteria) are at the top. Large predators like ourselves are specialized to feed near the top of the food chain, but as I believe you were trying to point out, it's not really a clean line. It's more like a web than a chain.

Re:Prove it

[stwrtpj]

We can survive in anything from tropical jungles to frozen tundra. Starvation due to huge decreases in the amount of food available would sharply reduce our population, but if anything more advanced than insects and grasses survive, there's every reason to believe we will too.

Yes, that would allow humans as a species to survive, but it does nothing for human civilization

If a catastrophic event causes the destruction of enough of the population, civilization as we know it will collapse. All the millennia of human advancement and knowledge goes poof. We would have to do it all over again.

The colonization of other worlds is a hedge against this. Take out the homeworld, and human civilization, technology, and culture survives. That I feel is more important than "just" humanity itself surviving as a species.

Re:Prove it

[AnonymousKev]

I just took it as a subpoint to his discussion of overpopulation, but I can see your point of how he meant it as a danger.

There certainly are problems with the push toward wholesale acceptance of homosexuality, but I can't see global depopulation being one of those dangers.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice going, there, Ben Franklin!! How long did it take you to figure that one out? :P

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

He's retiring from NASA, where salaries are determined by government payscales (i.e. not so high). He may very well become involved with corporations that benefit from government contracts for space exploration and be paid much more handsomely than previously for consulting, sitting on a board, etc. This is the way things often work in the defense industry, and space contracters and defense contracters tend to be the same group. I have no more evidence that this is what's going on than the AC two posts above, but I understand the inclination toward cynicism.

Re:Prove it

[MightyMartian]

> Purely from a survival perspective, it makes the most sense to attack the
> colonization problem as early as possible in hopes of finding a solution before
> the statistical inevitability occurs. The more practical question of whether
> or not we can, or even deserve to find a solution to that problem is, like you
> suggest, open for a considerable amount of debate.

Well NASA is working on going to Mars, though certainly not in the beginning with any mind to colonization. However, it does appear that there's lots of water there, even if it's rather frozen, so Mars is probably a good destination.

But even if tomorrow, everyone agrees that we should begin colonizing Mars, the reality is that, at best, we're two or three decades away from even putting a few people on Mars, and probably a century away from any kind of colony. Beyond that, these early colonies probably won't be able to support more than a few thousand people in bubble domes.

I don't really by the claim that Mars is terraformable. If it is, that's going to be a project that takes thousands of years. I'm not saying it should be done, but we're going to have to change our economic systems to deal with multi-generation projects.

Re:Prove it

[anum]

One strategy which seems to motivate people is to turn the selfish need to be on top in your local neighborhood into a selfish need to be on top of a newly discovered neighborhood. OK, bad sentence, but what I mean is if you point certain types of people at a NEW land they will do just about ANYTHING to get there before their peers can. What we need is a new frontier. Truly a new world.

I'm not talking about Mars here either. And if any of you are thinking Mars or the Moon then remember that to meet the criteria of saving the species you have to be self reliant. No potatoes from back home, no imports of any kind.

Our best chance as far as I can see is to find an earth like planet in a nearby system. Long shot I know, but bear with me. If we find some planet around Alpha Centauri or not too much farther out (12 light years or less, say) with indications of life there will be a HUGE push to get something there to check it out. If conditions are right for self sufficiency then a colony ship would soon be on its way.

We don't think of the Moon or Mars this way because no one really believes that these places can be made self sufficient.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

Re:Prove it

[Bilzmoude]

I'll tell you what happened... I read the post about someone saying that they didnt think that 5 billion people would go dead, and correlated it to yours.

You are right. We agree. We both say that we will not all die, only most of us.

B

Re:Prove it

[TheKidWho]

thats more like a trillion... or approximately 16 times the world population...

Re:Prove it

[LWATCDR]

Frankly that is pretty unlikely as well. Humans have never been wiped out all life in any environment. Heck The Apollo crews brought back Staph that was growing on a camera lens they brought back. They found algae gowning in Three Mile Island. The islands that the US nuked again and again are teaming with life. Life will find a way short of a nova to go on. Frankly humans will also probably find a way as well no matter how bad we make the Earth. We may decrease in population and all sorts of other really ugly stuff but Humans where out competing other life everywhere in the planet even 2000 years ago. What we would loose is our art, science, and civilization.

Re:Prove it

[moosemoose]

interestingly, in my lifetime, the amount of "old school" racism has fallen pretty dramatically to the point where people who make judgements based on skin color have pretty much been relegated to the trailer parks and the ghettos. in the 60's when people such as myself were opposing racism, the flip side of the coin was a support of integration. support of integration has now become, in effect the new racism because the concept of integration, by its nature, has a certain amount of built in conflict with the concept of diversity.

i wish people would cast a bit more critical eye as to the long term (100 years say) effect of making diversity a goal of society. yugoslavia had diversity; northern ireland has diversity; iraq has a ton of diversity. just how hard can it be to draw a mental map of the correlation between intercene conflict and cultural diversity? i'm afraid that if we continue to celebrate the values that separate us, at the expense of the values we share, we are all on the freeway to hell.

Re:Prove it

[jerometremblay]

If europeans explorers had waited for all problems to be solved before crossing the ocean and establishing colonies, we would still be waiting.

Or maybe united under a planetary mayan governement ;)

Re:Prove it

[WaterBreath]

But he included homosexuality among threats to the continued proliferation of the human race. Which implies he thinks it is dangerous.

The placement of homosexuality on this list seems inconsistent with the other things. He mentions it could be an evolutionary population control mechanism. How could a control mechanism contribute to the extinction of the human race? Unless the evolutionary process that brought it about somehow magically disappeared before it could remove it when it was no longer needed.

So no, he didn't describe homophobia. But he put it on a list with other "threats" to the human race, and then failed to really justify it's place in that list. Which, to me, does imply that he's kind of looking for a justification for something.

As a disclaimer, I am a Christian, of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. But I could care less if other people do it. It's not hurting me any.

Re:Prove it

[Fareq]

Correct. Food is not a production problem.

It's a distribution problem. Recall U.S. efforts to "feed the hungry" in a bunch of third-world countries... local warlords take all the food, the people end up no better off...

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

The tendancy of uneducated fools such as yourself to assume that a homosexual relationship will not culmate in an offspring being produced is blatantly false and perpetually homophobic. Artificial insemination has resulted in many homosexual parents, something that would be more common if asses like you weren't attacking what I thought was a perfectly reasonable statement about the bias inherrant in that grouping.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

While I believe you are correct, I don't think mankind is there yet. Look at it in perspective. What we're talking about here would take global cooperation of the scale never seen before. We can't even wipe out AIDS or world hunger or war, how are we going to work together to colonize another planet?

Mankind will never be "there". Our species has existed with war and with hunger for millenia. We're not about to change our fundamental nature just because we're suddenly living in a modern age.

If we wait to solve every problem on Earth, to perfect mankind's ethics before leaving our planet, we will never leave. Instead, we need to do what we can now, to start expanding our civilization into the solar system. Expansion into space will bring incremental improvements in living conditions for everyone. More resources, more living space, and more freedom will drastically decrease the pressures of overpopulation here on Earth, neutralizing many of the root causes of strife and war.

Space is just the next step on mankind's path to eliminating war, racism, hate, and disease. Space travel should not be put aside until every other problem is solved, because it will aid in solving our problems.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Great logic, there, buddy. You sit there complaining about human foibles (though YOU possess no such horrid qualities, I'm sure) and then talk about moving to other planets.

Yeah, let's pollute the REST of the solar system/galaxy/universe with our greed, war, racism, hatred, disease, etc. Good plan.

Maybe, when the asteroid hits and causes global climate changes, just maybe humans should be wiped out if we're (the rest of us, not you, of course) are as bad as you say....

Re:Prove it

[arminw]

...save enough people to guarantee survival of the species...

This whole debate hinges on some very fundamental beliefs. For those who believe that we are a only a cosmic accident with no greater purpose, the scenarios of extinction may seem plausible.

For those who believe that there is a higher purpose for mankind and that there is a God who has created us for that purpose, there is no need to worry about another catastrophe wiping mankind out as long as this planet exists at all. We have the direct promise from God, after the flood of Noah, that life on this Earth will continue about the same as it has since then, until the "End of the World":

Genesis 8:22 "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."

Re:Prove it

[WaterBreath]

There was no mention of fear, nor any value judgement in the parent post.

Agreed. It was much more subtle.

Homosexuality was also not put forth as a danger to the human race.

The entire list was put forth as reasons why the human race is "in serious shape", according to him. The content of his section on homosexuality didn't support that though. Which means at least one of two things: It didn't belong in the list, or he was looking for a reason to put it on there.

*Begin Christian side-track* While I believe it is morally wrong, and possibly dangerous to general moral values, that's quite a different issue. I don't believe it will harm the human race on that scale any more than other things I believe are wrong, such as, say, drunkenness, or extra- and pre-marital sex. I could care less whether it's socially acceptable, or whether it's legally acceptable, or whatever. People can do what they want as long as they're not hurting anyone else by it. And I am of the opinion that if someone isn't strong enough in their faith to resist the influence of people around them to do things they supposedly think are wrong, then they aren't really "saved" anyway. So, no I don't think it's hurting anyone. People who are "subverted" were already off-track, faith-wise. And if they just "made a mistake", I am fully confident that God would not let them just continue on that way without giving them a chance to rectify things.

Anyway, all this has nothing to do with whether it should be legal or socially acceptable or whatever. The fact of the matter is, it's a religious issue, so the government should probably butt out. (Although marriage in general is a religious issue too--think about that! If we make civil unions purely civil, then any pair (or more) of people who live together should be eligible for the benefits.)

The only thing that bothers me is when someone claims to be Christian, with their faith based on the Bible, but are homoesexual. In order to reconcile those things, they have to kind of ignore several parts of scripture. And if you can just declare some parts of scripture to be not applicable, then why in the world would any of the rest of it be required? If you're going to say you believe the Bible, then discounting parts of it kind of cuts the proverbial legs out from under you. *End Christian side-track*

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

But you have to remember, he is remarking on natural occurances (disease, famine, etc). Have you ever heard of a cow artificially inseminated by another cow? This is not a natural occurance no matter how you look at it (artificial insemination that is).

Re:Prove it

[neonfrog]

"...it wouldn't surprise me at all if within the next 200 years or so there's some major population-thinning event like a pandemic, massive starvation, etc."

You forgot "war."

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

christianity and the view of homosexuality is wrong are two different things.

he wasnt saying it was a threat, but rather a positive to CONTROLLING the population, which is good.

none of those things are really "bad" because they keep advanced humans in place (well sort of)

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Philosophers are divided on whether or not this is a good thing.

Yeah.

We live in a universe that is fundamentally hostile to its inhabitants. The "suffering is only caused by abuse of free will" argument is obvious bunk, given the following examples: Extremes of heat and cold, meteors, earthquakes, floods, famines, diseases and parasites of infinite variety, poisons and other toxins, and predators. All of these threats perpetually confront every species on the planet, completely apart from any semblance of "free will."

Further, the laws of conservation of energy and entropy conspire to compel all living creatures to become hostile to one another. The only way to foster your existence is to eat others. Again, free will plays no role in this.

From this perspective, our world looks a lot like hell, and we look a lot like demons.

Perhaps the continued sustenance of our existence is nothing more than a willful perpetuation of this sorrowful state of existence.

No one ever said that wisdom brings joy.

Re:Prove it

[tmortn]

You think humans are so bad that you hate yourself enough to think its a good thing for us to be wiped out ? Well lead the way, end your pain and lead by example.

I never understand this concept that we are so bad. So bad compared to what? How many civilizations do we have to compare to? Martians? Moon Folk? Sheesh folks every comparison we have is a figment of our own imaginations. Our deficiencies viewed as lackings in our own self examination.

Re:Prove it

[El Puerco Loco]

all that means is that they were wrong about the time. it's a zero sum game. eventually we will hit a wall.

Re:Prove it

[computechnica]

He did it against the Klingons from your Uranus 8^)

"All your Klingons are belong to Uranus"

Re:Prove it

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Badlife! Badlife! Attention all units, sterilize the badlife first! Badlife!

Re:Prove it

[meringuoid]

I've thought about this myself... it's clear enough that the comet-riding nomad lifestyle would work, given the necessary technological sophistication, and that such a culture could fill the galaxy very quickly in evolutionary terms. Fermi therefore comes into play: why hasn't anyone else done this yet?

My answer here is that while comet-riders could certainly spread to fill the entire galaxy, they would find it difficult to go beyond that. Intergalactic distances are enormous; you'd need a colossal commitment of resources to put together a comet fleet capable of sustaining a colony throughout the journey, and it would take an awfully long time. This requires that intelligent life arises on average once per giant galaxy or less: Andromeda might already have been filled, but they haven't yet been able to get over here.

Re:Prove it

[knightri]

unless we are the first intelligent species, or maybe you believe in god

Re:Prove it

[Pfhorrest]

This is in response to this entire sub-thread started by your post:

I am bisexual. I find nothing offensive whatsoever in the grandparent's post. He is not describing PROBLEMS, he is describing SYMPTOMS of a problem, that may have evolved as a population control mechanism (a GOOD thing, so that we don't overpopulate ourselves to death). There was no value judgement involved.

That said, I think his science is a little bad - I can't think of any selection mechanism that would lead a population to suddenly increase it's homosexual behavior due to overpopulation. But then, we don't know exactly why people have homosexual tendancies. It seems to be a naturally occurring phenomenon in more species than humans, and is not a black-or-white thing (witness people like myself).

So I don't think homosexuality is a population-control mechanism, but it's not neccesarily a condemnation of the practice to say that it might be.

Re:Prove it

[berj]

Well.. so far the evolutionary record bears this out. I mean.. sharks (and all their variants) have been around a lot longer (in much the same form) than primates. They were around before the K-T Extinction, made it through, and are still here today.

A few things can happen here:

- asteroid parks itself somewhere on Earth: I'm thinking that the sharks would survive this one before we would
- nuclear devastation: I'd give even odds on this one.
- we destroy/severely damage the biosphere (somewhat related to the previous one): well, even if we take out the sharks first we'd be following soon after. Anyone who thinks that we can blithely destroy large numbers of ecosystems and their species and continue to live on this planet needs to read up a bit on systems-based ecological theory.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, all this time I thought it was the DEMOCRATS that would rather spend money on social welfare than on manned spaceflight...

Now you say its the red states? Well, ahhllll beee!

Re:Prove it

[BigCheese]

We don't know how often Yellowstone erupts since there is not enough evidence. You might want to check out the FAQ at the USGS site.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/faqs2.html#3

Re:Prove it

[Firethorn]

Personally, I think that it was subtle to the point of not being anwhere in the author's mind.

He was listing "natural" population controls. Starvation, Disease, Violence, non-reproducing members. He might as well say that the monastic orders are an ancient form birth control.

Re:Prove it

[b-baggins]

Except for the fact that as standards of living increase, birth rates go down. Europe is now experiencing negative population growth and the U.S. is close to negative birth rates.

Re:Prove it

[CommieOverlord]

things I believe are wrong ... extra-marital sex.

to reconcile those things, they have to kind of ignore several parts of scripture

Ummm....

Ever read the bible. Genesis, Leviticus, Corinthians, and so on. Polygamy and the taking concubines are actively endorsed by the bible, and several of the holiest of holy characters engage in it.

How do you reconcile this with your belief? By ignoring those parts (assuming you even knew they existed)?

Re:Prove it

[Paul8069]

"just the day-to-day concerns that we might accidentally annihilate ourselves with the war-de-jour, the best way to increase our chances for survival is to spread out a little bit and prevent an accident like that from doing us all in at once."

So instead of countries fighting each other, we'll have planets?

Re:Prove it

[Doktor Memory]

Pity humans can't actually live long-term in zero-g.

I know, I know, facts are silly things...

Re:Prove it

[ahodgson]

Humans are far beyond nature's ability to keep in check. Our only practical checks now are energy consumption and water, and there's enough of both in the solar system alone to support, at a minimum, hundreds of billions of us.

We grow more food per capita now than we did 30 years ago. There are fewer starving people (both numerically and as a percentage of population) now than there were 30 years ago. People live longer than they ever have.

Now, all this is due to our consumption of hydrocarbon reserves, but if we can transition to fusion or even space-based solar without civilization collapsing, then we should be good for some time.

Re:Prove it

[Ubergrendle]

That's funny, I was thinking that ALL of your topics have improved dramatically over the past 100, and 50, and even 25 year periods.

1. Starvation - It has pretty much been conclusively proven that we have FAR MORE than enough food to feed everyone on the planet. The issue is market dynamics, and governmental control. We can feed the people in Bangladesh, Somalia, Haiti, etc... if there were a stable environment to deliver food in. This is a human-created problem. Food supply is NOT the problem.

2. Disease. AIDS is a plague scouring over Africa it is true. But it is no different than Syphilis in its day, or Typhoid, or Scarlet Fever. AIDS is the disease we can't immediately cure in our day and age. 100 years ago you could die from a paper cut (infection). We're MUCH father ahead. We know how AIDS is transmitted, how to avoid it, and therapies allow for extension of lives by substantial amounts. DISEASE is NOT a significant problem, nor an effective population control.

3. Fertility. In the first world, economics has modified the trend towards smaller family through a rationalisation process. China has control over its population size now, albeit through inhumane methods. AIDS is limiting family sizes in Africa, and soon India and the Pacific-rim. The world will balance itself out, one way or another. FERTILITY IS NOT A PROBLEM -- economies and cultures have ways of managing their population sizes without cataclysmic events being required.

4. Homosexuality is a rounding error. It is not even statistically significant as a population control, its existed for millenia and even exists in nature. This is a non-factor. HOMOSEXUALITY is a NON-FACTOR.

I think the world's population is doing very well for itself thank you very much. The UN suggests we could -- with current economic systems and technology -- continue to support up to 10-12 Billion before any meaningful change in civilisation is required. I agree.

Re:Prove it

[Dyolf Knip]

Guns, shmuns. Do you know how many species we wiped out with nothing more complicated than a spear?

Re:Prove it

[Firethorn]

The colonization of other worlds is a hedge against this. Take out the homeworld, and human civilization, technology, and culture survives. That I feel is more important than "just" humanity itself surviving as a species.

I remember a book that had an alien species that every so often knocked itself back to the stone age. They did it often enough that they built lots of "museums" containing lessons to teach from chipping stone all the way back up to the nuclear age. The doors just got progressivly harder to open. I also think that the stone tool places were more frequent than the higher up ones. IE stone tool skillshop within a few miles, might have to go a couple hundred for a nuclear one. They built lots of them because they knew most would be destroyed in the fighting.

It sounds like a good start for us. Build basic skills shops all over the earth, and stick the really good stuff on the moon. You wouldn't necessarily want them manned, as manned=target.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

All of us in the cities would surely starve to death.

This is a problem?

No, not everyone would die in the end, but sure 5 out of 6 billion people probably would.

I know how to grow tomatoes, I know how to grow corn, I know how to fish, I know how to hunt, I know how to build a fire, I know how to find fresh water and I know how to produce ethanol and biodiesel. I have a strong back and I do not smoke. Unfortunately, I wear glasses, so I have to hope they last for a while. Once I learn how to cure a pelt, I will be good.

And there are always those big cities for looting.

Re:Prove it

[Moby-One GNUbie]

I don't agree here; human 'civilization' is highly overrated in my opinion. We're on a path to wipe our own civilization out and take most of the Earth with us, because we can't be bothered to avoid dominating the earth instead of being a part of it.

Man needs to face up to the fact that he is not immune to or above the laws of nature; he will only be the end product of evolution if he manages to destroy the entire world before either he or other species evolve further.

I see no reason why we should move from world to world until we deal with the fact that we're destroying this one. What arrogance would lead us to believe we would not simply take our problems with us?

Re:Prove it

[Yogs]

Let's be honest... we're not moving 1/1000th of 1 percent of that many people to settle anywhere off earth for a long time. It's more constructive to try and reduce the chances of global catastrophe here, and buy ourselves time (not to say we shouldn't keep working on fusion, we should, but I'm not under the illusion that this is coming soon).

How do we do this?

Most important is developing a foreign policy geared toward a more peaceful, less nuclear and biologically armed world. Kim Jong II scares me more than big rocks from space or yellowstone. Big fill in the gap here... I'm not especially wise in these ways. I do know, however, that there's no indication that's where we're headed, or that the current regimes in the developed world have primarily those goals in mind.

Wry comments about silly movies aside, researching and testing meteor/comet deflection also seems like a good idea. I even (shoot me) enjoyed The Core, though I certainly don't know of anything anyone has ever seriously proposed to deal with plate techtonics. If there is something that makes an iota of sense, research that, too.

There's an interesting contrast between my approach and the one I'm responding to and I think it reflects different underlying values.

You see, I don't care about there being some remnant of humanity in the case of 99.999%+ anihalation. Humanity has a pretty nasty record when you get down to it, and whatever life there is in the universe, if advanced enough to witness us in any detail, is unlikely to find much of worth to take from it.

I care about my life, the life of my family and friends. Because neither I nor they have special connections in the space industry or government, that means preserving life on earth. Anyone else like that idea?

Re:Prove it

[Ukonu]

Why can't they? I honestly don't know why and want to know.

Re:Prove it

[dbacher]

Curing aids is a much more complex problem than settling another world.

Throughout our evolutionairy history, at every branch, we've made terrible risks to explore. People braved uncurable diseases and trips that killed thousands of people, in order to explore new areas.

Every great revolution in power and transportation, every great revolution in technology coincided with new transportation requirements to get to new areas that humans were exploring.

Everything from the wheel to the space shuttle that we take for granted today were developed as a result of trying to get between places faster.

The larger the distance we've had to cross, the faster the technology has come.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

That's unpossible.

The evil U.S. would never try to feed the hungry. If fact. GWB himself likes to go to third world countries and steal food. He then puts it in a secret bunker under the White House, where it sits there and rots. He would never eat it himself, because he maintains a steady diet of puppies and kittens.

Re:Prove it

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yeah, and I hate getting those dinosaur droppings on my clean car!

The worst part is finding the door handle.

Re:Prove it

[kwn]

I can create my own Oort Clouds after eating Mexican. I will stay behind and water the plants.

Re:Prove it

[WaterBreath]

he wasnt saying it was a threat, but rather a positive to CONTROLLING the population, which is good

It was a list of threats, prefaced with the statement that "the human race is already in serious shape". If he doesn't consider homosexuality a threat, then it should be separate from the list.

christianity and the view of homosexuality is wrong are two different things.

I'll probably be labeled as a Troll for this, but I've got Karma to burn....

They shouldn't be. Especially not if you are scientifically-minded. Christianity is generally Bible-based. The Bible says very clearly in several places, both in the New Testament and the Old, that homosexuality is a sin. And I don't see how you can say that certain parts of the document that your faith is based on don't matter, or are wrong, or inapplicable, without completely discrediting the authority of the rest of the document, written by the same people, all supposedly inspired by God. Or maybe you believe that certain parts aren't inspired? But who decides which parts don't matter? And how do they decide? And on whose authority? You're cutting your own legs out from under you! It just doesn't make any sense. It's completely inconsistent. (And yes, I am aware of how many people I'm calling on the carpet here.)

Either take it as a whole, or don't take it at all. That's all I ask. The inconsistencies that some people see can be ironed out when taken in context of the whole. But you can't justify throwing out certain parts just because you don't like them. If you do, then fine, to each his own. But then your faith is not Bible-based, so don't pretend it is.

Re:Prove it

[mesterha]

P> The entire list was put forth as reasons why the human race is "in serious shape", according to him. The content of his section on homosexuality didn't support that though. Which means at least one of two things: It didn't belong in the list, or he was looking for a reason to put it on there.

The list was put forth as reasons why the human race may be overpopulated. His claim is that homosexuality may be a built in way to control population growth. As the population increases, maybe environmental pressures cause a higher percentage of homosexuals to help control the population. He implies that we might currently have a higher percentage of homosexuals, because our population is triggering this evolutionary control method. It seems like a fairly innocuous theory. It's wrong, but it's not homophobic.

You on the other hand are OK with homosexuals on earth. You just think they are all going to hell if they don't rectify their ways.

Re:Prove it

[WaterBreath]

Actually, polygamy isn't explicitly outruled anywhere in the Bible. Adultry is. If they're all married to you, I don't think it can be called adultry. Polygamy isn't socially accepted nowadays though.

And the "holy characters" that engaged in adultry, such as Abraham, were punished. His punishment was that the descendents of his illegitemate child (the Palestinians) would forever be in conflict with the descendants of his promised child (the Jews).

Re:Prove it

[hobbesx]

Can they not afford $0.99 at Blockbuster?

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about green peace telling third world country the food is poison

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Useful skills for a slave, and useful loot for a victim. Slavery, robbery, and murder would be common as no societal resistance would exist to those basic survival methods. You would die like many others, most would die in the return to Feudalism at worst, Fascism at best amidst the ruins. Do not be foolish.

Re:Prove it

[WaterBreath]

You on the other hand are OK with homosexuals on earth. You just think they are all going to hell if they don't rectify their ways.

And you think I'm wrong for that. So we both think some things are wrong that the other doesn't. Big whoop.

Re:Prove it

[Porn Whitelist]

Humans are no tougher than civilization as a whole.

Sorry, but that's obviously a false assumption. Humans existed before civilization, and can continue to exist after civilization falls - just not as numerous. So again, as I said, the survival of the species is not connected to the survival of civilization.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Homosexuality - There are theories that nature uses homosexuality to help control population sizes. The basic theory is that when a population reaches a size that can no longer be naturally supported by the environment that homosexual tendencies become more prevelant.

What kind of theories are those??? Nature suddenly decides, oh, why not give the homos a rise?? C'mon, this sound just like BS.

I think the real reason in why you are observing more and more people to be gay is a) what you've mentioned yourself below, namely that when percentage stays the same, and overall population goes up, then the absolute number of gay people rises as well, and b) that homosexual people are being more and more accepted today, and so more people 'admit' it. Unfortunately, there are still certain social barriers against homosexuals, but I am in big hope that it is becoming absolutely normal to be either hetero- or homosexual (or even both, for the gourmet), during the next 50 years.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Homosexuality is a rounding error. It is not even statistically significant as a population control, its existed for millenia and even exists in nature. This is a non-factor. HOMOSEXUALITY is a NON-FACTOR.

Hey, no need to convince us.

You might want to focus your efforts on convincing your Dad since he is the one who caught you being cornholed be the kid down the street while choad-yodeling the neighbor's son.

Re:Prove it

[Kombat]

I never understand this concept that we are so bad. So bad compared to what? How many civilizations do we have to compare to? Martians? Moon Folk? Sheesh folks every comparison we have is a figment of our own imaginations.

Compared to our potential. I look at where we are, and where we could be, with the same resources and knowledge, if we only had sufficient motivation, tolerence, and initiative.

Take Olympic athletes for example. They represent the pinnacle of human athleticism. They are what we could accomplish, if we were only dedicated and focused enough. Of course, we couldn't all reach such high potential, but my point is that we could all, most certainly, achieve a higher physical potential than we are at right now.

The same goes for human nature. Of course, we can't all be as open minded, enlightened, and visionary as Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking, but we most certainly could do a helluvalot better than the crackpots delivering suicide bombs in Gaza and Baghdad, or the people who can haul themselves in front of city hall to protest gay marriage, but can't be bothered to donate any time or money to cancer research.

I'm saying that it is very obvious to me that we are squandering our potential on a global scale. I think everyone can look within themselves and agree that, if they were only motivated, they could be in better health, be a better spouse or parent, do a better job at work, but we're lazy and apathetic. If you agree that this is true on an individual scale, then how can you possibly deny that the same is true on a global scale?

Re:Prove it

[Bilzmoude]

This is a problem?

Yes... a problem. The majority of the worlds population lives in big cities. The majority of knowledge is also in big cities.

I know how to grow tomatoes, I know how to grow corn, I know how to fish, I know how to hunt, I know how to build a fire, I know how to find fresh water and I know how to produce ethanol and biodiesel.

Your're kidding, right? How are you going to grow tomatoes when the cloud of ash has blocked out the sun? How are you going to find fresh water, when it is contaminated with ash? How are you going to hunt, when 90% of the animals have also died for the same reasons?

Re:Prove it

[nbv4]

Starvation

This is only a problem in africa and other third world places. Is this a problem here? No. At least not widespread. Starvation is mostly an economic effect rather than a worldwide flaw in the way humans use the earth's resources. Technology has increased to allow us to produce more food by the achre than ever before.

Disease

This is true of every species inclusing humans. With regard to animal specefic disease, the number stays about the same. As we cure human diseases, new ones crop up, causing the total number to stay about the same. Nothing changes. I don't see how this is a sign that we are doomed as a species... Has any other species been wiped out due to disease? Especially since we have 100s of years of medical science behind us, I don't suspect this will ever end mankind.

Fertility

How is this a bad thing? More people means we are worse off? You are probably basing this off doomsday therists who say the earth can only hold so many people and by the year XXXX we won't have enough to live. These people never account for the exponential growth in technology that allows for us to make more efficient use of our resourced. This goes back to the starvation thing. Also, more people also means there will be more people to work on furthering our achievements.

Homosexuality

Homosexuality has always existed. Its just that throughout history, society has been more and less tolerant. During Reinessance Italy, just about ebveryone was gay. During the days of the Wild West, there were just as many, its just society didn't take too kindly to them types, so it was kept behind closed doors.

The more I think about it, they more I believe in the human race. During WWI and WWII people thought the end was near. It wasn't. Throughout time, there are always people saying, and with "facts" and reasons to back themselvs up, that the world is coming to an end. They are always wrong.

I believe the only way the end will occur will be caused by something supernatural. If a huge WWIII breaks out, the war will eventually end; if a huge metereor heads towards the earth, we'll go all DIG and divert the meteror. If the Earth somehow becomes unhabitable, we'll just find a way to go to another planet. How long did it take to create the current PC? 20 some years. When the time comes, we will figure someting out.

Re:Prove it

[PastaLover]

Or... they'll still be killing and maiming each other over the limited resources we left behind. I find that much more plausible.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

The powerless visionary is more wasteful than the motivated and devoted martyr fighting desperately for Palestinian rights in their own fatherland. Simply because you do not agree on a surface level with tactics of a group does not mean that insignificant efforts by authors or powerless visionaries like yourself are contributing anything to progress over that group, or even at all by nature.

Re:Prove it

[CommieOverlord]

Actually, polygamy isn't explicitly outruled anywhere in the Bible.

No it's not. But must (and I realize you were weren't doing this) people who bring up the Bible to do stuff like defend marriage claim it defines marriage as between a man and women. When it's really between a man and his wifes (concubines allowed), according to the bible.

And the concubines issue comes up again. It's technically adultorous, but it's still allowed. In Leviticus it's stated that being married doesn't prevent a man from taking concubines (read mistresses or extra marital affairs).

Polygamy isn't socially accepted nowadays though

Depends who you hang with. I know quite a few polyamorous people.

Abraham's illegitimate children were fathered by Hagar right? Whom Serai forced upon her husband, and then drove out into the desert when she got jealous? I thought Abraham had tacit approval from God to sleep with Hagar? And don't you think it's kind of cruel to punish millions of descendents because Abraham slept around? Abraham himself was never directly punished, or sent to purgatory or hell.

Re:Prove it

[anagama]

• (what do you think happens when you die and they put you in that hole in the ground?)

When I die, I want to be chopped up and fed to fish in the ocean. That way, my molecules will be recycled into the food cycle ever so much more quickly.

From a Mississippi John Hurt song:

When my earthly trials are over
cast my body out in the sea.
Save all the undertaker's bills
and let the mermaids flirt with me.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you get the memo? These days he eats genetically engineered kippies (tm) instead of separately preparing puppies and kittens.

Re:Prove it

[Chris L. Mason]

I agree with some of the other replies to this, but isn't there something else to consider? Why do we need so many people? If the world had only a few million people (like it did not so long ago) we'd be in much better shape:

• the environment wouldn't be threatened as we wouldn't be using nearly as much energy, burning as much fuel, using as much chemicals, etc.
• There would be much more room for everyone, which should reduce tension and wars.
• There would be so many more resources to go around, we'd have much less poverty and suffering
• Also, much less disease

To get back on topic, none of the above negates the need for off-world colonization, obviously. We still need to protect against natural disasters. But I wish people wouldn't see this as a solution to over-population. Why can't we just grow up and realize that limiting the population is the rational, humane thing to do anyway.

Argh, I've almost given up on the human species.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

For a nice science fiction story describing one possible way these events could happen, read "The Songs of Distant Earth" by Arthur C. Clarke. It was originally a short story and about 20 years later he expanded it to a full novel. Sir Arthur has said this is his favorite of all his books, and he's written quite a few.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/ -/0345 322401/qid=1103311078/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-707462 9-5911113?v=glance&s=books

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you've got it backwards, it's people that can't read that contribute to the extinction of the human race, and homosexuals are our only hope for survival.

Re:Prove it

[tmortn]

Certainly what you say is true.. we could be better. But that will always be the case. Perfect use of all skills is not realistic. Perfect conversion efficeincies are theoretical but not practical.

Can we be better ? Always. Can we be worse ? Certainly. In the end all I was saying before is we are who we are and that is not a bad thing. Some seem to think being who we are and not being our own perfect ideal is sufficient reason not to go forth and 'spoil' the rest of the universe. Something I think is absurd. Yes we have potential to be better than we are, and if we don't seek to ensure our survival there is no chance we will ever get to that point.... or that if we do there is no chance that it will survive.

I think the day we look in the mirror collectively and don't think we can be better is the day we should consider staying at home. Seeking to improove is a healthy attitude. Obsessing over failure to meet the highest standards is not.

Re:Prove it

[shayne321]

We have the direct promise from God, after the flood of Noah, that life on this Earth will continue about the same as it has since then, until the "End of the World":

Right, but where in the Bible does it say exactly when the "End of the World" will happen? It doesn't. For all we know it could be a massive asteriod impact next tuesday at 4:55pm Eastern Time. We just assume the end of the world is really far away, because no one wants to think about it happening during their lifetime.

Re:Prove it

[anagama]

• Genesis 8:22 "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."

This is really a long string of words saying nothing. For example: As long I live, I shall breathe.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

So, two guys holding hands will produce offspring if one of them is artificially inseminated? How advanced! (Speaking of uneducated fools, you can't spell worth a damn. Let me Paypal you 5 cents towards the purchase of a brand fucking new dictionary.)

Re:Prove it

[SilenceEchoed]

Yeah, protecting life on earth is a fine goal. I for one have no desire to be vaporized by an international pissing contest gone awry. Though I completely agree with this part of your argument, I just see this as tragically short sighted.

Why protect life on this planet if you have no intention of protecting it beyond? It is a fact, that no matter how much we protect, repair, and monitor, Earth will not always be habitable for humans or anything else. Overlooking global weather and environment changes, comets, astroids, plagues, starvation, or general death due to war, we still have the inevitable death of our sun, during which the earth will be consumed. Good thing we kept it clean and friendly, huh?

One way or another, a lot of people will die when this planet has it's last breath (at least we assume, unless transportation on a massive scale comes to pass before), but that is no reason to allow the entire race to die out with it.

I've heard the story about how "Humanity has a pretty nasty record when you get down to it" a million times before, in a million different wordings. Fact of the matter is, we're not any different than anything else on earth. The reason every other species achieves a 'natural balance' with it's environment is because the ones that don't, die. Solves that problem. Because of our technilogical superiority, we've been able to overcome these restrictions, and thus expand our civilization and species. I do think we have a lot to learn about preserving the places we live, but the fact of the matter is that had we always existed in 'balance with nature' we'd have never gotten as far as a species as we did, and you can forget about being the apex predator. For similar reasons, I also think that the other species can and should be bent to our wills, for our own benifit, but that's another flame-baited argument, for another time.

What if the tribes of old decided, "Screw my ancestors, I'm not leaving here" ? One disease, one food shortage, one flood, one war, one whatever in a few isolated regions, and humanity is no more. When it comes down to it, to simply stop expanding and growing is just foolish. We are what we are, and if we want to continue being that, we need to start thinking about spreading out.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Those problems wont' wipe out the human race. Those problems simply reduce the amount of people. To completly wipe hamnity out, you must bring all populations below the sustainable population threshholds or sterilize earth.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't think of any mechanism that makes you think writing "suddenly increase IT IS homosexual behavior" is correct. But I can think of a mechanism whereby I send you 5 cents towards the purchase of a dictionary!

Re:Prove it

[Caseyscrib]

# Starvation - In nature populations are kept in check by starvation. Starvation is running rampant in third world countries. The world population is growing so rapidly that it's becoming more and more difficult to adequately feed everybody.

I think this is the least of our problems, because we are always inventing our way out of food shortage. Man has invented everything from agriculture, to machines, to genetic engineering which increase productivity. 100 years ago nobody could have told you that one day we will take the genes of a tomato plant and make them better. Who knows what we'll make next. Agriculture is what separates us from other species, and allows us to live on convince instead of necessity. Third world countries will catch up as their technologies advance.

# Disease - In nature populations are thinned out by disease. Mankind has managed to effectively fight disease for decades and thereby help increase the population. The flu used to kill hundreds of thousands of people but now it's more of an inconvenience. Smallpox is all but gone. Nature responds to this by introducing AIDS, SARS, Ebola, etc. If the avian flu manages to jump into the human species (not unlikely) then new flu outbreaks could kill millions.

I don't think diseases such as the Flu and AIDS are the problem, but more so genetic disabilities. In nature, animals have to live with natural selection. The weakest animals die off, and the strongest survive. Animals with good DNA reproduce and continue their genetic line. In humans however, we have circumvented natural selection. Lots of people have asthma, diabetes, and numerous genetic disabilities that are able to live now because of medical advances. Because these people are living with the diseases whereas 50 years ago they would die, they are reproducing and having children. Their children will also have their bad genetics. This makes us become dependent on technology and medicine to take care of ourselves, and should that technology no longer be there someday due to an unexpected event, we will not be in any shape to survive without it.

# Fertility - The fertility levels in many species drop when they become overpopulated. Mankind has done a good job of creating fertility drugs, etc. to allow continued growth of the population. Mankind seems to think it's a right to have offspring, despite what nature may be telling them.

I believe humans follow the same concept. If you look at the birth rate for cities, it is much lower than the suburbs. I know that there are many factors going into this such as income and whatnot, but there is also space, which you have a lot more of in the suburbs than in a city apartment. I don't think its a fertility thing, but more of a just "I don't want to have kids because theres too many people around." I could be wrong about this though - I just read it on a ./ post and never fact-checked. I'd appreciate if someone could confirm/disconfirm it.

# Homosexuality - There are theories that nature uses homosexuality to help control population sizes. The basic theory is that when a population reaches a size that can no longer be naturally supported by the environment that homosexual tendencies become more prevelant. Of course it could just be that the percentage of gay people hasn't changed, it's just that there are more now since the overall population is growing.

I've always heard that homosexuality is a near constant percent (something like 10%). I fail to see how this is a threat, because there will always be 90% of the population that is not gay, and they will reproduce.

But all in all, I think the greatest threat to society is war. Because of religion, we have become very intolerant and organized by social class. If we can eradicate the "If you don't go to my church you're going to hell" attitude, I think people will be more respectful and not so fast to drop a bomb.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no value judgement involved.

I agree on that, but I think mentioning homosexuality and the 'induced by nature' argument makes it easy (for others) to use that reasoning with their own 'it is an illness' theory; thus I think intelligent people should abstain from (speaking about their) theories about possible cause and reaction. There are things that are not explainable with our current level of technological/psychological/... science.

Re:Prove it

[0racle]

the amount of "old school" racism has fallen pretty dramatically to the point where people who make judgements based on skin color have pretty much been relegated to the trailer parks and the ghettos
Thats bullshit. If you think that racism has been relegated to white trash neighborhoods, your either blind, or the biggest idiot on the planet. Take a look around slashdot, when was the last time you heard anything other then rasist comments about orientals and Indians simply because they come from those parts of the world. How many muslims and people who look like people from the Middle East have to worry about whether or not today is going to be the day there is a mob of their neighbours. How often do you and your friends cross the road because there are some black kids walking your way on this side of the street. Racism and judgments based on skin colour and religion are very much alive and well all around the world.

As for your second paragraph, I don't know if your advocating returning to segregation or forcably absorbing and re-educating everyone to be the same. Either one will not solve anything. There is nothing wrong with diversity, what causes the problem is the learned belief that you are better then everyone who is not like you. There will always be people not like you, even if you were in a group of people of the same culture and skin colour. Some of them will be better at something then others, some will be artistic and others won't. So do we separate them from each other or perhaps re-educate them that they are not better at somethings then others? The answer has always been that you should shut up and simply accept people for what they are, the human race is diverse, its the whole reason we can have many types of art, and have advances in technology and have wonderful works of literature.

Diversity was not the problem in Yugoslavia, its not the problem in Ireland and it wasn't the problem in Iraq. Yugoslavia was composed of several groups that hated each other because of race and religion. Ireland has a problem because some of them chose a different religion then some others and each group hates each other because of it. Iraq has internal problems because people believe something a little different about the same religion, and both think they are superior because of that. If we go with what you appear to be advocating, we either separate them, or forceably change them to something neutral. That doesn't solve anything because it just won't work, its been tried. However, if they would simply shut up about it, and let each other be, all of a sudden we can all live together AND do things differently. That also isn't going to happen, but its a far better way then either segregation or forcable re-education.

Re:Prove it

[Mantorp]

How about a cage match in a fenced off section of the ocean or a saltwater pool with equal numbers of sharks and humans. Humans armed with whatever technological marvel we feel like (enough laundry detergent would probably work and we can sit in a boat and watch the bubbles), and sharks with whatever technological marvel they have created as long as they have been around? Who would win?

I see your point about longevity, I'm just being a wiseass.

Re:Prove it

[rodrigo_braz]

One reason for a large population is scale economy. The cost of developing an intellectual solution is more or less fixed, so the more people you have, the cheaper it becomes.

Re:Prove it

[Afrosheen]

I take issue with your assumptions. As stated many times above, starvation has never been an issue of production, it's a matter of distribution. If this planet has more people it's better for production, i.e. more farmers and more channels for distribution.

More room for everyone is mainly a matter of geography. Do all the Japanese *really* need to be crammed into 6x8 apartments? No, they can move, or Japan can build out it's shores in the same way Singapore came about. Tension is mainly the result of people being stupid enough to stay put when real estate becomes a rare commodity (see New York City apartment prices).

Poverty and suffering are both human-induced threads throughout history. There have always been the 'lame', the sick, and the broke-off, and there always will be. If a man puts his mind to it, he can acquire what he needs to survive in most countries. Suffering, on the other hand, is usually intertwined with poverty. If a man can work his way out of poverty he can reduce or eliminate needless suffering. Ignore strict caste systems like India where you're fucked from birth if you're born into a poor family, most countries don't handle it this way.

Less disease..well, you may be right there, but with less disease, the population is more vulnerable to outbreaks of unknown viruses and illnesses. The more mild diseases you come into contact with regularly, the more robust your immune system is. For this very reason I never take antibiotics or flu shots unless it's life-threatening.

The ultimate solution to overpopulation is land distribution. We have a surplus of land all over the world. Some of it is barely habitable, but most of it is just fine. Ever drive across America? Here's what you'll see - flat farm land or rolling hills with nothing there...for hours at a time. This is particularly true of the north. I'm sure it's like this in South America as well as most of Canada.

What it comes down to is that people like other people, and the more the merrier. When people congregate into big cities, all the numbers rise for everything. More crime but more business owners which create more jobs and a larger tax base. This in turn makes public, free healthcare economically viable and helps maintain the infrastructure required to support a large metropolitan area. Also you get alot of diversity in densely populated areas, so your chance of meeting the 'right person' shoots up exponentially. Your chances of meeting interesting people grows as well, which enriches your life.

Bla bla I had a meme but now I've lost it. :)

Re:Prove it

[WaterBreath]

My guess is you are not a Christian, but I am going to ask you try and get inside my head for a minute and see things through the eyes of a Christian for moment. All that really means is taking on faith that the Bible is truth.

In Leviticus it's stated that being married doesn't prevent a man from taking concubines

The 10 commandments were meant to be Jewish law. There was not supposed to be any need for anything beyond that. The laws of Leviticus were given because the Jews kept insisting there were "loopholes". They didn't abide by the spirit of the law. So they needed things spelled out for them beyond what was just "right". They needed to know exactly what was illegal. As an example of this, in the New Testament Jesus talks about divorce. He says it is not really right. The Levitical laws allowed it because the people demanded it. My understanding is that the concubines thing is like that. From what I remember, none of the famous righteous people had concubines, just possibly multiple wives. Solomon had concubines late in life, but he was not righteous later in life.

I thought Abraham had tacit approval from God to sleep with Hagar?

I'm don't have my Bible handy at the moment, but from what I remember that's not correct.

I know quite a few polyamorous people.

Polyamorous is not polygamous. For the most part, polygamy isn't seen much outside the "communes" of the 60s, and rumors I've heard about Mormons.

Abraham himself was never directly punished, or sent to purgatory or hell.

Abrahams promise of innumerable descendants was his reward for being faithful when God told him to leave his homeland and travel to some other distant land. But later, Abraham's faith faltered. Sarah didn't think God could provide his promise through her, and she convinced Abraham of it too. So they tried to "force God's hand", and Abraham's punishment was that his promise was tarnished by the conflict among his descendants. Abraham recognized his sin though, and the rest of his life was righteous.

And don't you think it's kind of cruel to punish millions of descendents

A lot of people aren't going to like this, but the New Testament bears it out: Suffering on earth is part and parcel with the human experience. To quote scripture, "God is no respector of persons". Additionally, Jesus talks about how people aren't supposed to worry about a situation if there's nothing they can do about it. If you're a servant, that's unfortunate, but you should be the best servant you can nonetheless. The reason for this is that this life is not what God intended. Man sinned, changing the plan. Earth changed with it, and now we suffer. (See Genesis 1.) But we still have eternity to look forward to. And the idea is that the time we spend here, whether suffering or not, won't even be remembered by those who make it to heaven... So, what I was trying to get to is that with respect to salvation/religion/etc., strife in life shouldn't matter that much. The apostles' lives, and gruesome deaths, were all about that idea. While unfortunate, suffering in life has little or nothing to do with whether God likes you or not. In the Old Testament, there was not yet salvation. When they died, they had to wait for Jesus to come before they could go to heaven. (This is why Jesus went to "the heart of the earth" for 3 days before his ascension.) People were often rewarded or punished in life in the O.T. But now, we have salvation, and when our life is over, if we are righteous, we get our reward immediately.

Re:Prove it

[coopaq]

We'd still survive as a species, along with the rats and the cockroaches. As a species, we're amazingly tough.

hmmm... I'd just duck and roll.

Of course I may be the only survivor, but I'd have to do it for the human race.

Eventually if I can find a suitable mate who ducked and rolled also I could create a super race of duckers and rollers who would never be intimidated by planetary events again.

We would be rid of all those who rolled then ducked. Cause you see, that just wouldn't work.

Re:Prove it

[VanessaDannenberg]

IMHO these are all signs that the human population is reaching a breaking point . . . it wouldn't surprise me at all if within the next 200 years or so there's some major population-thinning event like a pandemic, massive starvation, etc.

How about obesity? It's increasing at an alarming rate, and it seems to me to be something that fullfills both of the above conditions, as the cause of one could become the indirect cause of the other.

I speak from experience, being 365 pounds (yes, yes, a girl should not talk about her weight, but I digress).

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article
"if the back side of the moon was facing us, i think human beings would be far more adaptive, far more educated, about (asteroid or comet) impacts on planet earth"

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that these are all things that curb the population, not things that cause the species to go extinct. And, BTW, many are already happening in the most populated areas of the world - in Africa for example.

Re:Prove it

[bluGill]

No human would bet against humans in an extinction race. You can't win, by definition if you win the bet, you are dead and the money does no good, while if you lose the bet you lose your money.

I was going to put some religious exception in the above, but I can't think a a single religion that would allow you to collect on a bet made on earth in the afterlife.

Re:Prove it

[snooo53]

I've been thinking that people in western societies (ie. Europe and America) should learn basic survival skills in school or at home. Not just the "what to do if you're stranded in the middle of nowhere" stuff, but also the kind of knowlege people in America had 100 years ago. When and how to plant crops, how to card and spin wool, build an oven, extract metals from ore, etc...

Even though one can argue that most people will never need this sort of information, these things really are the foundation of our lives. People learn science, but I don't think too many have an idea of how to turn basic chemistry, biology or physics information into practical knowlege. I think we'd be better off as a society if more people knew these fundamentals. If a disease wiped out 99.9999% of the population, the only ones who knew this sort of information are going to survive long.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

invent entire engineering disciplines based on zero-gravity industry/construction/living technologies

And don't forget the arts!

I volunteer for the zero-gravity pr0n production department.

Re:Prove it

[Chris L. Mason]

I note that you didn't reply to my point about the environment. :)

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is not idealistic or even intellectually provoking, it is shallow and misguided. Force is a factor, less effective than diplomacy but more often resorted to, that is capable of ending conflict. It results in the deaths of all members or elimination of the ideology of one side or the other. Diplomacy itself does not turn all to a neutral, it satisfies the greatest demands of all involved to a degree all involved approve of. When the devoted "shut-up about it" a genuine war (in the sense of multinational attack and defense concurrently) is near. Do not be foolish.

Re:Prove it

[FleaPlus]

Look at it in perspective. What we're talking about here would take global cooperation of the scale never seen before. We can't even wipe out AIDS or world hunger or war, how are we going to work together to colonize another planet?

Think about the last time there was a massive wave of remote settlement (1500s-1700s). How much did they rely on global cooperation?

Granted, it's important to get launch costs low so that the two efforts can begin to become comparable.

Re:Prove it

[Chris L. Mason]

There are things more important that "the ecomony". Like general happiness, health, and a good environment. People who are happy and healthy and live in a good environment also tend to be more intellectually "productive" (if you *must* think of things in those terms.)

Re:Prove it

[Taladar]

Ok, I know about negative growth but WTF are negative birth rates? "Today -20 children were born..."?

Re:Prove it

[danila]

colonizing other planets is now the most important thing mankind can achieve

How about nanotechnology, mind uploading and fusion? With advanced nanotechnology and fusion power you don't need space all that much, since you would be able to survive on Earth even if all life dies out here. You would be able to survive on Earth even if Sun goes supernova. And you would get unlimited space flight as a bonus. Just think about long carbon nanotubes - they would allow us to build a space elevator and jump into space, while concentrating on "conventional" space exploration would not really help us that much.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Many may then know the practical and limited application of simple ideas, but few then would know complex ideas or their applications. Generalization is the opposite of specialisation, and specialisation is the corner stone of civilisation.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

This happens to be one of my pet peeves. Anyone who thinks that humans are at the top of the (supposed) food chain (or chart as you call it) has never been stalked by a cougar or a bear.

Insightful my ass. If you're in the wilderness and not packing man-made ordnance, then it's Darwin at work thinning you out of the gene pool.

Your mind is your greatest weapon. Obviously yours has the safety permanenly engaged.

Re:Prove it

[timjdot]

Just proves one doesn't have to be good at math to be a top astronaut!

It is well worth noting that flu and measles kill more people each year than AIDs and mankind knows fairly well how to treat these. AIDs grows geometrically while a deadly flu grows exponentially. The efforts to disseminate the flu through not-always-dead vaccines is almost surely a much more deadly event for each of us to plan around than an asteroid or super-volcano.

I think it's alot of fun to talk about colonizing Mars but only a group that can extract maximum funding from mankind will be able to fund this: e.g. government, monopoly, or social contract group. You see, they see mankind as a self replicating machine to use for their endeavors, the death of millions from treatable diseases is not a problem to them as it does not seriously affect the performance of the machine. Self replicating machines can afford fatalities. Children in African countries die from dehydration from diarehea because the warlords do not value human life.

Anyways, the article is nice. Extremely silly but nice. The whole evolution argument is inconsistent with the global catastrophe argument. It's just embarassing to see someone we pay with our tax dollars talk about science and say something as silly as "The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455."

Of course, the lack of species elsewhere and the abundance of life on the earth would mean the evolution theory is statistically ridiculous and the "1 in 455" is reasonable; therefore one must conclude that life abounds on Mars (or God exists)! But spouting nonsense like "1 in 455" or "mega climate change" are ways to motivate the politicians that control our lives into actually doing something scientific like colonizing Mars.

Re:Prove it

[Razor Blades are Not]

Well that's only because calling them pittens didn't amount to much.

Re:Prove it

[MightyMartian]

> Dinosaur's were huge and highly specialized for their environment.

You are aware, I trust, that many dinosaurs were not huge.

> hey were vulnerable to any serious alteration to their habitat.

Freeze the wheat and corn fields of the Canadian Prairies and the American Plains, and then come back talking about that.

> We can survive in anything from tropical jungles to frozen tundra.

"We", as in various members of genus Homo. The concern here isn't that a nice breeding population of H. sapiens is left, but rather that darn near everything that defines society and civilization in general are still here.

> Starvation due to huge decreases in the amount of food available would sharply
> reduce our population, but if anything more advanced than insects and
> grasses survive, there's every reason to believe we will too.

Again, "we" as in some members of the species. Pretty cold comfort. "Oooh look, there's a million people left in the world! We lived. Now, does anyone know where I can plug in my toaster?"

> Philosophers are divided on whether or not this is a good thing.

Any philosopher who thinks its a bad thing has my full permission to off himself now in advance of global calamity.

Re:Prove it

[nebaz]

* Homosexuality - There are theories that nature uses homosexuality to help control population sizes. The basic theory is that when a population reaches a size that can no longer be naturally supported by the environment that homosexual tendencies become more prevelant. Of course it could just be that the percentage of gay people hasn't changed, it's just that there are more now since the overall population is growing.

What I never understand about these claims is that if homosexuality is genetic, and more likely with overpopulation, how do the individual sperm and egg know which genes to turn on? I don't think individual gene "choices" are aware of population, so while there may be a probabilistic component, how could it possibly be affected by population? The only possible way I could see that is if somehow a mother "knows" biologically how many kids she has had and that maybe the genetics of later childern could be affected. Sheer speculation on my part, but how would population as a whole be able to affect one's sexual orientation, genetically?

Re:Prove it

[Curt Cox]

Comet riders? Can you provide a link that explains this concept in more detail?

If no species capable of filling our galaxy has yet emerged, the odds of Andromeda being full seems slight.

Our entire solar system might be the equivalent of a nature preserve. Soon, we may develop the technology required to see the ranger.

Re:Prove it

[alienmole]

You don't work in the PR department for the dinosaur government do you?

Oh yeah, I remember that guy from 65 million years ago - the Dinosaur Government Information Minister. He was hilarious!

"Certain ridiculous and unpatriotic reports are claiming that the asteroid strike has superheated the atmosphere and caused widespread fires to appear across the entire planet. I can assure you with complete certaintly that this is not the case - it is utter nonsense! [pause] ...excuse me for a moment. Ow! Why is my tail on fire??"

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

No it is like 1-2% that is homosexual. Do you think that one in ten of your friends is homosexual? That 10% stat is often thrown around by gay activists as a way of trying to make them "mainstream"

Re:Prove it

[hostyle]

Linkage please. Unless you're referring to Genetically Engineered grain foods, which are indeed anathema to 3rd world countries. You may not mind having your local agriculural crops taken over by engineered foods (which have not been fully tested for side-effects), but should side-effects occur and their few crops as it is become inedible, more people will die. Genetically engineered grain foods have a good chance of propagating and overwhelming native crops, which could easily become a bad thing.

Re:Prove it

[barawn]

A sufficiently severe catastrophe, whether an asteroid hit or something else, could take out 99% of the human population and still leave some 63 million people. ...

The question wasn't whether we'd just shrug it off and continue like nothing happened. The question was whether the human race would go extinct. You know, every last member of the species dead? That kind of extinct?

Well, be fair. First off, I have to say you're absolutely right. But in order to make a race extinct, you don't need to kill all of them right away. You just need to make it unlikely for that species to be able to adapt to the changing conditions.

Are humans so generalized now? Our population centers are fairly dense - remove a few cities and a huge percentage of the population goes away. Plus, basic survival skills are no longer necessary for life - most people rely on others to generate food. Remove a large section of the food generating sections of the population, and we might not survive.

However, to be fair, the people that are in the least dense areas (like Alaska, or upper Canada) are the most capable of handling themselves.

That's the main reason I think you're right, but it scares the crap out of me to believe that our species is resilient primarily due to rednecks who can hunt.

Re:Prove it

[PeelBoy]

Oh ok. So fuck funding anything that might make somebody better off than they were before even if benefits the greater good. I love your logic.

Maybe we should stop funding AIDS and other disease research too, because somebody might make a buck.

Lets just give YOU all the money since you obviously deserve it so much more. You could research prolonged effects of sitting on your ass doing nothing (except bitching).

Re:Prove it

[WhiteDragon]

that was either The Mote in God's Eye or its sequel, The Gripping Hand, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Both are excellent books, but I forget which one had the museum / fortress concept.

Re:Prove it

[jc42]

Dinosaur's were huge and highly specialized for their environment

True of the huge dinos that are the media image. But at least a half dozen dinosaur species survived the big crash, roughly the same number as for mammals. They were all in the branch that we now call "birds", of course. They weren't big or specialized. The best modern equivalent would probably be something like a crow, one of the ultimate "generalist" species. The surviving mammals were all more or less like rats and shrews, of course. In the next such disaster, it'll be mostly species like those that survive.

Humans are generalists, of course. But in a similar disaster, we'd probably be at a disadvantage to crows and rats. This is mostly because of our size, which will be a problem in a world with a shortage of food. But our brain does give us an advantage, so maybe we'd survive.

Anyway, another asteroid impact will happen. Maybe next week, maybe 100 million years from now, but it's coming. Astronomers know of around 1000 rocks with sizes > 1 km in Earth-crossing orbits, and reasonable estimates are another 500-1000 more exist. That's actually not very many, and chances of an impact in any one year are quite small. But some of them are going to hit our planet some time in the future.

Maybe some of us will be alive to see it ...

Re:Prove it

[meringuoid]

Comet riders? Can you provide a link that explains this concept in more detail?

I think it was Sagan's idea originally, though it might have been Dyson. Comets contain water and organic chemicals; if you have nuclear fusion to turn water (i.e. hydrogen) into energy, sufficiently advanced biotech to convert the simple organics into food, and sufficiently advanced metallurgy to build new machines from raw materials as the old ones wear out, then the problem of interstellar travel is solved: the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud contain all the supplies we'll ever need. A comet full of human settlers with this technology is a Von Neumann machine, which can use the comet clouds around stars as oases on its nomadic course across the Galaxy, and can reproduce itself as it goes.

Can't find a decent link - alas, searching for 'comet starship' gets a lot of Star Trek, while 'comet nomad' gets a lot of Velikovsky - but I think Sagan's book Comet was where I first read the proposal. Searching based off that, I find this delightfully green starship.

Re:Prove it

[rodrigo_braz]

I didn't say the economy was my only concern. Your post refers to "a few million" people. You can surely have "general happiness, health, and a good environment" with a lot more people than that, *and* the general living cost would be lower too.

And yes, on top of that, money can buy some health, some good environment and even some general happiness, too.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been events in the past that have nearly wiped out all life on the planet without necessarily destroying the planet. We may be creating such conditions with global warming. We don't completely understand what will happen with global warming. Most biological and chemical systems usually have a large buffer region where large changes in one variable are compensated for by other factors resulting in small net changes to the environment, whether that environment is in a test-tube, the human body, or in some ecosystem. But almost every biological system has a tipping point, at which time the buffer can no longer compensate and conditions quickly cascade out of control in very short time periods. It is this period of rapid change which causes many species to go extinct. Methane releases have posssibly been responsible for at least a few extinctions over the course of history by causing extremely rapid global warming:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1215-24.htm

If the geologist/author of the above article is right, then huge methane releases stored under artic ice may be just such a tipping point. Climate models, according to the author, do not take into consideration the methane stored in the world's northern region. Almost no plants, almost no animals, no humans. The higher ups on the food chain are usually the first to go.

Re:Prove it

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

You do realize that human greed for wealth and power is what has motivated all those improvements in living conditions. If not read about how successful communism has been.

Re:Prove it

[jc42]

I'm not sure when/where the idea of a food chain with a bottom and a top arose but it's poppycock.

Good point. We might note that a little over 500 years ago, Europe was hit by a new disease that wiped out roughly half of the population - and kept doing it every few generation until resistance was evolved. Being the top predator didn't protect the Europeans at all.

It doesn't take much imagination to consider a disease slightly more virulent. In these days of rapid transportation, it could easily be all over the world before it's discovered. The history of AIDS (a rather wimpy disease) shows that the religious folks still have sufficient power to block effectively fighting a new disease. So this may well be what does us in.

(anyone out there know if Great Whites have any natural predators besides humans?)

Well, I've always liked the giant squid. They kill whales and large sharks. Their habitat is most of the 3/4 of the planet that we don't much use. There have been some fun arguments that this planet was actually made as a habitat for the giant squid (on the 7th day of creation, of course). We're here to control the larger predators that bother the giant squid, but we don't kill the giant squid themselves (just their smaller relatives).

But the true masters of our world are bacteria. They were here soon after the planet cooled, and they'll be here until it gets too hot, no matter what we do. They're continuously colonizing at least the rest of our solar system, according to astronomers who have analyzed the Earth's "dust tail" and reported that it contains bacterial spores. And there's an interesting argument that they have been escaping to the rest of the galaxy for at least 3 billion years.

Of course, we don't have a lot of direct data on this topic yet ...

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn it, why am I the last person to be informed of these things.

Kippies... Sounds tasty. I'd try one.

Re:Prove it

[coronaride]

How long did it take to create the current PC? 20 some years.

You are a moron. Just because the technology directly related to the PC started seriously being developed for a home application 30 years ago, you CANNOT discount all the technological advances which made the concept of a home computer possible in the first place. Everything is a process.

Homosexuality has always existed. Its just that throughout history, society has been more and less tolerant. During Reinessance Italy, just about ebveryone was gay. During the days of the Wild West, there were just as many, its just society didn't take too kindly to them types, so it was kept behind closed doors.

Yeah, everyone was gay in the renaissance. Documentation? As far as the "Wild West" goes (and, by the way, I personally knock you down a few points for referring to that period as such), it really sounds as though you are talking out of your ass.

How is this a bad thing? More people means we are worse off? You are probably basing this off doomsday therists who say the earth can only hold so many people and by the year XXXX we won't have enough to live. These people never account for the exponential growth in technology that allows for us to make more efficient use of our resourced. This goes back to the starvation thing. Also, more people also means there will be more people to work on furthering our achievements.

Ok, let's take this back to some very basic concepts. If Johnny and Jimmy live in a empty room with 2 apples, how many can each of them have (assuming equal portions)? One..now, before you say "well, Jimmy could invent some technology that could grow apples faster and bigger!", let me cut you off - matter cannot be created from nothing. We have FINITE materials on earth.

This is true of every species inclusing humans. With regard to animal specefic disease, the number stays about the same. As we cure human diseases, new ones crop up, causing the total number to stay about the same. Nothing changes. I don't see how this is a sign that we are doomed as a species... Has any other species been wiped out due to disease? Especially since we have 100s of years of medical science behind us, I don't suspect this will ever end mankind.

I would encourage you to look at this and then rethink your statement. Note that the Black Plague killed about 1/3 of Europe's population. Nothing changes you say?? As far as what you said about having 100s of years of medical science behind us, you make it sound as though a couple hundred years ago, people thought, "Hey, maybe we should start looking into why people get stiff, lifeless, and start to stink after they get old or fall off of a cliff or get mauled by a bear." Medicine has been around for a LONG time but nature shows us that it will adhere to an equilibrium. The more technology that we develop to fight diseases and conquer old age, the more advanced the diseases get (this includes man-developed diseases as well - if you think that mankind can be classified apart from nature, you are a fool).

This is only a problem in africa and other third world places. Is this a problem here? No. At least not widespread. Starvation is mostly an economic effect rather than a worldwide flaw in the way humans use the earth's resources. Technology has increased to allow us to produce more food by the achre than ever before.

This statement is partially true..starvation is sometimes an economic effect but, again, I'm going to refer to what I said before. Mankind cannot be categorized separately from nature and her equilibrium. People starve every day...why the starvation exists matters not to nature.

Re:Prove it

[thebackwash]

You state that the problem with religion is the "If you don't go to my church, you're going to hell" attitude. Bravo. I am Christian myself, and I must agree. Whatever happened to faith, hope and charity? I believe (at least as Christians) we should be quicker to place another person in the category of "people who need God" (all-inclusive) rather than sifting out people into "saved" and "unsaved." Face it, the popular way to evangelize is annoying at best. Whatever happened to fostering meaningful relationships with people, and then sharing an important part of yourself with them? I believe evangelization IS necessary, but only to those who are willing to listen. The ignorance with which one can get by in this world is astounding. Once you start developing relationships with other people who are different from you, then you will learn to appreciate and respect them for who they are, even if in the end, they don't accept your beliefs.

HOWEVER, I take issue with the assertion that war is caused by religion. Religion certainly is a vehicle that the ignorant can use to manipulate the ignorant, but the root of this issue is, again, ignorance. However, look at all of the other ways people manipulate each other. I need not even name them. I'd finish this comment, but I have things to do, and I'll let these ideas play themselves out in your minds. I'll probably reply later.

Re:Prove it

[maxwell demon]

"Today 20 babies were put back into the uterus of their mother." :-)

Re:Prove it

[coronaride]

And another thing..you make it sound as though the human race is all benevolent and kind and wants everyone to be happy and prosper. I don't think that this is a bad thing, but it is far from real. We, as humans (myself included), are greedy, needy, hateful, and self-absorbed..we will always look out for Number One and, as long as we do that, the technology that we develop will always favor our darker nature than any good that is in us. It's great that we can farm efficiently and feed the hungry in a few countries, but while we can save a few thousand lives over a week or two, we can just as easily destroy them all with a nuclear weapon in a matter of seconds.

if a huge metereor heads towards the earth, we'll go all DIG and divert the meteror. Do me a favor...explain to me what the hell this statement means! What are you, like 12?

If the Earth somehow becomes unhabitable, we'll just find a way to go to another planet. Because it is JUST THAT EASY...on Monday we discover that the Earth will not be able to sustain life throughout the rest of the week so, on Tuesday, all 20 Billion of us (because, according to you, we have just yet begun to tap the potential amount of life that the Earth can hold) packup and leave for Planet X. Do we have a settlement there? Nah, we'll just build it when we get there. It doesn't take that long to develop technology anyways, right? It only took 20 years to get from Caveman to Home PC, according to you..

Re:Prove it

[BranMan]

Yes, there are mountains of food surpluses in every first world country, doing nothing but rotting slowly. That is the nature of a food surplus - if you don't have one and you have a bad year, you are screwed. If you have a good year, it rots. Think of it as an insurance policy - you can think of it as a "waste" until you need it, but when you do it had better be there (and no, I don't think of it as a 'waste'). Nations without a food surplus are NOT producing enough food. Period.

Re:Prove it

[ducomputergeek]

Funny thing about starvation is that it has more to do with geo politics and much less with the amount of food produced. People, in particular economist, have predicted that populations would surpass food production for quite some time. In the 1950's and 1960's it was called "The Dismal Science" which is the title of a an economic journal now I believe.

Why so many are dying in the third world is due to problems in distrubution which range from lack of basic infractructures to on going warfare. Often times the food aid ends up in the hands of corrupted governments or warlords and used to control the local popluation.

Would we be able to wipe out starvation 100% world wide in a perfect world...probably not, but chances are we could make vast improvements. No matter how hard one tries under any economic system, some are going to loose. Welcome to Darwin's world.

Diesease has a much better chance of doing some major harm. It did in 1918.

However, do not underestimate the power of a large volcanic eruption causing massive problems. Chances are such an event wiped out the great Minoan civilization. And if Yellowstone would blow, yes Yellowstone National Park is basically one big semi active superdome volcano, kiss your ass good bye.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

People live longer

s/people/Europeans and Americans

Re:Prove it

[flatface]

More like "This year had 3000 births and 3020 deaths."

Re:Prove it

[Rakishi]

I'll just add my 2 cents about fertility: The world birth rate is going DOWN, at least know what you're talking about before rambling on about it. At the current rate we're going to hit a stable population of 11 billion or so in 50 years.

Re:Prove it

[Cade144]

Oops! You are correct.
Sorry to forget your final "n" Dr. Von Neumann.

Re:Prove it

[DoctorFrog]

It seems to me that the real threat to the species is the species itself.

Starvation - In nature populations are kept in check by starvation.

In nature most populations are kept in check by predators; nit-pick. It hardly matters, though; if starvation isn't global, it can't eliminate the species. Obesity is a bigger problem than starvation in significant parts of the world; we may lose valuable gene pools in places, but the species is in no danger whatsoever from starvation, barring global catastrophe.

new flu outbreaks could kill millions.

Wow. Millions. Out of a world population of... Yes, it sucks to die, but it's a far cry from extinction of the species. People die all the time.

Mankind seems to think it's a right to have offspring, despite what nature may be telling them.

"Nature" is neither opinionated about rights nor separate from mankind. No other species refrains from having offspring because they lack the 'right' either. Rights are a human construct, in nature there are only opportunities.

Homosexuality - There are theories that nature uses homosexuality to help control population sizes.

The proper thing to do with theories is look for evidence to confirm or refute them. Is there a single example of a population being "controlled" this way? I can't think of one.

No, the odds of the human species eliminating itself are pretty slim. Western civilization, sure... but not the species.

Re:Prove it

[moosemoose]

i seem to have inartfully expressed myself. my comments about racism were about racism in america not the world at large. and contrary to espousing a return to segregation, i would strongly espouse instead, a return to integration as a societal goal. i'm sure you would agree that integration is no longer looked at as a goal to acheiving social or economic justice in this country. at one time it was. were all those people who went to jail to end segregation in the south in the late 50's and early 60's facists? (i guess their beliefs are now, sigh...)

i think that over the long term you can acheive a society where most people, although from different backgrounds, come to view themselves as being more similar to (as opposed to different from) their neighbors. i'm not certain that "celebrating" diversity is the best way to get there.

finally, i won't deny that racism still exists (especially on slashdot). however, in the circles i travel in (upper management, professional types) i just don't run into it. and are you certain people are "crossing the street" due to skin color? or is it possible that they are crossing the street due to other visual or verbal cues? i live in a predominantly black neighborhood and my youngest child goes to a predominantly black school. i've done volunteer work at one of the most socially disadvantaged schools in town. i'm certain that i stereotype people, but believe me; it's not based on race.

finally, sdon't you think it just the tiny bit inconsistant that someone who wants everybody in the world to get along has no qualms whatsoever, about calling someone "the biggest idiot on the planet". are you sure that your professed desire for a better world is consistant with your method of dealing with someone whose views you might disagree with? doesn't a better world start with how each of us INDIVIDUALLY deals with each other?

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

You know I might have actually paid attention to what you had to say. Unfotunately, all I could think of while reading that "rebuttal" was what an asshole you are.

Now I know you're angry because you still live in your parents' basement, have never come any closer to seeing a naked woman than the internet, and have realized "no, I guess this isn't baby-fat..." But to unleash your ire on someone who may or may not have some misceptions... Man, that just makes some of us wish your mom had seriously considered abortion. Since you seem to have some anger-management issues, I'm hoping this post will induce a stroke and rid us of the shit-filled sack you call a brain.

shithead.

Re:Prove it

[lambadomy]

There were also fear mongers 200+ years ago (Thomas Malthus, for one) telling us about the population bomb and how within one or two generations from HIS lifetime the world would be depopulated by hunger and disease and other dreadful stuff. It is all rubbish.

Currently, starvation in the world is almost entirely caused by war and politics. There is plenty of food. Now, this may not always be the case, but there is never any reason to believe that:

a.)Growth rates will remain constant or increase
b.)New food production technologies won't be found
c.)People can't find creative ways to deal with increases in population beyond some statisticians estimate of the earths carrying capacity.

There is also the issue of most of the numbers used by these doom and gloom predictors being of the made up variety, but even if they've done their homework it can't automatically be used as any kind of predictor.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Is evil if these donations are used to fuck up the local food production. Worse than hungry are hungry AND dependant.

Re:Prove it

[mod_critical]

Not that I believe that homosexuality is a result of genetic overpopulation controls. However, how then did the eye become and evolve to detect photonic radiation that priviously could not be detected by the organisim or its cells?

Re:Prove it

[Morrigu]

Um, you don't change human behavior. Instead, use all of the latent tendencies towards competition, xenophobia, racism, bloodlust and aggression built into every single flawed human being on this planet to work for your goal.

The European powers of the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th centuries certainly didn't all band together to explore and colonize and exploit Africa, India and the Americas; they did it to get a competitive advantage for themselves, their families, their peoples, their nations and their religions. The US and the Soviets certainly didn't send men and women into space because they got along.

Real manned space exploration, settlement and colonization will come, and it will come as soon as there's a real competitive advantage to be gained for the individuals, groups, companies and nations involved. Problem is, it's still waaaay too damn expensive to get into orbit. Humanity at this point is like the first people who looked out at the ocean, looked at the floating bundles of wood they used to travel up and down rivers, and wondered how far out they could travel in open water with them. We're nowhere close to the level that European powers were at in the late 1400's where oceangoing ships were relatively common and not prohibitively expensive.

Only a handful of the most powerful and prosperous nations can even think about tossing people into orbit with a fair reassurance that they'll come back down in one piece. Change that, and everything else will change too.

Make it as relatively inexpensive to get people into orbit as it was for Queen Isabella to give 3 ships to Chris Columbus for his wacky idea (something under, say, fifty million dollars now) and you've got a start. People will do this all on their own, without government intervention, because they come up with new ideas, new reasons, wacked out crazy notions about how to get ahead. Most of 'em won't work, but a few will; and those few would pave the way for a serious expansion of the human race off of this planet.

If you ask me, a manned mission to Mars would be great, but for 500 billion bucks, you could do a lot of R&D, testing and implementation on low-cost orbital delivery instead. That sort of spending could show a lot more benefits and would encourage commercial expansion in a way that a uber-massive national pride project would not.

Re:Prove it

[Seedy2]

How about your, current or future, kid's lives, and those of your friend's and family's kids? And their kids? If we don't start soon, what will this place look like in three or four generations? Assuming some terrorist, or president, doesn't do us all in first.

If you like being on earth, fine; I don't think EVERYONE should leave, but we do need to spread out more. We've run out of oceans of water to cross, to find new lands, we now must cross oceans that are as large and frightening to us as the Atlantic was to people 1000 years ago.

Re:Prove it

[Eric604]

Inhabitting other planets has long been a dream of, among other groups, NASA, but this has always been a "wouldn't it be cool" kind of thing. This guy is saying that it's more along the lines of "If we don't, we will go extinct."

But no one cares we'll go extinct because when it happens it's the problem of our descendants.
The coolness is the greatest motivator so far and it's wearing off because of the great distances, slow travel speeds, costs etc... lot's of uncool stuf.

Re:Prove it

[topher67]

In which case we get what we deserve.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got to disagree that homosexuals are a threat to the species. Where in the world did that come from? They aren't sterile and somebody's got to impregnate all the lesbians who want to be mothers.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Read Alistair Reynold's Revelation Space series sometime for an example.

Re:Prove it

[Leperflesh]

He didn't say exctinction. He said "civilization-ending". Totally different concept, one which far too many slashdotters seem to have glossed over. Yes, the broader converstaion was about extinction, but the statistic he cited was not.

Human 'civilization' depending on how you define it is around 10,000 years old, or so, give or take, and fits nicely into his cited figure.

-Lep

Re:Prove it

[Seedy2]

[pedant] Species is both plural and singular, specie is money [/pedant]

The neat thing about spreading to other planets would be that you wouldn't be limited to the resources of one planet anymore, heck you don't even have to move to take advantage of space bourne resources, but we AREN'T, that's one of the problems.

Every individual, as others have said, does not need to be killed at the same time to bring extinction to the race. Yes you can react to disasters as they come, but what if you can't DO anything until after it's too late? or won't.

There are people who study earthquakes who are predicting a bigun in the area of Istanbul, and did predict the one in Izmet. Nobody did anything. thousands (tens?) died. There are plenty of things that could happen on earth that could wipe us out. The issue is that if all of the members of our race/civilization are on one planet, then a really bad disaster could wipe it from the face of existance.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

When women have economic freedom to do something OTHER than childrearing, the birth rate drops: most of Europe has birth rates "below replacement", and their populations would be declining if not for immigration. If we can bring literacy/economic freedom to South America, Africa, and Asia, then the Earth's population could STABILIZE as soon as 2050-ish. Some projections put the maximum at 9 billion people; from there it might easily decline.

Are you sure you'd rather spend the world's resources building spaceships, rather than helping the third world? You have a choice, you know, and limited resources. We can't respond to all risks, we respond to the ones we can best mitigate.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. would have had a negative population growth rate as of the 1970s. However, immigration has resulted in a MASSIVE population growth in this country. See NumbersUSA for the details.

People who live in the U.S. today, who are under 20, are completely screwed as far as their quality of life is concerned.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be toooo nitpicky, but technically ye old "Upper Canada" is the modern southern Ontario (i.e. same latitude as Boston). "Upper" referred to the St. Lawrence river. "Lower Canada" is what we now call southern Quebec. Perhaps you meant "Northern Canada", or "the Territories". There is a Canadian Forces base at Alert, which is around 80-some degrees north, but they wouldn't last very long without an annual resupply either way.

Canadians are possibly the least adapted to survive without technology since we are highly specialized and more urban than our southern neighbours.

However, if the problem was a nuclear winter, I think the typical Canadian household is outfitted to survive quite nicely. You know that recent movie, "the day after tomorrow"? Did you wonder what the Canadians were doing when the southern U.S. was evacuating and the northern half of the U.S. was left for dead? Playing hockey and drinking beer... :-)

Canuck1: "Cold winter, eh?"
Canuck2: "You bet! Pass me a beer, eh?"

Just kidding... but I did find that movie rather stupid.

Re:Prove it

[Quothz]

-More- important? So, like, if all humans died, you'd be cool with it as long as our civilization didn't collapse first? Personally, I'd weigh our survival as a species as a greater priority than maintaining our culture, if I had to choose between 'em. ;)

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

The net birth rate. Births-Deaths=negative number.

Re:Prove it

[dabigpaybackski]

In fact, we should probably abandon planets altogether.

Yes, but we like planets.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

"Ok, let's take this back to some very basic concepts. If Johnny and Jimmy live in a empty room with 2 apples, how many can each of them have (assuming equal portions)? One..now, before you say "well, Jimmy could invent some technology that could grow apples faster and bigger!", let me cut you off - matter cannot be created from nothing. We have FINITE materials on earth."

Better analogy.

Johnny and Jimmy live in an empty room, except for the two gigatons of apples they have with them.

How many can each of them eat? As much as they could ever conceivably want to. Sure, it's a finite resource. It's also large relative to the drain.

The same is true of the food supply here on Earth. We can readily sustain much higher population levels without widespread disturbance.

Re:Prove it

[gewalker]

Gee, and I thought crocodiles, turtles and snakes where supposed to be reptiles, just like the dinos

Re:Prove it

[qeveren]

A big enough impact would restore the magma ocean. At that point, you've still got all of Earth there, but you can write off any possibility of survivors...

Re:Prove it

[mseidl]

at 1.5%(current growth rate) yearly growth of the world population in 600 years there will be so many people, each person will have 1 sq meter to themselves. (If spread out equally over the world)

Nobody understands exponential growth. I mean, people understand it, but nobody looks at it and really does the math.

Sure, some of these 'flu scares' and 'population' bombs. But just look at the new sicknesses introduced in the last 50 years.

The population in 1950 was just under 3 billion people, now it is 6.4 billion people. So, in roughly 50 years the population has doubled. So, in 50 more years we will need double of everything, double the food, energy, space?!?!

And when it doubles you will need more then everything else in the past combined. Nobody looks at these numbers, but with our resource dwindling away... Everybody looks, oh, just 1.5% growth... Nothing big. But it adds up quickly. at 7% you are doubling every 10 years.

Another comparison on doubling - Take a grain of wheat on a chess board, and then double it in the next squar, then double it in the next square... so 2^64. That amount of wheat on the 64th square is 400 times the worlds total wheat harvest in 1990.

Re:Prove it

[mdwh2]

Polyamorous is not polygamous. For the most part, polygamy isn't seen much outside the "communes" of the 60s, and rumors I've heard about Mormons.

What's the difference? If you mean being married to more than one person (which is the only difference I can see), then it's not so much that polygamy isn't socially accepted, but more that it's illegal.

Re:Prove it

[nebaz]

Random mutation can lead to advantageous effects, I suppose, over time, but I think altering a distribution of a known variation based on a global event could happen, but in a much longer term than we are discussing.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

You're absolutely right. Kill yourself as an example to us all.

Oh, you didn't mean YOU. You just want everybody ELSE to die to suit your preconceptions. I think there's a word for that kind of thinking...on the tip of my tongue...

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh, but that's rub... not very many people really gives a rat's ass about "preserving the species". Not even the bible-thumpers care about "preserving the species".

Greed is the underlying motivation for the bulk of man's endeavors. So if you really want to get mankind to get off the planet, you need to show that a buck can be made off of it.

Optionally, the current world war(aka war on terrorism) might prod mankind into space sooner rather than later. (simply for the additional resources and new markets&products serious spacefaring bring to the table) Providing of course enough us actually survive long enough for our "leaders" to see past controling a patch of dirt.

--- Live Free or Don't?

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

"Either take it as a whole, or don't take it at all. That's all I ask. The inconsistencies that some people see can be ironed out when taken in context of the whole. But you can't justify throwing out certain parts just because you don't like them. If you do, then fine, to each his own. But then your faith is not Bible-based, so don't pretend it is."

I am a Christian, and I defy you to try to impose your beliefs about what is and is not a proper relationship with God. You are insufferably arrogant if you think that YOUR interpretation of Scripture (which is nothing more or less than another set of peoples' interpretations of God's will) is more correct than my own.

Being a Bible-ist has nothing to do with being a Christian.

Re:Prove it

[Lost Race]

I'd also go so far as to say that colonizing other planets is now the most important thing mankind can achieve.

We cannot establish viable autonomous colonies on other planets using fossil fuels (carbon or hydrocarbons combustion, or even uranium fission). We need some kind of long-term sustainable, scalable energy supply (e.g. controlled hydrogen fusion) before we can do any kind of useful space migration. If we don't solve that problem in the next 50 years our species is doomed no matter what.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

"possibly dangerous to general moral values"

I believe that the notion that only people who believe as you do are going to evade everlasting damnation is much more dangerous to general moral values than what kind of hoo-hoos people like to stick themselves into.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

I think that any philosopher (or, indeed, any human) who thinks that the human race should die out for the good of the planet should go ahead and do it.

Hell, I'll buy them a full-page ad in the New York Times. "Joe Treehugger killed himself to end overpopulation in America. Thanks, Joe!"

What a bunch of morons.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

You mean it scares the crap out of you that there are people in the world who don't rely on electricity and lattes to avoid dying?

That should scare you. You should be afraid of how incompetent you are.

If you can't build a fire and catch some dinner, then I don't think your sapience is doing you much good.

Re:Prove it

[AgentSmit]

So, if we colonize one or two other planets, that just gives us a few more baskets. What we need are hundreds or thousands of baskets.

Missed math classes at high school? Suppose the odds of Earth being hit by an asteroid within the next 200 years is one in 500. Now imagine there would be a second Earth in our solar system with exactly the same odds. Chances that both Earths are hit within 500 years would be one in 250000. You see that even one extra biosphere already enhances our chance of survival remarkably! Now add one more earth and human kind is safe enough for the next 6 billion years.

Re:Prove it

[hazah]

Nature isn't that selective. For one, it won't make a decision as to start starving people or which ones to starve. The ones that starve are the ones without food. This set of conditions is not dependant on nature, especially this day and age. Much of it is due to people making all the wonderful decisions for all the other people.

Re:Prove it

[Crazy Eight]

I don't think you should limit your critique to playing the Devil's advocate. If the odds really are 1 in 455 per 100 years that we'll face a natural planet-wide cataclysm then humans and mammamls have beaten those odds for every 45,500 year period that's passed since their arrival. What makes the next 100 years any different than the last? If I flip a coin 99 times and get tails every time the odds remain 50/50 that the 100th toss will be heads. This guy isn't talking science. He talking politics.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right. What makes you think you'd be any more qualified to produce zero-G pr0n than non-zero-G pr0n? Face it, you're destined to be strictly a pr0n consumer in any environment.

Re:Prove it

[iamhassi]

"What other higher order specie that has multi planet colonization did he do his evaluation against?"

exactly.

the kid at mcdonald's gave me stock advice the other day, should I believe that too?

He went to space which is cool and all, but how does that give him the ability to determine that I have a 1 in 455 chance of being "wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years". What's his PhD in? What research does he base his incredible claim upon? Not saying he's wrong, I'd just like to know where he got his information from.

Oh, and btw, the sky's falling.

Re:Prove it

[Lost Race]

food doesn't just run out, its a highly renewable resource.

Tell it to the fish.

As far as "more than enough food ... doing nothing but rotting" goes, there will always be logistical inefficiences. Even with massive overproduction there will always be localized shortages. (I.e. people will starve, FSVO "starve".) That doesn't change the fact that there are too many individuals for the good of the species, and that there's going to be some kind of major crisis in the foreseeable future. The problem isn't that people are dying now, the problem is that the current unhappy system is unsustainable and doomed to collapse into something even less happy, with much higher death rates. Even if we could somehow do away with greed and selfishness, and fairly distribute all the world's resources, we will not be able to keep up current levels of production for very long. Human population _must_ decline soon. Forced reductions in human population are _always_ ... how shall I say ... unpleasant.

Re:Prove it

[humblecoder]

I find it hard to believe that the odds of a catastrophic event over a 100 year period are 1 in 455. If you extrapolate, that means that over 455 one hundred year periods (45,500 years), an event will occur that will wipe out human life on Earth. If a remember correctly, the oldest modern human (Homo Sapiens) fossils date from about 100,000 years ago. That means that since the dawn of man, the expected number of species-ending events would be two. Of course, we are still here! Based on that little back-of-the-envelope calculation, I find it hard to believe that his statistic is correct.

The scary thing is that the general public probably doesn't have the insight to recognize this statistic for what it is. Most people would take the number at face value, especially since it came from a respected member of the NASA community, and I would imagine that it could be used by some to justify policies which may not be warranted.

Don't get me wrong. I think that space exploration and colonization is a worthy cause. However, it irks me that people like Mr. Young need to use questionable scare tactics to push this agenda. It is up there with people who justify crazy things in the name of protecting children, widows, and orphans. I would much prefer an honest debate on the merits rather than all this fear mongering.

Shame on you Mr. Young!

Re:Prove it

[the angry liberal]

Less disease..well, you may be right there, but with less disease, the population is more vulnerable to outbreaks of unknown viruses and illnesses. The more mild diseases you come into contact with regularly, the more robust your immune system is. For this very reason I never take antibiotics or flu shots unless it's life-threatening.

This is a self-defeating statement when you actually stick to the facts. For instance, you only develope immunity for the exact same virus which has already damaged your system. Every sickness, infection, etc wears your body down a little and are not directly beneficial for ones quality of life.

Myself, my body is somewhat of a wreck from several childhood illnesses. According to your theory I should be a super hero by now.

Re:Prove it

[barawn]

Not to be toooo nitpicky, but technically ye old "Upper Canada" is the modern southern Ontario

Definitely meant Northern Canada. "up" is north, "down" is south, "over" is west, "out" is east. :)

Didn't know there was a colloquial difference. I was thinking sparsely populated Northern Territories and whatever else the other area spun off from it was.

As in, the area where subsistence hunting is still practiced, not just possible.

Re:Prove it

[Doomdark]

If this planet has more people it's better for production, i.e. more farmers and more channels for distribution.

No, that's wrong. Currently tiny minority of people get their living from agriculture -- food production is in general not limited by labour pool in any way or form. Similarly for distribution (transportation) and manufacturing: majority of people of industrialized countries work in services; and the trend is the same for poorer countries as well.

Bigger population has little if any benefits at this point, but it definitely causes bigger load on non-renewable resources. As is, it'd be good if world population shrank a bit; but due to practical problems it'd be good there was just a slow decline.

Re:Prove it

[SilenceEchoed]

But no one cares we'll go extinct because when it happens it's the problem of our descendants.

It depresses me how right you are...

Re:Prove it

[zymurgyboy]

Word.

Religion is a construct of mankind that now causes it endless trouble in blind trade for comfort.

More trouble than it's worth? I think so.

If we could find him, we should put God on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. "God is not a repsector of man," indeed.

I'd believe I'd be going to Hell for this if it existed. :^P

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me? Do you want some spitting burping volcano of shit whining and crying every waking hour of the night? Maybe reproduction has been a by product of what we enjoy having...sex...not kids! The only reason why most people have them these days is because they're worried about a day when they wish they did have them but they can't have them anymore.

Re:Prove it

[steve_bryan]

"Just proves one doesn't have to be good at math to be a top astronaut! ...
AIDs grows geometrically while a deadly flu grows exponentially"

I was about to agree somewhat with your first observation and then you make that odd remark which seems to imply geometric growth is different from exponential. I suppose I'll make some silly error before I finish this posting.

The 1 in 455 odds of human life expiring in the next 100 years seems awfully high unless you could attribute the high probability to some side effect of increased human population and activity. But he specifically mentions volcanoes, comets and asteroids. So is he saying that out of 455 centuries (less than 50,000 years) a species killing geological disaster is so probable?

Re:Prove it

[Caseyscrib]

Whatever it is, its not important. I just meant to say that the rate remains constant throughout societal growth and decay.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

I disagree with you too. : )

Religion gives me access to concepts and beings larger than myself. I identify myself as a Christian (a follower of Christ's teachings), but that doesn't mean I think everybody else is wrong/misguided/evil/damned.

Man is not a respector of man, and when man takes on the mantle of God's Word (and the power thereof) Man's own limitations are made manifest.

I do believe in God, and I think S/He is going to be really pissed at people like my grandparent here. : )

Re:Prove it

[BlueCup]

Another point, is that given the amount of time theorized since the big bang (~10 billion years) is that enough time for a stable planetary environment to be created, and for a sentient species to be created, and enough time for that species to populate a significant portion of the universe for us to know about them? My guess is that there are other intelligent species out there, and there will be many more in the incomprehensible amount of time left before a big implosion, or until all matter is too far away from each other to support life) but that we're one of the earliest ones. (Relatively speaking)

Re:Prove it

[bob beta]

It sounds like a good start for us. Build basic skills shops all over the earth, and stick the really good stuff on the moon.

Shucks, you started out good, but then you branched off and didn't mention funding NASA or watching too many Star Trek episodes at all .

Re:Prove it

[bob beta]

When you die, your flesh is and will be tainted worse than the worst fish out of Lake Erie. IOW, please don't pollute the ocean.

Re:Prove it

[jc42]

Actually, the official classification now has the reptiles, mammals and dinosaurs as three separate branches of the vertebrate tree. The old idea that dinosaurs were reptiles has pretty much been discarded, and they were given their own branch. Among other things, it seems that the oldest fossils of the three groups are about the same age. I've seen claims that the oldest is a mammal fossil, though this may be wrong by now. The fossil record really isn't good enough to resolve evolutionary timings in many such cases, and biologists decided it was better to just admit that we don't know. Also, there are systematic differences between reptiles and dinosaurs that imply that neither is an ancestor of the other.

Needless to say, all this may change again, if someone finds the right fossils. And there's a continuing debate about just how the crocodilians fit in; they're sufficiently different from other reptiles that some biologists have argued for a separate classification. (But this debate is low key, as there isn't enough fossil evidence.)

Of course, it'll take a few more decades for this to filter through to the media and below-college textbooks (if they are even allowed to discuss the topic). For that matter, it's been a couple of decades now since the birds were officially reclassified as a suborder of the dinosaurs, but people still talk as if the dinosaurs were all wiped out. Nope; you can find them perched on trees and buildings all around the world. It's true that the large dinosaurs were wiped out, but the large mammals also disappeared 65 million years ago.

We have fun with some people by talking about the four dinosaurs that share our home. The list includes a blue-crowned conure, two cockatiels, and a Bourke's parakeet. They're cute little monsters. But not much like the Jurassic Park critters. ;-)

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

DIG, old lucas arts adventure game about a team sent to change the couse of an astroid

Re:Prove it

[Rumata]

Humans are the ultimate in generalists.

Groups of humans -- yes; One human -- no.

We can survive in anything from tropical jungles to frozen tundra.

Well, maybe you can; The Yanomami sure can (but only in the jungle part) -- I probably couldn't.

And I consider myself a pretty outdoorsy person, I have some survival experiences and have done multiple-week trips away from civilisation. That said, I usually buy food, rain-jacket, tent, matches etc.

With a complete breakdown of civilisation, in a benign climate, I would give myself a 50/50 chance to survive the first year as a hunter-gatherer. Better with some help or infrastructure still in place; Worse if conditions wouldn't be benign (water/food scarcity, harsh winter, etc).

If you go down this line for one or two generations you will end up somewhere between stone- and middle ages -- at best.

Re:Prove it

[swillden]

it's not so much that polygamy isn't socially accepted, but more that it's illegal.

It's illegal because it isn't socially accepted.

Re:Prove it

[swillden]

rumors I've heard about Mormons.

Just to set those straight: Mormons in polygamous marriages are excommunicated immediately, assuming that by "Mormons" you mean "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". There are tiny splinter groups who engage in polygamy and call themselves Mormons, or even Fundamentalist Mormons, but the large church that is generally associated with the term "Mormon" would call those groups "apostates".

I expect that polygamy will become legal in the US in the next few years, partially due to the effect of the homosexual marriage debate and partially due to the effect of the influx of people from cultures where polygamy is practiced (primarily Islamic cultures). I strongly doubt that the LDS church will sanction the practice again, even though there is theological support for it, both in the Bible and in modern revelation.

Re:Prove it

[WaterBreath]

Being a Bible-ist has nothing to do with being a Christian.

I'm sorry, you're right. Certain religions would rather rely on a single elderly elected official with a big hat to tell them what is right and what is wrong. That way, they don't have to be actively involved, and they don't have to be dedicated to an idea. If it goes out of fashion, the big-hat-man can just change it.

You are insufferably arrogant...

Why is it arrogant to believe I am right? I can't prove I'm right, and you can't prove I'm wrong. I have as much basis to believe that I am right about there being one truth as you do to believe there is not. I believe my interpretation is the one truth because I want it to be. You believe there is no one truth because you want to believe there is no one truth. And ultimately, there is no way for either of us to prove or convince anyone else that we are right unless they want to believe it. So what is the big fricking deal that I think I am right?

(which is nothing more or less than another set of peoples' interpretations of God's will) is more correct than my own.

Indeed I do think that my "interpretation" is more correct. If I didn't believe it was more correct, I wouldn't have any reason to believe it. I wouldn't intentionally believe something that I thought might be wrong. I pointed out what I see to be a logical inconsistency in the beliefs of certain people. What's wrong with that? Atheists do it to Christians all the time, (and vice versa). With all the concern about free speech and censorship and how important it is to disagree and debate things, it's amazing how badly society wants people like me to shut up and keep our ideas to ourselves.

Additionally, I don't see why everyone thinks it is so evil to think that other people are wrong. I could care less whether you think I'm wrong, unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm wrong. I'm not trying to convert anyone, and I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone. For crap's sake, I said in another post that I could care less if homosexuality is legal. I don't care what other people choose to do, if they're honest with themselves about it. All I did was explain why I thought something doesn't make sense, and pleaded that it stop. Not a whole lot different from what you just did to me.

Unfortunately it has come to be the case in this nation that it is not P.C. to say you believe certain things are wrong. But only if you're Christian. It's okay if you're... oh... say, Muslim. It's very ironic that so many people are now being very careful not to sound anti-Muslim, but they have no problem attacking Christians, despite the fact that when you get down to the morals they teach, they're very, very much the same.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

You get to judge for yourself, and yourself alone. As long as you don't advocate compelling others to hew to your beliefs, we have no issue.

I did put some words in your mouth, and for that I apologize. I believe we'd agree on more than we disagree.

I can't, however, imagine why God would make men fall in love with other men if He was going to turn His face away from them. No God worth worshipping would do that, and I am content to be Judged on that statement.

Sorry. I have no place in my faith for that idea.

Re:Prove it

[at_slashdot]

"But in a similar disaster, we'd probably be at a disadvantage to crows and rats."

I heard rats are quite tasty, so if they survive people will survive too.

Re:Prove it

[at_slashdot]

"possibly using Von Neuman Machines" Interesting choice of words... I hope it's a joke, otherwise I'd have to consider you a pretentios SOB... the most annoying kind of SOBs.

Re:Prove it

[God! Awful 2]

Who cares if the human race survives if I am still dead?

-a

Re:Prove it

[Afrosheen]

All I know is, when I was young I'd get sick alot. Now that I'm older I rarely get sick, and when I do it doesn't put me out of comission like it used to. Same should be true for you. Think about it carefully.

Re:Prove it

[the angry liberal]

It doesn't work that way.

Perhaps, if there is a doctor in the house he could hop in here and clear this up. :)

While I do not have the medical background to say specifically why I feel you are wrong, I am aware that each virus, bacteria, parasite, or injury you are exposed to does a certain amount of permanent damage to your system. Though you immune system may have found the key to defeat the bug, that bug has already deficated its toxins all throughout your bloodstream along with much energy being wasted fighting it to begin with.

Now, if you get the flu one season, then you can strut around like superman for a few months until that particular flu strain is gone. It also will probably never return, as evolution has pressed on and changed the "hash" slightly enough so that it won't matter if that is on record in your system the next season, the slight differences in the virus will make it hit you like a whole new bug. It is better to either never be infected, ever, in any case.

I blame the way parents and doctors explain chicken pox to kids for this misconception.

Re:Prove it

[jc42]

Hey, did you read the stories earlier this year about the restaurant somewhere in China that serves rat as its specialty-of-the-house?

In the interviews, the proprietor did say that they use only farm-raised rats, not city rats.

Actually, the only reason for not eating rats is that people think they're ugly and repulsive. But some of the domesticated strains are sorta cute, so I suppose they'd be edible. And people eat lots of other rodents, especially rabbits. The guinea pig is a rodent that people in South America domesticated as a food animal.

It is sorta bizarre that people only want to eat attractive animals. Wouldn't it make more sense to kill and eat critters that aren't attractive?

Re:Prove it

[Firethorn]

As it happens, I'm watching the complete first season of star trek right now. I didn't feel it necessary.

And fund NASA? If you check my past posting history, you'll find that I'm pretty much for the total reform of NASA.

Re:Prove it

[mdwh2]

Well, the poster I was responding to said it's not socially acceptable based on the idea that it doesn't happen much, and (as I point out) it doesn't happen much because it can't happen (being illegal).

Now it may be that it's illegal because it's socially unacceptable, but you can't base whether it is socially acceptable on the fact that it rarely happens. My point was that how common polygamy is is irrelevant in terms of judging how common such behaviour would be, because it's illegal.

Sadly yes, polyamorous behaviour is seen as socially unacceptable by many, but not in *all* social circles, which I think was the earlier poster's point - in some social circles, it is quite acceptable (as I can confirm from my own experience).

Re:Prove it

[Doktor Memory]

Googling on "microgravity bone density" and "microgravity cell damage" will lead you to a veritable library of bad news.

The short form is: your muscles (including your heart) atrophy and your bones waste away.

Vigorous aerobic exercise slows down, but does not stop the process. Compounding the problem, many people cannot sleep or eat in freefall. And centripetal force is not gravity: despite what you saw in 2001, rotating spaceships don't help that much.

Note that reading the available material on these subjects requires a pretty hefty dose of skepticism and cynicism: pro-space authors will tend to discuss these problems as if they are trifling details and as if solutions are just around the corner. You have to dig a bit before you realize that the problems have been well-known since the beginning of manned spaceflight and that there are no effective countermeasures yet available, nor any promising ones on the horizon.

Re:Prove it

[joelanders]

I was waiting for "profit" somewhere in that plan...

Re:Prove it

[Shawndeisi]

"We can't even wipe out AIDS or world hunger or war, how are we going to work together to colonize another planet?" I can see this being said a few hundred years ago. "We can't even wipe out or war or poverty, how are we going to work together to colonize the New World?" We've done this sort of thing before, we'll do it again.

Re:Prove it

[cybaea]

The average /. reader is an idiot. Half of /. readers are below average. Are you scared yet?

That's the median you are thinking off, not the average. But your general point is probably valid: If intelligence in the general population is normal distributed and /. has an average that is below that of the general population, you would expect more than half of the readers to be below the /. average (because there is more range available above the average so those people have a higher weight in the average).

Thought you wanted to know....

This announcement brought to you by another average /. reader

Re:Prove it

[swillden]

Now it may be that it's illegal because it's socially unacceptable, but you can't base whether it is socially acceptable on the fact that it rarely happens. My point was that how common polygamy is is irrelevant in terms of judging how common such behaviour would be, because it's illegal.

True. And it's highly likely that if it were legal now, it would not be made illegal. It was widely outlawed in a different era, one in which mores were different and polygamy was equated to slavery. That comparison may not have been completely wrong in some cases then, but in our day women have considerably more independence and freedom of action. In the 19th century a woman pretty much had to have either a husband or family money to survive -- or be very exceptional. In the 21st century any woman who wants to support herself can do so. In our time, with rare exceptions, any woman who opted to join and stay in a polygamist marriage would be presumed to be doing it of her own free will.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

4. Homosexuality is a rounding error. It is not even statistically significant as a population control, its existed for millenia and even exists in nature. This is a non-factor. HOMOSEXUALITY is a NON-FACTOR.

Ok, ok geez, we heard you the first time. Insecure much?

Re:Prove it

[It'sYerMam]

You forget that standards of living are very poor in the 3rd world, still, where birthrates are still through the roof. As medicines are brought in to sort out disease, the death rate decreases, natural increase shoots up and you end up with the population explosion we saw in the industrial revolution.
The population of the world is still going up very quickly.

Re:Prove it

[It'sYerMam]

Um... not quite.
In Europe, this problem was referred to as a "grain moutain" because farmers were receiving subsidies for producing grain. This was not a surplus to be stored away, but to be wasted.
If this was not true, explain the "set-aside" subsidies, given to European farmers for leaving fallow land? The answer - we were producing too much. There is supposed to be enough food to feed a population 1.5 times as large as the one we have.
And finally, if the first world has the right amount of food, why are so many people obese? While people are starving NO-ONE has the right to be obese through overeating.

Re:Prove it

[mdwh2]

The Bible says very clearly in several places, both in the New Testament and the Old, that homosexuality is a sin.

I don't see that it is clear at all - there is much disagreement as to what is said, relating to issues such as translation and interpretation. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm is a good write up of this.

And I don't see how you can say that certain parts of the document that your faith is based on don't matter

True, but I have to ask - do you take every part of the Bible literally, such as owning slaves, not doing anything on the Sabbath (and executing those who do), not eating shellfish, and believing that the story of Genesis is all literally true?

Re:Prove it

[coronaride]

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings..

Re:Prove it

[Naepustus]

"It's true that the large dinosaurs were wiped out, but the large mammals also disappeared 65 million years ago." You have a reasonably informed argument, but I must disagree on this. There still are very large mammals about: the elephant the giraffe and the whales. If you meant land-based mammal, then you would also be incorrect. The woolly mammoth died out only about 20 000 years ago. The North-American giant beaver also died out at approximately the same time. There were a lot of giant mammals around not that long ago.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my friends is working on a Masters in Zoology, and I put a similar thought to her a while ago, when she and I were dicussing the morons who seem intent on destroying us all.

She referred me to some experiments that showed that foetus do not form correctly, and eventually abort, if they grow while in a microgravity environment.

This is a bit of a bugger, if you want to live in the Kuiper belt.

Re:Prove it

[WhiplashII]

Just a comment, since this was such an interesting discussion - as I see it, God never turns his face away from us, he merely allows us to turn from him (free agency and all that).

As I have lived my life, I have found that the "commandments," "sins," and "restrictions" all have our benefit in mind. In my belief, God is our father - not Grandpa, or Judge, but father. When you are a father, you tell your children what you believe the best way to act is for them. But then you get out of their way, and let them fall on their face. This life is a time to prepare for "real life," which will happen after we all die. That's why bad things happen - because bad things let us learn and grow.

Applying this to homosexuality, I believe that there is a reason behind this request/command. I am not sure what it is (perhaps resurected bodies do not experience homosexuality, or something, I don't know), but all of my experiences leads me to believe that there is a reason.

That said, remember that someone else's challenges are merely different than your own. Everyone is faced with problems, and everyone must try for their own happiness!

Re:Prove it

[WhiplashII]

This is the wrong way of looking at it in my opinion. We are here on Earth to learn how to be respectible beings in the afterlife. We will be alive for say 100 years. We will be in the afterlife forever. From that perspective, the "bad" things that happen here are less important - what is important is to learn from them.

An example: Isn't it cruel that High School teachers allow some kids to fail tests? Shouldn't they sit over the kids shoulder, and point out mistakes before the grade is given?

Another, and all the fathers and mothers can attest to this: Your kid is playing on the couch, and you see that she is going to fall if she keeps bouncing like that. You tell her. She ignores you and keeps bouncing. You let her fall, get a little owie, and then say - "See, you need to listen, daddy knows things that you don't. Let me kiss it better."

Pain is a necessary part of learning. I believe that the people that have advanced humanity the most tend to be those that have endured the most pain. I know that the pain I have experienced has taught me a lot, and helped me to understand things I could not have understood before.

Re:Prove it

[WhiplashII]

This is true, but does not go against the article. The guy in the article says that you are more likely to die from an asteriod collision than you are from a terrorist on a plane. (Paraphrased)

I think it is a matter of scale - we spend billions preventing terrorism, how much do we spend on asteriods? Perhaps we should be looking to the sky more often!

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

"Applying this to homosexuality, I believe that there is a reason behind this request/command. I am not sure what it is (perhaps resurected bodies do not experience homosexuality, or something, I don't know), but all of my experiences leads me to believe that there is a reason."

The difference between a child and an adult, is that an adult is responsible for their own choices. As a sentient being, I don't think it's appropriate to say "homosexuality is bad, because God says so", because that's not a good enough reason to condemn another person in my opinion. I am responsible for that determination. I will answer for that. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I would much rather choose to do right, than be told what is right.

Re:Prove it

[WhiplashII]

You misunderstood me - I do not believe that God is saying "that is evil", he is saying "that will hurt you."

Just what I believe, based on my experiences.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

How does homosexuality hurt anybody? Until that question is answered, ostracizing homosexuals is Evil.

Re:Prove it

[WhiplashII]

Until that question is answered, ostracizing homosexuals is Evil.

Agreed, for reasonable values of ostracizing. For example, one could say that refusing to allow a practicing homosexual to be a bishop is ostracizing. For most situations, treating homosexuals as different from heterosexuals is evil. But not all, such as homosexuals in the military (shared showers present an insurmountable problem - each homosexual would need there own seperate shower). Deciding where these boundaries are is a most difficult task, to be sure.

How does homosexuality hurt anybody? (Else)

I do not believe that homosexuality hurts third parties. I believe that practicing homosexuality hurts the people involved in the practice. I further believe that although you have a duty to warn your neighbor (as in everyone you know) when they are doing what you believe to be a dangerous practice, you must allow them to make their own choices. This particular problem adds in the sensitive nature of human sexuality - you have to be careful what you say because you might be hurting people.

I respect homosexuals as people, practicing homosexuality or not. If asked, I will tell people my beliefs, but I make sure that they understand that I do not look down on them at all. I also have demons that I face, and I would not like someone throwing them in my face, either.

Re:Prove it

[EvilAlien]

Following Christ's teachings in part does not imply a belief in Christ's mythology. Do unto others blah blah blah is a pretty nice standard to live by, and some of the ethical messages attributed to Christ are worthwhile on their own without religious trappings. However, if you subscribe to the entirety of those teachines, how could you not view dissenters as wrong or misguided? They, as far as you are concerned, deny reality.

By the same token, I consider everybody who believes in a god to be somewhere in the realm of wrong, misguided, irrational, insane, or something of that nature. I don't see how viewing them otherwise could be anything other than inconsistent. Reality is reality, those who deny it are wrong, as are those who misperceive it. Perception that deviates from reality is inaccurate perception. It doesn't equate to being a "bad person"... perhaps that is your point? That you don't judge others as being bad people because they don't believe what you believe to be the truth?

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

Whoops, you tripped my Objectivist filter. Your perceptions are incomplete, Grasshopper. Until you realize that, then anybody who believes in things outside our perceptions WILL seem irrational.

"However, if you subscribe to the entirety of those teachines, how could you not view dissenters as wrong or misguided?"

Nonsense. Dissenters are dissenters. They believe differently than I do. They are percieving different things than I am. Neither of our understandings are complete (although, if we're paying attention, they can both be Accurate and Correct). There is not One True Way. Hint: That means Ayn Rand was also wrong.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

Why on EARTH do shared showers present an "insurmountable" problem? Are you suggesting that homosexuals are sex-crazed maniacs who cannot resist screwing any naked person of the same gender they see?

Do you REALLY think there are no homosexuals in the military?

How does practicing homosexuality hurt the people involved in the practice?

You seem to be a good-hearted person. It's so difficult for me to understand how you can have compassion for everybody who has the same sexual preferences as you do.

Disclaimer: I am an avowed heterosexual. I'm a boy who likes tha girls.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

In more detail.

You: The Bible says very clearly in several places, both in the New Testament and the Old, that homosexuality is a sin.

Me: The Bible says lots of things are sins. More to the point, the Catholic Church (who wrote the Bible as we now know it) says that a WHOLE lot of things are sins. That's not important. What's important is that Jesus broke bread with sinners. We can do no less.

You: And I don't see how you can say that certain parts of the document that your faith is based on don't matter, or are wrong, or inapplicable, without completely discrediting the authority of the rest of the document, written by the same people, all supposedly inspired by God.

Me: Which people? Abraham? The Diet of Wyrms? King James? There are lots of cooks in this kitchen.

You: Or maybe you believe that certain parts aren't inspired?

Me: It is hard to understand how God would want some things that are said in the Bible.

You: But who decides which parts don't matter?

Me: I do. And I answer for my own judgement.

You: And how do they decide?

Me: Study and prayer.

You: And on whose authority?

Me: God's authority, proxied to me as a rational, sentient, thinking being made in His image. If God didn't want me to make my own judgements about what is right and what is wrong, He should have not given me the capacity to do so.

You: You're cutting your own legs out from under you!

Me: Only if you assume I argue from the authority of Scripture. I do not. I do not believe Scripture has any authority. It has value, it contains Truth, and it helps me understand Man's relationship with God.

You: It just doesn't make any sense.

Me: Yes, it's very hard to understand. It's hard to be responsible for my own decisions. It would be so seductively easy to just Do What I'm Told.

But I won't. I refuse. I think it's a perversion of my moral duty to simply Do What I'm Told if I don't think it's Right.

You: It's completely inconsistent.

Me: Let's don't get hung up on Biblical inconsistencies. If you do that, I'm going to ask you to tell me which of the two contradictory Creation stories in Genesis is True.

Hint: I think they're both true. I think both of them read remarkably well as a way to explain to a nomadic sheep herder the basics of cosmology. I do NOT think that they are a recipe for How to Create The Universe.

Re:Prove it

[RockDoctor]

There are lots of things in the parent post that I could argue with, but I'll stick to the fields of my professional competence (makes a change for SlashDot ):
We could drill out pressure of volcanoes
No we couldn't. We don't have the materials to withstand the sustained temperatures. We don't have the drilling fluids that can maintain the necessary properties (in any replies please list the nine basic functions of a drilling fluid as you learned in your drilling engineering course) at the bottom hole conditions necessary. And we don't have rigs that are sufficiently automated to deliberately drill into a "lava blowout" as you seem to be envisaging. I had friends who died in rig fires, and you sure as fuck aren't going to get me working on a suicide job like that.

Minor nit-picks:

• some astronomers think that the pre-red giant stage of the Sun might only last another 500 to 1000 million years, and as the Sun's temperature will rise in that time the Earth's habitability may be compromised long before then;
• Current human population is closer to 7 billion than it is to 5 billion.

My cheerful expectation is that many people reading this comment will live through times that will see around 4 gigadeaths. That'll put that penny-ante jerk-off Hitler in perspective. My not-so-cheerful expectation is for more like 8 or 9 gigadeaths.

Re:Prove it

[WhiplashII]

Why on EARTH do shared showers present an "insurmountable" problem?

For the same reason that men don't shower with women - its embarassing to everyone involved. And yes, I do know that there are homosexuals in the military - but as "don't ask, don't tell" holds, people aren't embarrassed. You may say that is insignificant, but inexperienced, young men that are embarrassed do stupid things - like punch the guy that embarrassed them.

How does practicing homosexuality hurt the people involved in the practice?

Honestly, I don't know - I merely have faith that from an eternal perspective homosexuals are individually helped by not engaging in homosexual activity. I could give you some guesses, but that is all they are. I realize that you (and many others) do not believe that, and I'm not asking you to. I am telling you what I believe - because I was asked a question that showed a lack of understanding of my beliefs.

As for showing compassion, I have openly homosexual friends - in fact my best friend. I have thought about this a lot - I know he struggled with morals most of his life. I'm pretty sure that most people's perceptions are distorted by their feelings on this issue (on both sides), but I try to find objective answers to questions - and discuss the issues when I feel it is appropriate.

I don't really care whether you are a hetrosexual or not - but I do like that you are a rocket scientist (just no that way, you understand...)!

Re:Prove it

[EvilAlien]

Excellent, a fly stuck in my Objectivist web ;) For every filter looking for a weak argument based on Objectivist philosophy, there are traps set to draw out those filters and use them as examples.

Ayn Rand was not objective. I don't know how hard she tried to be, but her ideas were a product of her experience and perception. She was a writer, not a scientist, and therefore cannot be trusted as objective despite claims to the contrary. Its funny, though, how aping a bit of what she wrote immediately attracts ideas with the opposite charge, so to speak ;)

Your counter to my argument is predicated on any one individual's perception approaching 100% accuracy. This is, as far as we have to assume, impossible. It is also unfortunate that inaccurate perceptions and compelling explanations that fill a gap in people's ability to understand can gel into a persistent belief system. Therefore, we cannot rely on any chunk of philosophy to provide us insight into reality. Reality is the one true way, perception is the filter through which we comprehend it... so yes, it is possible to be right, wrong, misguided, deluded, enlightened or wise. Those are terms in the English language that seek to describe various levels of complete understanding. However, this doesn't mean that there is no "one true way", as you put it. Reality is the One True Way, the trick is to perceive it accurately or at least approach accuracy. It is possible to fundamentally disagree on perception of reality and have one position be the correct one, however without defining terms we will never truly sort that out. You assume that I argue from someone elses teachings (i.e., Ayn Rand), while I assume that you literally and truly believe in a god or that some guy 2000 years ago was the son (figuratively or literally) of this god.

What you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we both perceive the same thing different and both have a subjective understanding of reality that, though imperfect, maps to the same reality. What I'm saying is that it is entirely possible to perceive (or comprehend) inaccurately, and therefore incorrectly. That, I think, is the difference between science and religion. Both seek to explain reality, however they approach the challenge differently... but it is entirely possible to have one (or both or neither) of them doing it inaccurately. Where you see "god", I see complex dynamic systems and emergent features born out of the complex interactions of far too many variables for us to be able to model reality in a very simple way.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

"Eternal perspective"? Wow. What a comforting thing it must be to think you have access to the Wisdom of the Ages.

"I know he struggled with morals most of his life." And, what, if he were to just go ahead and be heterosexual the way God intended him to be, he would no longer have to struggle with morals?

We're all the same. We all have the same struggles. Who we love, romantically, does not change that.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

" but I try to find objective answers to questions"

"Because the Bible says so" is not an objective answer. It might be true for you, and it might comfort you, but it is disingenuous for you to make arguments from authority, and then say you are trying to be objective.

Look, I do not begrudge you your faith. I understand faith. What I don't like is cross-pollinating faith with rationality. Faith is, by its very nature, not rational. Questions you answer by appeal to faith are not argue-able. That's fine...I don't think faith SHOULD be rational.

I do, however, think the Law should be rational. I hope you continue to believe as you do, and walk with God as you do. However, we will have an argument if and when you decide you want your walk with God given the force of law. That is Evil.

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

Oh, good! I'm delighted to understand you're not a Randroid. They are the most frustrating debating partners, after "scientific" Creationists.

We agree completely: Perception is the filter through which we apprehend reality. As we improve perception, our models become better. In your context, there IS a One True Way, but in my context, that One True Way may as well not exist because we (humans) cannot apprehend it. Of course, as wise and sentient beings, we must always strive to more closely apprehend Reality.

You have a different mental model of "The Unknown" than I do. That's cool, as long as you don't think that your model of The Unknown is any more rational than anybody else's. That's a fallacy of perception many unwise folks seem to glom on to.

Re:Prove it

[EvilAlien]

She wasn't even that great of a novellist... some interesting ideas, but I think all she really needed was a hug and someone to say "yes, there are a lot of stupid people, there there dear".

Nice succinct way to summarize the differences in approach to reality comprehension. You are right, I do anticipate that we will get it. I don't expect that the majority will every understand, but I do think some will. The majority can watch the TV movie after the fact.

Knowledgeable, critical and (attempted) objective perception (with, of course, feedback integrated into the loop to correct broken perception) implies that some people's perceptions must be more rational than other's. It is necessary to the goal of approaching accurate models. Broken models must be discarded and/or revised, or even returned to "active" status as appropriate. The trick is to separate models from mere perception or assumption. That is what science is about. If there are sentient forces beyond the mere interactions of physics, i.e., "gods", then science will prove it. However, as we work towards reality comprehension, certain models will be discarded just as the always have been. Some models may be completely irrational, so yes.. it is entirely likely that "my" model is more rational than somebody else's, just as it is likely that there is a model out there that supersedes "mine" in rationality. Since I'm not a theoretical physicist, I can't claim to perfectly understand chaotic dynamics, but I sure as hell can try ;)

Re:Prove it

[Moofie]

I think it's very easy to go from "My perceptions are more rational than most others'" to "My perceptions are Rational". I prefer to remain skeptical of my own adherence to Reality. I work hard to question what I see and interpret, and make sure that it is in fact an accurate representation of What's Happening.

I really think we're talking about the same thing. I just have a different mental stance, if you will.

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Asshat. Thanks for adding to the discussion. Why don't you take that 5 cents and use it to buy yourself a life?

Re:Prove it

[wamatt]

Just like the Anrosynths in Star Control 2. ;)

Self replication is pretty scary if it got out of control.

Re:Prove it

[arminw]

The point is that God, not man decides when the end will come and until He makes it happen there is no need to worry. The Bible does tell us through the apostle Peter that the world is to be destroyed by fire at this time, and the heavens at the same time. Atoms exist in a very delicate balance and if that balance is upset they ALL disintegrate everywhere at once.

Great!

[October_30th]

I'm glad to see that the unmanned-space-exploration-mafia has not been able to completely silence the drive for manned space exploration - yet. I have no doubt that if nothing changes drastically, that will happen eventually. There're just too many "good political reasons" to kill the expensive and risky (PR-wise) manned space program. After all, taking the fall for dead astronauts could kill anybody's career...

Yes. Manned missions are risky and expensive. Unmanned and remotely controlled probes are just fine and dandy and they yield plenty of useful information about the conditions in space and on other planets, but what's that information good for if we're never going to leave our planet and/or when we're going to get hit by an extinction level event?

As a species we have definitely become too concerned about safety in exploration. Can't shoot people up to space because they might get killed? Well, duh? What if the explorers like Magellan or Vasco da Game had thought about it like that?

The saddest comment I once got was: "we'll never be able to colonize other planets because the conditions are so fundamentally hostile, so let's not waste any funds/effort on manned space flights." What the hell happened to the human will to explore and survive? What's the point in sending out probes if the information gained will certainly be lost in the (near) future when the big one hits the earth?

Re:Great!

[Gr8Apes]

This is a good reason that privately funded space travel needs to "explode". When space flight becomes less expensive, and companies can drive exploration as much as anyone else, then steps will truly be made in this realm. Waiting on NASA just isn't cutting it these days.

Re:Great!

[October_30th]

When space flight becomes less expensive, and companies can drive exploration as much as anyone else

I don't think incorporation would change anything. Exploding spacecrafts and dead explorers would be just as bad for the boardmember of a corp as it would be for a politician.

Re:Great!

[mordors9]

Obviously we need to greatly expand our NASA budget and start preparing to colonize other planets... wait, you don't think that is the point of scaremongering us, is it?

Re:Great!

[TedCheshireAcad]

Ha ha ha - great sig. I've gotta find that animation now...haven't watched it in years.

Re:Great!

[October_30th]

Well, scaremongering seems to be working rather well as far as terrorism goes, so why not try it here as well?

Seriously, I'm not from the US and I do not advocate increasing NASA funding per se - unless it's a part of a truly international manned space exploration effort.

Re:Great!

[bsharitt]

This is a good reason that privately funded space travel needs to "explode"

Explode? In that case I'll stay behind here on earth just in case anyone stops by while everybody else is gone.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be better to spend money cleaning up this planet, looking for renewable energy sources, and otherwise improving life on earth than to piss it away sending humans into space for a "rah rah my country is great" nationalistic PR moment.

Re:Great!

[October_30th]

It would be better to spend money cleaning up this planet, looking for renewable energy source

Ah, yes. The good old false dichotomy. Space exploration and "cleaning up this planet and renewable energy sources" aren't mutually exclusive. I'm a fucking greenie, for chrissake! Besides, what good is "cleaning up this planet and looking for renewable energy sources" when we're eventually going to go extinct unless we get off this planet?

"rah rah my country is great" nationalistic PR moment.

Who said anything about nationalism? Any meaningful space exploration is/will be an international effort through-and-through. Now that's one lesson we haven't learnt, yet.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

unless it's a part of a truly international manned space exploration effort.

So, nothing worthwhile should be tried unless we invite every deadbeat corrupt politician in the world? You know, "a camel is a race horse designed by a committee".

Re:Great!

[October_30th]

nothing worthwhile should be tried unless we invite every deadbeat corrupt politician in the world?

So nothing worthwhile should be attemped unless we can keep every deadbeat corrupt politician out? Who cares about the corporate people...

There's waste and corruption in every major project. It can't be helped and is OK as long as it doesn't sink the project. I just wonder why some people seem to make it such an issue - as if incorporated projects are somehow immune to this.

Re:Great!

[ZB Mowrey]

Hey, that would be totally fuckin' awesome, you radical environmental dude...I applaud your sense of long term responsibility. But what happens when the Great Big Rock drops from the sky and smashes us all flat?

The $Deity-given purpose of ALL species is to survive and procreate. Even if you don't have a $deity, every fiber of your being is wired to survive and ensure a future generation.

It's no coincidence this guy's work is entitled the "Big Picture". This is us humans deciding that we're gonna survive a little meteor, a little atomic war, maybe even a little supernova. See, that this thing called the Big Picture. We decide that our race will survive anything, and put our best minds and hands to work.

Re:Great!

[Gr8Apes]

Doesn't seem to affect bus companies, ships, nor airplances all that much when one of those explode. We haven't had a real period of exploration for more than 150 years.

Re:Great!

[October_30th]

Doesn't seem to affect bus companies, ships, nor airplances all that much when one of those explode.

That's most likely because buses, ships and airplanes exploding are more or less routine (i.e. it has happened before). A shuttle/rocket exploding is a different matter. Why do you think the latest shuttle accident had such publicity even though the total number of lives lost was minimal.

Just imagine a commercial low-orbit passanger shuttle suffering a catastrophical failure...

Re:Great!

[PastaLover]

You have a point. On the other hand a robot does not require large amounts of living space, food, oxygen and energyconsuming utilities to be launched in other space. So it costs less to send one up there and in that respect manned spaceflight is a foolish waste of money and resources. We might need or want to send people up there at some point but when the work can be automated why not? Our resources are sarce as it is, no need to deliberately make them even scarcer.

Re:Great!

[FleaPlus]

The point is to make it routine. Once people see these things going up every day, their sensitivity to accidents with them will be appropriately tuned.

Re:Great!

[FleaPlus]

The saddest comment I once got was: "we'll never be able to colonize other planets because the conditions are so fundamentally hostile, so let's not waste any funds/effort on manned space flights."

Actually, the saddest comments I've heard are along the lines of "Humans are a plague which we have to keep quarantined to Earth."

Re:Great!

[alienmole]

wait, you don't think that is the point of scaremongering us, is it?

Well, duh! But I'd rather see the American public be scaremongered into colonizing other planets, than be scaremongered into implanting chips into all DoublePlusGood Citizens as protection against terrorism.

So, let the scaremongering war begin! I'll see your dirty bomb and raise you one contintent-destroying, atmosphere-transforming supervolcano!

Re:Great!

[kabocox]

Unmanned and remotely controlled probes are just fine and dandy and they yield plenty of useful information about the conditions in space and on other planets, but what's that information good for if we're never going to leave our planet and/or when we're going to get hit by an extinction level event?

I personnally think manned exploration should be stopped for about 10-20 years. My list of things we need to do are
1. develop and build a cheap space delivary service (My favorite is the space elevator.)
2. launch enough probes to every one of our our solar systems planets and moons for long term study 50-100 years min. should be the planned length of study time.
3. map every piece of matter in this solar system the could hit this planet.
4. start asteriod mining with remote controlled robots.
5. have hollowed out asteriods ready for space stations.
6. start planning long term generation ships.
7. launch a generation ship that would take about 1000 years to get where it is going unless we think up some FTL transport mechanism.

We aren't in a hurry; we have a few billion years until that sun burns out. We are much more likely to nuke this planet, pollute it, or release some bio warfare agents that kills off all the humans.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

We aren't in a hurry; we have a few billion years until that sun burns out. We are much more likely to nuke this planet, pollute it, or release some bio warfare agents that kills off all the humans.

So we are not in a hurry because our most likely bane will be ourselves? I don't quite follow you... Doesn't that make extra-terrestrial colonies more urgent?

Re:Great!

[Gr8Apes]

The shuttle's explosion was so significant in that there's only been one other to explode, 17 years ago. Launches are still quite rare, and non-existant currently. There have been less than 100 launches in 20 years. 1 in 50 and/or 1 every ten years is significant in the public consciousness.

Re:Great!

[bobetov]

You know, I hear this a lot when discussing manned flight. "What if the explorers like Magellan or Vasco da Game had thought about [flaming death] like that?" And in one sense it's true; exploration has its costs and risks, inherent to the concept.

But don't you think that if it had been possible, Magellan's royal backers would have preferred an advanced clockwork dinghy (work with me here) that cost 1/10th the cost, could disappear without any loss of life, and which brought back much of the same information? At least at first?

Of course they would have.

I love spaceflight, I dream of colonizing the system and the stars, but until we hit the point of diminishing returns on robotic research, or until technology catches up to our dreams, robotic exploration just makes better sense.

Now before you jump on this and say "Until we go up and try, we'll never learn," remember that there are *thousands* of crucial technologies, from earth-lift vehicles to deep space propulsion systems to hardened computer systems that *can* be refined, all without a single human life risked.

Just my 0.02 USD

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed that unmanned space flight yields plenty of information that can be used towards the overall goals. Talking and convincing eachother on the merits of manned/unmanned exploration though is pointless. It comes down to the bottom dollar. When the mass project is cheaper to send humans, or impossible for a robot to do the job, then we'll go. Otherwise, there will still be plenty of people wanting to go to the frontier in the name of our innate desire to explore (ie space hotels, etc). In other words, I think we'll always send the robots out first, and then follow behind. When they're mining asteroids in the Kuiper Belt, we'll have humans living in orbit or on Mars for fun. Its inevitable that we'll get there, as long as we're keeping space on the todo list and always looking for ways to make it profitable.

Re:Great!

[readin]

As a species we have definitely become too concerned about safety in exploration. Can't shoot people up to space because they might get killed? Well, duh? What if the explorers like Magellan or Vasco da Game had thought about it like that? In Magellan's time, unmanned exploration was prohibitively expensive. In our era, manned exploration is more expensive. If the goal is to explore as much as possible, unmanned is the way to go for now. If the goal is to persuade the purse-string holders that manned space flight is necessary, we need to find something in space that will justify people there. That means we need to explore. Space tourism is the only valid reason to be sending humans into space right now, and private industry is rapidly moving toward making that a reality. NASA should continue to focus on cutting-edge unmanned exploration.

Re:Great!

[Myrmidon]

The saddest comment I once got was: "we'll never be able to colonize other planets because the conditions are so fundamentally hostile, so let's not waste any funds/effort on manned space flights."

Even sadder: "Let's waste lots of funds and effort on manned space flights, even though we haven't yet figured out how we would ever be able to colonize other planets."

What the hell happened to the human will to explore and survive?

It's alive and well.

I explore by studying science. We haven't run out of it yet. If by chance we do, I can always switch to music, which will keep me busy for a while.

And I survive quite nicely here on Earth. I can't think of any better place to live. Even after an asteroid strike, I'm not sure I'd be better off living in a tin can on the Moon, peering through a telescope, mourning the death of civilization, and trying to remember what grass was like.

I won't survive forever, here on Earth. Eventually (in an ever-decreasing number of years!) I'll die, hopefully without too much pain. Right now, odds are I'll die of heart disease or cancer -- although those odds could change in my lifetime. But, one way or another, I'll die, just as every human dies, just as every species dies, just as the Earth, the solar system, and eventually the Universe will die. I don't lose a lot of sleep over this, and I'm sorry that you do.

What's the point in sending out probes if the information gained will certainly be lost in the (near) future when the big one hits the earth?

What's the point of buying a car with a warranty, given that you'll surely be dead within 200 years? Why go to college, when you'll probably have Alzheimer's before the next century begins? Why fall in love, when it can only end in tragedy?

I wish you luck in solving your existential dilemma, but the answer isn't out in space.

Re:Great!

[julesh]

I don't think it's scaremongering, because I really believe that the people saying it believe that we need to have manned space exploration in order to enable us to survive such events. There is no ulterior motive. It is why many of them got involved in the first place.

1 in 455?

[WPIDalamar]

Just cause some retired guy in an interview says it, doesn't make it true.

Re:1 in 455?

[ViolentGreen]

Seriously... Why the human race be more likely to be destroyed by a geological or cosmological event in the next 100 years than in the past 3000 or so of recorded history?

Re:1 in 455?

[Mal1]

He's not retired yet, thus making it true.

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah um, hate to break it to you, but is one human surviving any better than none surviving....?

Re:1 in 455?

[russianspy]

Hate to break this to you - but if only one human survives - the civilization still dies.

Even two people, Adam and Eve if you will, does not provide sufficient genetic diversity to last for many generations.

Re:1 in 455?

[ShelbyCobra]

Yeah, but I heard that like 89% of all statistics like that are made up anyway.

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even two people, Adam and Eve if you will, does not provide sufficient genetic diversity to last for many generations

There's a few southern US states that prove you wrong.

Re:1 in 455?

[bigpat]

" Yeah, but I heard that like 89% of all statistics like that are made up anyway."

completely wrong, it is more like 92%.

Re:1 in 455?

[10000000000000000000]

well, it's good old statistics again.
For instance, when I flip a coin what are the chances that it comes up heads?
50/50 of course (or be pedantic and say 49.999../50.000...1).
now if I flip it again what are the chances?..still 50/50 of course :)
my 10,000th flip will still be 50/50.
but what are the chances that I will flip heads twice in a row?
Statistics seem to predict nothing with pinpoint accuracy(well, at least 89.45% of the time), but they give you the odds.

Re:1 in 455?

[fireboy1919]

He's neglected to mention some things from the first figure.

First of all, it's a 1 in 455 chance of being wiped out by asteroids, volcanic activity, comets, vampires, dark elves, zombies, or McDonald's, but he seemed to convenienly leave off the end of the list.

Secondly, he forgot to mention that this takes into account the fact that all humans who have not broken the code of the Greblor (roughly 96.3%) will be delivered by the benevolent lizard Godzilla back unto our home planet - a place of safety and prosperity in another dimension. Only the evil, self-destructive humans will remain.

Further, it is predicted that 97.1% of those who stay will be delivered in the second coming of Godzilla after having repented of their evil ways.

So as you can see, most of us have nothing to worry about. They neglected to mention the other parts of the report, which actually explain why the numbers are obviously true.

Re:1 in 455?

[colinleroy]

The dinosaur extinction was rather 65 millions years ago, rather than 50.000.

Re:1 in 455?

[Carewolf]

And here I thought slashdotters knew math.

The chance is 1.0-((454 over 100) divided by (455 ^ 100)).

Still I would estimate loosely the chance of human extinction to be 1 to 455 over the next 10000 years. It would still be more likely every year that _you_ die of mass-extinsion than of a plane-crash.

Re:1 in 455?

[sholden]

Maybe you should learn some statistics...

The probability is not 100% it is in fact 20%.

Chance of no event in a 455 year period: 454/455 = 99.8%

Chance of no event in 100 such periods: (454/455)^100 = 80.3%

Hence chance of an event in 100 such periods: 19.7%

Using your whacked out mathematics I guess in 100000 years the probability of at least one event is 200%?!?

Re:1 in 455?

[ViolentGreen]

Chance of no event in a 455 year period: 454/455 = 99.8%

Actually the AC has a point, though the 100% chance part is incorrect. In my original statement I was thing along the same lines that you seem to be. The statement that I quoted from you would be true if it was a 1/455 chance to happen every year, not every 100 years. so a 1/455 chance every 100 years is the same as a 1/45500 chance every year.

Re:1 in 455?

[kaleco]

Because you don't have to worry about geological or comological events in the past killing you.

Re:1 in 455?

[ViolentGreen]

Point made. I misread the original and stand corrected.

Re:1 in 455?

[HrothgarReborn]

Actually there are more like 10,000 years of recorded human history going back to the ancient cities of Elam, Ur and Akkad in Mesopotamia. Not to mention that our species appears to have about 1.5 Milion years on this planet in less developed forms, these statistics do seem a bit off.

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, shut the fuck up.

Re:1 in 455?

[Zspdude]

That's not the half of it...

What % of the world population will live for the next 100 years anyway, to enjoy the full 1 in 455 chance? :p

I don't care about the chance of global catastrophe over the next 100 years, I care about what might happen in *my* lifespan.

NO, I don't have kids!

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to most sources modern man has been around for about 67000 years.
The change of our species still existing would be (454/455)^670 = 22.9%

We're quite lucky to still be able to read slashdot!

Phew...

Re:1 in 455?

[Eccles]

Yes, but good ol' statistics also says that if it comes up heads 9,999 times in a row, you're probably not playing with an unbiased coin. Given a long streak of some event not happening in X number of years, you can put a pretty accurate cap on the probability of X happening in a give year.

Re:1 in 455?

[Geek of Tech]

Just don't use the Infinite Improbability Drive! Then our chances become closer to 1 / 1! Granted the chances of the Earth spontaneously reappearing from out of nowhere with all its inhabitants also becomes 1 / 1.....

Re:1 in 455?

[10000000000000000000]

Did you mean: STFU

Re:1 in 455?

[10000000000000000000]

that's true.

After all, if you inflate balloons to the point of popping and you know at 12cm diameter most of them blow up, then when a balloon has achieved 12.1cm you can pretty acurately surmise that at 12.2cm it will have a near 100% chance of bursting.

I suppose you could also conjecture that a balloon has a 0% chance of achieving 2,000cm diameter without popping.

Probability is fun :D

Re:1 in 455?

[SnakeJG]

But, the idea is, to figure out if his 1 in 455 chance of being wiped out in the next 100 years is an accurate measurement. I am going to run some numbers, and maybe we can decide if it is:

1) we have a 454/455 chance of living 100 years (around 99.8%)

2) we have a (454/455)^10 chance of living 1000 years (around 97.8%)

3) we have a (454/455)^100 chance of living 10,000 years (around 80.3%)

4) we have a (454/455)^500 chance of living 50,000 years (around 33.3%)

5) we have a (454/455)^1000 chance of living 100,000 years (around 11.1%)

6) we have a (454/455)^10000 chance of living 1 million years (around 0.00000003%)

7) we have a (454/455)^35000 chance of living 3.5 million years (around 4*(10^-32)%)

The reason I mentioned 3.5 million years is because that is how long ago Lucy (the Australopithecus) lived. So, it is unlikely that a species ending event (like a super volcano or astoriod impact) happened in the last 3.5 million years. Which means, we beat some really insane odds! We had a 99.9(whole bunch more 9s)96% chance of having been killed during that time! I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm buying a lottery ticket!

Re:1 in 455?

[SnakeJG]

Your math is a little off.... The article claims a 1/455 chance of getting wipped out in the next 100 years. So the chance of no event in a 100 year period is 454/455 or about 99.8%...

Re:1 in 455?

[sleepingsquirrel]

Another point to ponder.

• Odds of a civilization ending catastrophe? 1:455
• Odds of *you* being on the lucky spacecraft which leaves earth before the meteor hits? 1:1,000,000,000

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one has mentioned the dinosaurs but thanks for playing. A simple ice age would raise international tensions to the point that a nuclear war becomes likely. At that point, the survival of humans as we know them today becomes improbable.

Re:1 in 455?

[jdog1016]

Maybe you should learn not to believe everything that a RETIRED ASTRONAUT has to say about the END OF THE WORLD. Seriously, did anyone not just simply laugh at this?

Glad to see I don't have to read the tabloids at the checkout aisle anymore to see this kind of nonsense.

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to sign up for your newsletter.

Re:1 in 455?

[Dmala]

First of all, it's a 1 in 455 chance of being wiped out by asteroids, volcanic activity, comets, vampires, dark elves, zombies, or McDonald's, but he seemed to convenienly leave off the end of the list.

There's no way zombies will get all of us. I've been preparing for the zombie invasion for years.

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, believe an astronaut or believe jdog1016... That's a tough decision.

John Young has a

B.S. in aeronautical engineering with highest honors from Georgia Institute of Technology

while jdog1016 has...?

John Young belongs to

Fellow of the American Astronautical Society (AAS), the Society of Experimental Test Pilots (SETP), and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)

while jdog1016 belongs to...?

John Young has these special honors

Awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor (1981), 3 NASA Distinguished Service Medals, NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal (1992), NASA Exceptional Engineering Achievement Medal (1987), NASA Outstanding Achievement Medal (1994), Navy Astronaut Wings (1965), 2 Navy Distinguished Service Medals, 3 Navy Distinguished Flying Crosses, the Georgia Tech Distinguished Young Alumni Award (1965), Distinguished Service Alumni Award (1972), the Exceptional Engineering Achievement Award (1985), the Academy of Distinguished Engineering Alumni (1994), and the American Astronautical Society Space Flight Award (1993), Distinguished Executive Award (1998), Rotary National Space Achievement Award (2000). Inducted into 6 Aviation and Astronaut Halls of Fame. Recipient of more than 80 other major awards, including 6 honorary doctorate degrees

while jdog1016 has...?

John Young has Navy experience comprising

Upon graduation from Georgia Tech, Young entered the United States Navy. After serving on the west coast destroyer USS LAWS (DD-558) in the Korean War, he was sent to flight training. He was then assigned to Fighter Squadron 103 for 4 years, flying Cougars and Crusaders.

After test pilot training at the U.S. Navy Test Pilot School in 1959, he was assigned to the Naval Air Test Center for 3 years. His test projects included evaluations of the Crusader and Phantom fighter weapons systems. In 1962, he set world time-to-climb records to 3,000-meter and 25,000-meter altitudes in the Phantom. Prior to reporting to NASA, he was maintenance officer of Phantom Fighter Squadron 143. Young retired from the Navy as a Captain in September 1976, after completing 25 years of active military service.

while jdog1016 has...?

Going to John Young's bio and completing the puzzle of who to believe is left as a challenge to the reader.

Re:1 in 455?

[Attar81]

Bah. Statistics are meaningless. You can use statistics to prove anything that's even remotely true!

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the probability of an event happening sometime during 45,500 years is 100%, what are the odds (not the probability) that it will happen in any one of the 455 one-hundred year periods? I.e., the odds this century are 1 in X, the odds next century are also 1 in X, and so on up to 455 centuries.

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

John Young has a

B.S. in aeronautical engineering with highest honors from Georgia Institute of Technology

while jdog1016 has...?

Well... A long Slashdot user ID, for starters.

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the probability of an event happening sometime during 45,500 years is 100%, what are the odds (not the probability) that it will happen in any one of the 455 one-hundred year periods? I.e., the odds this century are 1 in X, the odds next century are also 1 in X, and so on up to 455 centuries.

Re:1 in 455?

[rjstanford]

We had a 99.9(whole bunch more 9s)96% chance of having been killed during that time! I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm buying a lottery ticket!

Which is, of course, a moot point - had we been wiped out by a species-ending event, you wouldn't have been able to say that. Old fallacy, I'm afraid, but a good one. Of course we weren't wiped out in the past. Maybe some of the species that have kicked the bucket might have evolved - in a few millenia - to be able to flip the same coin. But now they can't. Who knows? Either way, the fact that it didn't happen to us in the past proves nothing, I'm afraid.

Re:1 in 455?

[2short]

Your math is better, but the astronauts statement is still wack.

He says the chance of such an event in a hundred year period is 1 in 455. So

Chance of no event in a 100 year period : 454/455 = 98.8%

But we know no such event has occurred since, say, the rise of Australopithecus afarensis, 4 million years ago. So no such event has occurred in 40,000 such periods.

Chances of that = (454/455)^40000 = 0.6 * 10^-37 %
or about
1 in 166,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0

So maybe we've just hit that jackpot so far, but I'm thinking that 1 in 455 estimate might be a tad off.

Re:1 in 455?

[SnakeJG]

You can't prove anything w/ statistics, however, given that there hasn't been a species ending event in at least the last 3.5 million years, you can say that it is statisticly unlikely that there is a 1/455 chance of one happening in the next 100 years.

Now, you are correct, we might just be an extremely lucky planet, and maybe one out of every 455 planets gets its life removed every 100 years (on average). But, the only evidence I have (us) strongly suggests that this is not the case.

Please, find me some statistics to show I am wrong. Give me a list of planets of our approximate size and location (both in the galaxy, and in our respective solar systems), and tell me how many of them experienced events that on our planet would kill us all in the last 100 years. And if it is approximately 1 out of 455, then I would say you are right.

The point is, this guy pulls out a statistic, which he does not back up at all, and which, looking at the only evidence availible to me (our past) is extremely unlikely. At the very least, the fact that we don't experience a species ending event every 30,000 years or so (approximately the expected value, given the 1/455 chance), suggests that more evidence should be provided before any rational person believes his statistic.

Re:1 in 455?

[sholden]

Feel free to notice that it should be a 100 year period and 455 such periods. The numbers got switched in my post...

So while I think my math is fine, the data used is just garbage, instead use:

1-(454/455)^455 = 63% of such an event occuring.

Of course I probably got the numbers wrong again :) After all I haven't even glanced at the article, since from the summary the claim look ridiculously stupid...

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the probability of an event happening sometime during 45,500 years is 100%, what are the odds (not the probability) that it will happen in any one of the 455 one-hundred year periods? I.e., the odds this century are 1 in X, the odds next century are also 1 in X, and so on up to 455 centuries. Would someone please respond?

Re:1 in 455?

[kesuki]

Because the earth hasn't been hit by an extinction level event in 65 billion years maybe... although I think a small super volcano went off in that time, and come to think of it jupiter protected earth from a massive collision that stirred up a storm 3x the size of earth when it impacted jupiter...
I seriously doubt that a super volcano is an 'extinction' level event for a species that has carbon dioxide scrubbers/gas masks/ multi year long canned foods etc. But it would kill billions, and there might be a war over who _Gets_ to survive the super volcano... which could cause it to be extinction level even for a species technologically capable of protecting itself from the ill effects.
the math is probablly right, there is probably a cosmological event every 500 years or so that crashes into jupiter, or saturn, or the moon, or mars, or pluto, or uranus, or neptune... Earth its a less likely target, because any projectile has to avoid several large gas giants etc.. The planet that is now the asteroid belt now, wasn't so lucky, despite the odds, a cosmological event shattered it into a billion asteroids... Same thing could happen to earth... and it becomes more probable the longer the earth manages to dodge the bullet.

Re:1 in 455?

[sholden]

It will happen in any one so the probability is 100% which makes the odds 1:0 or 1:1 depending on how you choose to specify them. The odds that it will happen in a single specified 100 year period is 1 in 455. Assuming the event can only happen once.

But the inverse doesn't hold.

If you flip a coin what is the probability that a head will come up? 50%.

If you flip a coin twice what is the probability that a head will come up? Hint: it's not 100%, as you can demonstrate by flipping a (fair) coin a few times for yourself and noticing that sometimes you get two tails in a row.

Re:1 in 455?

[bertas28]

Human race != civilization. The human race has been around for 2 million years, but civlization has not.

Re:1 in 455?

[MMercurius]

Alright! In that case, I'm gonna party like it's...oh, wait, nevermind.

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

The odds that it will happen in a single specified 100 year period is 1 in 455.

But suppose that's what you wanted to say. How could you express it so comes across different from the "1 in 455" from the article?

My original interpretation of what was being said (in my original post that everyone "enjoyed" so much) was that the event is guaranteed to happen within 45,500 years. As you said, that does make the odds 1 in 455 which is what everyone laughed at.

Re:1 in 455?

[zCyl]

Most of the humanoid species we know about seem to have lasted around a million years or so. So if we make a silly estimate that there's a 50% chance of a single planet humanoid species disappearing after a million years, then that leaves about 1/14427 of dying off in the next 100 years. That's way less than his estimate.

But none of that takes into account that we're the smartest species the planet has ever seen. It remains to be seen whether being the smartest species ultimately contributes to our survival or to our destruction, but my money is on our survival.

With that said, let's start colonizing. :)

Re:1 in 455?

[sholden]

You don't.

You say it is guarenteed to happen once every 45,500 years. The fact it is guaranteed to happen means the probability changes every second in which it doesn't happen and hence it makes no sense to assign a probability to time slices. After all if it hasn't happened for 45,498 years the probability of it happening this year is 50%... Whereas if it happened last year the probability is 1/45500 (unless it's "once and only once" in which case there's a 45499/45500 chance you might be completely safe).

But very few things are guaranteed to happen so it's pretty much irrelevant to reality. Some people would say nothing it guaranteed to happen (God could click his fingers tomorrow and turn every atom in the Universe into an eternal angel, or the robots could reboot the matrix while everyone sleeps...)

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what you are saying, and I understand why the probability would change continuously once the period begins, but the odds are the same across each of the 100 year periods before that. That is to say, any particular century is equally likely to experience the event and those odds are 1 in 455 which is what John Young said.

While many things are not guaranteed to happen, some things are so certain there is no reason to doubt its happening. For example, it is well enough guaranteed that another "Arizona meteor crater" type event will happen before the Sun destroys the Earth. Apparently, John Young believes the likelihood of a cataclysmic event in the next 45,500 years is 100%. Since we are at T=0 of that period, it is perfectly legitimate to say the odds are currently 1 in 455 for each century of that period.

Re:1 in 455?

[sholden]

How are we at T=0. What happened yesterday that reset some magial timer?

45,500 seems a little short to guarantee something like that. The planet is 5 orders of magnitude older than that time period, it's such a tiny little spec of time.

That such an event happens about every 45,500 years (though how you get such precision to 500 years in such a estimate I don't know) seems much more reasonable.

Though impact estimates I've seen have put mass extinction level impacts at once every 50-100 million years which is a tad less frequent than every 45,500 years.

Another "Arizona meteor crater" event will certainly happen again, but while it would not be nice to be nearby it wouldn't wipe out humanity. After all a slightly bigger one hit just under 100 years ago and we're still here posting on slashdot.

Considering how dispersed people are on the globe I find the 1/455 figure laughable. Wiping out modern civilisation is one thing, but wiping out humanity is a whole new ball game.

After all at those odds the chance that humans have survived the 2.5 million years from our prehistoric origins to posting on slashdot is 0.00000000000000000000013%. But here we are.

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, you're quite wrong, actually...

Seriously... Why the human race be more likely to be destroyed by a geological or cosmological event in the next 100 years than in the past 3000 or so of recorded history?

If you want to understand why you're wrong I suggest you read up some on statistics. Particularly on "independent events". Actually, the author isn't saying that the probability in the next 100 years is higher, he is actually refering to the probability over any 100 year period, and nowhere does he say that this is higher than over the last 3,000 or so years. This is because the probability of an asteroid hitting Earth is independent of (ie. not dependent on, or not affected by) when any other such incident occurred.

Re:1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "magical timer", we are at T=0 because we are free to choose our coordinate system (as we are in any problem). "T=0" means "today". If tomorrow happens then it will be "today" and, if we are still discussing this, it will be "T=0".

Anyway, I wasn't trying to debate the truth of what John Young said, what I am trying to point out is that, if you read what he said the way I did (100% probability in 45,500 years) then there is no other way to describe the odds as of today other than 1 in 455 for any particular century. Therefore, my original post was correct given my interpretation of what he said.

I do have to point out that, given mass extinction impacts happen periodically about every 65M years (the probability is not even through time) and that we've not had one in about 65M years, the odds of one happening comparitively soon are much higher than some apparently believe (although one in the next 455 centuries doesn't seem particularly likely).

Re:1 in 455?

[sholden]

But the interpretation makes no sense. The conclusion is irrelevant if the premises are flawed.

There is no extinction level (or even civilisation ending level) event that has a 100% probability of occuring within 45,500 years. I'm pretty sure John Young knows that and hence that particular interpretation is ridiculous.

It's exactly the same as arguing that because I say the odds of the coin I'm about to flip coming up heads is 50% that I am really saying there is a 100% chance of flipping a head in two coin tosses.

And if we are free to choose out own timer then we also choose one that starts 45,499 years ago, no? Hence your interpretation is that 2005 is the year we all die?

I do have to point out that, given mass extinction impacts happen periodically about every 65M years

There are only six data points to go on which makes concluding they are periodic events a little bit of a leap. Sure they are on average about 65 million years apart - which lets you say that the probabality of one happening in any given year is one in one hundred million or so (we can include the time since the last and the time before the first). I can't see how it lets you conclude any sort of periodic occurance though.

44 million years is the shortest gap, and 135 million years (the gap between the two most recent) the longest which doesn't seem very periodic.

Plus of course the Ordovician-Silurian event (well events, but lets ignore that) are generally accepted as resulting from the onset and then ending of a long ice age.

If you exlcude the Devonian to Carboniferous extenction, which took about 3 million years and hence is stretching the meaning of "event" then the average gap becomes 80 million years.

You can try to explain the occurances and argue for some kind of solar system cycle (passing through the plane of the galaxy disturbing the Oort cloud, for example) but if you get 65 million years as the period then the extinction events are evidence against the theory.

Re:1 in 455?

[Naepustus]

"You can't prove anything w/ statistics, however, given that there hasn't been a species ending event in at least the last 3.5 million years, you can say that it is statisticly unlikely that there is a 1/455 chance of one happening in the next 100 years."

Oh? I guess the ice age didn't do that much, then? How about extinction of Neanderthals, woolly mammoths, sabretooth tigers? All this in the last 20.000 years. Just because you don't know about an extinction event, doesn't mean there wasn't one.

Odds are off

[hkb]

You're 10 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you are getting killed in a commercial airline crash.

I've heard of numerous commercial airline fatalities in the news. Can't say I've heard of any civilization-ending events in my lifetime.

Sounds like FUD to me.

Re:Odds are off

[doi]

Can't say I've heard of any civilization-ending events in my lifetime.

Well, duh.

Re:Odds are off

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Despite the news, airplanes are safer per passenger than I think any other means of travel. Maybe rail is safer, I don't know. To my understanding, automobiles are quite a bit less safe than airplanes.

Re:Odds are off

[Twisted Grind]

Actually, the odds are dead on...for you. This data is for when you think of an inspecific individual. The way to get this figure is to multipy the probabily by the number of people the event would effect...when you're dealing with 6x10^9 people, well, the data suddenly appears a lot more convincing, eh?

Re:Odds are off

[Chirs]

Lets think about the stats for a bit to see why your statement doesn't logically imply anything.

Consider that the number of people involved in any particular crash is quite low compared to the number of people on the planet. Thus, while there may be multiple crashes in any given period, the chances of *you* being killed in that crash are quite low.

On the other hand, if you have a single civilization-ending event, by definition the chances of it affecting you are quite high.

So to estimate the impact on *you* in particular, you need to compare

(number of people killed in plane crashes)/(total number of people on earth)*(chance of a plane crashing)

vs

(number of people affected by civilization-ending event)/(total number of people on earch) * (chance of civilization-ending event)

Re:Odds are off

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. The trick is that when the airplane goes down, everyone on board dies instead of just a few people here and there.

Re:Odds are off

[damiam]

But an airline crash only kills a couple hundred people at most, while a civilization-ending event would kill 6 billion. The odds of you being involved in any individual airline crash are tiny, where the odds of you being involved in a any given civilization-ending event are pretty good. So even though airline crashes are more common, it's less likely that they'll affect you.

Re:Odds are off

[fzammett]

I've hard of one such event. Watch the news tonight.

Re:Odds are off

[benzapp]

Can't say I've heard of any civilization-ending events in my lifetime.

You haven't been to see the Ruins of Detroit have you?

Re:Odds are off

[LiquidCoooled]

What if Shumaker Levy 9 had impacted with Earth instead of Jupiter?

Instead of a bruise on its surface, we would be dead.

Re:Odds are off

[MasterC]

The frequency of an event happening in the news is inversely proportional to the frequency of the event actually happening in life.

Do you think the news has the time to make a 30 second story on every speeding ticket issued in the day? Of course not, but they have time to cover airplane crashes or murders because they are more rare.

That said, I guarantee if such a volcano explodes or comet hits the Earth then the news would have 24/7 news coverage of it (provided they're around to do it). Further supporting the inverse proportionality.

When the planes hit the World Trade Center, every news network had full, constant coverage. Again, further supporting the inverse proportionality.

Re:Odds are off

[spartan]

They were talking about human(s) in terms of more than one, not in terms of ALL HUMANS.

Re:Odds are off

[anonymous_wombat]

In the article, he referred to natural, not man-made events. Doing the math gives a 50% chance of man being wiped out every 31,500 years. If true, it is pretty amazing that it hasn't happened already.

Re:Odds are off

[Pxtl]

I heard this was a falsehood peddled by the airline industry - they measure safety as "fatalities-per-passengenger-mile". You tend to fly a lot further than you drive. IIRC, if you calculate per voyage its closer to riding a motorcycle.

Yes, I am too lazy to go digging for a link.

Re:Odds are off

[Xiaran]

Maybe rail is safer

Not if you live in the UK.

Re:Odds are off

[manifoldronin]

Note that there is _huge_ difference between: 1. you hear about a civilization-ending event vs. you hear about a commercial airline crash, and 2. you get killed by a civilization-ending event (duh) vs. you get killed in a commercial airline crash.

Re:Odds are off

[manifoldronin]

Doing the math gives a 50% chance of man being wiped out every 31,500 years. If true, it is pretty amazing that it hasn't happened already.

Well _we_ wouldn't know if it has happened, would we?

Re:Odds are off

[bestguruever]

I've seen a few. I was certainly less civil after the DMCA passed. More seriously, how can you be sure. Any number of the insane things going on this day could spiral into us wiping each other out.

Re:Odds are off

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

I wish (Score: 6 Funny) was available...

Mod parent up.

Re:Odds are off

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Instead of a bruise on its surface, we would be dead.

Naturally. However, don't forget that Jupiter's gravity is much stronger than ours AND we're much closer to the sun, which means our gravity well is much shallower, the Sun's gravity well is respectively a much larger target, and the end result is that a Shoemaker Levy comet is more likely to simply zip past us or have it's trajectory deflected by the Sun.

Re:Odds are off

[TiggertheMad]

Can't say I've heard of any civilization-ending events in my lifetime.
BR> I don't know about that, I'd say the recent US election pretty much ended civilization as we know it...

Re:Odds are off

[FireIron]

"The extinction event will not be televised."

Re:Odds are off

[Anonymous Coward]

Anthropologists and archeologists are still trying to decide whether any civilization ever existed in Detroit. Opinions vary, this remains a very controvertial subject.

Re:Odds are off

[jc42]

... the recent US election pretty much ended civilization as we know it.

Not really, but our troops are working on it. Stay tuned ...

This does remind me of the story about someone asking Gandhi what he thought about Western Civilization. He reportedly said he thought it would be a good idea.

Re:Odds are off

[kernel_panic]

"I've heard of numerous commercial airline fatalities in the news. Can't say I've heard of any civilization-ending events in my lifetime."

No, but chances are you will be hearing of one within the next hundred years.

Re:Odds are off

[Evil Pete]

Can't say I've heard of any civilization-ending events in my lifetime

Yeah but they're doozies when they happen.

I don't think there is much risk in the next 10,000 years of humans going extinct. But the chances of civilisation biting the dust is pretty high. And the chances of our civilisation ending is just about 100%. Just look at history. To me the big question is: if civilisation goes into another dark age will we have the resources to come out of it? In space lots of resources, on Earth ... ahem.

Airline Crash

[zerosignal]

So there's a 1 in 4550 chance of me dying in an airline crash? That figure sounds suspiciously high.

Re:Airline Crash

[JemalCole]

I could buy that if you add "over the next 100 years" and imply "of near-continual airline travel." Maybe.

Re:Airline Crash

[doowy]

civilization-ending event: if one occurs, you will die. (and he claims one occuring in the next 100 years is 1 in 455)

Your mistake is not realizing an average person takes many, many, many more than 1 flight in their lifetimes.

According to the National Safety Council, your odds of dying are actually slightly worse. Your odds of dying due to injury in a plane crash are about 1 in 4,023 (see this table).

If you rarely fly, then your at a favorible statistical end of the spectrum with respect to fatalities due to injury by air travel - but remember, some people bank several flights each and every week for years.

Re:Airline Crash

[hibiki_r]

He's talking about 'the next 100 years', so let's do the math on that. There are more than 6200 million on Earth. We'll just made the flawed but simple assumption that the world's population will stay constant. if there was 1 in 4550 chance of dying in an airplane crash in this period, it'd mean that 1.36 million people would die in airplane crashes in this period.

This means that, on average, 13600 people would have to die in airplane crashes every year. In 2000 a pretty average year for airline accidents, 83 people died in airplane crashes. Even in 2001, couting all sept 11 deaths, we didn't not reach 5000 deaths.

I guess that the only way to explain this stats would be to claim that the reader files over a hundred times more often than the average person. I'll let someone else figure that one out.

Re:Airline Crash

[Zapdos]

Actually the average person lives in a third world country and will never fly on a plane. The average American, European, etc do fly much more often than 0. Still the average number of flights per world occupant would be a very small number.

Re:Airline Crash

[blogeasy]

That 1 in 4,023 statistic also applies to a lifetime of air travel. Those odds don't seem to bad.

Re:Airline Crash

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the course of 100 years? Yes. That is if you fly as much as the average citizen.

--
I actually *do* type this every time.

Re:Airline Crash

[Pragmatix]

Keep in mind that (at least in the US) we have very few commercial airline crashes. Private planes, however; go down all the time. I think in Alaska alone they were averaging 200 a year for some time? So I guess statistically it all adds up.

Re:Airline Crash

[gr8_phk]

So you think you're less likely to die in a plane crash. That means you're more like 1000 times as likely to die from a global catastrophy rather than 10 times more likely. Did you mean to discredit this guy, or raise the alarm even more?

Re:Airline Crash

[whizzer1187]

According to the CIA world factbook the current U.S. death rate is 8.34 / 1000. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ us.html

So for the 293 million people in the U.S. that's 2.44 million deaths. So if 1 in 4023 of these are due to plane crashes that's 607. Sounds about right.

Re:Airline Crash

[spotteddog]

Your mistake is in assuming the average person takes more than one flight in their lifetime (unless you believe in reincarnation then lifetimes would be correct).

My Grandfather never flew, Grandmother has never flown, and my mother has never flown. My older sister has never flown, and neither has my younger sister. The chances of my grandfather flying are zero (he has passed away), chances of my grandmother flying in her lifetime are close to 0 (she is in a nursing home), the chance of my mother flying is equally low (severe fear of flying). My older sister might fly, but is quite content to stay on North America. My younger sister might fly - hard to say as she is just now graduating college.

I, on the other hand, have flown on several occasions and most likely will fly more times this year than in all my previous 37 years totaled together (work related travel).

Your NSC statistics are a bit odd. The table gives one year odds and "lifetime" odds. If I die as a result of injury due to a plane crash that pretty much ends my lifetime so my lifetime odds just became 100% (due to the event). Not to mention that the "lifetime" odds were for someone BORN in 2001 (the year the data for the chart covers), not for someone already living in 2001.

The stats are all fine and dandy - they "suggest" how someone might be killed, not how long they may live (or when they might die). Something WILL kill me. Until then, I'm not going to be too concerned about what that something is - after then it won't matter to me anyway.....

Re:Airline Crash

[spotteddog]

BTW - the statistics really should have been called "Odds that x event caused a death in 2001" since the calculated the odds using the number of deaths in 2001 divided by the population in 2001. Lifetime odds were calculated by applying a life expectancy of 77.2 years to the mix.

The more I think about that page, the more I think it was a case of "gee I don't have anything to do today so I'll make up some statistics that really don't have much meaning."

Re:Airline Crash

[INetEngineer]

So, according to the odds of dying in an accident of any kind, I should rest 95.7% assured that I will most likely die of an "internal cause of mortality". Hmm... that leaves me sleeping well at night. I can hope for things like Cancer and other diseases or just to plain-ol' die somewhere.

Re:Airline Crash

[Anonymous Coward]

civilization-ending event: if one occurs, you will die.

False. There were humans alive before civilization, and can still be humans alive after civilization ends.

How'd they get 1 in 455?

[mopslik]

The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455

Dare I ask how that number was dervied? It seems awfully arbitrary, and full of doom-and-gloom.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[marika]

I wonder how we made it up to now then.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[stratjakt]

It came straight from someones ass, or more likely, the submitter or genious editors here at slshdot flubbed it.

If the odds of our species being wiped out within any givin 100 year span is 1 in 455, that would mean, statistically, we shouldnt survive more than 45,500 years.... Or at least our probability of doing so hits 0. And yet we've been here much longer.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[Anonymous Coward]

> more likely, the submitter or genious editors
> here at slshdot flubbed it

It's directly lifted from TFA, so "more likely" actually becomes "not at all".

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[jamesbuko]

he is an alien from another planet....don't you guys get it yet?!?

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[AviLazar]

maybe he meant to say some catastrophie would happen on those percentages. We get volcanos blowing up all the time, tsunami's, glacial melts, etc. And who knows, maybe tomorrow we will all blow up in some crazy natural event - i prefer to stay ignorant (unless something CAN be done to save my ass) and die as a happy unknowing stupid sod.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[aziraphale]

Not quite how it works.

In fact, a 1 in 455 chance of humanity being wiped out in each successive 100 year block gives us a 454 in 455 chance of surviving that 100 year block.

Our odds of surviving 200 years is the odds of us surviving the first block (454 in 455) times the odds of us surviving the second (another 454 in 455) - about 99.5%

In other words, the odds of us surviving 100n years is (454/455) ^ n. The odds of us making it through the next millennium, then, is (454/455) ^ 10; that equates to about 44 in 45, or a one in 45 chance of our species being wiped out before we see the next millennium bug.

The odds at 10000 years (n=100) diminish to about one in five that we'll all have been wiped out - that is, four in five that we're still here.

Around the 30 000 year mark, the chances we're wiped out are pretty much even. That would mean we'd tend to expect mass extinction events about once every 60000 years, on average. you could consider that as a kind of indicator as to the validity of the original statistic.

Beyond that point, it becomes easier to quote the odds we're still here than that we're not.

After 100 000 years, we get down to about a one in ten chance of still existing. In other words, out of all the possible ways the next 100 millennia could go, only one in ten of them finish with us still existing.

In other words, the number predicts survival is unlikely, but it's not impossible, and the odds keep dropping, but they don't reach zero.

Whether the 1 in 455 number is right or not is open to question, of course, but just because we've been around more than 45500 years is no reason to dismiss it completely.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[jfengel]

It sounds high to me. Species-level extinctions occur ever hundred million years or so. So in a 100-year period, I figure a one-in-a-million shot of getting wiped out.

Since the last extinction-level event we've had 650,000 centuries, not one of which has produced an event that would wipe out humanity. I don't know why he should expect that the next century will be any different. I call bullshit.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[PantsWearer]

I agree that humans probably have a pretty good chance of survival after a "species-level" extinction event, but humans aren't the only species on this planet and have a particularly high survival ability due to sheer numbers and tech-based adaptability. In fact, every species on this planet is a "single planet" species (unless aardvarks have been colonizing extraterrestial bodies behind our backs).

Just take the pleistocene as an example. Basically, there was a pretty major ice age about 11,000 years ago and a lot of species died off across the world (including sabre tooth tigers, wooly mammoths, etc.). This really isn't even considered a huge extinction event (see here), but that doesn't mean it wasn't a "species-level" event.

Since we're still around, there haven't been any events that have killed off everything as far as we've been able to determine. Some number of species have always dodged the event, even if most didn't.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[stratjakt]

It is how it works, forwards or backwards. If events A and B are exclusive, then the probability of A or B is p(A) + p(B). So, assuming that each 100 year span is the same as the next, the proability of us being wiped out approaches 1 at 45500 years - that is, if you buy this number.

The bigger problem is that the 1 in 455 number is based on the probability of events that we don't know anything about. It's pure pseudo-science fantastic-sounding soundbyte horse shit.

We don't know ANYTHING about supervolcanoes. Only what some geologists have imagined. "What if yellowstone is one giant volcano!" which leads to "what if it erupted?"

Of course, what if it isn't, or even if it is... What if "eruption" just meant the lava dome collapsing and doing nothing but aesthetic local damage.

We likewise don't know shit about meteor strikes. We have no idea how many meteors there are, of those, how many could strike earth, and of those, how many are big enough/fast enough to cause a major catastrophe.

Every other week I hear about a giant tidal wave, earthquake, volcano, or other threat to "survival of the human race". We don't know shit about any of these events because they've never happened. Any "statistics" coming out of any of it is just some number spit out by an inherently flawed mathematical model.

It's just as easy (and mathematically valid) for me to say there's a 1 in 455 chance that Satan's 1000 year reign of evil will begin in the next 100 years, or that we'll be enslaved by an alien race of tent caterpillars. Or that we'll all grow gills and move under the sea.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[jfengel]

I hadn't considered smaller events, like ice ages. To my understanding they tend to kill off only a very few species. The last big one killed off some very large mammals, but all the smaller ones survived. It probably also wiped out many heavily localized species of plant and insect, the kind that it takes a botanist or entomologist to tell apart from the nearly identical but distinct species 20 miles away. But as far as I can tell, if you're smaller than an elk and big enough to get out of the way, you should be able to survive those intermittent die-offs.

It's the really big ones that presumably lead to calculations like that, where the odds play interesting games because everybody dies all at once. But even taking that into account I can't justify 1 in 455 for the human species.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[Xeriar]

We have, however, gone through multiple mass extinction events.

So it's not out of the question.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[staeiou]

Uh, that would be true if the trend kept going along. All he states is that in the next hundred years, our chances are 1 in 455, not "every hundred years we have a 1 in 455 chance of dying."

You can make that kind of statistical analysis when the events are independant (not influenced by the outcome of the previous trial), but they are not. Obviously, our odds of dying from 2105-2205 are going to be different than our odds from 2005-2105.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[DarKnyht]

The odds at 10000 years (n=100) diminish to about one in five that we'll all have been wiped out - that is, four in five that we're still here.

If we are still around in 10,000 years we think we will all be far to senile to care whether or not we are killed in a planet-ending event.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[J. Charles Holt]

"After 100 000 years, we get down to about a one in ten chance of still existing" Frankly, I'll be happy to still be existing 40 years from now. I can only imagine how bad the Social Security situation is gonna be in 100,000 years.

Re:How'd they get 1 in 455?

[Stranger Than Fictio]

I don't know whether Mr. Young was misquoted or just mistaken, but it's easy to see that there's something fishy about the 1 in 455 chance of human extinction due to asteroids, comets, or "super volcanos" in 100 years.

Suppose that figure is true. Suppose also that this figure hasn't increased over the time in which human beings have existed on Earth.

Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) has been around for about 100,000 years. Homo sapiens as a whole is about 500,000 years, and homo erectus dates back to 1.8 million years.

Given the 1 in 455 per 100 years figure, the probability of homo sapiens sapiens surviving 100000 years is (454/455)^1000 = 11%. The probability of homo sapiens having survived from 500000 years until today would be (454/455)^5000 = 1.67 x 10^-5 (1 in 60000). The probability that homo erectus would have survived to evolve into homo sapiens, and that homo sapiens would have survived to today would be (454/455)^(18000) = 6.3 x 10^-18 (1 in a billion-billion).

This makes the starting assumptions of the calculation extremely unlikely.

Of course, maybe my second assumption, that the risk of extinction from asteroids, comets, and supervolcanos hasn't increased lately, was wrong.

I don't know what a supervolcano is, but geology usually changes on, well, geological timescales. As for comets and asteroids, I don't recall anyone mentioning the increase in impacts while I was studying astronomy in grad school in the nineties.

Still, maybe it's not that the frequency of such events that has increased, but that our chance of surviving them has decreased. I suppose one could argue that there are more of us and less nature to survive on, or that most of us don't know how to hunt, gather, or grow our own food, so perhaps a larger fraction of the population would die in such a catastrophe. However, it is not clear that such an event would cause the extinction of the species.

So, all in all, I'd say that 1 in 455 is a bit high.

It's a feature!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't procreate!

Flying cars and robots too...

[parvenu74]

And fifty years ago it was predicted we would all have flying cars and domestic servant robots by now too... As Yogi Berra put it: "Its tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

Re:Flying cars and robots too...

[nub_spangler]

Didn't he also say something about picnic baskets?

Sounds good but...

[mark99]

If the odds were that large, how come we have been around for like 30k-100k years already?

Still I agree with him, getting humans off the planet (especially their agriculture) would relieve pressure on all the other spieces.

Re:Sounds good but...

[takev]

1 in 455 for every hundred years means 45k years, so I guess we are already a little overdue to die, that could just be a statistical anomaly.

Re:Sounds good but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, taking his odds as being accurate and ergodic (not changing with time), the probability of a 30k-year extinction free run is about 0.516, while a 100k-year run is about 0.111. Maybe we've just been moderately lucky with our saving throws. 11.1% is pretty high odds by cosmological standards.

There is also observer bias in saying "it hasn't happened yet": i.e., if it HAD happened, no one would be around to make the calculation and no one would be complaining about how unlucky they were... ;-)

Not that I believe him, but it's not as ridiculous a number as you might think at first.

Re:Sounds good but...

[ArsenneLupin]

If the odds were that large, how come we have been around for like 30k-100k years already?

Number of humans. They are comparing the odds of one specific individual (e.g. "you") dying in a plane crash with the odds of the entire humanity being wiped out.

If you assume for instance 10 crashes/year with 100 ppl dying in each, and 10 billion humans in existance, that's a 1 in 100000 chance (10^10 / 10 / 100 / 100) of one specific human getting killed in a crash. If you consider an "average" lifetime of human species of 100k year, you get a probability of 1/1000 of a species-ending event within the next 100 years, which is hundred times higher than the previous probability.

Look positive

[roalt]

The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455

Why always look at the negative side of things? It would reduce the problem of slashdotting websites...

Re:Look positive

[Anonymous Coward]

it's those lousy pessimistic demi-crats, why can't he say that there's 454 in 455 chance of us NOT getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano? Plus, as long as Tommy Lee Jones is around we'll keep coming up with great ideas like routing the lava into the ocean with road barriers

Obligatory beowulf reference...

[jarich]

So he wants a beowulf cluster of planets?

Kewl!

Re:Obligatory beowulf reference...

[Leperflesh]

No no no. Just a RAID array. And not striped, obviously.
After all, we're talking about storage, right?
-Lep

Ooh, factoids!

[Xpilot]

You're 10 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you are getting killed in a commercial airline crash.

I betcha you didn't know that if you lined up 100 years of civilization-ending events side by side, they'd span 2,000,000 football fields from the Earth to the Moon!

Re:Ooh, factoids!

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the volkswagen beetles equivalent.

and...

[WormholeFiend]

"On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
- Jack, Fight Club

Sometime you hear people talk like they're going to live forever. Well I got news for you.

NOT!

Re:and...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack is the name of the character from the article the narrator reads about Jack's spleen. The narrator is actually never given a name in the film or book.

Re:and...

[Anonymous Coward]

The script writer and the Fight Club console game disagree.

Re:and...

[Surt]

Sure, it requires escaping the universe, but it's not impossible.

Re:and...

[Willard B. Trophy]

Keynes said it first, and more eloquently: "In the long term, we are all dead."

Re:and...

[DJ Super Dulce]

I've actually seen a pretty nice inductive proof for immortality.

Re:and...

[sad_]

Hey, that is my sig!

Statistics

[justanumber239]

He writes, "The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455." This reminds me of the old joke: 37% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Re:Statistics

[Attar81]

"37% of all statistics are made up on the spot. "

55% of all people know that!

1 in 455?

[mlong]

I wonder if he included historial observations in his odds. You know...like the fact we've been here for hundreds of thousands of years without getting wipd out. Or how about that our population is the biggest it has ever been which increases the odds that at least 1 human would survive a meteor impact, etc.

Umm....

[AsnFkr]

100 years ago you were 100 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event getting killed in a commercial airline crash, but it dosen't mean it happened.

Re:Umm....

[Yolegoman]

Hell, 100 years ago you were INFINITELY more likely to be killed by a civilization-ending event then by a commercial airline crash.

There WERE no commercial airlines back then.

Re:Umm....

[AsnFkr]

Dude, what about time traveling planes?

Re:Umm....

[msh104]

well, there sure was a possibility that someone back then would have invented it right?

Huh?

[helix400]

1 in 455 chance of humanity being wiped out in the next 100 years?

So every 45500 years, a mass extinction event takes place on Earth? That sure doesn't sound right.

Re:Huh?

[Erwos]

On _average_, humanity will be wiped out once during every 45500 years. And, yes, it does seem a mind-blowingly high probability, which casts a bit of doubt on Mr. Young's opinions.

Frankly, it kind of reminds me of the whole SETI thing - depending on which set of numbers you plug in, ET life is either a near certainty or totally impossible.

-Erwos

Re:Huh?

[Surt]

Especially considering that on average it has happened at least 100 times in the history of mankind already.

It seems like his estimate must be a hair off, or we're on the tail end of an amazing lucky streak.

There have been probably 10 events harsh enough to wipe out mankind in the last 2 billion years (and they have gotten less likely over time). How that translates to 1 in 455 or 45500 years is somewhat unclear.

Hyperspace

[Schezar]

For anyone interested in this sort of thing, I recommend Hyperspace by Michio Kaku

One of the discussions in the book touches on objective "levels" of civilization and species.

IIRC, it can be broken down something like this:

Level 0: What humans are now.
Level 1: Mastery of the entire energy capacity of a single planet
Level 2: Mastery of the entire energy capacity of a single solar system
Level 3: etc...

He supposed that Level 2 and beyond was the point at which a civilization was effectively permanent, able to survive anything less than the total heat death of the universe.

Neat stuff.

Re:Hyperspace

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you get certification though? Who do we contact for more information?

Re:Hyperspace

[fireboy1919]

Level 3: Master of the entire energy capacity of a single galaxy
Level 4: masters of the universe
Level 5: All power put in one place and given to one man for justice - He-man.

Level 2 is only permanent if you don't piss off any of the higher leveled species so much that they wipe you out.

Re:Hyperspace

[sconeu]

It's much older than Kaku. Piers Anthony touched on it in "Macroscope".

According to that noveol, Level 3 civilizations can master the entire energy capacity of a single galaxy.

Re:Hyperspace

[calibanDNS]

Robert Zubrin's works on the subject, The Case for Mars and Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization are also excellent looks at the subject. Zubrin talks a lot about the levels of civilization, and the timespan and resources that we need to achieve each. The major problem with goals like this is that humans are not used to thinking 10 years in advance, much less 10,000 year.

Re:Hyperspace

[sjwaste]

According to a citation in Kaku's book, Nikolai Kardashev is credited with the Type I/II/III categories for civilization. Just an FYI. It's on page 277, second to last full paragraph.

Great read, by the way. I'd recommend it to anyone who likes popular science books.

Re:Hyperspace

[Oktober Sunset]

Level 0: What humans are now. Level 1: Mastery of the entire energy capacity of a single planet Level 2: Mastery of the entire energy capacity of a single solar system Level 3: ???? Level 4: Profit!!

Re:Hyperspace

[Control Group]

Luckily, we know there aren't any level 3s out there.

Unless, of course, they're harnessing that energy simply to hang stars that emit light exactly as it would have been emitted if they weren't harnessing that energy...

...crap. Better dig my bunker deeper next time.

Re:Hyperspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Level 0: What humans are now.
Level 1: Mastery of the entire energy capacity of a single planet
Level 2: Mastery of the entire energy capacity of a single solar system
Level 3: Master of the entire energy capacity of a single galaxy
Level 4: masters of the universe
Level 5: All power put in one place and given to one man for justice - He-man
----------
Level 6: Sell action figures to nostalgic GenXers
Level 7: Profit!

How come...

[term8or]

Far more people have died in air crashes in the last 10 years than have died in worldwide extinction events in the last 1000?

Re:How come...

[thomasdelbert]

Plagues and wars are kind of a gray area. While the interviewee described only geological events, there are many biologically-caused event that cause mass death - how many millions were wiped out in the influenza epidemic of 1918? How many millions were wiped out in WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq? What if some lifeform's finger hit that shiny red "blow up earth" button and brought on a nuclear (or is it "nuke-you-lar"?) holocaust?

As for geological events? Normally an extinction level asteroid impact happends about every 26 million years. The last one was about 26 million years ago.

- Thomas;

In A World Where...

[American AC in Paris]

The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455

...oh, come now. Sure, he says "wiped out", but we all know that's just a teaser.

What he really meant to say is this:

The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact would be 1 in 455--were it not for the heroic actions of one man, his wise-cracking, non-WASP sidekick, and a plucky band of researcher/rock star/mercenaries...

Re:In A World Where...

[avandesande]

The 'super volcano' risk sounds completely bogus... over time the earth is cooling (radiologically) so statistically the odds of something happening becomes less and less.

Re:In A World Where...

[geoffspear]

Radiation has nothing to do with volcanic activity. The heat inside the planet is not caused by a nuclear reaction.

Also, your line of "reasoning" if you can call it that would also "prove" that no star is ever likely to go nova.

Re:In A World Where...

[avandesande]

yes it is.. i guess speaking out of your ass is on par for slashdot.

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/volcanoes.ht m

Re:In A World Where...

[zik0]

Buckaroo Banzai!

Re:In A World Where...

[egomaniac]

Radiation has nothing to do with volcanic activity. The heat inside the planet is not caused by a nuclear reaction.

I suggest you go read up on Lord Kelvin and his attempts to prove that the Earth couldn't possibly be millions of years old. He argued, quite convincingly at the time, that when you accounted for all known incoming and outgoing heat, the earth couldn't be more than about 10,000 years old or it would have frozen solid. And it is true that the earth is slowly cooling off, as the Sun doesn't provide enough warmth to keep our temperature this high.

Lord Kelvin was almost right. If there were no variables other than those he knew of, the earth would indeed have frozen solid in 10,000 years or so. But he performed those calculations before the discovery of a process called 'radioactivity', by which the nuclear decay of various substances produces very substantial amounts of heat. And fortunately the Earth has an absolutely incredible amount of radioactive material, the slow decay of which keeps us nice and toasty.

So, A) vulcanism is very much related to radioactivity. The earth would have frozen solid by now otherwise, and there would be no volcanoes. And B) while you're correct that the heat isn't caused by a nuclear reaction (rather decay), nobody said it was. The parent was talking about exactly what I explained here.

Re:In A World Where...

[fredrik70]

I was under the impression that some of the heat was generated by tidal forces from the gravitational pull of the moon - is that all wrong?

Re:In A World Where...

[cnettel]

There are interactions, but it would simply not be enough. Look at Venus and Mars. Which one has cooled down and is geologically passive? Which one has moons?

Re:In A World Where...

[khallow]

Bad choice. Last I recall tidal heating from the Moon and Sun generate at least as much heat as radioactive elements. Mars doesn't have moons of significant size and it's much further away from the Sun and hence experiences much less in the way of tidal heating.

Re:In A World Where...

[fredrik70]

yes, you got a point there. anyway, I glad we got it, we probably wouldn't be here otherwise!

Re:In A World Where...

[khallow]

The 'super volcano' risk sounds completely bogus... over time the earth is cooling (radiologically) so statistically the odds of something happening becomes less and less.

The Earth cools very slowly. So slowly that eruptions now are probably not significantly different from eruptions tens of millions of years ago. The same effect occurs on a local scale. For example, the Yellowstone caldera started out (16 million years ago) far more active than it currently is. But the hotspot probably has cooled significantly in the meantime.

On the other hand, I suspect that the Hawaii hotspot is at least as active as it's ever been. This graph from here claims a substantial increase in the hotspot's activity in the past five million years.

Given two sizeable eruptions Tambora in 1815 in Indonesia and Santorini in the Aegean Sea somewhere around 1650-1600 BC.

Re:In A World Where...

[cnettel]

I may have to check it, but remember that the tides on Earth are mainly affected by the moon. This is part because they follow a r^3 relation, so it vanishes very quickly with increasing distance. If the force was really significant enough, we could expect that the Earth's axis rotation would have been synchronized to the year. (Compare: Mercury, moon.) And while it's true that the day is getting longer because of the tidal forces of the moon, the effect is on the scale of a few hours for a hundred million years. But, IANAANAG (I am not an astronomer nor a geologist), so maybe it is more significant for the internal heating than I think.

Re:In A World Where...

[khallow]

Well, the Sun is roughly 500 times further away than the Moon, but it is roughly 3e7 times as massive as the Moon. That results in a tidal force roughly 1/5 to 1/4 that of the Moon's current tidal force.

And while it's true that the day is getting longer because of the tidal forces of the moon, the effect is on the scale of a few hours for a hundred million years. But, IANAANAG (I am not an astronomer nor a geologist), so maybe it is more significant for the internal heating than I think.

There's also energy tapped from the Earth-Moon orbital dynamics. That's a huge amount of energy trapped in the Earth's interior.

Eggs in a basket

[Gadgetfreak]

I've always figured that eventually the human race is going to have to branch out to somewhere other than Earth in order to survive. That's ignoring any "ice age/global warming" threats, or even the cataclysmic doomsday event. Eventually, we're going to run out of space and resources to live. Human kind certainly isn't going to stop there, and say "I think we've got a pretty good thing going here."

Spreading is inevitable.

where did the statistic come from?

[supersuckers]

from the article :

Q: Why should humans go back to the moon? A: The moon has a lot of resources that we'll learn how to use in this century and that will be great. ... The technologies we need to live and work on the moon will save us right here on this planet. Bad things are inevitably going to happen to us, like comet or asteroid impacts or super volcanoes. Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too. The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455. How does that relate? You're 10 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you are getting killed in a commercial airline crash. The most dangerous thing we do in Houston, of course, is drive our automobiles to work every day, so you know how dangerous that is and how many people get killed doing that. But wiping out civilization. ... It's not the point that we should move (to another planet). It's the point that the technologies that we need to live and work in other places in the solar system will help us survive on Earth when these bad things happen.

Ok, he's a 74 year old former astronaut. That doesn't make him more credible in my book when he makes such an ominous claim. Does anyone have a reference about this statistic?

civilization-ending event?

[koi88]

If the "civilization-ending event" is a war, I bet this war would spread to other plantes as well...

Still, the chance somebody survives would be better, of course...

Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

'Single-Planet Species Don't Last'

Seems to me the cockroach species isn't found on any other planets, yet they've survived more than one so-called "planet-ending" events.

Credibility Lost...

[Anonymous Coward]

This from a guy that smuggled a corned beef sandwich on a Gemini module! Countless lives could have been lost due to this thoughtless break of protocol. President Bush, please start a program to eliminate corned beef in our lifetime! :)

I agree

[Bryan Bytehead]

I've always said, "The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us are getting the hell off this rock!"

Re:I agree

[syrinx]

It would be nice if the meek inherited the Earth; seeing as the stupid have it at the moment.

Re:I agree

[ConsoleDeamon]

2 that

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the meek have already inherited the earth. Just look at GWB!

You're still here?

Re:I agree

[srussell]

The meek shall inherit the Earth. But then, we'll just take it back from them. What are they going to do about it? They're the meek.

--- SER

Re:I agree

[bertas28]

"Oh, it's the meek! Blessed are the meek! Oh, that's nice, isn't it? I'm glad they're getting something, 'cause they have a hell of a time."

Re:I agree

[gfreeman]

The meek shall inherit the Earth

If that's all right with the rest of you ...

One Planet ...

[Lodragandraoidh]

From the article: It's not the point that we should move (to another planet). It's the point that the technologies that we need to live and work in other places in the solar system will help us survive on Earth when these bad things happen.

Hello - the title of this /. article is misleading...

multi planet species

[BigGar']

You know if you just colonize a planet and don't have comingling in a reproductive sense with other colonies, the population of that planet will begin to diverge, evolutionarily speaking, and will eventually end up as a species different from the "home planet" And where does he come up with his, 1 chance in 455 over the next 100 years, statistic anyway?

Oh, Please.

[saudadelinux]

If we survived Toba, we should be able, as a species, to get through an asteroid or some such thing. Civilization would collapse, there'd be a huge die-off, but as a species, we'd bounce back.

ROFL!

[cavemanf16]

The title says it all: 'Single-Planet Species Don't Last'

And how, pray tell, could anyone possible conclude such a "fact" when NO known existence of life outside of our piddly little Earth has been found?

I moderate this article F.U.D.!!!

Re:ROFL!

[jcdick1]

Perhaps no one else has beaten the odds?

Re:ROFL!

[geoffspear]

Clearly, cockroaches have developed space flight and that's why they've lasted so long. NASA won't let him reveal his contact with their ships while he was in space, so he has to hint at it.

Pointless talking about this

[Richard_at_work]

currently, because we do not have the resources currently to shift a sizeable portion of our population to another planet, or even to orbit. Having 100 people on Mars as a backup plan incase Earth gets hit by an asteroid accomplishes nothing, as the offworld population size isnt big enough to sustain itself in the environment available, you need a sizeable number in an environment that can sustain them. To talk about this publically is really just incitement to public panic, or plain fantasy, ie 'Heres a possible disaster scenario that will kill billions and theres little to nothing we can do, discuss'. Talking about it wont speed up the required technology acquisition in order to make a sensible and fulfillable solution possible.

Re:Pointless talking about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, but talking is all normal people can do.

When the Soviets launched Sputnik, mainstream political types slammed it as a big PR stunt, after all, what good is a ball in outer space? Why talk or do it at all?

Little did they know, that ball would revolutionize Major League Baseball telecasting delivery. For good.

I agree that action and technological development is more important, but if people didn't have wet dreams about the future or realize a potential folly, I think we would of wiped ourselves out a long time ago.

random statistics

[justforaday]

Since we're pulling numbers out of our asses, I'm gonna say that I have a 1 in 5 chance of getting laid this weekend. Woohoo! That'll certainly make my Friday go that much faster...

Unsubstantiated Science?

[bozendoka]

Where is he getting 1 in 455? Maybe this should get an honorable mention over here.

Oh, and here's a free 'u' if you feel it's necessary: u

The Dominion

[Emperor Shaddam IV]

The Founders stay on one planet. Except for the few agents they send out. But they never became extinct. So this theory is false. :)

Re:The Dominion

[NetNifty]

Nope, they moved, at least temporarily, see here:
"The fleet then reaches the Founders' planet and opens fire, destroying part of the surface, but there is no change in the life form readings. Garak discovers their ships have been lured into a trap -- the planet is actually deserted. As he explains, their vessels are suddenly surrounded by 150 Jem'Hadar ships."

Re:The Dominion

[Emperor Shaddam IV]

Yeah, I knew that. But they always move to exactly 1 planet to maintain the great link. So they are always on 1 planet.

we'd be lucky to get 100 years....

[Anonymous Coward]

with bush in charge, i expect humanity to be wiped out sometime before 2008.

45,500 Years = 100% chance of human wipe-out

[stankulp]

"The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455."

This translates into a 1 in 45,500 chance of humans being wiped out in any given year, or a 100% chance in 45,500 years.

Homo sapiens has been around a lot longer than 45,500 years.

Why aren't we extinct yet?

Re:45,500 Years = 100% chance of human wipe-out

[Anonymous Coward]

This translates into a 1 in 45,500 chance of humans being wiped out in any given year, or a 100% chance in 45,500 years.

Er, no. Back to math class for you!

Re:45,500 Years = 100% chance of human wipe-out

[hairykrishna]

Well, basically, stats don't work like that. 1 in 455 in one year != a certainty in 45,500 years. Same as flipping a coin- flip it once and the chance of getting a head is 1 in 2. This doesn't mean that if you flip a coin twice you always get a 1 heads, 1 tails result.

Of course in this case it's all kind of irrelevant anyway because, as many posters have already commented, the guy seems to have pulled the statistic directly from his ass.

Re:45,500 Years = 100% chance of human wipe-out

[Anonymous Coward]

Your math is wrong. If I roll a six sided die once, I have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6. If I roll it six times, I don't necessarily have a 100% chance of rolling a 6. You're assuming that for every 1 wipe out, there will be 45,499 non wipe outs in the same 45,500 year block. This is false. Theoretically I could roll six sided dice until I pass away and never roll a 6. It isn't likely, but it's not impossible.

Re:45,500 Years = 100% chance of human wipe-out

[stankulp]

My math is at least as accurate as the math of this articles' author.

Re:45,500 Years = 100% chance of human wipe-out

[stratjakt]

The probability of getting one head and one tail is 1 in 2, however.

And the probability that we'd be wiped out hits 1 in 45,000 years with this mentally retarded model. It doesnt mean it will happen, it just means that this 1 in 455 statistic is pure pseudo-science bullshit.

Noone alive knows how a super volcano works. We've never seen one erupt. We don't know where they are. The entire field of study is a bunch of guesses and labwork.

Same goes for meteors. We have no idea really how many are out there, how many are Earth threatening, where they are.

So, the probability of event A is unknown, and the probability of B is unknown, and yet, the probability of A or B occuring AND destroying all human life within 100 years is 1 in 455?

Hell, do the math. P((1/0) + (1/0) * 100) = 455

The margin of error for this "probability" has to be close to infinity.

I wish slashdot wouldn't post this kind of shit. This type of pseudo-science horseshit is killing the intellectual community. Leave this style of reporting to the NYT or other tabloids.

The problem is asshats trying to boil everything down into a single probability, which they then proceed to misterm a "statistic".

Re:45,500 Years = 100% chance of human wipe-out

[blogeasy]

If I remember statistics class well enough I believe you would actually calculate the odds as such:

There is a 45,499 out 45,500 chance of actually surviving a given year. This equates to a 99.9978% chance of survival. This percentage is then taken to the power of the number of years you want to survive.

In this case to survive for 45,500 years with these odds you would have 99.9978% ^ 45,500 = 36.7875% chance.

So your chance of actually being wiped out would be 63.3212% instead of the 100% certainty of death. The odds a little better but not much.

Re:45,500 Years = 100% chance of human wipe-out

[manifoldronin]

Homo sapiens has been around a lot longer than 45,500 years. Why aren't we extinct yet?

Well We did - we were just _reloaded_.

Re:45,500 Years = 100% chance of human wipe-out

[Bigboote66]

Just to rephrase the parent post's argument, although there isn't a 100% chance in 45,500 years, it does mean that looking back through history, we should expect to see an extinction event about every 45,500 years. Given that we know of a single extinction event in the last 300 million years (which is around the time of the first land vertebrates - presumably more prone to asteroid extinction than insects or fish), the article's statistics still make no sense.

If we just use the information above (1 event in 300 million years), the odds become about 6500 times better - 1 chance in 3 million in the next 100 years.

-BbT

Re:45,500 Years = 100% chance of human wipe-out

[PhuCknuT]

You need to take a statistics class.

There's a 50% chance of getting heads when you flip a coin. Does that mean there's a 100% chance if you flip it twice?

Re:45,500 Years = 100% chance of human wipe-out

[stankulp]

Does that mean there's a 100% chance if you flip it twice?

If you flip it 45,500 times there is a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999% chance.

I Agree

[ConsoleDeamon]

We realy need to spread our resources, as long that we are concentered on this planet we hawe all eggs in one basket. Just a mather of time before we become a victim of cosmic pingpong

Humans already wiped out -- film at 11000 BC

[fritz]

If "[t]he statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455", then the statistical risk of humans having been wiped out in the last 100,000 years is 88.9%.

So it's almost certain that none of us are here. You're not reading this. Cockroachs are the dominant species on earth.

Re:Humans already wiped out -- film at 11000 BC

[kyouteki]

We're just all really lucky, that's all.

Re:Humans already wiped out -- film at 11000 BC

[mailman-zero]

Cockroach[e]s are the dominant species on earth.

Judging by every apartment I've lived in, no matter how clean I've been and how vigilant I've been against them cockroaches have managed to become a daily occurance after about two years. (Part of it is that they don't all die in the Winter in California.)

In my experience, cockroaches really are the dominant species on earth.

Shouldn't we all be dead already then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Naturally we have little chance of being eradicated from the planet anytime soon.

I think its likely we'll self destruct however considering how much war and conflict occur's even in this modern age. We've came so close to killing ourselves so many times now.

Funky math

[ShinmaWa]

The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years [...] is 1 in 455. You're 10 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you are getting killed in a commercial airline crash

Let's see.. this would put the odds of getting wiped out in a commercial airline crash at 1 in 4550 -- meaning, if this were true, that there would be dozens of commerical airline crashes every day. Three per week out of O'Hare alone.

That alone makes me call BS on this whole article.

Re:Funky math

[AvantLegion]

>> That alone makes me call BS on this whole article.

Indeed. I guess this guy's mother was an astronaut too.

Re:Funky math

[miltimj]

I'm assuming he means:

You're 10 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you are getting killed in a commercial airline crash in the next 100 years .

So 1:4550 would be the calculation if you only were on one commercial airline flight in the next 100 years... most likely it will be many more than that, which gets it closer to the 1:5,000,000 chance (or whatever).

Re:Funky math

[aaarrrgggh]

Well, I'd guess it is more like there is a 1:4550 chance of being in a commercial airline crash over the next 100 years. If airline flight stays at a constant level, that's more like one in a half-million per year.

Re:Funky math

[yeremein]

Let's see.. this would put the odds of getting wiped out in a commercial airline crash at 1 in 4550 -- meaning, if this were true, that there would be dozens of commerical airline crashes every day. Three per week out of O'Hare alone.

I don't think Young is saying that your odds of dying on one particular flight are 1 in 4550. He's saying those are the odds your life will end in a plane crash, most likely assuming you fly an average amount, maybe a couple times a year.

Re:Funky math

[geoffspear]

The claim is that you have a 1 in 4550 chance of dying in a commercial airline crash in the next 100 years. I don't believe that's an accurate figure, either, but it doesn't imply that 1 in 4550 planes will have a fatal crash.

Re:Funky math

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see.. this would put the odds of getting wiped out in a commercial airline crash at 1 in 4550 -- meaning, if this were true, that there would be dozens of commerical airline crashes every day. Three per week out of O'Hare alone.

If you use the same time frame for each, he's saying that 4550 people will be killed in commercial airline crashes in the next 100 years. That's 45 deaths per year, or a single major crash every four or five years or so.

Re:Funky math

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As a previous poster pointed out, the average person's odds of dying in a plane crash are actually worse than that. According to this fact sheet from the National Safety Council, the average odds for you to die in an air or space transport accident is 1 in 4,023 over the course of your life. Of course some people are much higher or lower than this depending upon how often they fly.

Re:Funky math

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I agree with TFA, but your reasoning is oversimple:

Suppose you take 4 flights per year, and have a chance, p, of surviving each one.

Then to die in the process of taking 100 years of flights (400 flights) has a probability of 1-(p^400). This is the sum of probabilities of all events where at least one of your flights crashes, which is equal to 1 minus the sum of probs of events where none of your flights crashes. Postulate that this is equal to 1/4550.

Then by algebra, p^400=4549/4550.

Solving with logs, you get p=~0.999999450489

This amounts to about a 1-in-1819800 chance of dying per flight. Interesting.

Re:Funky math

[khallow]

Your math is incorrect. Let p be the chance that you survive one flight and suppose you keep flying till you die in a plane crash. Then your expected number of flights you survive is

p+p^2+p^3+... = p/(1-p).

So set p/(1-p)=4000. You get p = 4000/4001. Hence, your chances of surviving a flight are 1 in 4001.

Re:Funky math

[SeattleGameboy]

I don't think Young is saying that your odds of dying on one particular flight are 1 in 4550. He's saying those are the odds your life will end in a plane crash, most likely assuming you fly an average amount, maybe a couple times a year.

Bzzzzt! Try again.

Following your logic, over 50,000 US citizens living today will die via commercial airline crash.

Even if you add up EVERYBODY who has been killed in commercial airline crash since the beginning, they do not add up to 50,000.

Re:Funky math

[khallow]

Nevermind, I see your point now. I misunderstood you. Sorry about that.

Re:Funky math

[yeremein]

Following your logic, over 50,000 US citizens living today will die via commercial airline crash.

I can't vouch for Young's statistic; I was just correcting the impression that he's saying the odds that any given airplane flight will end in a crash are 1 in 4500. Clearly he wasn't saying that, or planes would be falling out of the sky left and right.

If he's not saying your odds of dying in a commercial plane crash are 1 in 4550 (and again, I'm not saying I agree with this statistic), then what is he saying?

Re:Funky math

[SeattleGameboy]

Q: If he's not saying your odds of dying in a commercial plane crash are 1 in 4550 (and again, I'm not saying I agree with this statistic), then what is he saying? A: Simple, he is saying "I am a washed up astronaut and need some PR to make me feel better. And I know that wilder my claims are, more press coverage I am likely to get."

Re:Funky math

[Anonymous Coward]

's cool, brother.

Have a good weekend.

God Will Just Make More!

[b3x]

Never fear kids ... currently the big guy upstairs is ramping up production for human v2.0, all kinds of new features and bug fixes.

better start saving now for upgrades, if you thought doom 3 was bad, you aint seen nothing yet!

Re:God Will Just Make More!

[WarPresident]

Never fear kids ... currently the big guy upstairs is ramping up production for human v2.0, all kinds of new features and bug fixes.


It's not the upgrade that I fear, it's the reboot...

Re:One Planet ...

[stewby18]

Hello - the title of this /. article is misleading...

You must be new here.

Old quote, but good:

[sahonen]

"Dinosaurs are extinct because they didn't have a space program."

Says everything, really.

Re:Old quote, but good:

[Croaker]

"Dinosaurs are extinct because they didn't have a space program."

Oh yeah? How do we know that the impact off of the Yucatan that wiped out the dinosaurs wasn't due to the crash of some attempt to launch a crew of brontosaurs into orbit? Do you know how much energy a rocket full of brontos would pack? The Truth That They Don't Want You To Know (this week) is that the dinosaurs went extinct because they had a space program!

Look for my amazing new book on this subject "Really Friggin' Ancient Astronauts: T Minus for T-Rex" at a bookstore near you, soon.

Re:Old quote, but good:

[loshwomp]

"Dinosaurs are extinct because they didn't have a space program."

This quote means well, but it's dumbed down to the point of being misleading. A better explanation would be "Dinosaurs are extinct because they were hopelessly incacapable of adapting to climate changes."

The idea that dinosaurs were "wiped out" by a catastrohpic meteor event is hardly accepted as fact, despite what you see in movies and on the television news. It's a well-supported theory, but even at best, its effect on the reptiles was from climate, and not because the meteor vaporized all those lizards or anything.

The point is, what we need to do in the short term (you know, the next few thousand years or so) is make sure we can adapt. A meteor isn't going to vaporize ALL of us, but it sure might make our planet a lot different.

Re:Old quote, but good:

[kevinx]

they had a space program and many left. unfortunately they went to mars and suffered a similar fate.

Re:Old quote, but good:

[pknoll]

"Dinosaurs are extinct because they didn't have a space program."

This quote means well, but it's dumbed down to the point of being misleading. A better explanation would be "Dinosaurs are extinct because they were hopelessly incacapable of adapting to climate changes."

Just so. Dinosaurs are really extinct not because they couldn't build spaceships, but because they couldn't make parkas. Or light fires. Or build dwellings. Etc. etc....

Though a global catasrophe could make the Earth uninhabitable to humans, it would have to be a lot more severe than the climactic changes that spelled the doom of the dinosaurs. At least, one would hope.

Re:Old quote, but good:

[Cro Magnon]

How do we know that? Maybe some of the dinosaurs DID get off this planet, and they're zipping around the universe in king-sized flying saucers now.

Re:Old quote, but good:

[Anonymous Coward]

The always excellent PBF comic for this comment here

e

Re:Old quote, but good:

[tetsuji]

A global catastrophe could do a fair job at wiping out humans simply by interrupting the food supply. It would not take long for us to degenerate to savagery in fighting over the remaining resources on a global scale.

We would end up doing most of the work of our own extinction ourselves.

Re:Old quote, but good:

[Idarubicin]

"Dinosaurs are extinct because they didn't have a space program."

That tired old quote?

Everybody knows that the real reason was their several pack a day smoking habit. (Thanks, Gary Larson!)

Re:Old quote, but good:

[bitspotter]

neither did cockroaches.

Re:Old quote, but good:

[khallow]

This quote means well, but it's dumbed down to the point of being misleading. A better explanation would be "Dinosaurs are extinct because they were hopelessly incacapable of adapting to climate changes."

Well, the human race has yet to show that it can survive climate change in its current technological state. Eg, will global warming and global instability eventually trigger a nuclear war ending the human race on Earth? Probably not, but I see a lot of lack of preparedness out there.

Re:Old quote, but good:

[fermion]

For help you might want to look at the documentary called The Terrible Thunderlizards, which ran with Eek! The cat. It revealed research that suggested a reptile civilization at least as advanced as 20th century humans. Another revelation, though not new, was that a primitive humanoid species existed contemporaneously with the much capable reptile species, but the humanoids were too clever for the reptiles.

The later findings are corroborated by any number of respected books and television shows. By comparison, Eek! was intellectually devoid, and no significant assertions about the nature of life were ever made, other than the obvious lesson that no good deed goes unpunished.

Re:Old quote, but good:

[Anonymous Coward]

The Precursors did manage to launch some ships successfully however. Now I finally know what they evolved out of!

Re:Old quote, but good:

[808140]

Serious reply to a funny: did you know that Brontosaurus never actually existed?

It really messes with my childhood. Sigh.

No need to prove - assume the worst

[October_30th]

Yep. Let's just keep all our eggs in one basket and bet on the chances that ~5 billion people won't be wiped out by any single event.

Lets think about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the sake of the universe, perhaps our nasty, parasitic species SHOULD confine itself to one planet...

Re:Lets think about this...

[ZB Mowrey]

Fuck your nasty parasitic self all you like. If you find a species that exists in harmony with its surroundings, it's a sure bet that species doesn't live on earth. EVERYTHING that lives is intertwined in the fates of the other living things around it. Get over it, ya matrix fanboy wannabe.

Super volcano???

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy has (as humans go) jumped the shark.

Statistics?

[abertoll]

Wouldn't this have been the same chance of being wiped out "in the next 100 years" for the past (how long have humans been on the planet?) Call me skeptical, but either that statistic is wrong or it's pulled out of...

Nevermind, the point is if the chances are 1 in 455, that means that roughly every 455 years a civilization-ending event must be occuring. I don't see that, do you?

Re:Statistics?

[spike2131]

you didn't multiply by 100. its once every 455 centuries. i think that means we are due.

Re:Statistics?

[raytracer]

Nevermind, the point is if the chances are 1 in 455, that means that roughly every 455 years a civilization-ending event must be occuring. I don't see that, do you?

The odds are 1/455 per century, so the supposed extinction events occur roughly every 45,500 years. I don't see that either, but it is slightly more credible.

Re:Statistics?

[chgros]

Its once every 455 centuries
On average.
I think that means we are due.
Not at all.
If you roll a die a get a 6 10 times in succession, you're not any lesslikely to get a 6 on the next roll.
Here it's the same. Just because it hasn't happened in a long time, doesn't mean it's "due".

Re:Statistics?

[Phleg]

Not supporting his statistics or anything, but that's a 1 in 455 shot in the next hundred years. Presumably that means a civilization-ending event would happen every 45,500 years at the current rate. This still seems low, but it would probably be taking into consideration the average rate of catastrophe occurring, how long it's been since we've had one, and an increase in the probability of one occurring as time passes.

So?

[NotQuiteReal]

If every last human died in some global disaster, while it is sad to think about a priori, if it were to happen, by definition, there would be no one to care about it after the fact.

Wouldn't the universe be more ecologically sound if homo sapiens died off?

Re:So?

[Surt]

No? Mankind can have no meaningful impact on the ecological soundness of the universe. Once you have the technology to spread beyond your home galaxy, you really don't need to 'damage' the ecology any more. That even assumes you can actually define damage to the ecology. If you haven't left your home galaxy, then you're talking about damaging less than a hundredth of a percent of the universe, so that's really down in the noise in terms of the overall ecological soundness.

I bet a single-planet species is no worse off...

[Anonymous Coward]

...than a single-solar-system species or even single-galaxy species. I won't stop worrying until we're in place in multiple galaxies, but I'm a Peirson's Puppeteer, so I might be biased.

What about one-star species?

[pla]

While I agree with the overall idea (we need to get stable off-planet colonies ASAP), we need more than just the moon or Mars.

Most of the possible "civilization-ending" events will actually leave quite a few humans alive, certainly enough to reestablish civilization over a few centuries. The "really big" problems involve our primary, the Sun. If that stops behaving in a very calm, consistant manner, we all die, no recovery possible.

At the very least, we need a colony beyond the asteroid belt. Sadly, no large rocky planets exist out there (though perhaps one of Jupiter's big-4 moons would suffice). Better yet, a truly extrasolar colony, but that would require information we don't quite have yet (such as a likely Earth-like planet around another star).

Re:What about one-star species?

[Mumpsman]

Mr. Fusion is a more likly scenario than finding an extra-solar habitable planet, developing the technology required to get there (generation ship, or FTL travel) and colonizing successfully.

A non-solar, stable energy source and a cold, dark planet would suffice...

Although the quality of life on such a place would really blow.

Re:What about one-star species?

[Dominic Burns]

I agree, but I think you're missing the bigger picture. If our single universe stops behaving in a very chaotic, mathematically insane manner, we all die, or don't, with any, all and no possible end results, all happening at the same time, never and forever.

Or not.

Re:What about one-star species?

[Peldor]

What about one-universe species?

Look. The universe isn't going to make it. This thermodynamics we've got is whacked. In the real long run, we're all dead because of it. Build all the hyperspace drives and Dyson spheres you want, you won't stop entropy. Heat death of the universe. Game over, man. Game over.

If we don't get out of this reality soon, it's all over.

Re:What about one-star species?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats exactly why mankind evolved. The rescue the universe from chaos. Life is able to create order from chaos.

Although...it costs energy, which is technically entropy, but we can perhaps put it away somewhere safely:)

Now accepting bets

[mumwahead]

I'd like to start accepting bets for when civilization will end. You can pick any day and any amount, just pay me up front and if the world ends on your day you'll be very rich indeed.

Talkshows or "raise NASA budget"-tour

[NoSuchGuy]

In 2 weeks they retire.

They want the invitationmoney for talkshows to talk about "space things".

An other reason might be they are on a "Raise the budget for NASA"-Tour. When they seed fear maybe politicans will "move" more money to NASA.

Incomming!

[10000000000000000000]

well we are certainly in the trenches of a galactic battlefield.
Tracers fly over our heads nightly.
Our nearest outpost is riddled with bullet holes.
It certainly seems rational to spread the troops out so that a single mortar round doesn't take out the whole company.
I've been watching band of brothers alot lately :D

I wonder

[u-238]

how the whole modern P.C. multicultural thing will tie into this.

Great Old Ones

[MooseByte]

"What other higher order species that has multi planet colonization did he do his evaluation against?"

The Great Old Ones and their minions? Those Mi-Go are pretty hardy buggers.

On the specifics of this report's premise, it seems to me to be a hell of a lot cheaper (and more realistic at the present) to ensure humanity's survival by being able to "Go Deep". If the we could harness geothermal power down deep, we could power lights that could grow plants in our subterranean cities, etc. and keep ourselves going.

Sure we'd end up living on glowing fungus in the end, and evolve big giant eyes and go all pasty-white pale, but then when we travel back in time to visit Earth in the 1960s-80s we'll look like we're supposed to.

Must be Friday. I need a drink.

---

Cthulhu holiday songs, for the gift that keeps on loathing.

Re:Great Old Ones

[Pxtl]

Really? I thought we'd eat the surface dwellers.

Re:Great Old Ones

[AviLazar]

As long as we had a sheet of glass & power to show our holographic librarian who is too witty for his own good - we should be OK.

And, obviously, a hot babe who lives on the side of a cliff wouldn't hurt.

Re:Great Old Ones

[pankajsethi]

You know what happens when you dig too deep into the earth. Don't you know what happend to Bali and his people. Gandalf was afraid of him. The Balrog..

Re:Great Old Ones

[wronski]

You get to know /.rs by their references. We've had so far:

- H.P. Lovecraft (could also mention Cthonians, btw)
- HG Wells' the time machine (we'll all move to the basement err.. underground and forget what sunlight is like. It is happening already.
- JRR Tolkien (we'll dig too deep and wake the Balrog, that as we all know does *not* have wings.

We could also mention Zion (the Machine will track us down!), just for completeness sake.

Re:Great Old Ones

[MooseByte]

"We could also mention Zion (the Machine will track us down!), just for completeness sake."

Heck yeah! All that sexy dancing by firelight in the caverns. Fightin' off Agents. What better way to pass the centuries while the surface recovers from the Doom From Outerspace?

We still get to eat glowing fungus though, right?

Re:Great Old Ones

[Wudbaer]

That guy's name was Balin. Bali is the Indonesian island.

Re:Great Old Ones

[klevin]

There's also the Chtorr. Implacable, unstoppable, avarice incarnate. You know, earth's still in the fixer-upper stage and just needs a bit of Chtorr-forming before it turns into a beautiful Craftsman style home on a sleepy, tree lined street with well trimmed lawns and flower beds full of daisies, daffodils, tulips and roses. Or whatever the Chtorr equivalent is.

I just wish Gerrold would finish the series. I can still remember the silent scream of anguish four or five years ago when I was done with "A Season for Slaughter" and realized it had been written three years before and number five was in limbo.

'Single-Planet Species Don't Last'

[warpSpeed]

Tell that to the cockroaches...

Re:'Single-Planet Species Don't Last'

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Tell that to the cockroaches...

Just wait until we sick the robots on them!

Re:'Single-Planet Species Don't Last'

[Anonymous Coward]

They are called Mexicans, not cockroaches.

Re:'Single-Planet Species Don't Last'

[DirePickle]

Call me when the cockroaches survive the death throes of the sun.

Re:'Single-Planet Species Don't Last'

[warpSpeed]

Call me when the cockroaches survive the death throes of the sun.

Note to self: call "DirePickle", Dec 20th, 1,000,002,004

Shace Shuttle "fleet"

[Anonymous Coward]

"In related news, the Shuttle overhaul program is on track for a May 2005 launch."

And acording to TFA:
"NASA is on track to make the improvements needed to meet its goal of returning the space shuttle fleet to service as soon as May 2005"

Well... I guess if you want to call two out of four left a "fleet"... hey, more power to ya'.

Damn it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you stop writing about armageddon-type stories? I've been having trouble swallowing food for the past few months, and this is the very thing that has been making it worse.

good to know..

[kevinx]

I've just installed some extra padding my tinfoil hat. I'll be safe from asteroid impact. If everyone does the same it will insure the continuation of our species.

ps. I recommend using sterile cotton balls as opposed to standard home insulation.

...good luck.. I hope to see you all after the "big crash".

Civilization != humankind

[lawpoop]

OK, so a catastrophe wipes out civilization. People (anatomically modern humans) have been around for about 200,000 years, but they've been living in cities (the anthropological definition of civilization) for only about 5,000 -- and not everybody has been living in cities for the past 5k. So I think we'll do alright.

Disaster

[Anonymous Coward]

The only disaster currently for humans is american dominance :)=

What a relief...

[noblesse oblige]

So I can get blown up (or just become terminally ill) from a terrorist attack, starve or freeze to death in radical climate change, or become a slave in a new world order.

Why two hundred years ago people were crossing the prairie listening to wolves and bears while burying their family members to the incurable flu. I wonder if they were as conscious of their mortality as we are. Probably were, and more so, but they left the cities non-the-less. I wonder why I imagine them so well adjusted compared to the /. frenzy of bad science and foreshadowed doom.

I suppose the real difference is that a wooden wagon and log cabin were within their reach, but alas a spaceship is not. Then again, even Christopher Columbus needed government assistance. I've been getting into the space cowboy/space pirate memes of the 70's. The space bureaucracy operas of late (Bab5, ST:TNG, Star Wars prequels, etc) just don't have the same flair.

Civilization ending event end of civilization

[PIPBoy3000]

Civilization is notoriously fragile in some respects, though incredibly tough in others. Any event that kills of 75% of people would likely destroy our advanced civilization, but it would probably come back in a few generations. Science in particular would have endless documentation scattered about the world. Heck, just read Mote in God's Eye for a description of cyclical civilizations.

The other thing to consider is that the Earth would have to be made completely uninhabitable to make other locations in the solar system look good. Even Antartica is preferable to the moon or Mars.

Where are we going to go?

[Red Rocket]

He's worried about a life-ending event on this planet but ignoring the fact that all the other planets we know of have already been made uninhabitable. This is just FUD for people who don't want the responsibility of taking care of their own home.

Re:Where are we going to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't anyone read the damn article? The man suggests inhabiting other planets because they're currently uninhabitable. Which means that we will have to come up with some technology to survive over there. Which in turn means that we should be able to survive any cataclysmic events happening to earth, except of course major solar instability.

Forgetting something?

[phillymjs]

NASA Shuttles:
Atlantis
Challenger (destroyed 1986)
Columbia (destroyed 2003)
Discovery
Endeavour

Looks like there are three left, to me. Which one did you forget?

~Philly

Re:Forgetting something?

[WormholeFiend]

Space Shuttle Enterprise?

Re:Forgetting something?

[phillymjs]

I didn't forget it, it doesn't count-- it was a shuttle technology testbed that never flew into space, not a "real" shuttle.

~Philly

Get off this rock

[earthforce_1]

While the exact numbers quoted may be subject to debate, they are qualatively right. One only needs to look at the extinction rate through history to see that most species do not hang around very long when you consider time frames in the millions of years. If the history of the universe was compressed into a 24 hour day, we have only been in existance for the last 1.5 seconds. And of course there is an ultimate doom facing life on earth when Sol leaves the main sequence and enters the red giant phase, boiling alway the oceans and ultimately swallowing the inner planets.

In order for humans to get off this rock in significant numbers, we need revolutionary advances in technology that reduce the cost of reaching orbit by several orders of magnitude. Research can and should be undertaken towards eventually seeding the atmospheres of Venus and Mars with engineered teraforming bacteria. Snagging one of Saturns icy moons and blasting it out of orbit towards the inner planets should provide enough water for the teraformed worlds. The space elevator seems our best hope for now, but research on nuclear propulsion should be stepped up, despite the public phobia around any and all things "nuclear". Yes, there will be accidents and mistakes, as with every new endeavour. The early polynesians who set themselves adrift on a raft and cast their fate to the whims of wind and waves in search of a new home sometimes met with disaster. It didn't stop others from trying.

Read this

[Have Blue]

Aliens Cause Global Warming, by Michael Crichton. It's a great explanation of why claims like this are meaningless and bad science.

we have bruce willis

[Anonymous Coward]

he'll climb into a big super advanced rocket and blow up that damn rock before it destroys the planet.

Nice Holiday Spirit

[Serff]

We're all going to die...Enjoy it while you can...Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Great thing to bring up this time of year (Or any other time of year...) don't ya think?

So it must be dumb luck we got this far...

[joshv]

Given those odds, and the fact that until about 1000 years ago there weren't very many of us humans around, I find it amazing we got this far. Our hominid ancestors have survived and thrived for many millions of years in this perilous environment.

Obviously the many thousands of events this 1/450 statistic predicts over the span of our evolutionary past weren't enough to wipe our ancestors out, I doubt such events will wipe us out.

-josh

Psychological hurdle

[bigberk]

I entirely agree with Young (I've been saying this stuff for a decade) but my major concern is getting the people with power to make this happen.

I just don't see it happening, because people in power worldwide are in power because of mainly selfish reasons; they want power or influence. On top of that humans are notoriously handicapped when it comes to seeing the big picture -- polluting their own resource base, contaminating their own water, etc.

So there is this major psychological hurdle, or handicap for humankind as a whole. We have to do certain things if we collectively want to survive, but absolutely everyone will put mundane priorities -- passing their next exam, getting a raise, getting a friggin tax break well above ensuring that humankind as a whole will survive. Case in point: total lack of concern for environmental initiatives, perpetually trumped by financial greed.

Insanity?? Yes. Humans are not rational; we are very, very stupid animals. I guess we all deserve to die :(

Where did he get his numbers?

[amightywind]

The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455. How does that relate? You're 10 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you are getting killed in a commercial airline crash.

My repect for John Young's intelligence is gone. Is he suffering from Alzheimers? A terminal K/T like comet or asteroid impact is a 1 in 50 million year event. A super volcanic eruption like Taal or Yellowstone is about a 1 in 500,000 year event and would only be locally devastating, but wouldn't mean the end of Homo Sapiens. He must be getting his numbers from the same people who make global warming predictions.

Single-Planet Species Don't Last...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and neither do astronauts who don't toe the NASA line and keep their mouths shut about stuff like this. Coincidence that he waits until just before retirement to speak out? I think not!

probably a much bigger number

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

like raised to that power, I would say not in 1 in 455 but 1 in 1^455. Whew, no I feel safer.

ba da bing

Re:probably a much bigger number

[Pxtl]

Smooth. 1 in 1^455 is 1 in 1, which means you're dead. Dead people don't post on Slashdot, so begone.

I think you meant 1 in 1x10^455, or 1 in 1E455.

Re:probably a much bigger number

[Anonymous Coward]

nah i think he meant 1^455. He just assumed that any base in combination with ^455 would result in a freaking huge number.

Great.

[kahei]

Yay, we can stop worrying about actual pressing problems that we can fix, and focus on remote possibilities that we can do nothing about! Why, this could take our minds off pollution, climate change, and the failure of antibiotics for _years_!

Oh, no, wait, it's just random numbers created by this one guy who used to do something or other.

Back to worrying about actual issues, then.

Re:Great.

[king-manic]

Please outline all the problems that simply money will solve.

I can only think of one,
1- King-manic isn't rich. Money will solve this.

The rest (education / health care / pverty / starvation) are more complicated then simply lacking funding. The poor are poor for more then want of money. They don't know how to manage money and thus will lose any money they have. Poor healthcare isn't just a problem with funding, money can solve a few problems but doctor and nurse shortages are very difficult to solve. Poor education has as much to do with culture as it does with funding. The education focused societies can do education cheaper then those that value other things, America will always be under educated because it doesn't value it in more of it's diverse cultures. Look at the harassment of "nerds" as an example. Money won't solve this and thus America will always be under educated until the society value the educated.

All these problems have a certain issue where moeny woudl solve, beyond this extra funding would be wasted without other changes to those systems. Right now, space exploration is under funded. thus the amount of real benifits that woudl come out of funding nasa mroe out weight the amoutn of benifits from putting the money elsewhere, such as into a horribly planned war.

(Note to overzelous patriotic american mods who will mark this troll, I have no issues about why the war is fought. It's a PR war that also advances america's desire to control the oil. this is a prudent and interesting move to secure the power base of the US. I object to the way it's beeing run. By beuracrats that give hazy unattainable goals.)

history repeats itself...

[Anonymous Coward]

"the world is flat..."
"no one can reach the moon..."
"we found new land..."

its just a matter of time before we say:

"I live on planet 'x' right next to jimbob on delaware street in district 'y' in the city 'z'..."

Plot to get NASA some cha$h

[bogado]

It works like this :

1st make the american people really scared. with some bombastic news.

2nd vote for new budget for NASA

3rd eventually you assume that the 1st news were somewhat exagerated or a sompletly lie.

4th be re-elected... ops, this was't suposed to be here, or was it????

seems fishy

[spac3manspiff]

Would Solog be behind this aswell?

This reminds me of the "Overpopulation" crowd...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is kind of a tangent, but this thread reminds me of the people that are concerned about overpopulation.

As I see it, a planet can never be overpopulated. If viewed from an economic or capacity standpoint, a planet can support X number of people. Once the number of people exceed the planet's capacity to support them, they start dying off, until the number is reduced to the point where X falls back under the capacity threshhold.

The value of X grows with technological and efficiency breakthroughs, until efficiency is perfected, resulting in 0% waste.

At that point, barring further technological advances, X becomes a hard ceiling.

It is at this point that non-planetary resources must be tapped in order to sustain the planet's population.

Nitpick

[Hamster Of Death]

I hate to nitpick, wait no, I LOVE to!
There is only ONE solar system.
That happens to be the system of planets / objects that interact with our sun, coincidentally called 'Sol' (by the Romans).

Other star system are not correctly called a 'Solar system' because there is only one Sol, which if you tilt your head upward and stare directly into the bright spot, you'll see.

No actually, it's 1 in 3.1415926...

[freality]

C'mon, don't you believe me? I'm an astronaut.

Certainly there is a statistical risk that we'll be wiped out by asteroid or volcano, but.. PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCES so we can all evaluate your maths. It's called "science". It's loverly, really.

Sounds like a new candidate to run the CIA....

[Neversoft]

Lousy science and the use of dubious statistics to assert the author's real intent. Good enough for us Americans! Sign us up... it makes as much sense as the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq! The only thing this article accomplished was it got me thinking about the chances of my jet crashing into a super volcano on my next business trip.... -- Dave

Such a stupid argument for a valid point

[jinxidoru]

This is something I hate, people having really valid points and then corroborating said points with ridiculous arguments. 1 in 455 chance of being hit by a comet, having an earth shaddering volcano, or whatever? Did he even think that over before he said it, or has weightlessness affected his ability of discernment?

Unfortunately, this clouds the fact that spreading out the species is a good idea. It is a very precarious situation that we find ourselves. Almost every country has their fingers on the triggers of weapons that could do more damage than all but your largest asteroids. We naively thought it was all over after the Cold War. Having another colony would be great because it would create enough distance that political relations between Earth and Mars (for example) would be able to progress very separately (for the most part). It would be a long time before people were in close enough contact to start hating each other enough to kill one another. Hopefully, by that time we'd have more colonies, and the human race would be spread over the galaxy. Then again, is that really a good thing for the galaxy. Maybe pulling that trigger now would save the galaxy a lot of problems.

But, in any case, 1 in 455 may sound silly for a natural event, but I'd say it's not too far off for chances that we'll all kill ourselves, or do enough damage to equate to anhilation.

Re:Such a stupid argument for a valid point

[Control Group]

Actually, I figured this out once (for a short story I wrote which the interested can read here). In 2000, the total world capacity for nuclear destruction (counting only known weapons, of course) was ~13,000 megatons. Making certain assumptions about density (taking the median density of known asteroids, which is significantly higher than any mostly-ice comet would be), it only takes a ~600m rock hitting the planet at ~27kps to expend ~26,000 megatons of energy. The velocity I used was about 10kps higher than average impact (because these were launched with malice aforethought), but I was also doubling the target energy.

Unfortunately, I've lost the data and calculations, but I remember them being pretty well born out by the asteroid impact calculator that showed up on slashdot a while back.

(I'm at work; I don't have the time to do all the research and digging I did for the numbers then, but if you're willing to, it's not hard to figure out for yourself)

stating the obvious?

[Chip7]

Isn't this like, stating the obvious? We all know that if you place all MP3, p0rn and zeraw onto a single HD and it fails or gets lost, you just lost everything. Well the Earth is just one big basket and we're all eggs on it. If it "drops" we're all doomed for sure.

Oh there might be some survivors but in what state will there be and what kind of planet will be left? Of course this depends on what kind of event will occur but i won't go there. If it is a near extinction event and there are some survivors (and i don't want to be one!), they'll go back to the stone ages with village elders telling stories about people living in tall, straight mountains and moving around by sitting inside very fast things.

We can fix this

[__aamcgs2220]

No worries, mates. We can avert the untimely demise of humanity quite simply: Blast John Young into Outer Space with a one-way ticket to Uranus. Annihilation postponed! Happy retirement, John...

The only way creates a quandary

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to colonize other planets is not just to improve technology to get us there and sustain us - but we have to change the humans who will colonize to better fit their new environment with less overhead. It is utterly impractical, if not nearly impossible, to carry along and maintain all of the life support systems required to sustain on another planet or in space humans in their current form.

But if we send changed humans to colonize - are they really human anymore? Are we preserving the human species by creating another species? What then is the point?

The Irony of the Shuttle story

[Anonymous Coward]

If Michael was linking to the shuttle story as evidence of progress in space colonization he is very misguided. Almost all serious scientists agree that the Shuttle and the ISS are are huge wastes of time, money and effort, and do very little to further the colonization of the solar system or space travel in general.

We need to the huge sums wasted on the shuttle and ISS and invest these resources in sustainable research programs on propulsion systems and artificial habitat development instead of the dog and pony show the ISS and shuttle programs represent.

The danger is ourselves

[saforrest]

The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455.

I find that kind of hard to believe.

I'll admit I haven't yet read the article, so I'm assuming this figure 1/455 is an accurate summary of the article. If not, take this is as a criticism of the summary.

I think we can assume that this risk has been present for, say, the last million years at least, as it depends on external factors like asteroids and not human actions. This means that the chances of _not_ having a mass extinction within the last 10,000 years are (1-1/455)^100 =~ 0.8025 = 80.25%, and of not having one within the last 100,000 years are (1-454/455)^1000 = 0.11 = 11%.

Go back slightly further, and the probably of a mass extinction is almost a certainty.

Obviously mass extinctions happen, and one of them is probably going to finish us off one day or another. But this figure seems exaggerated.

What kind of probability estimate would you assign to the chance that some crazy government or malfunctioning computer system launches an ICBM within the next 100 years? I think a lot of the stuff you hear about this is alarmist propaganda, but I would still estimate the risk of us killing ourselves to be much higher than a natural disaster. The Earth has been here for millenia. We haven't.

Re:The danger is ourselves

[Fweeky]

The 1 in 455 figure is for you an an individual. The absolute proability of such an event happening is very low, but if it did happen, it would affect *everyone*. Plane crashes happen quite a lot, but their level of affect is vanishingly small compared to an extinction event, so the probability that you yourself will be involved in one is comparitively low.

It's also fairly clear that, with more people alive now than at any previous point in history, the probability that any given human will experience such a major event is higher than it's ever been. That doesn't mean it's more likely to happen, just that there are more people who would be affected if it did.

Doesn't mean we need to bankrupt ourselves in the process of colonizing Mars or whatever, but certainly with so many people absolutely dependent on one single resource it makes sense to put a fair amount of effort into reducing that dependency.

Re:The danger is ourselves

[saforrest]

The 1 in 455 figure is for you an an individual. The absolute proability of such an event happening is very low, but if it did happen, it would affect *everyone*.

Yeah, I'm talking about the absolute probability.

The chance that I would be affected given that a significant asteroid impact into Earth occurred is almost 1. MYy point, however, was that the absolute probability is very low: given what we know of the Earth's past history, 1 in 455 is way too high an estimate for a cataclysmic natural disaster of sort described.

It's also fairly clear that, with more people alive now than at any previous point in history, the probability that any given human will experience such a major event is higher than it's ever been. That doesn't mean it's more likely to happen, just that there are more people who would be affected if it did.

What? I don't understand this point at all. Do you mean 'any given human alive now', or 'any human, out all humans who have ever lived'? I'm assuming you mean the former, because the latter makes no sense.

You just argued that any such event would affect everyone. So it doesn't matter if there's 5*10^9 or 5000 people. The probably that it would affect any particular human, given that it happened at all, is the same: almost 1.

Bullshit

[Dusabre]

1 in 450 over 100 years. Or 1 event per 45,000. Or 8 per 400,000. So homo sapiens has been wiped out eight times or has been extremely lucky. Impossibly lucky if you figure in homo sapiens ancestors.

I call statistical bullshit.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Your extrapolation is complete bullshit. Well done!

Richard Branson

[gearmonger]

Looks like Virgin Galactic Moving & Storage is a great investment opportunity!

John Young's statements were attributed...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to an overly tight o-ring.

Re:Civilization ending event end of civilization

[bigpat]

This is a good point. The chances of civilization being detroyed, are far greater than the species as a whole. We have multiple examples on earth of civilizations falling because of natural disasters and climactic changes. During that time civilization usually remained in pockets, but if suddenly international or interregional commerce failed then we would cease being able to maintain the technologies that we now rely upon.

Obviously, oil is the biggest one of these, but also the transportation of other raw materials and food are vital to the existance of our civilization. Just think how far your lunch today has travelled to be in your stomach.

Individuals though would likely get along, as a few people need only a some number of acres of arable land with some supplies to eek out an existance.

I say he's wrong.

[James Turpin]

Asteroid impacts tend to happen on a 26 million years cycle. That doesn't mean they happen every 26 million years, but for unknown reasons (Planet X, possibly) they become more likely at 26 million year intervals. We are at the 13 million year point. The chances of an impact are therefore far less than usual. Volcanoes, on the other hand, were a contributing cause to the collapse of many a civilization. But exctinction? Unlesss they precipitated a war, and the human race commits sui-geno-cide, I dare say not bloody likely.

Dibs on Phobos

[Wandering Wombat]

Mostly because it's just fun to say... Phobos... Phobos! Go on, try it!

Seriously, though, you can set people up anywhere, provided you invest enough. You can get oxygen from moonrocks, energy from solar (which on the moon would be quite efficient), you can grow fairly limitless amounts of crappy food in BGA tanks with a steady supply of energy (see solar). As a race, we can set up shop pretty much anywhere.... if we wanted to. We just don't want to.

NSC statistics are hard to use

[kahei]

IIRC, the NSC statistics for dying in an air or space transport accident include way more than what are typically considered 'plane crashes'. For instance, military accidents are included. And for 2001, I suppose it's possible the 911 passengers are included.

Actual deaths by commercial plane accident in that year were 300, I think. Generally the risk is very roughly in the ballpark of 1 in 50,000 per flight (for commercial international carriers).

Re:NSC statistics are hard to use

[Cuthalion]

If you have a 1 in 50k chance of dying in a commercial flight, over just 13 flights, you accrue a greater than 1 in 4023 chance of death.

Either one of these statistics is wrong, or the average person flys less than 13 times in their life. That seems low.

Misleading title

[Spy der Mann]

Hello - the title of this /. article is misleading...

Oh no! what a scandal! :-o
I can't believe such a thing happened in slashdot! We're ruined :'(
(lol)

Even astronauts aren't always rocket scientists

[taustin]

If the odds of a species ending natural event were really 1 in 455 every 100 years, one would have happened, on average, every 45,500 years throughout history. Since we know this isn't the case, the claim is utter rubbish.

I wonder if Young has a job lined up with Microsfot bashing Linux, and is just practicing.

moderation question

[Pompatus]

Quick question: How do I moderate a story -1 flamebait?

Do we know of any non-single planet species?

[GrimReality]

I haven't read the fine article, but I could not resist asking a couple of question (which I am going to ass-u-me that the article does not answer) And hence it is being put forth for the "wise" consultation of Slashdot. ;-)

Do we know any non-single planet species?

How would their reaction be? Would they recommend it?

I am probably looking at it from a different angle, but what the flip, it would be fun to meet a non-single planet species anyway.

smoke screen?

[Anonymous Coward]

How convenient. So, when a huge "asteroid" happens to hit, say, China, nobody should be surprised. Just the randomness of celestial mechanics or an act of God.

Super volcanoes exist.

[phillymjs]

The eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 belched enough ash into the atmosphere to block out some sunlight and temporarily alter the global climate, which negatively affected the harvest that year. It was effectively a relatively mild, non-nuclear 'nuclear winter.'

I don't know if Krakatoa qualifies as a super volcano because of that, but there is a currently-dormant volcano that apparently is considered "super" in Yellowstone National Park.

~Philly

Re:Super volcanoes exist.

[Neversoft]

Krakatoa... isn't that east of Java? ;-)

Re:Super volcanoes exist.

[AlphaJoe]

That's funny...I thought it was the big green monster in Clash of the Titans...

Re:Super volcanoes exist.

[CarnivoreMan]

I think its safe to say that Yellowstone is for the most part just one big freakin volcano. Thats the whole reason its a park, and why it has all the cool stuff. I wish I had known it was a volcano back when I visited as a we lad. I wonder why this isnt more widely known, its very cool stuff. I was reading about volcanoes a couple months back when came back to life and thats what I learned of Yellowstones history and how absolutelly massive it is. I cant find the site but it showed a good volcano rankin system with references.

marking the rise in Yellowstone's surface over the past year. Thats quite and impressive grow rate imo.

It would be splendaculous if Yellowstone popped within my lifetime.. the results mights suck though huh? =)

Re:Super volcanoes exist.

[CarnivoreMan]

whoops.. messed up my links. Guess I should use preview. Here are the ones I wanted to throw in..

I was reading about volcanoes a couple months back when Mount St Helens http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/News/framework.htmlcame back to life and thats what I learned of Yellowstones history and how absolutelly massive it is.

Here's an image http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vyelupli ftmap.html marking the rise in Yellowstone's surface over the past year.

Re:Super volcanoes exist.

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think its in Yellowstone National Park, it /is/ Yellowstone National Park. At least that is what the all knowing "the History Channel" told me, their map looked convincing.

Re:Super volcanoes exist.

[dustinbarbour]

No.. Krakatoa wasn't a super volcano. The volcano that lies under Yellowstone would make Krakatoa seem like a hiccup. Yellowstone really could cause death and black out the sun over a period of years. krakatoa, though a big volcanic eruption, pales in comparison.

I can't find the energy to care...

[stevejsmith]

I don't know where this man is pulling 1 in 455 from, but just assuming it's true, it just doesn't add up. He's making the mistake of assuming that everyone desperately doesn't want our civilization to die. Now, if you think you're the chosen people and have this deep, undying devotion to the human race this makes sense, but honestly, I'm fairly indifferent about earth getting destroyed - so long as it's not in my lifetime. If it is in my lifetime, it will be a little unfortunate, but I don't see any reason to try to avert it.

Call me callous, but it's just hard to care. The universe had gotten along just fine without some small species trying to alter its course of actions...and even if not...we'd all be dead...what the hell do we care? Besides everybody dying in a near-instantaneous, virtually painless event, nobody will suffer because of this.

YAANJ (Yet Another Astronaut Nut Job)

[meme_vector]

WOW. What is it about being an astronaut that makes these guys so goofy? Gordon Cooper thought we had been visited by aliens.

Now this guy thinks that a "single planet species" cannot survive.

I hate to bring up that unpleasant "science thing", but can he cite any empirical evidence of a lifeform that has survived by colonizing multiple planets?

Or is he just talking out of his, er, evacuation tube?

Re:YAANJ (Yet Another Astronaut Nut Job)

[Phurd Phlegm]

I hate to bring up that unpleasant "science thing", but can he cite any empirical evidence of a lifeform that has survived by colonizing multiple planets?

To adopt the postion that we will not consider things like "what is the future of humanity?" until we have a statistically valid sample of intelligent alien races is fatuous.

His position that human lives are threatened by cosmic impacts is supported by a considerable body of evidence--see for instance the Impact Database. Given the extreme brevity of the interview, I don't think labeling him a "nut job" is reasonable. He may have a good point if allowed to expand on it. The interview was so short it was hardly worth a mention on Slashdot.

Let's make up statistics!

[HarveyBirdman]

Or as they call them in Arkansas, sah-teestics.

There is a 1 in 3500 chance of the Earth being invaded by blue, puffy aliens who are defeated when someone realizes you can pop them with a lit cigarette. The final alien holdouts are in the unfortunate areas that banned smoking.

The stars predict a 1 in 579 chance of George Clinton becoming President Of The United States because people think he's Bill Clinton running again. George declares the United States a "Funkadelic Zone".

My sources say there is a 2 in 2111 chance that a revolt against reality television will, somehow, lead to Paris Hilton being elected pope, and France becoming a rabid hyperfundamentalist Islamofascist dictatorship. The pedophilia problem in the Catholic church will worsen, but the official attitude of France toward the USA will remain pretty much the same.

I prestidigitate a 1 in 4567 chance that the Apocalypse will occur in the next 10 years, and the Anti-Christ will be revealed to be an unholy soul-sharing triumverate of Eddie Vetter, Al Franken and Condoleeza Rice.

Scientific projections indicate a 1 in 1 chance that supersymmetric superstring theory will unify the forces of nature and prove, once and for all, that the true color of humanity is seventeen shades of suck. A despondent mankind will actually send a mission into space to redirect an ELE asteroid TOWARD the Earth.

Look! there's a meteor and it's falling on me!

[shubert1966]

If we have to filter air we can do that. We learned the St. Helen's lesson, but there are people who have no choice.

A meteor, well, probably not a bad idea just to station the moon, right?

Now why would any country want to do that? [military industrial intelligence]

So, you have a sex shack in space with the provisions to assemble a colony for fallout on Earth to subside. Does each nation get a representative for free? How do they get back? It's just another way to find a way to spend that much ca$h, so someone gets paid.

Aquatic lifestyles do wonders for humans and we should pursue that easier course. Until we can afford the moon, we ought to preserve what little we have left with drastic reality-checks about product production, free will, and the environment all around. It takes Earth to make Earth.

Water is the universal solvent.

Populate the Moon

[Drewser]

Wow, now that's great advice. By moving to the moon, we will all save ourselves from being killed by some earth-ending disaster. After all, the moon is a smaller target for astroids to hit and there are no volcanoes. I guess it goes without saying that we would have no way of getting oxygen or food or that the same astroid that killed Earth could have knocked the planet out of orbit sending both Earth and us to our impending doom in the Sun.

I doubt the human race would be wiped out.

[Unknown Poltroon]

Werre pretty damn durable. IT would still be us, the rats and the cockroaches. However, I could easily see our civilization being wiped out. See the difference?

It is much easier to attack than defend.

[Dan667]

A planet ending event just has to find one way to succeed. People on many planets makes this not possible.

Re:It is much easier to attack than defend.

[BorgCopyeditor]

A planet ending event just has to find one way to succeed.

Now that Kerik is out of the running, maybe you should apply for the job. "We've got to be right every time."

Flaws

[kponto]

Say what you will about flaws in the numbers and his questionable logic. The fact still remains that nothing mankind has ever done will matter one little bit if we're wiped out. Shakespeare, Beethoven, Linux...nothing, gone, like it never existed.

While one can argue that none of it may matter anyway, as long as we're alive, that's not a certainty, but the minute we're wiped out, it is.

Although my sig...

Re:Flaws

[dastardly_villain]

How is that true? Because we're not around, it doesn't matter? What if there was civilization on Mars 35 billion years ago? That has no relevance to us now? If that's the case, I guess NASA should just stop trying?

5 Million years from now, if life comes to this planet and discovers life existed here before them, I think it'd make quite a bit of difference to them.

/. - News for environmental alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455"

By some strange coincidence, "Physics 455" was also my undergrad stat mech course. These kind of studies are just bullshit, though, as are the typical numbers for "chance of dying in a plane crash", etc. I don't trust numbers at all. "90% of all statistics is bullshit", somebody wrote recently... I think that number is probably more like 99%.

Re:hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf? Just because you can't understand stats, can't use them properly and can't see when others are using them either correctly or incorrectly doesn't mean stats are useless.

It just means you're an ignorant moron. Stats are important, the fact that they're easily abused doesn't necessarily make them any less valuable.

So...

[kkovach]

If New York isn't flooded with sea water within the next 100 years, it'll be hit by a giant asteroid!

Run for your lives!

- Kevin

It's far more likely that we do it to ourselves

[C3ntaur]

There's no need to look to the heavens for a possible cause of our demise. The fact is, a terrible amount of destructive capability is within the reach of an increasing number of people -- not all with good intentions. We worry about nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon proliferation among nations today, but as the technology advances and becomes more affordable, tomorrow we'll have to worry about their proliferation among individuals.

Sadly, for many of these scenarios there is no defense but to be far, far away when it happens. In some cases, the only defense will be to live in a different biosphere entirely. So even though I think the odds of a cosmic disaster quoted here are FUD, I do believe that there is plenty of reason to start preparing. Space colonization is an idea whose time has come, and one way or another I do believe our survival as species depends on it.

So What

[lowvato]

Do we really need to care? Is it a testament to the human species that we are considering putting poeple on another planet so that they can watch a big rock smack Earth and wipe us all out? Damn! I bet if 100 yrs go by the cultural differences will be enough that the blokes on Mars (or whereever) will consider Earthlings a bunch of back water hicks (back planet in this case) and secretly spend lots of time day dreaming about the demise of the mother planet. My only heartfelt pang is that it would be a shame for technology and invention to be set back to 0 (at least in this plot of the universe).

Re:Funky math - Mod Parent DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it when /.'ers think they know stats.

To come up with the likelyhood that you will die in a commercial airline crash, they take the number of deaths due to such a crash over the course of the year / number of people that fly over the course of the year. This gives you the odds that you will die in a plane crash in any given year. Multiply that by 100 (since this is over the course of 100 years) and you will see that the summary is infact correct.

Moderators modding /. articles they don't understand can be very dangerous. Remember, mod points are a terrible thing to waste.

--
I actually *do* type this every time.

Pinky and the Brain

[khrtt]

So, after all, Pinky and the Brain will have their day?

We are a single planet species?

[4ginandtonics]

Who sez so?

Maybe they should do more research before making such statements:

http://www.abduct.com/

my $0.02

[compro01]

natural disater wipes us out? maybe. i doubt that there is many disasters that can render the whole planet unihabtiable. a big asteriod, maybe. even then, it would have to hit on land which is maybe a 40% chance. in the water, you'd have a big tidal have, devistate costal areas, but leave the rest of the planet fine. on land, massive dust eruption, sunlight blocked, tempature falls, plants die, herbavores die, carnivores die, we die, provided we don't come up with a clever idea like an underground city powered by geothermal energy and hydroponics and such.

we fling nukes around the planet and send the whole planet into a nuclear winter? more probable, especially given the current state of the world.

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you twit.

The statistic is that your odds of dying in the next 100 years of a plane crash are 1 in 4,550. One way to interpret this is to see if your odds of dying of a plane crash are about 1/450,000 per year. According to http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskcompare.htm, he's a little off but not nearly as much as you suggest. For all we know, he's just making round numbers (a more precise figure using these numbers would be that you're ~30x more likely of dying of civilization's end than of a plane crash, in the next 100 years, an even stronger figure than he suggests.)

Re: Soooo...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been bathing in the blood of sacrificed virgin maidens for nothing?

You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me callous, but it's just hard to care.

You know, I'm pretty much a misanthrope, but this whiney depressive "oh, who would miss mankind?" attitude a lot of you people have these days is really pathetic. Gawds, you're like those fanatical envirofreaks who act like mankind is a virus that needs to be exterminated.

Go get some damned therapy or something, because that is not a mentally healthy attitude.

Re:Prove it necessary

[rjamestaylor]

Same thought, initially. Then, granting the supposition that a planet-wide catastrophe could wipe out all human life, another thought occurred: if we're here and only here, why would we think it good or proper if we survived elsewhere? Seems the arrogance of species to me. Besides, the human species may survive on Mars should Earth fail but how does that benefit me, exactly? And, will I have brodband?

speaking of airline crashes

[circletimessquare]

what about the likelihood we will wipe ourselves out?

so that even if we go to another planet, i think that the worst enemy to our continued existence is ourselves

Re:speaking of airline crashes

[Artifakt]

It's a paradox - the arguemnt runs:
1. natural causes of extinction have not changed significantly since long before humans evolved.
2. All the added risk to us is man-made causes of extinction.
3. We can avoid (at least some of)those risks by colonizing other planets. New colonies on Mars and beyond can get decoupled from the political institutions that pose the man-made risks.

BUT... If the risk of a suicidal war or stupidity based accident taking us all out is really that high, then it is also true that the social institutions will suicidally and stupidly set up colonies so that they will inevitably be dragged back into the general collapse of civilization. As we make the mistakes that will lead to our short sighted deaths in a wave of gray goo/nuclear exchange/skynet awakening/whatever, we will also make the mistakes that will lead to our colonies being kept tied to the social system so that they can't survive either.
If we are too stupid to implement real disarmament/stop melting the ice caps/build asteroid deflectors/stockpile enough flu vaccines/whatever, we will also be too stupid to let colonies become completely self sufficient/experiment with new forms of government/stay neutral in the devastating final war/whatever.

Return of Christ Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Christian I believe there's an infinite to 0 chance that the world will end in a cataclysmic event resulting in this planet ceasing to exist.

Therefore, I do not fear any earth ending disaster.

However, I do believe that a meteor can strike this planet and cause major destruction. Sodom & Gomorrah anyone?

Yeah, OK, Brainiac

[digitalcowboy]

The idea that this sort of thing can be predicted mathematically and with statistics is ignorant on its face.

This is a clear example of someone who has been educated beyond his intelligence.

It's also a clear example of why I didn't waste time in college. I would rather make money than accumulate degrees. Most professors are cowards that can't cut it in "the real world." Their students are often worse because they think they CAN cut it in the real world.

Intelligent men educate themselves.

Knowledge is power... Unless you're stupid.

(And, No. I did NOT RTFA because it's ignorance.)

Why is common sense so rare?

Re:Yeah, OK, Brainiac

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh thanks for sharing that, I'm not sure how it relates to the story at hand but I get the feeling you have to proclaim that to an audience a couple times a week at least. Am I right? You're a little insecure about having not gone to college?

Re:Yeah, OK, Brainiac

[Control Group]

Wow, you're right. I can't believe how ignorant we've all been using statistical modeling to make predictions...good thing those casions are lucky enough to have stayed profitable all this time based on statistical modeling. Better let them know it's crap before they all go bankrupt!

I also can't believe it never occurred to me that one guy making a bogus claim is such a comprehensive, ringing indictment of higher education. And here I've been trusting those morons who wasted their time getting MDs and DDSs to patch me up. Think of the money I could have saved learning how to perform surgery on myself!

It's a good thing you've explained to me that it's no use pursuing education beyond basic literacy.

Or no, wait, we don't even need basic literacy, because we can discount articles out of hand as ignorant without reading them!

I've been so wrong headed, it's terrifying. Thank you, sir, for turning my life around. Your shining example of refusing to stand on the shoulders of giants to instead figure everything out yourself has changed my life already.

Let us strike down the universities, I say! Sinkholes for valuable money that would be better placed lining the pockets of the proletariat! Education for none!

*eyeroll*

Re:Yeah, OK, Brainiac

[east coast]

You're a little insecure about having not gone to college?

You and your fancy book learnin'. It's all nonsense. Just like the song says: "A shotgun and a .45 and a country boy can survive!"

Re:Yeah, OK, Brainiac

[digitalcowboy]

I've been so wrong headed, it's terrifying. Thank you, sir, for turning my life around. Your shining example of refusing to stand on the shoulders of giants to instead figure everything out yourself has changed my life already.

And you call yourself literate? I guess you are "basically literate," as you put it, but you have no comprehension skills. I said nothing about "refusing to stand on the shoulders of giants to instead figure everything out yourself."

Name five "giants" at your university. Then tell me what you learn there that I can't from a book or the Internet.

Let us strike down the universities, I say! Sinkholes for valuable money that would be better placed lining the pockets of the proletariat! Education for none!

I agree completely.

But then, I also know who the General was at the battle of Yorktown and how to calculate change for my lunch.

Do you?

I say let's stop subsidizing those who would like to make their living by hiding in school for their whole life. Education for all!

Re:Yeah, OK, Brainiac

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You really are fucking weird.

130000 years of Homo Sapiens

[PMuse]

Modern Homo Sapiens have existed for ~130000 years. If the article's 1/455 chance of destruction per 100 years is correct, the the odds of modern homo sapiens surviving the past 130000 years are (1-1/455)^(130000/100) or 5.7%.

The first members of genus homo existed 2000000 years ago. By the same calculation, the odds of genus homo existing today are (1-1/455)^(2000000/100)= 7.7E-18 %

Throwing a BS card on this play.

[MadMorf]

'The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455. How does that relate? You're 10 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you are getting killed in a commercial airline crash.'

Um, as much as I hate to dis a national hero, I'm gonna call "bullshit" on this one...

According to the above quote, statistically speaking, we should be getting wiped out by a huge catastrophy every 45500 years, over the entire history of the planet...

Has the frequency of comets appearing and volcanoes erupting increased?

According to this article http://members.optusnet.com.au/mpaineau/paine_bioa stronomy02.pdf the last major mass extinction was 65M years ago...

Even if you accept that we've been really, really lucky, you've gotta see that statement as BS.

Jesus... STOP TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE ALREADY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though the whole concept reeks of bull#### to me, so what if it is true?

1 in 455 chance of being wiped out?

That means we have a 454 in 455 chance of survival. I'll take my chances, thank you very much. Now shut the hell up and stop trying to frighten me. It doesn't work and all it does is piss me off because of all of the Chicken Little's running around that I have to tolerate on a daily basis.

We are ALL going to die. I'm dying. You're dying. Our great-great-great-grandkids are gonna die. So what? How long until the human race evolves past the point of living in fear every waking minute?

If you're not going to DO anything about it, don't worry about it. Oh, and did I mention shut the hell up? :)

Re:Jesus... STOP TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE ALREADY!

[east coast]

Jesus didn't say this, silly. Don't blame him. But he does scare the little kids when he puts his finger thru the hole in his hand and says "see what I can do?"...

We are ALL going to die

Don't take bets on that. I really think that humans can overcome death in a relatively short time. But that's another matter for me and Dr. Herbert West to study.

Oh, and did I mention shut the hell up?

Why'd you post AC?

Re:Jesus... STOP TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE ALREADY!

[Anonymous Coward]

We are ALL going to die

Don't take bets on that. I really think that humans can overcome death in a relatively short time. But that's another matter for me and Dr. Herbert West to study.

It most likely won't happen within the next 100 years. It's something like nuclear fusion: 30 years away, after that period it's 25, 20, 15, 10,5; adding up to a total of 105 years.

Re:Jesus... STOP TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE ALREADY!

[east coast]

It most likely won't happen within the next 100 years.

Perhaps not right now but if medical technology keeps up at it's current pace I have faith. I'm 31 today, I can't even imagine what they'll have when I'm 50. Transplants may be as easy as getting a happy meal from Mc Donalds.

Re:Jesus... STOP TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE ALREADY!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Don't take bets on that. I really think that
> humans can overcome death in a relatively short
> time.

Eeesh, why would you want to? Haven't you ever read any vampire books? ;)

> Why'd you post AC?

Because I need to get a new password and haven't been able to remember the password to get into the email account that my /. password is being sent to. Yay.

Repeat after me folks, Choovanski is a dumbass.

We're not the only single-planet species

[jondoh43]

Does he expect the amoebas to die off in the event too, or just humans? There are plently of other single-planet species that survived the most catostrophic event on this planet (that we know of). And besides, do we really care about prolonging the existence of our species?

I Wonder...

[rurapenty]

The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years [...] is 1 in 455. You're 10 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you are getting killed in a commercial airline crash

I wonder if he means that after a comet hits the earth or a super volcano blows, we have a 1 in 455 chance of surviving?

do we really need to survive so desparately?

[jxyama]

i must ask, whenever these things are discussed... do we really need to survive so desparately...? mostly for the sake of surviving...?

i, for one, wouldn't want to survive by myself. if everyone i care about is also wiped out, i don't care to be alive by myself for the sake of being alive...

Re:do we really need to survive so desparately?

[oneiron]

Everyone you care about? Meaning every other human on the planet? Or, you don't care about other humans? You can always find new people to care about. Quit whining and just live.

To quote a favourite:

[gringod]

As the captain of the second ship of the arc fleet said: "Ah! Just time for another bath."

Higher risk of destroying earth

[SIGPrez]

Spreading the human species by colonizing distant planets should lower the risk the the 'species' will continue to flourish for a long time.

However, considering how this species thinks and works, by being more spead out it will increase the risk that the home base of this species, earth, may be destroyed.

At some point in time, someone with enough influence and ressources, living on a distant planet, will decide that it is in his collective's interest to harm the collective on earth.

Remember, right now one of the primary deterrents to using nuclear devices is the fact that their use affects all of us, one way or another. With the species spread out, this will no longer be the case.

As Larry Niven said:...

[Ironsides]

The dinosaurs died out because they didn't have a space program.

I really don't get this.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm dead, and all my friends are dead, I really don't give a rat's ass whether some colony on some other planet will survive and carry on.

Why do people care about such things? I care about myself and other (individual) people quite a lot. I care about survival of the species not at all. Whatever happens on that front is fine by me.

Discworld Science

[gmuslera]

That is the conclusion of The Science of Discworld, during earth history species evolved, grow sophisticated, succeded as species, just to be wiped for an extintion level event, and that happened a lot of times. With the complexities of our actual civilization, maybe just an ice age could be enough to destroy civilization as we know it, or even end with the human race (just the cold alone maybe will not do it, but other factors could join there too).

A lot of years ago i read Asimov's A Choice of Catastrophes that have a list of events that could end with humanity or at least actual civilization. Maybe some things there could be a bit dated now, but was a good reading back then.

Not sure about how soon some of this could happen, but is sure that eventually will happen something that make the life here as it is now will not be possible (at the very least, the death of the sun, even very far in time, is something sure that will happen). Having "backups" of the human race/civilization/etc out there looks right.

Is extinction a bad thing?

[igorsway]

Why should we be concerned if the human race becomes extinct at some undefined point in the future? As long as my immediate decendents aren't affected, I'm not sure I care. It's probably unrealistic to expect the human race to last forever - nothing else in the Universe does.

Expected duration

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming that the risk quoted is steady, we can expect the human race will be wiped out in 455*100 = 45500 years. That doesn't seem likely to me.

The bias of a failed dream

[Jonathan]

The guy's an *astronaut*. Of course, he's going to be pro- (human) space exploration, etc. etc. But objectively, 1950's SF to the contrary, there's nowhere to go. Say, after spending billions of dollars on a Mars base that could have been spent on serious science, Earth gets wacked. So, the human species is saved? No. The Mars base just runs out of supplies and dies.

Depending on...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're 10 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you are getting killed in a commercial airline crash."

Doesn't that depend on how often I fly and where?

To all the naysayers....

[realitybath1]

whining how we would have been wiped out long ago in the past if his numbers are right:

Statistics were only recently discovered, hence they didn't apply back then.

Stupids.

Re:To all the naysayers....

[krack]

So we should shoot all the smart people RIGHT NOW, before they discover something that will kill us sooner!

Death to intelligence!

Re:To all the naysayers....

[kabocox]

whining how we would have been wiped out long ago in the past if his numbers are right:

Statistics were only recently discovered, hence they didn't apply back then.

Stupids.

So we just need to burn all the statistics books and kill all those math professors that want to teach it. We'd be much better off with statistics any way. We wouldn't have to worry about the environment at all. (All that research is based on statistics.) Remember most statistics are evil lies except those that I generate they happen to be the holy truth.

Single Point of Failure

[PMuse]

Of course a single planet is a single point of failure. This is not news. Of course the world is going to end. Yawn.

Now, who wants to join me on the quad for a game of football?

Re:This reminds me of the "Overpopulation" crowd..

[Gadgetfreak]

Well, it depends on how one would define "overcrowded" but my point is that humanity will not accept a population limit.

Current activities and past history indicate that overcrowding, poverty, disease, and starvation still don't stop people from procreating.

Due to the large number of factors involved, I think the population would see a pendulum effect, but the backswings will be far more drastic when the planet can no longer sustain everyone.

It could be a good thing

[Perdition]

You've seen the aging entertainers brought up on stage to honor their work long after they've actively contributed anything of worth, and all your left with is a sad feeling that they held on so long past their prime. Could be that Earth may be held in higher regard for her unfulfilled promise than her (most likely) embarrassing star-children. I'd heap rather hear the Klingons say, "Those Earthlings were killed by a meteor just in time, Kaajh! If they had made it to space, our Empire would quake at their coming." Rather than hear the Vulcans say, "You have to feel sorry for the Earthlings, Travik. They colonize a planet, kill off all the indigenous life, build casinos, get sexually transmitted diseases and have to start all over again elsewhere. And they seem to be such jovial people, too! Tsk tsk."
As Def Leppard put it: It's better to burn out than to fade away.

Bad math

[KrackHouse]

If the risk is 1 in 455 every 100 years then roughly every half million years the human species would be wiped out. Checking my 6th grade biology book seems to raise some interesting questions. Maybe he's a creationist. Volcanoes and Asteriods? How about loose nukes and the wars cause by migration caused by global warming?

Re:Bad math

[KrackHouse]

Oops, make that 45,000 years not 450,000 but my point is now 10x stronger. At least the first post was correctly titled.

Re:Bad math

[Leperflesh]

Ah, but you didn't read carefully. He never said 'wipe out the human species'. He said 'civilization-ending'. By most accounts, human civilization is no more than about 10,000 years old, depending on what you consider to be civilization. And of course, if we assume one civ-ending event every 45,000 years on average, then sometimes we'll get a long run of 'tails' on the cosmic coin-flip and it'll be two, three, four, or more times that. For corroboration on the risks, look up info on the last major eruptions of various supervolcanoes (Yellowstone, Long Valley CA, etc), and the major asteroid impacts. Go ahead and throw in ice ages if you like. -Lep

100 years is not enough time to make it work

[DunbarTheInept]

in 100 years time, we can't really have a self-sustaining colony that needs no help from earth to survive. The free-for-the-asking resources that come on earth are what made colonization of the New World possible in the 1500s and 1600s. When you need to manufacture everything including air and water, it's not going to happen that fast. Does this mean I'm opposed to starting an off-planet colony? No. Go, get started on it - the sooner the better. Does this mean I'm opposed to making the false propaganda claim that it would be a way to survive an earth-ruining disaster in 100 years? Yes.

During the early stages of coloniztion, if the Earth becomes uninhabitable, then the colonies will die off soon after.

Don't buy it

[khallow]

If those sorts of events were that common, we'd see a lot more of "species ending" events in the geological record. Frankly, I don't see evidence of a "species ending" asteroid impact in the last 65 million years (at the end of the Cretaceous age), except maybe a pretty big one 20 million years ago. Similarly, the only know "species ending" volcanic event was at the end of the Permian age, 252 million year ago which created the Siberian traps (which cover a third of Siberian as I recall) with a few lesser eruptions (eg, the Deccan traps could have contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs in place of that asteroid). Obviously, these events aren't 1 in 455.

Supervolcanoes on the order of Yellowstones don't appear that uncommon. Mount Tambora's eruption in 1815 was maybe a factor of twenty (in volume of material ejected) below the largest of the Yellowstone eruptions as I recall.

What is really ignored here is the likelihood of extinction from a man-made event. I consider that on the order of 1 in 455 or worse averaged over this century.

Cynicism

[kid-noodle]

I find it slightly interesting that the majority /. response here appears to be cynicism, even ignoring the spurious statistic and the misleading headline.

Surely it is simply good sense that species resident on multiple planets, and particularly in multiple solar systems throughout the galaxy, and indeed the universe, are more likely to survive?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket and all that - multiple planets in one system means the species has a better chance of surving a planet level extinction event, multiple solar systems means the species survives past the end of one star, multiple galaxies...

And of course, that's ignoring the other benefits potentially offered. I just find it a bit unexpected that /.ers, the cutting edge of geekery, people weaned on Asimov and Star Trek, have such a cynical response..

Re:Cynicism

[Scarblac]

And of course, that's ignoring the other benefits potentially offered. I just find it a bit unexpected that /.ers, the cutting edge of geekery, people weaned on Asimov and Star Trek, have such a cynical response..

Considering the anti-science slant of many posts these days, I don't think /. is the cutting edge of geekery, and probably hasn't been for ages.

Asimov, indeed. Reading the global warming threads make me think of "The Gods Themselves".

(for those who haven't read it: scientists find out civilization is destroying their sun by a new method of cheap energy, politicians and people cannot be convinced to stop using it... the full quote the book's title refers to is "Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain").

Re:Cynicism

[Bishop]

/.ers, the cutting edge of geekery

Well that was your first mistake.

While /. may still post geeky stories on the front page, the readership is predominantly a pack of boring losers who don't have ideas of their own. These lamers are deeply jealous of those thinkers that do have interesting thoughts. Like any wild animal encountering something new and different the pathetic scum are affraid and feel the need to attack the thinkers and their ideas.

In short most of the /. audience are not geeks.

Re:Cynicism

[GlassHeart]

Surely it is simply good sense that species resident on multiple planets, and particularly in multiple solar systems throughout the galaxy, and indeed the universe, are more likely to survive?

You're right, but that doesn't mean the survival of the human species is necessarily worth the resources we would have to spend to guarantee it. I'm not objecting to the call in any way, but I don't think it'll resonate.

Look at earth today. We don't spend that much money to try to save every human dying of some disease. In fact, a generous country is one that spends a few percent of its GDP in aid. I'm not condemning anybody, but we need to recognize that we're saying everyday with our wallets that some things (and lives) are not worth the money to save. These are not abstract future "children", but people who are alive but dying. You may have a hard time arguing that extinction in a few hundred years is a far graver threat than, say, tens of millions dead from AIDS in the next decade or two.

Even if the catastrophe was a certainty in 455 years, we'll still have to decide whether living miserably for that period of time (to save up money on spaceships) is worthwhile. This is simply how we think and make decisions, and if that means we might be caught by an asteroid with our pants down, it just means that we're not collectively smart enough to survive this Darwinian universe.

Put another way, if human nature remains unchanged, we'll survive an asteroid if we can build a defense from existing technology before it hits. We're not likely to develop the technology just because we fear extinction in the abstract.

Another frontpage troll story.

[rice_burners_suck]

Over the past 9,500 years or so, NASA, in conjunction with Starfleet, has been monitoring the lives of species around the universe. As we all know, the universe is a small space, compared to other universes that we've visited recently. This smallness makes it easy for us to monitor the lives of all these species. Why, it only takes about five minutes from the moment a supernova happens until we get notification that another life-supporting planet has been blown to smitherines.

And, according to all this data, which NASA stores in a MySQL database, species that are "trapped" on a single planet, as it were, are simply more likely to be destroyed in a planet-destroying accident, just as a people, like, say, the Italians, are more likely to go extinct if their entire country just suddenly sinks into a giant sinkhole and crumbles into the ocean...

Yes, the proof is all there, and there is a lot of evidence to compare against. Or, rather, that's my way of saying that a troll has been posted on /.'s main page. What happened to all the SCO stories? At least those made me laugh.

IANABM (biology major) but I know this.

[StormyWeather]

Germs, viruses, bacteria, and eventually worms are at the top of the food chain not us. They will assuredly get us in the end.

Oh, and merry Christmas everyone :).

Dinosaurs extinction

[xv4n]

Extinction of the dinosaur, what really happened was...

Re:Dinosaurs extinction

[nadadogg]

There's a better link here.
Also, that comic is probably the funniest comic/webcomic that I have ever read. Have a link to the archive here, and enjoy it with great enthusiasm.

Re:Dinosaurs extinction

[AEton]

Naw, it happened like this.

(Perry Bible Fellowship)++

No, they learned how to fly

[apsmith]

Sure some species went extinct, but just look out your window, and chances are you'll see a a dinosaur or two looking back at you...

But the point of the quote is of course still appropriate, as anybody who's worked with redundancy in any field would be aware.

Nukes In Space...

[William Gates IV]

How about being wiped out by our own stupidity?

Meme pools?

[loteck]

so then:

in Soviet Kupier Belt, solar systems spread like a fungus to YOU?

maybe you were talking about something else, though.

Re:Meme pools?

[Anonymous Coward]

In China the fungus is always positive!

Only 1 in 455?

[tdhillman]

Okay. That's it. I'm selling all of my gold and moving to Cabo St. Lucas. Might as well enjoy the next hundred years while I've still got 'em.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

[Hoi Polloi]

"The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455. How does that relate? You're 10 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you are getting killed in a commercial airline crash."

John Young has determined however that this can only be avoided by doubling NASA's budget.

I wonder what else he has hidden up his ass?

Re:"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

[belg4mit]

And wtf would be wrong with doubling their budget?
NASA is but a pittance compared to other programs,
and I dare say it pays off a hell of a lot more
than most Joe Six-packs know.

Can you say...

[maxchaote]

"FUD in Space"

Space technology may catalyze our extinction

[Whiteout]

It seems to me that the human race will very probably destroy itself (nuclear/biological warfare etc.) - it's been trying for 100,000 years and in the past 50 years it's aqcuired the tools. Richard Feyman recalled walking around New York soon after leaving Los Alamos, believing that there was little point in the construction he saw, because it was likely to be obliterated in the near future. Depending on the definition of 'near future' I think he was dead right. So ironically I think that the advantages gained by technological advances made in attempting to avoid some natural distaster on earth would be massively outweighed the spin-off benefits for weapons development, or in aggravating the geopolitical balance, disenfanchizing the poor, and so on.

Re:Space technology may catalyze our extinction

[TheLink]

Yeah, you could eventually end up with a situation where a very large number of people/entities have the equivalent of a big red "DESTROY EVERYTHING" button.

I believe there are a number of solutions to this problem. But I also believe that not all of them may be palatable.

Some things last forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing else in the universe does?
Whaaaaaa!?!?

Time...
Matter...
Energy...
a Supernatural being?

And don't even get me started on a debate of any of those things above... The first 3 are unrefutable (Sp?), and the 4th would make sense if it didn't.. After all who created time?

I'll go one better.

[MachineShedFred]

If we're going to worry about the lowest-common denominator all day, what about one-galaxy species? What happens if that galaxy we didn't see in our left blind spot doesn't use it's turn signal and rams right into us, leaving everything we know as a massive twisted wreck of stars and planets?

Does Geico insure against that?

(I understand what you are saying, but I couldn't help myself)

Re:I'll go one better.

[tetromino]

What happens if that galaxy we didn't see in our left blind spot doesn't use it's turn signal and rams right into us

Well, the only large galaxy scheduled to collide with us in the near future is Andromeda - and that collision is scheduled at least several hundred billion years from now. By then, we will either be extinct, or in control of the entire Local Cluster. If I were you, I really wouldn't worry about galactic collisions.

Future news story

[Anonymous Coward]

"Astronaut John Young was killed in a car accident after presenting his claim. His last words were 'It was supposed to be a f**k'n meteor!'"

Did anyone else...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else read that as 'Single-Pants Species Don't Last'??

Re:Did anyone else...

[togofspookware]

I first read it as 'Single-Species Planets Don't Last'. I guess that's not as funny, though...

Evolution

[Antony-Kyre]

I see two main choices. Either we evolve and adapt to the changes to come, or do what the article says, and become extinct. I personally think that we'll end up evolving to whatever conditions may arise.

I'm A Potential Immortal

[SteveM]

I'm not dead yet!

SteveM

More

[Safety Cap]

Cambrian, Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic, Cretaceous

I would argue that even though there was not a definite mass extinction during Siurian, Carboniferous, and Jurassic, there were significant changes (arrival of primative predators, arrival of reptiles/decline of trilobites, and arrival of birds/amphibians, respectively) that might suggest a tiny-mass extinction or other event that could cause fatalities in a single species (i.e., us).

Large asteriod impact != the end of humankind

[b0s0z0ku]

Unless the asteroid is large enough to severely disturb the Earth's orbit or cause the Earth to break apart, a large asteroid impact won't kill all of the humans on this planet. A lot of life will be destroyed by tidal waves, if the thing crashes into the ocean (but there are high mountains), and by lack of sunlight and earthquakes if the asteroid crashes into land. However, unlike the dinosaurs, we have means to generate power artificially, either by nuclear reactors or even through burning oil - there'll be a lot of oil available after 95% of humanity dies off. This power can be used to generate artificial sunlight to sustain plants and animals through the ensuing darkness and ice age.

I'm more worried about humankind annihilating itself through accidental nuclear war - the radiation might very well render the Earth barren.

I agree with Young about the need for manned space travel. It will even have benefits for the Earth, like the construction of solar power satellites to beam power down to the planet - no more need for nuclear power, which is perceived as unsafe, or fossil fuel power, which is dirty and limited in supply.

-b.

Re:Large asteriod impact != the end of humankind

[Seedy2]

Well, there are a number of things that a large impact could cause that could adversly affect ALL life on the planet. The, so called, nuclear winter effect, for one. Imagine if enough dust were blasted up into the atmosphere that the effective albedo of the earth were changed for a couple of years? Thus lowering, or raising, the average temperature of the earth significantly w/o altering the orbital characteristics.
Needless to say, a change of a few degrees, plus or minus, could have a profound effect on all kinds of things.
Consider the chilling of the earth into an iceage like climate, with darkness and cold the power requirements will go up radically, ask California if they think there's plenty of extra power. Oh, and where are you going to get oil when the ocean is a mile away from all of your port cities?

Re:Large asteriod impact != the end of humankind

[b0s0z0ku]

Consider the chilling of the earth into an iceage like climate, with darkness and cold the power requirements will go up radically, ask California if they think there's plenty of extra power.

A large asteroid strike would definitely be The End Of The World As We Know It, but not necessarily the end of life altogether. I'd suspect that 1% or 0.1% of humankind will end up surviving. Humans have proven themselves to be remarkably adaptable and resourceful in the face of adversity. As far as "asking California", it's unlikely that California would have an energy shortage if its population was reduced by 99%.

-b.

Why Airliners?

[HeghmoH]

Why does everybody use airliners as a point of comparison when talking about dangerous things? You're in more danger when riding your bicycle than you are as a passenger on a commercial airliner, but I never hear anybody comparing asteroids to bicycle-related deaths.

Re:Why Airliners?

[TheLink]

Commercial airliners are hard to beat on a per distance basis. But they aren't that safe on a per trip basis. Probably still safer than bikes, but maybe not other vehicles.

Also which airline and type of plane you fly can make a diff :).

BTW if you have a X chance of dying in any particular hour, if you take a long time to travel to a spot, the odds of you dying during your journey are a higher, not even taking into account the mode of transportation.

Re:Why Airliners?

[HeghmoH]

According to this file I keep on my web site, domestic airlines are significantly safer than bicycles on a fatalities-per-hour basis. How accurate that file is, I don't know, and if you have better figures I would love to see them.

Re:Why Airliners?

[TheLink]

Not sure if the figures are better, but the following might be interesting to you: http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/autorisk.htm

Original link: http://www.teemings.com/issue07/safety.html. But the site seems to be gone now.

Re:Why Airliners?

[American AC in Paris]

Why does everybody use airliners as a point of comparison when talking about dangerous things?

...because neither football fields nor the Library of Congress are particularly deadly?

Re:Why Airliners?

[sulli]

Activity # Fatalities per 1,000,000 exposure hours
---
Skydiving 128.71
[...]
Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
Residential Fire .003

So it's safer when your house is on fire than when you're just living in it? WTF?

Re:Why Airliners?

[HeghmoH]

It seems plausible to me. When your house is on fire, you're awake and active, and help is either there or on the way. You're not going to be experiencing many common accidental deaths while your house is on fire (slipping in the shower, falling while putting on pants standing up, falling while standing on a chair, etc.) and if you happen to have a heart attack or something, the ambulance is right there. As I said, I don't know how accurate that file is, but it's believable.

What about the Volgons ?

[groberts65]

Be sure to pack a towel.

statisically...

[Anonymous Coward]

let's think about this statistic.. 1 in 455 (or whatever) means that every 455 years some catastrophic event should occur that wipes out humanity... hmmm... weird that nothing like that has happened in a million or so years...

Re:statisically...

[Treeluvinhippy]

et's think about this statistic.. 1 in 455 (or whatever) means that every 455 years some catastrophic event should occur that wipes out humanity... hmmm... weird that nothing like that has happened in a million or so years...

No, he means that every set of fifty to a hundred years has a 1 in 455 chance of a catastrophic event.

Homer said it best...

[benjamin264]

Did you know that 70% of statistics are made up on the spot?

Training Simulation...

[warriorpostman]

Sweet! With all this talk about colonizing other planets, I have now have cosmic justification for buying an X-Box so I can start playing Halo/2 immediately!

I wonder which planet...

[theendlessnow]

John Young was on before coming to Earth?? Guess he got out just in time!!

Actually,

[MadAnthony02]

It's in the long run we're all dead

doesn't seem like a big deal, but the humor value in the quote is that it refers to economists arguing about long-run and short-run equillibriums.

or something like that - my econ is a bit rusty.

Much easier...

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

1. Develop fusion technology 2. ... 3. Major profit!!!

Actually the stat is not as for out...

[WebCowboy]

...as you might think.

I'm not sure where your stats came from, but world-wide there were WAAAY more than 83 fatalities in 2000. There were even more fatalities than that in 1945 when commercial airline service was in its infancy and passenger volumes were vrey low (no jumbo jets).

The link I supplied only counts commercial, multi-engine airliner accidents. There are likely many more airplane fatalities then that--military, spacecraft and non-commercial or crew-only flights (trainers, cargo flights, bush pilots, crop dusters, leisure/personal aircraft etc). Add those in world-wide and a worldwide annual death rate over 10,000 is possible, which would make a 1:4500 probablility over 100 years a reasonable statistic.

The chance you'll die on any particular flight is still very remote--almost down to 1 in a half-million.

I still don't know how one could say the chances of a catastrophic armageddon-type event is 10 times more likely than that however, given there's never been such an event in recorded history--ice ages only occur once in several millenia for example. One can surmise about things (terrorists setting off nukes creating nuclear winter, or an asteroid scientists did not see coming) but there is no hard data to analyse (how many organisms were wiped out in the last ice age...when the dinosaurs disappeared, etc? We have no way of knowing for sure).

Young's hypothesis is unsubstantiated

[ngstrm]

Even if somebody else has already remarked it: What is the evidence from which we could conclude that "Single planet species don't last?" Obviously there were many species that have died out; equally obviously, there were many species that have not died out, namely those species that are with us today. Some of them have been around pretty long - think of some types of insects. If more species may have died out than are with us today, then we can just hypothesize that "Many single planet species don't last." We could belong to the more lucky group. The fact that no species has been around all the time bears no significance here.

conversely

[bitspotter]

Wouldn't a somewhat more practical (though less obvious) approach be to diversify into multiple species as well as onto multiple planets?

I mean, if that's technically the statistic that applies to a single species, then wouldn't more species dampen the odds? That is how nature does it, you know. Most of the things humans consider worth saving about ourselves have nothing to do with their genes.

Re:conversely

[cranos]

We tried the whole multiple hominid species co-existing before,and true to form one beat the hell out of the other and now there is only one left.

Also evolving into seperate species may not necessarily help with regards to disease base catastrophic events. Cross species contanimation happens all to regularly for speciation to provide a barrier.

Damed If you Do Damed If you Don't

[spribyl]

This is all well and good until some nasty alien/mutant bug or critter from out there takes hold and wipes us all out.

I still vote for expansion. Even if some get sick and die it is possible that some will survive.

Poor Statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Satistically, don't you need a large enough base of data to extrapolate a "chance-of-occurance"? You may be able to do that from airline flights but world-ending events? I don't think less than a handfull of events is statistically sound.

Bad Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Carma: (Excellent)

Spelling: (poor).

How about cetaceans?

[SvnLyrBrto]

> (anyone out there know if Great Whites have any natural
> predators besides humans?)

I don't think they actually EAT the things, but pods of Dolphin and Orca are known to attack and kill sharks that get too close to a pod that includes calves. Even in the wild, intelligence and teamwork win out over "nature's most perfect killing machine". Jaws, meet your doom. His name is flipper.

OTOH, if they don't haves calves to protect, those very same cetaceans are content to give sharks a wide berth. It's not like jaws is being hunted for food or sport; so the example probably fails your "top predator" test.

cya,
john

Only one flaw in that plan:

[deft]

All we need to do is:

-Develop fusion technology
-invent entire engineering disciplines based on zero-gravity industry/construction/living technologies
-Move a substantial representation of our gene- and meme- pools up out of Earth's gravity well
-Live for a few centuries in the Kupier Belt and Oort Clouds
-Spread to other solar systems like a fungus, possibly using Von Neuman Machines to soften up / improve target planetary systems
-Exist!
-???????
-Profit!

What's wrong with us becoming extinct?

[CovertPenguins]

We'd be doing the universe a favor! The denizens of Kricket are the only species more destructive than humans.

More "On the Beach" Hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched the 1960s-era movie "On the Beach" a few days ago, and I was amazed at the sheer stupidty of the plot. Massive amount of radiation from a nuclear war in the northern hemisphere were slowly drifting south and no one below the equator (meaning in Hollywood) seemed bright enough to realize that all they had to do was go underground for a time to escape. Really, really dumb.

Astronaut or not, Young's argument is no better. It's far easier, cheaper, and more certain to take steps here on earth to make sure humanity can avoid (asteroid) or survive (supervolcano) a planet-wide disaster than it would be to try to create a completely self-sustaining colony on the moon or Mars. Don't forget that the first thing to go after a planetary wide disaster on earth would be supply shipments to a small colony on Mars. They'd starve or freeze before we would.

Like eugenics, the population explosion, and global warming, this is just another dishonest scare tactic by grant-hungry scientists to get the power to meddle in our lives and take our money. The scientific community must develop ways to keep science from being abused this way and to condemn these sorts of tactics.

--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle

The short answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not?
Because we've gotten lucky?
Because cataclysmic occurances can only be measured in 1000 year increments?

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I read that 94.22% of statistics were made up on the spot.

The bullshit factor

[js3]

it takes a statistician to makes sense of what does not make sense. I'll call you on your bullshit factor.

What you're saying it if a civilization ending event (now you see a civilization ending event is where everyone dies), so unlike an airplane crash where I choose not to participate in, I have no choice but to participate in the civilization ending event.

If someone told you you're 100 times more likely to die in a car crash than you do in an airplane but you don't have access to an airplane or you don't fly in one, then the statistic is useless. The bullshit factor for that statement is quite high.

So to summarize, in reality we don't give a shit about civilization ending events because they are about as likely as a universe or solar system ending event. Being on mars won't save you if our solar system is destroyed, being in another galaxy won't save you if the universe is destroyed.

In reality the statistics in the article is about as useless as tits on a bull.

Re:The bullshit factor

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So to summarize, in reality we don't give a shit about civilization ending events because they are about as likely as a universe or solar system ending event.

Well, their goes you credibility. Over the course of the next hundred years, I think a civilization ending event is much, much, much more likely than a solar or universe ending event. Here is a list of likely civilization ending events: meteor/comet impact, super-volcano, massive nuclear event, nano-tech runs amuck, massive oxygen or carbon dioxide reaction in the atmosphere, and massive climate disruption. Here is a list of events that could destroy our sun: hit by another star. Here is list of events that can destroy the universe:...

Do you see where I am going with this? There are lots of things that could conceivably take out all the people on the earth, but I can only think of one that would destroy the sun, and I'm pretty sure we'd notice another star coming this way from a long ways away. What are the chances that one is moving fast enough to hit us in 100 years time? Well at 100 light years range there are only a couple hundred stars so even if something was moving as fast as possible, we would see it coming from a long ways off. So maybe there is some sort of dark matter object that we can't detect, or something else completely unknown to us, but we can't really plan for something we know nothing about.

Basically, I think you are completely wrong in your estimates and given the accuracy of the numbers provided, the average person is much more likely to die of a cataclysmic event than in an airplane crash.

I have no idea, on the other hand, where the chances of a cataclysmic even come from, and his numbers for dying in an airplane crash are a little wonky. They apply only to Americans and include incidents with spacecraft and military aircraft. I have a number of questions about the numbers, but the evaluation of those numbers is sound statistics.

Re:The bullshit factor

[southpolesammy]

There are lots of things that could conceivably take out all the people on the earth, but I can only think of one that would destroy the sun

You're either new here or haven't spent enough time watching Star Trek episodes and movies. After all, any good /.'er knows that Dr. Soran has a rocket that will cause the implosion of a star in order to get to the Nexus.

Re:The bullshit factor

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the chances that one is moving fast enough to hit us in 100 years time? Well at 100 light years range there are only a couple hundred stars so even if something was moving as fast as possible, we would see it coming from a long ways off.

How would we see it? Asuming it is moving as fast as possible, would it not get here about the same time the light arrived?

Re:The bullshit factor

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

How would we see it? Asuming it is moving as fast as possible, would it not get here about the same time the light arrived?

Well, that is a very good point. But being as it is made up of matter, it cannot be traveling as fast as the light it is emitting. Given what we know about the movement of starts, and the amount of energy required to move at given speeds, what are the chances that it could reach us in 100 years and that we have not seen it (given decent observation of the heavens for the last 50 years).

First, for a reality check, lets be incredibly generous and say that the star is moving at 750 km/sec + directly into the orbital path of the Sun which is only going 250 km/sec for a combined speed of 1000 km/sec (ignoring relativity). The speed of light is about 300,000 km/sec. Well that is not very interesting, obviously it will have to be going much much faster to get to us with less than a 50 year lag between it and it's light.

The smallest possible star is 1.19x10^29 kg in mass. (all hydrogen without flying apart) Well, this is slashdot and I am trashed, so I'll leave the calculations of speeds and required energy to someone more sober. I'd just screw them up. If nobody comes up with something, maybe I'll tackle it in the morning :)

So does this mean

[Striker770S]

that we are now going to go to war with mother nature because America will be wiped out and that is an attack against freedoms? The connection to Iraq will be hard to come up with though.

Remember the words of Babylon 5....

[Anonymous Coward]

"No. We have to stay here and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars." - Commander Sinclair

Good!

[Snaller]

The human race is not worth keeping, we are just wicked.

Re:Good!

[I_Love_My_Mac]

Then perhaps you should do the human race a favor and do yourself in. The rest of us will keep on trying to exist without your help.

What the hell type of comment is that? Wicked is a relative term (same as good, bad or ugly). Until we have something else that we can relate humans too, we're the best there is. Frankly, how do you know we're not the peace-loving hippies of the universe compared to other species of similar nature ? You don't. Period.

I can hear the thought already? Gee... just look at X society of the past that was all fruit and berries with no *whatever_I_Object_To_In_The_Current_Human_Conditi on*. You know.. read further and you'll find that you'll probably find what you don't like in almost every single society known to man, just in a different name or form.

What's that? The gentle simians or dolphins live in peace and harmony. Bull. Read up on higher-intelligence (and even some lower intelligence) animals and you'll find that the higher the intelligence rating, the more likely they are to be a: competitive, and b: with that competitive spirit, start bashing others on the skull for sport or for prestige.

Re:Good!

[Bishop]

What the hell type of comment is that?

It was humour.

Your comment on the other hands sounds like someone trying justify your greed to ease your sense of guilt.

Re:Good!

[Snaller]

Then perhaps you should do the human race a favor and do yourself in.

I rest my case.

The Math Doesn't Work

[Jesus 2.0]

I call shenanigans. If there's a 1 in 455 chance that humanity will be wiped out in a given century, then there's a 454 in 455 chance that it will not. And humanity has been around for approximately two million years, which is 200,000 centuries.

That works out to a chance of less than 1 in ten to the 191st power that we would have survived up till now. Give or take, one in a google googles. Inconceivable.

Even if you consider only the relatively recent Homo Sapiens, rather than the whole Homo genus, there's only about a one percent chance that we would've made it this far.

Re:The Math Doesn't Work

[Jesus 2.0]

Whoops - 20,000 centuries, not 200,000. That works out to a whopping one in thirteen quintillion chance that we would've made it this far.

Where's my fairy cake?

[otis wildflower]

Time to hop into the ol' Total Perspective Vortex and marvel at the world's insignificance...

No one else is saying it....

[TheDauthi]

So let me be the first to say, "ARGGGGHHHH!! We're all going to die!"

LOL

[Minter92]

I can pull number out of my butt just as easily.. A person who believes this guy is 1 out of 10 likely to get sucked in by a nigerian mail scam.

Outliving our home planet

[tomem]

Even if a bolide impact or some other disaster doesn't get us, the Earth has a finite lifetime. Somewhere on the web I found this quote: "A truly intelligent species will outlive its home star."

Is he qualified to make such statements?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most astronauts are pilots, not scientists (some of them are also scientists). If he is only a pilot he should not say anything, stick with piloting and let scientists do their job.

The solution is obvious:

[noidentity]

We should fly in airplanes all the time!

Heil Zeus, Jupiter,Buddha,ChatolicGod,Allah

[Anonymous Coward]

and their colleagues (BaptistGod, MethodistGod, LutheranGod, various Hindu Gods, etc)

How many Gods are out there?

Yeah, but...

[killmenow]

That's all well and good; but, at what level do we master the super mega death shadow technique?

Re:One Planet ...

[cnettel]

Unnecessary if we do, damned if we don't?

bomb

[shlepp]

i bet in 100 years we will probably have WMD that are powerful enough to obliterate an asteroid into spacedust. Probably even laser technology that is capable of the same thing.

He is probably not qualified for the job

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know anything about this guy, but he is probably only a pilot (although a few astronaunts are also scientists, most of them are simple pilots). Flying to the Moon does not transform you suddenly into a scientist, it takes decades of hard work and training. Is he an expert on Mathematical Statistics or Geology or what?. What Universities did he go to, how many PhDs does he have, etc. Where can I read about this?

The end is friggin nigh, man

[popo]

As long as we're going to attempt to apply mathematics to a bunch of unknowable probabilities, why not include the risks of:

1) Transient Black Holes
2) Rapid onset of Global Cooling
3) Preon contamination at a low level on the food chain.
4) Cascade burn off of the ozone layer
5) Critical underslide for the western US continental shelf.
6) Sol supernova
7) Accidental nuclear war
8) Bird flu
9) The rise, conquest and world domination of the great subterranean Gremlin hordes lead by the fearsome ruler Gorlack III.
10) President Schwarzenegger

According to my calculations -- the addition of the above probabilities puts us at a critical risk of self-immolation (with a .01 degree margin of error) this coming Tuesday -- most probably after lunch.

Woohoo! Hello third mortgage! Suckers!

-Popo

Re:The end is friggin nigh, man

[iggymanz]

haha! what with this being a nerd forum, we must analyze:

1. transient black holes - never detected, probably near 0%
2. rapid global cooling - 100% - happened many times in past
3. prion contamination - 100% happend many times before
4. burn off of ozone layer - never happened before, almost 0%
5. critical underslide - 100%, happening now in slow motion, someday all the way
6. 0%, the Sun can only nova
7. accidental nuclear war - 0% wars are never accidental
8. Bird flu - 30% probably of catching some time of flu each year for world population, and all influenza viruses are avian in origin. take (30/100) to the power of how many years
9. 0% for those not using mind-altering substances
10. 0%, only natural born citizens can be president or a senator.

Re:The end is friggin nigh, man

[Anonymous Coward]

10. 0%, only natural born citizens can be president or a senator.

Be afraid... be very afraid:

http://www.amendforarnold.com/

Re: Preparing for the "Worst" Impossible.

[Stuart Poss]

Science will never be prepared for the worst.

Science is funded by a tiny fraction of the results of human activity. Even though its effect can be tremendous, it can not alter the laws of physics and biology. One must also keep in mind that science usually works at cross purposes. For example some scientists are working hard to discover ways to keep stains from attaching to clothing, carpets, and other surfaces. This is very good science and has produced some tremendously successful products. Likewise, for nuclear power, smelting, etc. However, when these ideas are implemented in a commercial environment it turns out (read latest Science), that the chemistry of these compounds is result in substantial pollution from various breakdown products and effect Arctic ecology (the Arctic Sea is a largely closed sink for the numerous rivers that drain into it from both Eurasia and North America. Hence, such biproducts accumulate in the tissues of organims, with the greatest accumulation in the top predators (=man) as a result of the laws of bioaccumulation.

For science to overcome such inherent cross purposes and to be of net positive help it would take enormous sums of money to tackle ongoing problems, money in amounts that no one has, much less be willing to spend. For example scientists have quite a few pretty good ideas about how to keep carbon dioxide from rising to the point we overheat the planet to the point those resources we need to survive disappear. The cost of implementation of such ideas (say creating a huge carbon sink forest) is so large that no one could afford to pay for it. Of course this would assume the present administration would be even rational enough to consider expanding the parks system several hundreds of thousands of times to sequester enough carbon to bring the current production of carbon dioxide into balance. Presently, our own government is eager to drill in the remaining wildlife refuges to extract more carbon to burn, more public lands to mine, and more timber to cut down in the name of "saving the forests" because its budget is in deficit and it otherwise has no money to give to campaign contributors to sustain itself.

Colonization of the moon or other planets would only continue to create more environmental problems on earth as it would require vast sums to be spent on activity that directly negatively effects the environment of earth (remember most of you living in the western US are already drinking water that is substantially polluted by byproducts of rocket propellant). Such hazards are typically minimized, until the evidence to the contrary becomes so overwhelming we eventually stop creating them. Note, however, we seldom mitigate the effects, which means the half-life of the byproducts largely dictate when the problem will be fully "solved". But even with solid science in hand, typically it takes years to overcome skillful PR campaigns and public ignorance. Just how warm will it have to get before the US changes its policy on global warming? Will it be soon enough to prevent the inertia of natural systems from finishing us off?

In principle one can use differential equations to determine when we will reach critical thresholds given current trends. Current scientific debate centers on what exact constitute the thresholds, how do we measure current trends, and what are the relative rates of effects that may mitigate these trends (if any).

Remember, global warming is only one of the environmental problems we face, if we are to avoid extinction. Biodiversity loss and invasion by non-indiginous are as equally intractable, if not more critical, as they more immediately impact the supports systems upon which humans depend. On both of these fronts current science is virtually powerless to resist the onslaught of the thoughtless and the greedy, who are multiplying quickly and whose environmental footprint, ironically enhanced through science, is growing even larger.

This astronaut is just one more well-meaning but wrong advocate of

Is he a scientist or a pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most astronauts are pilots, not scientists. They should focus on piloting and leave scientists do science.

Warlords taking food.

[Firethorn]

local warlords take all the food, the people end up no better off...

Actually, it was worse than that. There was at least one incident where the warlords used the donated food to feed themselves and their soldiers while they killed their enemies... Who happened to be the farmers. So in this case, our food donations actually made the situation worse.

You forgot one

[Anonymous Coward]

7. Profit!

And the counter-example is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please demonstrate a multi-planet species for comparison as a control group.

Mon Calamari and Zentradi don't count.

HOW?!

[GoClick]

How could you possibly calculate that, it's never happend before! Oh yeah the LAST time our whole civilization was wiped out was only 300 whatever years ago. This is stupid

Nature vs. Civilization

[Laurentiu]

During our history as a self-aware and (persumably) intelligent species, we had quite a few doomsday scenarios, in spite of which we survived to this day. It is one thing to claim the end of a civilization (like Mycene), and quite another the end a species as a whole. Human beings are able to survive conditions varying from a night on the ice caps to a day in the desert. And I'm not refering to scientists with plenty of air conditioning available. There are human beings that were able to adapt to these conditions.

Humans have been known to be some of the toughest and most resilient bastards Mother Nature ever birthed. (I apologise for the strong word, but given what we've put her through, I guess we deserve it.) Humans will only dissapear if a truly catastrophic event will manage to change the living conditions on the whole Earth so radically and so quickly that this wonderful capacity to adapt won't have enough time to kick in.

Ok, so I can't imagine surviving a month in the tundra or the Amazonian forest or the icecaps - I can't even imagine surviving for long without electricity - but that doesn't mean all the human beings out there are the same. We will survive even if technology fails us. And if it does, we'll only have a better fighting chance.

There are at least 10^4 gods

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it, each christian religion has its own version of christian god (sometimes one, sometimes three, depending on whether they accept the trinity or not). There are also a few versions of Allah, Shia Allah, Sunni Allah,even Christian Allah ( believe or not,a few Arabs are chatolics and they refer to the CatholicGod as Allah). Then there are religions with many gods, like Hindu, and native american religions. All together that makes at least 10^4, maybe even 10^5

Re:There are at least 10^4 gods

[BJZQ8]

Is a "chatolics" anything like a "Chataholic"?

Re:Prove it necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

No sense of humor but not a troll.

Russian roulette all these years, and still goin'

[MeatEntity]

Amazing to me that the odds are that small we should survive. Considering all of the 100 year periods the human race has already survived, you'd think that, statistically, we'd already have eaten a bullet many times over!

Whacky doomsayers. :) Entertaining, they are!

Re:1 in 455? [he's not using his toes to count]

[Univac_1004]

Astro-dude sez: "The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455."

OK. So if we run the experiment 445 times we'd expect at least one success. That's:

455x100years == 45,500

Hmmmmm.... so in twice that, or about 91,000 years, we'd be certain to be wiped out.

Since the fossil record sez its taken about 2.5 Million years for us to evolve from apes, I guess this is a very good argument for creationism...

Puny humans

[ZeroExistenZ]

ha! you puny humans! Who needs you!

I agree on some comments inhere stating our most greatest danger is ourselves. An interesting analogy I've heard not too long ago: "Humans are like alcohol. A bacterial mess, creating. Once they hit a certain percentage -of alcohol, they start dying by their own product."

ROFL?

[nostromo.operator]

Not true according to a rather lengthly list of NASA employees/astronauts, military goons, Defense specialists, scientists, FAA dudes, Engineers, the retired Cheif of Englands MOD,ect ect ect. would you like me to list some names?

post-comet Earth

[Khashishi]

I think post-comet Earth will still be far more habitable than, say, Mars. So even if the comet strikes, I don't think it will be any easier to build a colony on Mars than to fix what we have on Earth. On the other hand, pushing the colonization effort of Mars will advance technology which could be useful at home after a meteor strike.

How is the shuttle related?

[mdielmann]

Because if you fly on the shuttle, the odds of being wiped out are about 1 in 65. Hence, if we had enough shuttles, we could wipe out civilization in 100 years with no need for a natural disaster.

Seriously, space exploration is great, and so is experimental aircraft testing, but let's get a working system for getting people into space. The shuttle isn't it.

Re:How is the shuttle related?

[Teancum]

The shuttle is relevant only because the author of these articles is also the pilot who flew the Columbia on her maden voyage with STS-1. That is correct, the very first shuttle flight.

This man is one serious pioneer, and rather than simply blathering about trying to get mankind out among the other planets in the solar system, he actually tried to so something about it. That NASA has been dinking around for the past 20 years since that flight and not done anything else is more about the raw incompentancy of NASA than the fact that this hombre has some serious balls to want to get on a shuttle when it was truly an untested spacecraft system.

BTW, I agree that we now know that the shuttle is not a good spacecraft to operate, but we didn't really know that back in 1980, and it is too bad that post Challenger something else wasn't followed up on. Columbia has sealed the fate of the rest of the shuttles, when by now even NASA acknowledges need to be eliminated from regular service. The question now is what should replace them?

Re:How is the shuttle related?

[mdielmann]

Sorry if I gave the impression that I had a low opinion of this astronaut, or any other. They all have my highest regard. I'm somewhat less impressed with the space shuttle engineers. Their product was impressive, but maybe too impressive. I think they went too far, too fast against the KISS principle, giving ultimately predictable results. We are still stuck with space capsules as the best option for lobbing humans into space. Hopefully we find a better option, and soon, but for now the Russians have the most advanced, stable technology. And it's older than the shuttle.

I am going to start a new insurance product.

[expro]

Should be more popular than flight insurance since it is more-likely to kill you. I insure you for a modest fee against a civilization-ending event, (assuming there are survivors and insurers surviving to work out the details of collection -- but then if there were survivors it wasn't civilization-ending, now was it).

Who cares about the species!?

[uf22]

Why is everyone so interested in having the human species survive? I want to survive along with all my friends and family and all you lovely slashdotters.

We don't need to spread out and have 5 humans here and 10 humans there. I mean who really cares? We'll all be dead anyway and I don't know much better we'll "feel" in the afterlife knowing that a few humans are still hanging around somewhere.

We need an escape plan so that WE can live in the face of a global disaster, not just the species. We need to be able to see that asteroid coming and get the hell out of here. The first goal of the space program should be colonization of other planets so that they become suitable as a destination during an evactuation of earth. Then, step 2 is to devise a reasonable way to get everyone from point A (earth) to point B (mars?) as quickly as possible.

Not to be controversial, but...

[vorpal22]

...why is it so important that we survive? How is it universally significant is humans cease to exist in the next 10, 100, 1000, etc. years?

Re:Not to be controversial, but...

[cranos]

In the grand scheme of the universe humanity has sweet sod all significance, however to humanity, it s a little greater.

All animals strive towards continuation of the species with humanity no difference, hence we have a built in instinct which says humanity must go on (especially that bit of humanity that is you and your kin/clan/tribe/gamer group).

1 in 455?

[drew]

and what is he basing those odds off of?

unless there has been some significant new discovery about the cosmos that i am unaware of, the odds for the occurance of some cataclysmic event severr enough to wipe out all human life should be about the same for the next 100 years as for the last hundred years, and the hundred before that.... if there is a 1 in 455 chance of it happening in the next 100 years, then that should mean that there is a 1 in 45,500 chance of such an event happening in any given year.

given the fact that the human race has been around for ~2 million years so far, i think his odds are a little off. otherwise we should have been wiped out around 20 times already.

and this ignores the fact that the odds are most likely going down over time, as the level of event that would be required to wipe out the human race gets rarer and rarer the more we advance. an event that could have wiped out all of human life 2000 years ago wouldn't be nearly enough to do the job now...

The Mother Earth Metaphor

[FleaPlus]

I really like the "Mother Earth Metaphor" as a way of thinking about space settlement. From this page:

"The Earth isn't sick, she's pregnant!" -- David Buth, dbuth@freemars.org

One interesting way to look at space colonization is via the Mother Earth metaphor. With this metaphor we compare the biosphere to a pregnant woman. This implies that we think of the biosphere as a single organism, which is consistent with the Gaia hypothesis proposed by Dr. Lovelock. In the following discussion, remember that this is only a metaphor.

In the Mother Earth metaphor of space colonization:

* space colonies are like children (a fetus right now)
* the biosphere is like a pregnant woman
* humanity is like the biosphere's reproductive system

Space colonies as children is a straightforward analogy. Space colonies look different than the Earth (since life is on the inside, not the outside), but a space colony's life support system must function much as the Earth's biosphere does and, ideally, might look much like a nice Earth ecosystem.

Consider the biosphere as a pregnant woman, with the twist that she doesn't know she's pregnant and doesn't know that pregnancy exists -- or that children exist. This is the condition most of us find ourselves in since space colonization is not a widely believed realistic concept. Consider:

* A pregnant woman experiences unsustainable growth in her abdomen, specifically in the reproductive organs. Imagine how frightening this would be if you didn't know about pregnancy. Similarly, the Earth is experiencing unsustainable growth of the human population -- which in our metaphor is Mother Earth's reproductive system.
* A pregnant woman experiences changes in her body chemistry. Similarly, the biosphere is experiencing changes in air and water chemistry as a result of man-made pollution.
* Pregnancy and birth, particularly before the advent of modern medicine, can be a very dangerous time for a woman. Death of the mother and/or the child was once quite common. Similarly, nuclear weapons, pollution, and other problems threaten civilization (although the biosphere has survived much worse).
* A wise woman treats her body with extra care during pregnancy -- eating well, getting plenty of sleep, avoiding drugs, and seeking appropriate medical attention. The implications for ourselves are obvious, especially since that there are no experienced doctors or midwives.

In the context of the Mother Earth metaphor, humanity's purpose is obvious. We are here to help Mother Earth give birth. We are the reproductive organs. The dinosaurs failed, after a long successful period, apparently because a comet or asteroid struck the Earth and wiped them out. Since then a space-faring species has developed which has the power to avoid this fate by expanding off the Earth. Expanding the range of a species is a often-used and successful survival strategy. Expanding throughout the solar system and, eventually, the galaxy should have substantial survival value.

It is easy to make too much of this metaphor, but it is interesting and, I believe, instructive.

Diversity leads to violence?

[Firethorn]

Good insight.

If you look at most of the genocides and conflicts in history, the parties involved (perpetrators and victims) have mostly been from ethnicly different groups.

There's nothing wrong with being diverse, as long as you realize that you have to have at least some things in common in order to cooperate. Different views lead to conflict. Normally this is good, when it's a matter of idea vs. idea(may the best idea win). But when it gets down to the body vs. body level, watch out.

Better yet...

[Firethorn]

If it has anything useful, use the thrusters to put it into a orbit.

One of the neat ideas I've read about involved putting an asteroid on a repeating earth-mars course. You put a base on the asteroid, using the asteriod as shielding. You then use smaller vessels as a shuttle, so you don't have to accelerate that much mass. Use hydroponics and such to keep the supplies required as low as possible.

Ants

[dfj225]

Yea, cause you know, ants haven't been around for a long time or anything...wait, maybe they are space ants!

homosexuality as a population control mechanism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Homosexuality - There are theories that nature uses homosexuality to help control population sizes.

A couple of disclaimers first: I am not trying to offend any homosexuals who don't agree with this. It's just a theory. I wholeheartedly support gay marriage, gay sex, and gay anything-that-non-gay-people-can-do. And I do not suggest that AIDS is a gay disease. I think we all know better than that now.

Homosexuality as population control - Mother Earth says "sock the pickle!"
I remember a video from high school biology class covering an experiment with rats in a confined space. As they reproduced, and the available space became too small, some of the male rats displayed homosexual behaviour. Of course, a logical conclusion is that this is some sort of natural response. But is it genetic (I think we can agree that many homosexuals are born that way) or environmental (rat brain: too many of us, time to switch teams)...?

While obviously rats aren't humans, we are animals and we are related in some basic ways. So perhaps nature is telling us to cool it on the babies and try keeping sex, er, recreational.

within the next 200 years or so there's some major population-thinning event like a pandemic, massive starvation, etc.

You mean like AIDS?

So what about space colonization?
I think that an effort to colonize space will require MASSIVE industrialization and raw materials. We can't do that efficiently enough yet so I believe it would be a mistake to focus our efforts toward survival on space. We should learn to balance our budget with nature right here an now on Earth. The same technology that goes toward cleaning up our mess and preventing further waste is going to be invaluable to space exploration anyway.

About single galaxies...

[Anonymous Coward]

You about the closest galaxy to us, the Andromedia Galaxy? Well, it's on a collision course with us, about to hit in a million years!

Been near to extinction before

[bitswapper]

Check out Brush with Extinction . We were apparently down to several thousand individuals about 70,000 years ago.

We have low genetic diversity, and no longer need to adapt to extreme changes in our environment (thanks to our 'intelligence').

How long before a disease wipes us out?

Can medical technology ever advance to the point of actually helping a species with such low diversity?

Will spreading to other planets really help?

I'm guessing it's misleadingly historical

[jesterzog]

It sounds high to me. Species-level extinctions occur ever hundred million years or so. So in a 100-year period, I figure a one-in-a-million shot of getting wiped out.

It's a shame that he didn't say how it was calculated, and I wonder if he's done it based on some statistic like the total number of major impacts estimated on Earth over the last X-billion years. If so, it could mean several things.

For instance, one thing that we know is that there were a lot of impacts on the Earth early on, when the Solar System was young. There was a lot more zooming around at the time, so it shouldn't have been terribly unexpected.

We also know that impacts tend to come in batches. For instance, whenever the Sun passes near enough to another star for some significant-enough gravitational influence to occur, the orbits of a lot more comets and asteroids than usual will end up being disrupted, often falling inwards. The thousands or millions of years following an event like this might yield many more impacts than usual, but there's nothing to suggest that we're going through one of these phases right now.

If past events are all spread out evenly, then perhaps there actually is a 1 in 455 chance that each individual being will be wiped out in randomly selected 100-year block. It's not exactly a representative statistic, though, because among other things we're not in a randomly selected block. More likely at any given time, it'd be much less than that or much more than that. Considering we've been around for at least the past tens of thousands of years, I'm willing to bet that we're in a much quieter phase than what he's trying to suggest.

Personally I think that before doing anything, it's at least as important to locate and document as many near-earth objects as we possibly can so that we have a much better idea of what the real likeliness of such an impact is. Maybe space travel is a good idea and it's almost certainly inevitable as long as we don't kill ourselves first. But there's no point panicing about saving civilisation if all the fears of civilisation being wiped out are based on flawed and unrepresentative information. The first colonists we send anywhere will probably be much more likely to die out than anyone on Earth, in any case. We've survived tens of thousands of years, and the extra few it will take to finish documenting the solar system isn't likely to make much difference.

Of course, if you care primarily about your own life rather civilisation, then it's probably a moot point. Chances are that you have similar chances of being killed by a big meteorite impact or something else big, no matter where in the Solar System you happen to be.

Already been discussed many times ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an article that appeared in Wired.
We're All Gonna Die!
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday. html/

Why Bother?

[Terminal Saint]

My question has always been "So what if we go extinct?" Honestly now, set the ego aside and think about it logically. If everyone on earth is killed off by some planet-killing event, what good does it do them to have other people somewhere else? It's like saying it's all well and good if I'm killed in a home invasion, 'cause there are plenty of other people living in other houses. Why is it so important that we keep existing as a species?

and think about how insignificant, say, emacs vi..

[Anonymous Coward]

oh wait. thats the most important argument in the universe. emacs vs vi. not some dot!

Some of us rednecks who hunt...

[sean.peters]

... are also safety engineers, database developers, holders of advanced degrees, and other sorts of /. denizens. You might want to beware of generalizing.

Sean

Re:Some of us rednecks who hunt...

[bob beta]

safety engineers, database developers, holders of advanced degrees

Shucks, I thought you would mention machinists, farmers, etc. And there you go listing off a bunch of telephone sanitizers instead...

Re:Some of us rednecks who hunt...

[Transcendent]

You might want to beware of generalizing.

Especially if you generalize someone who has a gun...

"I have the power!"

[ArsSineArtificio]

Level 5: All power put in one place and given to one man for justice - He-man.

Level 6: The Power of Greyskull.

Reminds me of an old BBS sig

[ArsSineArtificio]

"Dinosaurs are extinct because they didn't have a space program."

That reminds me of an old sig I saw on a BBS once:

"Some of the more environmentally conscious dinosaurs were worried about the new iridium-enriched reactor. 'If this thing blows, only the cockroaches and mammals will survive,' they said."

You can have it

[Anonymous Coward]

*You* deal with the hellspawn. Hope you remembered to pack a shotgun.

The statistics are dubious

[Un pobre guey]

We have been here for about 30,000 years. We are not yet extinct. Empirically, the probability of 1 human extinction event within the next 100 years can be crudely calculated as less than (1/30,000) * 100, or about 0.003. this is less than 1/3000. It is crude due to no account being made of any other effects, real or statistical, and because we have never become extinct, so we don't know what the overall probability of that would be.

Anybody who has worked in an environment that requires sterile technique, that is, the need to exterminate all biological contaminants from a work area knows how difficult it would be to wipe out every single human being from the face of the earth within a short period of time.

Did the dinosaurs die within a few years or centuries as some claim, or over a period of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years? Those are two very different scenarios.

Why should we believe this guy? Because:

John Young has flown in space six times -- seven if you count his lunar liftoff. He smuggled a corned beef sandwich aboard a Gemini capsule, walked the moon during Apollo and commanded the maiden voyage of the space shuttle Columbia.

This is celebrity worship, not science. I would prefer a credible argument behind his probability claim. How can we still be around if the probability of extinction is so high? He claims:

The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455. How does that relate? You're 10 times more likely to get wiped out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you are getting killed in a commercial airline crash.

These "civilization-ending events" have been around for millions of years, and appear to have only happened a few times in the last billion. Sounds pretty bogus to me.

Re:The statistics are dubious

[P2Powah!]

I don't agree with your 30 000 number. We are here since a lot longer than that, just under a lower life-form.

We could Stop missile defense

[Cliff.Braun]

If we spent as much on colonizing other planets as we spend on missile defense we could do this pretty easy, and screw international cooperation. Think about it this way, if Russia, or China launches nuclear weapons at the US, we blow up Earth from our mars colony. Thats more effective than trying to defend one pile of rock in the earth. Would anyone mess with you if you didn't care about the planet as a whole and they all depended on it?

Although it seems to me that our descendents on mars will be reading an article in 100 years that says that one star lifeforms are doomed to extinction.

For clarity

[Jack Zombie]

1/455=~0,002

Which gives us a 99.99% chance of survival.

For more information, please read How to lie with statistics.

This is idiotic

[BranMan]

The odds come up with by these 'scientists' are ludicrous at best, and are not based on historical facts. Here are the facts:
1) Dinosaurs evolved on the Earth
2) Dinosaurs were believed killed off by a world-changing event, like is postulated here
3) The time between Dinosaurs evolving and the world-changing event was HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS.
4) Ergo, the ones who came up with the 1 in 45,500 years odds are FOS.

Nemesis

[Punkrokkr]

Isn't this essentially the premise of Isaac Asimov's book?

Well how 'bout the neanderthals?

[hey!]

They lasted about 200,000 years without space travel. The weren't wiped out by a comet, but more likely by a nastier member of the Homo faily tree.

The one in 455 figure is kind of silly. Sure there may be a 1/455 chance that 99.99% of humanity, but you'd probably need the sun to go nova to destroy 100% of humanity.

Working with a .01% survival rate, we multiply 10x-4 (.01%) times 6.5 x 10^9, you'd still have 650K people, which is a very healthy breeding pool.

Re:Well how 'bout the neanderthals?

[Teancum]

If you are talking about Neanderthals and how they survived, you need to keep in mind that they went from mankind being isolated in a relatvely small geographic area to dispersing over practically the entire planet. By the time people got to North America, they were pretty adept at dealing with diverse environments. Some archeological evidence suggest a spread of permanent settlement by people throughout the Americas spread at the rate of about 1-4 km per year. When you think about it, that is quite remarkable, especially considering that as you move north & south you encounter substantially different climate zones. East & west migration is much easier to accomplish.

Even so, the point here is not just if you can have 0.01% of mankind survive a cataclysmic event, it is also to see just what other setbacks would happen if a major event occured.

The reason why mankind survived Mt. Visuvius or Krakatoa is not because people were not near those volcanoes when they erupted, but because people were elsewhere as well and could survive and re-colonize the area afterward. And we as a species have indeed done that in both areas since the respective eruptions.

Oh Man

[Jozer99]

And just when I thought I was having a nice day...

MOD PARENT UP!!!!

[killproc]

and everything is an object...

Failure to think

[INetEngineer]

In general, humans fail to think of the future.

The last few conversations that I have read regarding "end of the world", or at least "end of humankind" scenarios, I have not seen the point made that, although the trigger for ultimate extinction may be caused by such events as disease, starvation, asteroids, global warming, etc., the actual cause for extinction or mass-population-reduction will ultimately be the battle to survive.

WAR, more than likely, will result as resources run low and budgets can no longer afford expensive R&D on "fixes" to the resource problem.

Giving humans credit for something, there is a chance some of us can and will survive, but the end looks bleak unless more people take the responsibility for others futures upon themselves.

So what can you do about it, thats life! you die!

[Quadfreak0]

Earth cracks open and swallows humanity, okay we had a good run. Giant rock falls from the sky wipes us all out, damn oh well we did the best we could (I hope). But it doesnt have to be that way, we could colonize this moon or that planet... okay, earth cracks open swallows humanity on earth. Rock hits earth wipes us from the face of the earth. But you're on your planet or moon. congrats you're stuck on that planet or moon, the only ones left of your kind. Either way you get PwnZor'd.

Fight then!

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer to dire trying to sve my planet rather than to lose time thinking about other vaporware options.

Young is unqualified and it shows

[jeif1k]

Young equates a major catastrophe with "wiping out" the human race. They are not the same. Massive volcanism or a meteor impact may wipe out 99.99% of all humans, but that's not the same as wiping out the human race. Furthermore, if we have colonies on the planets, still 99.99% of the human race would be wiped out.

His statistics also make little sense given the geological record. Global catastrophes do occur with some regularity. But we are a species that is adapted to the most extreme environments and found all over the globe; the chances of an event that wipes out a species like ours is much, much smaller.

Young is an aeronautical engineer, not a statistician, not an evolutionary biologist, not an ecologist, and not a geologist. And it shows: Young simply lacks the qualifications to make statements like these. He is actually a poster-child for the arrogance and ignorance that has been present among big, old-school engineers and that has caused one big ecological disaster after another throughout the 20th century. Of course, wasting money on "space colonization" won't cause ecological disasters on earth, but it will greatly slow down valuable unmanned scientific exploration of space, because the two are in competition.

mafias and goals

[jeif1k]

I'm glad to see that the unmanned-space-exploration-mafia has not been able to completely silence the drive for manned space exploration - yet.

The "mafia" here is the people who want manned space exploration, because they are going against widespread scientific consensus to get public money for personal financial gains and glory.

What the hell happened to the human will to explore and survive?

We should apply that "will" here at home first. If we can't keep the ecology of a planet as hospitable as the earth in balance, we sure as hell won't be able to do it on a martian colony.

What's the point in sending out probes if the information gained will certainly be lost in the (near) future when the big one hits the earth?

The probability of "the big one" hitting earth in the "near future" seem much smaller than probability of man-made climate disaster, ecological disaster, or disease, causing global devastation. But in either case, enough human beings probably will survive to rebuild. And we could actually prevent the man-made disasters if people behaved a bit more rationally.

In any case, science doesn't have a universally agreed "point" or long-term goal. Some people do it out of vanity, some out of interest, some out of long-term plans for human beings, some because it's a job. I'd be doing science even if I knew the world would end in a week.

Dig holes on other planets to survive ...

[willtsmith]

Well heck, if you're going to need to dig burrows on Mars to survive, why not simply dig holes in THIS planet. Stock with TONS of food and fuel.

Shit, am I the only one who has seen Dr Stranglove???

Nothing out there valuable enough to bring back ..

[willtsmith]

There are no resources in space that aren't available on earth. Why would private companies want to invest in space travel when there is no profit to be had????

Space tourism is about the best bet I've heard. Even then, you need a certain number of passengers (paying ungodly prices) to make such adventures a success. And thats just ORBIT!!!!

I welcome the private sector with open arms. But I don't think they'll just lose a LOT of money!!!!

Space elevator makes everything possible ...

[willtsmith]

That first step is a doosy. Thats the bulk of the cost of space travel. Once in orbit, you can do a LOT more.

But I'm with you on cutting back on manned exploration. I like ISS. I do NOT like the space shuttle (it's a space station that's launched and retrieved for every mission).

In the meantime, I think we need to become one people as a planet before we think about getting off of it.

I'd say 200-300 years before we start on Mars. And then it would be a terraforming effort taking hundreds of years. Mars needs MASS!!! Crash asteroids and comets into. It also needs a lot more gas, mine the moons of Jupiter or Uranus and shoot iceballs at Mars.

Bombard the planet for a couple hundred years. Then maybe they'll be something to breath. To me it makes very little sense colonizing a planet without a breatheable atmoshpere.

Yes, human survivability IS an issue. But a far more practical plan to avoid "doomsday" is the same one we've had to avoid "armageddon". Drill underground bunkers with self contained atmosphere's and large food and fuel reserves. Include all the tools (seed, farm animals) needed to get the human race up and running once the sky clears.

Going the Mars route uses MORE effort and saves LESS people.

When all you have is a hammer...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a spaceman, he thinks space is the answer (I'll admit "space is the place" if it gets you Liv Tyler).

"Ooo, bad thing, 25% of humans dead". And moving to space will prevent that? No. Will that preserve our civilization? Not if it collapses on earth. Or if you argue it would, "take a picture, it'll last longer".

Why not think about how to help prevent the deaths of everyone on earth? Spending trillions on space exploratation and outposts wouldn't help _near_ as much as spending it here.

The only things that'll wipe out the human race is something that kills all the humans ("Hey baby, want to go kill all the humans?") or destroys the planet and I'm talking smashed into itsy bitsy pieces destroyed.

Preserving civilization? Save lives here from big disasters, preserve infrastrure, but don't waste time & money & energy on moving a relatively small number of people off earth.

Eventually being ....

[willtsmith]

Eventually being millions of years from now.

Supervolcanoes, meteors, solar-flares, nuclear war, super-disease .... don't worry about it. It probably won't happen. And if it does, humans will ride it out in fallout shelters until the sky clears and farming can commence.

What if you don't get into a fallout shelter??? Well, shit I guess you'll die then. But I think your chances of getting on 3 trillion dollar "Mars Express" million is a lot less than getting into a 1 million dollar fallout shelter.

Yellowstone is "due" ...

[willtsmith]

Yellowstone is "due". Which basically means it could blow sometime now and 10,000 years from now.

I'll take my chances here on Earth.

BTW, somehow I think this statistic came from the same crowd who estimated the number of intelligent species in the universe using a made up formula containing unmeasureable variables.

Can civilization re-establish?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the comments made (see Guns Germs and Steel) is that currently people have used up all the easily accesible resources (i.e. minerals, coal etc).

So any civilization that attempts to grow from our ruins might face a larger hurdle to reach our current technology standards and remain locked in the stone age (or bronze age etc).

For example, see 'primative' cultures that are unable to totally use their resorces until humans from other areas immigrate in bringing specialized technology (like the arrival of european farming styles and tools to stone age australian natives).

Conversely some will burst at 11.5 cm ...

[willtsmith]

...

Conversely, some will burst at 11.5 cm. Hence you need a large sample to determine whether you have a REAL statistic.

Given that asteroid bombardment is a DISCREET (not a uniform) phenomenon, I'm not sure you can apply statistics. And even if you can, can you really predict whether it will be a Tanduska vs Gulf of Mexico sized event???

Here is my point. Yellowstone is indeed due to pop it's cap. Yes, it's done it three straight times at about the 65,000 mark. Is that "long" or "short". We don't have the magic "11" sample numbers.

In my book these are nonsense statistics.

Wrong.

[students]

Sory. I think you are wrong. According to "The Population Bomb"'s first edition, we all starved to death years ago. There is one thing that population projections don't usually include: wealthy people don't have as many children. as the population increases, technology and wealth increase, and food production increases. But the birth rate falls. Every new edition of "The Population Bomb" has lower population estimates. I don't understand this, but it happens. Birth rate in America has been below replacement level for a long time now. If America closed it's borders to immigrants, americans would slowly die out. Even third world countries are getting wealthier, so the birth rates will soon fall there too.

As for a pandemic, could happen even with low population density. Really, the cause of pandemics is lots of people traveling. Take, for example, the influenza epedimics of World War I. They killed more soldiers than the war its self.

A misanthrope writes

[metamatic]

The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Anyone considered actually doing this?

[downhole]

Amid all the speculation of just how impending our doom is, has anyone considered just how difficult it would be to create a truly independent civilization with our current level of technology?

To start, we'll probably need to replicate most of Earth's biosphere on another planet. That means terraforming, quite an ambitious project. While we're changing the atmosphere of an entire planet, we'll also have to move enough examples of most of the species on the planet to reproduce properly, including humans. Just how many humans, for example, would be required to have a stable, long-term civilization? I don't know, but I don't think it would compare favorably to the total number of people we've sent into orbit so far. Not to mention all the other species.

Then, we'll have to duplicate most of Earth's heavy industry, including power generation and the ability to gather raw materials, process them, and manufacture things from them.

I do think that we will be able to do these things eventually, and that we have to do them eventually if we want to be a lasting race. We just aren't going to be doing them today. It's just too hard to get things out of Earth's gravity well with today's technology.

The answer is simple:

[Anonymous Coward]

my appleII computer brain program tells me

if we make the chance of getting killed in a commercial airline crash 0 then 10*0=0 chance of civilization getting wiped

I'm takin the train!

Single-Universe Species Don't Last

[apsmith]

Obviously the whole argument applies at larger and larger scales (over longer and longer times) too. Does it matter if we survive a few tens of thousands of years or a few tens of billions of years, if it always just comes to an end?

I think the real argument here should be, given the vastness of the universe, we as a species are doing enormously less than is our potential. If the "more" we could do, as some strong environmentalists argue, is bad, then so be it. But if your philosophy says that more life, humanity, art, culture, more science is good, then restricting ourselves to just this planet is wrong, for the long term.

Woot!

[Vthornheart]

I hope I'm not overstepping my boundaries when I speak on behalf of the human race saying "Bring it on, karmatic bitches!" ('bitches', of course, thrown in to seal the deal.)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

And there's a ...

[Muttonhead]

...99% chance that if the human race gets wiped out in the next hundred years it won't be from natural causes. It will be from our fellow man.

See this?

Map 1
Map 2

even if we colonize another planet...

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't we have to do incest to populate? the gene pool would be pretty small even with couple thousand people, that over time.. wouldnt that happen?

unicorns? :)

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG i love UNICORNS!!!!
hehaehahehaea

gives new meaning to the phrase, "White Flight."

[jbordall]

I think we're in much more danger of killing ourselves than some catastrophic natural event.

right stuff to ask questions

[goon]

'... some retired guy ...'

Yes John Young is some old retired *guy*. But he's a reminder of a generation of real acheivers. Forget the awards and look at what he has actually done:

Born in depression era America he graduated from Georgia Tech in Aero class of '52, (for all you pre college persons - it's one of the harder enginering courses), while his armed service combat record only mentions service in Korea on DD-558, Young flew Crusader and Phantom test pilot missions evaluating weapons systems, breaking speed records at 3000 and 25,000 ft. He retired as a Caption after 25 yrs Navy service in '76.

Youngs Nasa career started in '62, flying Gemini 3 missions in '65 with Gus Grissom (remember Grissom, Commander of Apollo 1 which tragically burnt on the PAD), Gemini 10 in '66, CMMP on Apollo 10 in '69 (test run for Apollo 11 in - so thats around the Moon), Apollo 16 in '72 (with Ken Mattingly who missed his ride with Apollo 13 - so he has worked on the lunar surface for his day job), Commander of STS-1 (that the first shuttle flight) in '81, Commander of STS-9 Spacelab in '83. Was backup in Gemini 6, Apollo1, Apollo 7, 13, 17.

In summary 15,000 hrs training, 15100 hrs in flight hours and 835 hrs in 6 space flights.

He's some *retired guy* all right. He is one of only 12 people who have walked, worked and lived on the moon. That give him a unique insight into this area. He has seen how puny Earth is from space and realises how human existance is not something to be taken for granted. You can read more about his bio here.

Re:right stuff to ask questions

[Minna Kirai]

In summary 15,000 hrs training, 15100 hrs in flight hours and 835 hrs in 6 space flights.

So flying around in fast airplanes qualifies you to evaluate the density of trans-terrestrial asteroids and their ecological impact?

reflection of experience

[goon]

flying around in fast airplanes qualifies you to evaluate the density of trans-terrestrial asteroids and their ecological impact

no you missed my point. Having been to the moon, worked on the moon and having time to reflect on the implications of *no earth* does. Dont take a snippet out of context.

Re:reflection of experience

[Minna Kirai]

Having been to the moon, worked on the moon and having time to reflect on the implications of *no earth* does

No, no it doesn't. Standing on the surface of the moon tells you NOTHING about how likely it is for an asteroid to hit Earth, or how damaging it would be for that to happen. Any one of the engineers who actually applied heavy brainpower to put him there would be more qualified.

Re:Nothing out there valuable enough to bring back

[Anonymous Coward]

Just google for an estimated price of an iron-asteroid in dollars. This stuff has the potential to overthrow the whole world economy.

Nothing lives long

[Anonymous Coward]

'except a dog fart

Re:Nothing out there valuable enough to bring back

[Gr8Apes]

Get real. A single mineral or ore rich asteroid could be worth hundreds of millions. Of course, the impact here on earth to the economy might not be good (bring back a few hundred tons of gold... whoopsie).

Re:Prove it - I hope Moofie reads this too...

[zymurgyboy]

I intend it as a response to both of you.

All of this, of course, presumes you're correct in your assumption that there is an afterlife in the first place.

I agree, more or less, with the weight of importance you give to learning from mistakes and the pain that maybe associated with making them. However, there is no prima facia requirement to accept the framework of an organized religion or the existence of a superior being to be a "good person," capable of making moral and right descisions.

Would you say there is no suffering to be had in the world outside of what our various religious conflicts create for us? I've certainly benefitted from making mistakes and learning from them without banking up bonus righteousity points in the bargain.

Before you start pitying me for a lost soul who has never known the love of God, you should know I've arrived at my present state of thinking after growing up in a Christian home (and truly trying to believe); taking part in years of intensive biblical study; and further pursuing the study of Christianity and other religions in college course work. I intended to enter the seminary at one point even.

I'm not quite foolish enough to discount completely the concept of a higher power solely based on lack of evidence and my own skepticism. However, I'm even less inclined to take up religion as we know it simply out of fear of what I (or you, or anyone else) cannot know (the "mind of God," exisitence of an "afterlife"). The trade offs are not worth it. I am not willing to take part in fostering the continuance of age old sectarian conflicts in trade for feeling better about dying someday, or having answers to questions we cannot understand in the first place.

I prefer to continue disabusing myself of bad and mistaken beliefs. Assuming God == truth, I'll get closer my way than I ever will blindly accepting prefabbed tenets of Mankind's highly skewed concept of God.

My heart and mind are open in ways that those of self-righteous religios' will never be. I'm looking for truth... but I still haven't found what I'm looking for. That's fine. If I never find it, that's fine too. There is value in the struggle (as you pointed out yourself). If eternal blackness is my reward for being rational, I don't mind. The alternative is what gave us our present condition, as I see it.

Why do you believe what you believe? Please don't tell me you're yet another one of those people who can't decide if God really exists or not and therefore you're hedging your bets. I find that position to be the most gutless of copouts.

Good thread, BTW.

Re:Prove it - I hope Moofie reads this too...

[WhiplashII]

If eternal blackness is my reward for being rational, I don't mind...

And if God was a being that would reward rational behaviour with eternal darkness, would you really want to be with him in heaven?

I believe God is our father, and nothing like this. He wants us to learn and grow, and eventually to be like him. That's my belief, anyway.

I agree with you that we should try to solve the problems here on Earth, not just say it's "God's will." It's Gods will that we learn to solve the problems! It's also God's will that we live together in peace as much as possible.

To me, the key for understanding religion is to realize that you have imperfect people trying to teach other imperfect people what they know about life - and then some clever imperfect people wrote it down. For example, in the Bible they commonly were "commanded" to wipe out another civilization. I am not sure what the commandment was (perhaps it really was to exterminate everyone), but since best case it was second hand from God I think a man probably goofed the interpretation.

Why do you believe what you believe?

That is, of course, a deeply personal question - I'll try to answer anyway. In my life, I have experienced many things. Many of those things seem to require "loading the dice" in order to have happened. What I mean is that random chance does not seem to be guiding my life - my life is pushed in the direction of maximum experience (eternal term benefit, if you will). For example, I lost the ability to walk for a long time. That taught me about pain, and about overcoming obstacles. There have been many experiences, more than I could relate, that have reinforced this viewpoint. Obviously, there are always questions. But I find that simply because I do not know the answer doesn't mean it isn't there... often I will think up a possible answer to questions long after I am no longer asking.

I guess I believe that the evidence in my life weighs in favor of an external influence. I know that I don't know a lot, but what I do know leads me in that direction. As an example, while I couldn't walk, my leg started hurting (not really that abnormal, so I let it go). But over the course of a week, it got worse and worse. I couldn't sleep, and it hurt enormously even to drag myself across the hallway on the floor. None of my pain medicines were working, and I didn't have medical insurance (hard to keep a job when you can't walk). I was scared, and I asked my church for a blessing. They came over and gave me a special blessing for the sick. That night, I got the distinct impression that I should go to the internet and research gout. To my knowlege, I had never heard of the word gout before. Yet, after looking on the internet for five minutes I found page after page describing my condition exactly. More importantly, I found methods of treatment.

Now, of course, it is possible that I had subconsciously heard someone talking about gout prior to that, or any number of other posibilities. But experiences like that in my life (and there are many others) have lead me to believe. I still can't prove it, but I believe very strongly.

Besides, quantum mechanics is a dead giveaway, isn't it? The real universe could not possibly be that weird...

depopulation problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it seems that there won't be a population problem after all. Here is a seminar from Phillip Longman on the 'depopulation problem' in pdf, mp3 and ogg, all from the Long Now Foundation.