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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[PalmKiller]

I think you mean Von Neumann, not Von Neuman

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Ukonu]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Taladar]

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

Re:Prove it

[Razor Blades are Not]

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

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

[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

[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

[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)

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!

[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!

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[kaleco]

Because you don't have to worry about geological or comological events in the past killing you.

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

[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

[LiquidCoooled]

What if Shumaker Levy 9 had impacted with Earth instead of Jupiter?

Instead of a bruise on its surface, we would be dead.

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

[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.

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?

[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.

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...

Obligatory beowulf reference...

[jarich]

So he wants a beowulf cluster of planets?

Kewl!

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!

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

[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

[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!!

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...

[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...

[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.

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

[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

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...

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:One Planet ...

[stewby18]

Hello - the title of this /. article is misleading...

You must be new here.

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.

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:

[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.

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.

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?

[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.

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.

'Single-Planet Species Don't Last'

[warpSpeed]

Tell that to the cockroaches...

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.

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: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.

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: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

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?

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..

Dinosaurs extinction

[xv4n]

Extinction of the dinosaur, what really happened was...

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.

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?

[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?

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!

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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