Slashdot Mirror
1-in-1,000 Chance of Asteroid Impact In ... 2182?
astroengine writes "Sure, we're looking 172 years into the future, but an international collaboration of scientists have developed two mathematical models to help predict when a potentially hazardous asteroid (or PHA) may hit us, not in this century, but the next. The rationale is that to stand any hope in deflecting a civilization-ending or extinction-level impact, we need as much time as possible to deal with the threatening space rock. (Asteroid deflection can be a time-consuming venture, after all.) Enter '(101955) 1999 RQ36' — an Apollo class, Earth-crossing, 500 meter-wide space rock. The prediction is that 1999 RQ36 has a 1-in-1,000 chance of hitting us in the future, and according to one of the study's scientists, María Eugenia Sansaturio, half of those odds fall squarely on the year 2182."
I imagine some people have, or plan to have, children which they will have some degree of fondness towards. As it may effect their children, or their children's children, it might be of some concern to you.
Also, I'm pretty sure an unusually high percentage of Slashdot readers are not planning on dying. I mean, that's pretty much what science is for, right? I'm very concerned about how this asteroid will affect my robot-body . . .
Also, I'm pretty sure an unusually high percentage of Slashdot readers are not planning on dying. I mean, that's pretty much what science is for, right? I'm very concerned about how this asteroid will affect my robot-body . . .
Sad reality: if the robot-body technology WAS developed within our lifetimes, the vast majority of us couldn't afford it. That's going to be the ugly truth when it gets here: "immortality" will only be for the rich. The rest of us will live and die like we always have.
That said - 500 meters? That's enough to cause some SERIOUS devastation, but it's not an extinction event impact. 6 miles wide killed the dinosaurs, but didn't wipe out EVERYTHING. This is 0.3 miles wide. As long as civilization as a whole goes on then I'm not TOO worried. Afterall, if they fail to successfully deflect it, the survivors could look at it as a learning experience.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Even if the odds were 100% that it would hit it would be 171.5 years before any bureaucrat does anything.
Statistically, we've probably discovered 1% of the potentially hazardous asteroids. Now we have a data point for an interesting occurrence: one of the ones we know about has a good chance of hitting us. What about the rest of them?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Sad reality: if the robot-body technology WAS developed within our lifetimes, the vast majority of us couldn't afford it.
Oh I'm sure that banks will be willing to give you a loan to purchase (or better still - rent) your immortal robot-body, after all - you are going to have hundreds of years to pay it off.
I know some executives who would salivate at the idea of having an indentured workforce like that.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
If you think that's enough to completely wipe out our species, I have a bridge to sell you.
It may not be life as we know it, but whether you like it or not humans as a species will survive ALL of that, AND more. All we need is some percentage of newborns to make it to, oh, let's be generous and say age 17. They breed. There's more of us.
You don't need cars, or computers, or even a houses to have humans. All you need is sharp, pointy sticks, a few friends, and some of those friends to be of the opposite sex. That's it.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Until the first person has been woken up from cryonic "sleep", I think it is silly to have any kind of confidence in it. But everything will be wonderful when the cargo comes, right?
Well, duh, if you were allowed to pick a revolver you'd just choose one that didn't have the bullet in it.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it