Slashdot Mirror


Linking Mass Extinctions To the Sun's Journey In the Milky Way

schwit1 writes "In a paper published today on the Los Alamos astro-ph preprint service, astronomers propose that as many as eleven past extinction events can be linked to the Sun's passage through the spiral arms of the Milky Way. (You can download the paper here [pdf].) From the paper: 'A correlation was found between the times at which the Sun crosses the spiral arms and six known mass extinction events. Furthermore, we identify five additional historical mass extinction events that might be explained by the motion of the Sun around our Galaxy. These five additional significant drops in marine genera that we find include significant reductions in diversity at 415, 322, 300, 145 and 33 Myr ago. Our simulations indicate that the Sun has spent ~60% of its time passing through our Galaxy's various spiral arms.'"

60 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. Oort cloud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I only read the abstract, but while it proposes a correlation it did not speculate on the exact cause of the extinction. I wonder if passing 'nearer' (I use the term loosely) to higher concentrations of stars might disturb the Oort cloud, sending more comets than normal careening in towards the inner solar system ... or if we might catch stragglers from other stars' own Oort Clouds.

    1. Re:Oort cloud? by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That is how I read it, or simply wandering comets, asteroids, broken free of what ever they were orbiting. Even interstellar dust concentrations perturbing our own asteroids might be enough.

      But I was more surprised to learn the Sun was not traveling in rough unison with a (relatively) fixed spiral arm. Is this normal for all stars?
      If all stars are wandering why do spiral arms exist at all? Why wouldn't the Milky Way simply be a disk?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Oort cloud? by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Spiral arms are shock waves. The stars themselves don't move with the wave, they are created by it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Oort cloud? by symbolset · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the paper this is diiscussed as one possible explanation.

      Such encounters would not pose a di- rect hazard to life on Earth by changing the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, but could pose a haz- ard by disturbing the Oort Cloud

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:Oort cloud? by wulfhere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Man, do I wish for mod points. I was thinking the exact same thing about our star wandering. If the spiral arms are hostile to life, that could *significantly* cut down on the number of stars capable of supporting life.

      --
      -- Sent from a computer.
    5. Re:Oort cloud? by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, such clarity.

      Have you told those clowns at Harvard about this?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Oort cloud? by symbolset · · Score: 2

      Mass extinction events are not hostile to life. They may in fact be essential to evolution.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    7. Re:Oort cloud? by Chuckstar · · Score: 2

      The Harvard article in no way contradicts what TapeCutter said. Please clarify your point.

    8. Re:Oort cloud? by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      “We find they are forming spiral arms,” explains D’Onghia. “Past theory held the arms would go away with the perturbations removed, but we see that (once formed) the arms self-perpetuate, even when the perturbations are removed. It proves that once the arms are generated through these clouds, they can exist on their own through (the influence of) gravity, even in the extreme when the perturbations are no longer there.”

      No mention of Shock waves, or even a hint of what might cause such shock, or how such shock could be transmitted in the vacuum of space.

      Density waves, (shock waves) another term for Stochastic Star Formation theory, is no longer the leading theory of the existence of spiral arms. Its not the 1960s any more.

      This shock wave theory suggest that stars are relatively uniformly distributed, even in the inter-arm gaps, but because of density waves inducing star birth at their leading edge and star death at their trailing edge, the arms simply appear brighter.
      Hubble pretty much put that theory to bed. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_1300 The inter-arm gaps are real.

      Further the so called shock wave theory (Stochastic Star Formation) postulates that stars on average do not actually leave their "arm", and the visual effect of the arm at any give place pretty much spans the life of a star. (born on the leading edge, dead by the trailing edge). Yet this story suggests the Sun has wandered through the arm(s) several times.

      Further, even when perturbations from a passing galaxy might have triggered them via gravity, the arms persist. and in some galaxies even after
      the perturbations disappear. So what is driving these? What would cause "shock waves"?

      The 60's are calling, and they want their theory back.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:Oort cloud? by dkf · · Score: 4, Informative

      No mention of Shock waves, or even a hint of what might cause such shock, or how such shock could be transmitted in the vacuum of space.

      Via the interstellar medium, of course. It's pretty tenuous, but most certainly is capable of sustaining phenomena like shock waves. Which isn't to say that that's necessarily the particular process that is dominant in the galactic arms; it could also be something relating to magnetism, as the physics of a flowing magnetically-coupled medium is viciously difficult to work with (i.e., highly non-linear). And I've got no idea what happens at the phase change boundaries between the parts of the ISM which are plasmas and the parts which are conventional (tenuous) gasses; phase changes can do "interesting" things.

      As for what's powering it all, you've got some exceptionally powerful energy sources out there. Black holes in particular can pump vast amounts of energy into the surrounding volume of space. The stellar wind from very high mass stars would be another interesting source.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    10. Re:Oort cloud? by dryeo · · Score: 3

      A good chunk of the galaxy is hostile to life. The galactic core and areas of extreme star formation for example. Both due to radiation, hot blue gigantic stars put out a lot of radiation and then go supernova and the stars are close enough that the odds of a close enough encounter to perturb a planets orbit go up. A large star may perturb the Earths orbit from a light year, or as others mentioned, trigger more objects falling in from the Oort cloud or such.
      Many stars also have non-circular orbits that take them through the core periodically.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. Re:Rubish by Dutchmaan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    **might** be explained

    Isn't that pretty much what "correlation" means?

  3. Intergalactic space by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Assume it were possible to slingshot our sun out of the galaxy into intergalactic space. Would we be better off there, or does the Milky Way offer some sort of protection against whatever's out there (radiation, etc)?

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Intergalactic space by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 3, Funny

      The reapers hide in intergalactic space, so we're probably not safe there.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    2. Re:Intergalactic space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, no, no. I'm just saying that there's no way to detect a black hole without any matter around for it to consume. We're much safer where we can see them!
      Won't someone please think on the children?

    3. Re:Intergalactic space by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      Surely you mean reavers?

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    4. Re:Intergalactic space by symbolset · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is possible for the Sun to be flung out of the galaxy by passing too close to a much larger star. Stars are flung out of galaxies quite frequently in much the same way that asteroids and comets are frequently flung out of the solar system. The Earth would be unlikely to survive such an event. But if it did, no, there is nothing out there between galaxies that is more harmful than whirling through this relatively dense dust and grit.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:Intergalactic space by mrclisdue · · Score: 2

      ...Won't someone please think on the children?

      A single typo, and suddenly you're on a few hundred watchlists....

    6. Re:Intergalactic space by marcosdumay · · Score: 2

      Nah... I'm pretty sure tath in a few years nobody would complain anymore.

  4. spiral arms? by freeasinrealale · · Score: 2

    So if we are moving through spiral arms, and it appears our neighbouring stars appear 'relatively' fixed to our position does this mean that all stars in our galaxy move through the spiral arms? Do the spiral arms move w/respect to all the stars like some sorta density wave?

    --
    A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
    1. Re:spiral arms? by icebike · · Score: 2

      That was also my question.

      Is this movement along the plane of the galaxy's disk, or oscillating above and below the disk? How sure are we that there even are spiral arms? If there were arms, then why would be be traveling through them, instead of with them? Why would an orbiting star system travel faster than other star systems in its proximity, and still remain in the same orbit?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:spiral arms? by richard.cs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do the spiral arms move w/respect to all the stars like some sorta density wave?

      That's exactly what the spiral arms are, they can't be the same stars orbiting together in that shape as that would imply a rigid body rotation. The situation where everything moves around together as if it were nailed to a rigid cosmic disc doesn't work because the orbit time of the stars at the centre of the galaxy is less than that of the stars at the edge. This is a consequence of the orbital physics, it's essentially the only way the forces can balance.

      So, the stars in the centre whiz around quickly (in cosmological time anyway) whilst the ones at the edge take forever. The spirals are simply areas of higher star density but they are not the same stars all the time. This region does rotate but more slowly than the stars contained within it. So, why are there areas of increased star density? No-one's entirely sure but it seems likely that these are actually regions with higher rates of star formation, with many young, short-lived blue stars.

    3. Re:spiral arms? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, it wasn't clear from TFS or TFA what they were talking about, but further down in the discussion:

      TL;DR: the Sun orbits the galaxy faster than the spiral arms, and when the solar system passes through gas clouds in the spiral arms, that can send more Ort-cloud comets at the Earth.

      The motion of the spiral arms around the cen-
      tre of the Galaxy is somewhat slower than that of the
      stars that make up the galaxy, which means that, as
      the Sun orbits the centre of the Galaxy, it follows
      a path that takes it through the spiral arms every
      few tens of millions of years. In the spiral arm envi-
      ronment, the Solar System is exposed to a far more
      hazardous and busy regime than in the inter-arm re-
      gions (our current location). The Earth could be
      relatively close to a star when its life comes to an
      end in a supernova explosion { which could certainly
      pose problems for life, although such supernovae are
      relatively rare, and the odds of the Earth being suf-
      ciently close to one for life to be exterminated en-
      tirely are low, even within a spiral arm (Beech 2011).
      At the same time, close encounters between the Sun
      and neighbouring stars become more frequent, as do
      encounters between the Sun and giant gas clouds
      (see Fig. 2). Such encounters would not pose a di-
      rect hazard to life on Earth by changing the orbit
      of the Earth around the Sun, but could pose a haz-
      ard by disturbing the Oort Cloud (Porto de Mello et
      al. 2009), a vast cloud of comets (Oort 1950) which
      stretches to a distance of at least 100 000 AU from
      the Sun. The Oort Cloud is thought to contain tril-
      lions of cometary nuclei, left over from the formation
      of the Solar system, which are only tenuously grav-
      itationally bound to the Sun (the outer members of
      the cloud are around halfway to the nearest star).
      An encounter with a passing star or distant molec-
      ular cloud can be enough to deflect an Oort cloud
      comet, throwing it onto a new orbit that will bring
      it into the inner Solar system { where it can pose a
      threat to the Earth. The closer the star approaches
      to the Sun, or the more massive it is (or both), the
      more comets it will scatter inwards, and therefore
      the more likely it will be that one of those in-falling
      comets will hit the Earth.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:spiral arms? by Luyseyal · · Score: 2
      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  5. Re:Rubish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It means every time a mass extinction occurs on Earth, a galactic spiral arm is contructed.

  6. Re:Rubish by Dutchmaan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know that's supposed to be tongue in cheek, but correlation is just another way of saying, we need to look into this with more detail. So if that's your hypothesis and there's correlation between the events, then who am I to judge if you decided to study it with greater detail.

  7. Re:Rubish by Teancum · · Score: 2

    It means every time a mass extinction occurs on Earth, a galactic spiral arm is contructed.

    This sounds very reasonable to me, especially if it is just a "correlation".

  8. Re:Rubish by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So why are you calling it "rubbish?" They've found a correlation. That's interesting. No-one's claiming to have discovered the mechanism. Correlation is not causation. You seem to have inferred that because someone's found a correlation, they must also be claiming causation.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  9. "Published on a Preprint Service"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Before you read too much into this report, remember that a preprint service makes papers available to researchers in the field before the paper has undergone the peer-review process. This allows the results to be circulated amongst other researchers quickly as the peer-review process can takes quite some time.

    While not as bad as say having a press conference about discovering "Cold Fusion" before any peer-review only to find that the results could not be duplicated, take the papers contents with a grain of salt as the research has not been peer-reviewed.

    You might think of it like the answers you get in the back of a textbook that have usually been done by an author's grad students. Most of them are probably correct, but nobody has gone over them with a fine-tooth comb to verify their correctness.

  10. Nemesis: Debunked theory by Misagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There has previously been a theory that these mass reoccurring extinctions would have been created by the near passing of a hypothetical star that we would have been unable to detect because it would be on the other side of the Oort cloud.
    I suppose that this new finding will debunk that theory for good.

    The hypothetical star had been named Nemesis. I know of it only because I ready about it in a novel by Asimov recently.

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  11. Re:suuuure by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in other news...many people die in hospitals, therefore hospitals may cause death.

    And indeed they do.

    http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital-acquired_infection

    So don't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of causation, simply because it was discovered by correlation.
    Falsely assuming no-causation is every bit as much as a statistics induced error as falsely assuming causation.

    With correlation you have a reason to look for causation. Without correlation, looking for causation is just shooting in the dark.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  12. Re:suuuure by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tubeman!!!

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  13. Re:Depends on what powers the sun by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...but if the hypothesis that the sun is externally powered by electric currents flowing in the spiral arms of the galaxy...

    Is this some sort of inside joke? A reference to a Time Cube-style crackpot of whom I'm not aware?

    Milk & Honey are good for you, but only if both are raw!

    Oh dear. I suspect you're serious.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  14. What we need to know... by ebcdic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... is when we pass through the next one!

    1. Re:What we need to know... by MatthiasF · · Score: 4, Informative

      We are actually passing through a minor one right now, called the Orion Spur.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Artist's_impression_of_the_Milky_Way_(updated_-_annotated).jpg

  15. Re:Rubish by osu-neko · · Score: 2

    At best they have found a correlation in time.

    So, you're saying they've found precisely what they claimed to have found -- a correlation.

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  16. Explanation is elsewhere by monatomic · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070420-extinctions.html Other researchers found that time periods Earth is exposed to large amounts of cosmic rays is correlated with mass extinction events. This is a possible explanation.

    1. Re:Explanation is elsewhere by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm getting worried here.

      Spiral galaxy arm transits.
      Cosmic ray fluctuations.
      Killer Asteroids.

      I think somebody out there doesn't like us much (not that I blame them).

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Explanation is elsewhere by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "Without catastrophic or otherwise challenging events, life seems to become complacent - evolution often plateaus."

      And this is a bad thing... exactly how?

      Evolution happens by random mutation and selection of the better fitted.

      On a stable environment, reaching a local optimum is expected to eventually happen and then, further mutations have a very hard time to produce better fitted individuals/populations than those currently in place. But then again, that's a bad thing... exactly why?

    3. Re:Explanation is elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Spiral galaxy arm transits.
      Cosmic ray fluctuations.
      Killer Asteroids.

      Worst Haiku ever.

    4. Re:Explanation is elsewhere by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "If life plateaued as a particularly tenacious single celled slime - would that be a bad thing?"

      The point is that evolution is not finalist, it doesn't pursue any goal. If life plataeued at a single celled slime, that's neither bad nor good; it'd be just the way it'd be.

  17. Re:Rubish by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We use the most up to date Milky Way model and solar orbit data
    in order to test the hypothesis that the Sun's galactic spiral arm crossings cause
    mass extinction events on Earth.

    That is how the authors of this paper reported their findings in the actual article's abstract. As for how some random Slashdot poster reported this idea, does it really matter? If you are complaining about Slashdot itself and lame editorship on the part of those who review these stories on the Slashdot staff, that is something else entirely and not something to complain about to the paper's authors.

    Besides, they claim it is a causation, or that events which somehow happen during those crossings in turn trigger these extinction events. Unfortunately we have a data sample of one solar system to compare against right now to see if there might be any substance to the mechanism.

  18. Re:Rubish by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well I'm not a scientist but with a little common sense being applied and knowing what we know it makes sense. After all what do we know so far? Well we know there is this HUGE band of rock at the outer edge of our system called the Oort Cloud, there is also another huge band of rocks in the inner system which may have been a failed planet. If going through the arm caused changes to the gravitational fields way out there in the oort cloud it probably wouldn't take much to get one of those chunks moving, after all that is where it is believed all our long term comets came from so there had to be something in the past that got the comets going. So if you look at how big a period we are looking at and how much debris we have in the inner belt the idea that going through the arm may occasionally cause one of those big inner rocks to get flung at us,possibly by being hit by something fling out of the oort? Really doesn't sound too implausible to me.

    To me the thing I find really interesting is how many times our friend Mr Jupiter has saved us by being a big giant garbage collector and pulling all this crap into it that could have easily headed our way if it wasn't there. i honestly wouldn't be surprised if it turned out for every extinction event there was probably thousands that didn't happen because Jupiter sucked it up or slung it off in another direction,given how many times we have seen impacts in just the little bit of time we've been able to see that far out.

    So I wish them all the luck, maybe if we can find out exactly what events cause these maybe we can avoid it happening to us, as while I doubt we'd see 100% fatalities of the human race one really nasty impact could easily send us back to the dark ages.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  19. Re:Rubish by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    A real test would be to use such transitions to look for another one not associated with any mass extinctions, and then go look if one actually happened.

    I don't know if such would have lain undiscovered so far, but it would make for a good predictive test.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  20. Not exactly a new concept by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've got a novel by John Brunner written in 1982 called The Crucible of Time (), which documents a (very non-human) species through its scientific awakening. Throughout the book they're discovering that their planet is getting closer to a cloud of debris dense enough to massively devastate the surface, possibly shatter the planet. In the end they manage to build enough arks to save the species. The foreward reads:

    "It is becoming more and more widely accepted that the Ice Ages coincide with the passage of the Solar System through the spiral arms of our galaxy. ..."

    --
    GStreamer - The only way to stream!
    1. Re:Not exactly a new concept by jasax · · Score: 2

      Googling "Ice Ages coincide with the passage of the Solar System through the spiral arms of our galaxy" retrieves you a lot of links. See for instance the first lines of these two:

      http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/ShavivChapter.pdf
      http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.2777.pdf (2009)

      Many more there, such as this on dinosaur extinction:

      http://www.dinosaurhome.com/root-causes-of-extinction-events-219.html

    2. Re:Not exactly a new concept by kermidge · · Score: 2

      A fine story. Got me wondering just how dense the dust was in a spiral arm, how great an effect on insolation. As I recall, not much but since the Sun itself is variable, then I suspect that the combo of lower Solar output and dust increases odds for extinction, which would conveniently explain those times that passing through an arm didn't result in extinctions. Never tracked down info on whether we could find out what the Solar output was during arm passages, though.

  21. Re:Rubish by jbolden · · Score: 2

    one really nasty impact could easily send us back to the dark ages.

    I agree with everything you wrote till this. Obviously a huge sub planet sized object and we are done. But something like a comet a few miles across how would that cause technological collapse planet wide? Lose 1/2 or 2/3rds of the population wouldn't do that. A technological regress requires a fragile society not just a sudden jolt.

  22. Re:Rubish by meerling · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's been brought up before, and rather quickly debunked, not because a number of extinctions do occur at the periods of crossing a galactic arm, but rather the numerous other times when extinctions occur outside of the galactic arms, and the times it passes through the arms that the extinction events don't occur.

    If you want to see what I'm talking about, just search the science sites about it.

    Yes, it is an intriguing idea, but No, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

  23. Correlation does not rule out causation by mveloso · · Score: 2

    Correlation is not causation, but correlation by itself does not rule out causation. Not sure why people have a tendency to discount that possibility. Is that an online thing, or does it happen in real life too?

  24. Re:Rubish by Progman3K · · Score: 2

    I agree with you that there are probably gravitational perturbations to the Oort cloud or inner asteroid-belt that result in extinction-events but I also expect that there is another phenomena: the varying levels of cosmic rays as we pass through the galaxy's arms.

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  25. Re:Rubish by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Funny

    You laugh, but in 50 years the atmosphere gets so hot that it excites the molecules to light speed, at which point it creates a rift in space time that tears back through time, sending hot jets of atmospheric gases ripping through the atmosphere and extinguishing life at periods in the past.

    Also, the midwest will be completely covered in 200ft of popcorn.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  26. Re:Rubish by stenvar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Correlation is not causation

    That doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. "Correlation is not causation" is a statement reminding people that "B causes A" and "X causes A and B" are alternative explanations to "A causes B" when one observes a correlation.

    In this case, the only reasonable choice is "galactic orbit causes extinctions" or "the correlation is accidental"; none of the other alternatives are reasonable.

  27. Re:Rubish by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Areas of star formation are more radioactive due to massive blue stars and resulting supernovas when the massive star dies. More star formation happens in the arms.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  28. Re: Rubish by garyebickford · · Score: 2

    Strong. Cosmic rays are just very high speed particles of different types, masses and speeds. Some come from extragalactic sources but the majority come from new stars and novas in the local vicinity. This data actually matches observations by Henrik Svensmark some years ago. He also observed correlation with the solar system's position relative to the galactic plane. The solar system moves up and down through the plane. Times when we are closer to lots of stars such as when we are in an arm or in the plane, correlates strongly with ice ages.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  29. We ARE a fragile society by ulatekh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A technological regress requires a fragile society not just a sudden jolt.

    But we are a fragile society. Without even having to bring up the Idiocracy, the fact remains that we're mostly a society of specialists, dependent on the other cogs in the machine for our survival, stupidly mocking the "preppers" who are really just trying to be generalists. A comet strike could easily disrupt this machine and cause it to grind to a halt.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    1. Re:We ARE a fragile society by shaitand · · Score: 2

      That depends. What if we lose, Asia?

      Just from the perspective of the US but I bet it is the same or worse in at least the rest of the western nations. The shelves of every retail store, empty within a few weeks. Processors, memory, storage chips, pretty much all electronics manufacturing capability gone in a day. Most of the worlds oil supplies gone. Most of the rare earth minerals gone so no more things like solar panels. It then becomes a race between building this kind of infrastructure up in our world and the existing systems we rely on to accomplish that failing.

      Could we do it in a generation? I'm going to say yes. But would our existing infrastructure survive a generation without replacement parts that require the task already be complete to build? Highly suspect. The newest electronics are highly sensitive and fragile devices and fail very easily and it is reasonable based on my experience working with high end digital electronics that significantly more than half, lets call it 70%, will fail within five years. Remember, we are in a world where a failed ram chip, hard drive, corrupt flash memory, or a failed power supply automatically equals a failed piece of gear. So you can forget the internet and cell phones within five years.

      The electronics of yesterday (15-20 yrs ago) aren't as sensitive and fickle and they tend to be what is used in the core of our more critical infrastructure. Railroad switches, subways, power infrastructure, communications infrastructure. The problem with these is the reason they are still there is inertia, this 15-20yr old gear is 15-20yrs old already and dropping left and right. So the reality is that this stuff is probably going to die as quickly as the more sensitive new electronics.

      So within a month there are virtually no consumer goods and within five years there is no infrastructure with which to coordinate the building of new infrastructure. And good luck building a chip fab without a chip fab btw. People will see it as life as mostly normal until it is too late. There will still be food in the stores, power from the wall, their cell phones will work, their blu-ray players, etc. It won't go all at once, it will be little things. Your blu-ray player dies, some sites on the net start to go dark but for the most part, the biggest sites will fail last. Then individual neighborhoods will lose internet and cell coverage will start to suffer. There will start to be brownouts and then isolated blackouts. Rail and transport lines will drop but slowly and only individual sections. The most critical and central stuff will fail last because there is redundancy built in and because people are resourceful and will cannibalize parts from less critical pieces to keep it going but it's just a matter of time before it fails.

      There is no way a democratic society gets outraged and determined enough to pull this off fast enough. If someone gets the needed infrastructure built, it will more likely be a dictatorship that can ignore property rights, skip the debates, and act immediately on no more than the right guy saying "do this now." You can be certain that would change the geopolitical landscape but not set us into the dark ages.

    2. Re:We ARE a fragile society by jbolden · · Score: 2

      We can't lose all of Asia. We'd lose some capacity in some places. We could lose a chunk of Korea but Thailand would be fine. We lost Thailand but Taiwan is fine, etc...

      But let's assume we did lose all of Asia, which is impossible. First off we've had falloffs in international trade before. We had a massive drop in trade after WWI from about 1/3rd of the economies of western nations to a few percentage points, which is more drastic than your Asia situation and that didn't cause a return to the dark ages. The world's oil supplies are not mostly in Asia, unless you mean Asia proper (i.e. the middle east) and don't mean just east Asia, in which case I don't see how we lose Japan and Saudi Arabia and still have any life on the planet. In addition demand for oil has dropped.

      We have processors, memory... on other continents. Certainly Asia has well more than 1/2 but it is not non-existant elsewhere and there is no reason that in 5 years these supplies can't be restarted. So for example you could see a regression from smartphones to much less complex dumphones as component prices go up because they are needed elsewhere. But I don't see how that drives a regression to people not wanting to communicate at all with the next town over. You could see a situation where televisions go from $200 back to $2000 and so people don't have one in every room, but I don't see how that eliminates the whole concept of mass entertainment.

      And no you can't forget the internet. The internet is valuable, we can use older gear to keep it running. Maybe not as well but an internet at 1/5 the current speed is far better than not having it at all. And 1/5 is easily accomplishable using almost any sort of souped up gear. People have dealt with scarcity before and using suboptimal components. It is done everyday all over the planet in poor countries and is commonplace during emergencies even now even in the USA.

      There is no way a democratic society gets outraged and determined enough to pull this off fast enough.

      That's what capitalism is for. Sudden shortages of various components create huge spikes in price create lots of effort to bring supply online fast. And of course in a situation where 1/2 the planet has just died there is going to be understanding in a Democratic society that infrastructure is going to be badly damaged and there need to be studies and budget allocations to replace infrastructure. They government can outright step in and buy infrastructure that's not going to be terribly controversial.

  30. Re:Rubish by jbolden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I believe a mile wide asteroid destroys everything for about 100 miles and would be killing 200 miles on out. So for example a mile wide asteroid hitting New York kills most everyone in Philadelphia. So let's assume that happens. Note you are picking an almost worst case scenario with the eastern seaboard. We instantly kill say 20m people. GDP would drop a minimum of 10% but the dislocation is bad and say it drops more like 30% instantly (i.e. 27% per capita) That's an incredibly deep depression in the USA. So things are bad. Globally that's going to hit other countries in terms of trade. So UK, China... lose say .3*.2*.25 = 1.5%. We'll make it 2% drop for our trading partners so they have a normal moderate recession.

    But... the we know how to fix supply chains. I'd assume we have growth on the order of 8% or more annually from that depressed level easily in the USA and similarly globally as we fix that dislocation. It might even be faster than 8% since 30% is such a depressed level.

    A return to the dark ages would be something on the order of a 98% drop per capita that we don't recover from. You can see it is not even close.

  31. Re:Rubish by shaitand · · Score: 2

    No controls is kind of the point here. The sun spends 60% of it's time passing through these arms according to the summary. We have no way to change that and wouldn't if we could (altering the course of the sun seems like a "bad idea"). So what does this do for us? What do we do with it? Come up with a color system and give the current probability we are all going to die today due to events that are completely outside our control as a little colored bar in the corner on the weather channel?