24 ms·

You're saying like it's an either or situation. For sure it's cheap to build underground bunkers and stockpile. I wouldn't be surprised if there already isn't.

by dalore 8y ago

You're saying like it's an either or situation. For sure it's cheap to build underground bunkers and stockpile. I wouldn't be surprised if there already isn't. So colonising somewhere other then Earth should also be a priority. A big risk are meteors. Just like the dinosaurs.

Steko 8y ago
OTOH a big risk to colonization is more advanced civilizations see other space colonizing species as a threat and decide to annihilate them.
calcifer 8y ago
> A big risk are meteors No they aren't. ~1km wide asteroids impact the Earth on average every 500,000 years and even then, it's too small to be an extinction level event. Not to mention all NEOs around that size are constantly monitored.
- dalore 8y ago
  If you think we are monitoring all PHO (potentially hazardous object) then you're mistaken. We can't possibly do that. Too many of them, sky is too big, and they don't give off anything. It's estimated we've only found 20-30% of these objects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentially_hazardous_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentially_hazardous_object
- jnurmine 8y ago
  A 1 km asteroid would do a lot of damage. It would not be a directly ELE but the consequences would be nevertheless large. Depending on where it hits, it might even lead to a complete collapse of a country or countries. Though the direct effects would be mostly local, the systemic effects would reverberate globally since in the modern world things (such as food production, supply chains, etc.) are so meshed together. Draw a 300 km circle at your chosen impact point, then say bye to everything inside the first 150 km. The rest of the circle would be damaged to a varying degree. You can easily find places for impact points which, although not an ELE, would still turn many, many people's lives nasty.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Having a base on Mars wouldn't solve any of the problems of such a one-in-a-million-year-event, though. It wouldn't help the people in the impact site, and it certainly wouldn't save humanity from an extinction event. (Because what you described is not an extinction event.)
    - jnurmine 8y ago
      Yes, a Mars/Moon base would not help the people at the impact site, ELE or not ELE. Nothing would. Those within the ca. 150 km radius would just be dead. Those at the outer edges of the 300 km radius could be helped. Note: this impacted area alone would be roughly similar to the size of Great Britain. Even if such a "smallish" 1 km asteroid hits, in general everything will change. For example, the asteroid could still cause enough chaos to weaken a country or countries, opening up for opportunistic wars. Since the long-term effects of a non-ELE would be transient, some countries might want to take advantage of this situation and invade (resource grab or glory for motherland or righting old wrongs or something). And then, what things would be seen next - for this we would be in unknown territory. Even without an outright war, the number of displaced people could become very large. People would likely not sit still and clean up, but try to move away. Can the receiving end handle that many people, can they move enough help in when the just-in-time supply chains are disrupted to pieces? If not, there will be a collapse into some form of chaos at the receiver. And again, people might move, etc. For an ELE, an offworld base is the only option for continuity. If that is not in place when an ELE hits, then humankind will be dead. A Mars/Moon base operating at large enough industrial and R&D capacity (akin to a small to medium sized country) could help restore normalcy even without an ELE. So, I think an offworld base is required anyway, even if we don't sweat so much about 1 km rocks, but still want to be serious about protection against an ELE.

by dalore 8y ago

Steko 8y ago

OTOH a big risk to colonization is more advanced civilizations see other space colonizing species as a threat and decide to annihilate them.

calcifer 8y ago

> A big risk are meteors No they aren't. ~1km wide asteroids impact the Earth on average every 500,000 years and even then, it's too small to be an extinction level event. Not to mention all NEOs around that size are constantly monitored.

dalore 8y ago
If you think we are monitoring all PHO (potentially hazardous object) then you're mistaken. We can't possibly do that. Too many of them, sky is too big, and they don't give off anything. It's estimated we've only found 20-30% of these objects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentially_hazardous_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentially_hazardous_object
jnurmine 8y ago
A 1 km asteroid would do a lot of damage. It would not be a directly ELE but the consequences would be nevertheless large. Depending on where it hits, it might even lead to a complete collapse of a country or countries. Though the direct effects would be mostly local, the systemic effects would reverberate globally since in the modern world things (such as food production, supply chains, etc.) are so meshed together. Draw a 300 km circle at your chosen impact point, then say bye to everything inside the first 150 km. The rest of the circle would be damaged to a varying degree. You can easily find places for impact points which, although not an ELE, would still turn many, many people's lives nasty.
- vkou 8y ago
  Having a base on Mars wouldn't solve any of the problems of such a one-in-a-million-year-event, though. It wouldn't help the people in the impact site, and it certainly wouldn't save humanity from an extinction event. (Because what you described is not an extinction event.)
  - jnurmine 8y ago
    Yes, a Mars/Moon base would not help the people at the impact site, ELE or not ELE. Nothing would. Those within the ca. 150 km radius would just be dead. Those at the outer edges of the 300 km radius could be helped. Note: this impacted area alone would be roughly similar to the size of Great Britain. Even if such a "smallish" 1 km asteroid hits, in general everything will change. For example, the asteroid could still cause enough chaos to weaken a country or countries, opening up for opportunistic wars. Since the long-term effects of a non-ELE would be transient, some countries might want to take advantage of this situation and invade (resource grab or glory for motherland or righting old wrongs or something). And then, what things would be seen next - for this we would be in unknown territory. Even without an outright war, the number of displaced people could become very large. People would likely not sit still and clean up, but try to move away. Can the receiving end handle that many people, can they move enough help in when the just-in-time supply chains are disrupted to pieces? If not, there will be a collapse into some form of chaos at the receiver. And again, people might move, etc. For an ELE, an offworld base is the only option for continuity. If that is not in place when an ELE hits, then humankind will be dead. A Mars/Moon base operating at large enough industrial and R&D capacity (akin to a small to medium sized country) could help restore normalcy even without an ELE. So, I think an offworld base is required anyway, even if we don't sweat so much about 1 km rocks, but still want to be serious about protection against an ELE.