3 ms·
What about a potential asteroid collision? If you actually check it out, there’s an asteroid flying near to earth every 2-3 years, one’s which at a minimum woul
by cloutchaser 5y ago
What about a potential asteroid collision? If you actually check it out, there’s an asteroid flying near to earth every 2-3 years, one’s which at a minimum would wipe out a city and change the climate for hundreds of years. Are you adding that to your tail risk calculations?
We’re pretty lucky we haven’t had a major asteroid impact in over 10,000 years, some people argue that’s when it happened last and completely changed the climate.
I actually think you could legitimately argue this is larger risk than climate change, it’s just that the media don’t write about it.
What about getting resources from asteroids? Ever think about what sort of economy of abundance that could create on earth? Like some asteroids have more metals than what’s on earth. How is that for creating a better world on earth?
I think even today spacex could probably change the path of an asteroid if needed. Which is a massive amount of protection for earth. 10-20 years they can mine asteroids. So It’s not just about creating a mars colony for tech bros. It’s a million other possibilities.
You are being extremely short sighted and your judgement is clouded by not liking musks personality. His personality is the last thing you should be thinking about.
- beaconstudios 5y agoI have no issue with his personality - I have no idea who you're responding to with that point because it isn't me. I very much doubt they could divert an asteroid right now - and if asteroid defense is the actual reason behind space innovation then why isn't anybody explicitly working on it? Because it's not profitable, and NASA's budget is pretty miniscule. Presumably if they thought it was a significant risk they'd be diverting what resources they have to asteroid defense. My only issue with SpaceX is that Elon makes the argument that a Mars colony is somehow a counter to x-risk. It isn't, because any colony would be dependent on earth for survival for a long time and if we're worried about asteroids we should probably be defending earth instead of ditching 8 billion people and surviving with 1000 people on an inhospitable rock.
- quantumduck 5y ago"Presumably if they thought it was a significant risk they'd be diverting what resources they have to asteroid defense" You are assuming that everyone in the government works to protect our interests in long-term. Spoiler alert: they don't.