3 ms·

This. It’s a crucial step for our civilisation to be able to protect earth from any incoming dangers be it asteroids or Umuamua type objects. There must be a gl

This. It’s a crucial step for our civilisation to be able to protect earth from any incoming dangers be it asteroids or Umuamua type objects. There must be a global effort with all countries to build such a system.

rob74 2y ago
Good luck with that... currently we are failing to muster a global effort for tackling climate change, which is a much more pressing issue than an asteroid which may or may not hit us. I know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up is satirical, but reality often outdoes satire, so I wouldn't be surprised if things would play out exactly like in that movie...
- timewizard 2y ago
  There is open doubt as to whether climate change, as presented, is truly a near-term existential issue. There is no doubt that an asteroid hitting earth is.
  - freen 2y ago
    There is an open doubt whether a fully functional coffee machine is currently orbiting Venus, however one of these hypotheses is different than the other. Hint: expertise matters, evidence matters, and in a field where buildings/laws/fields of study get named after successful contrarians, a long streak of effectively unanimous consensus should not be undervalued.
    - timewizard 2y ago
      The coffee machine has no implications on my current life span. It may be true, but who would waste their time caring about this? Show me the /unanimous/ consensus that this is an immediate /existential/ issue. I don't believe such a thing exists. When attempting to understand the difference between those who care about an asteroid and climate change, which was the question, this is the critical point to concern yourself with.
      - Tepix 2y ago
        by doubting, you've already ruled it out, haven't you? 95%+ is as good as it gets probably. For starters, we know corals will be dead in the next few decades, home of 25% of all oceanic species. The mass extinction event is underway and we aren't doing enough to stop it.
        timewizard 2y ago
        > by doubting, you've already ruled it out, haven't you? So you are attempting to create an environment where reasonable doubt is impossible. This behavior is actually part of the reason I have doubts. > we know corals will be dead in the next few decades Do we? > The mass extinction event is underway and we aren't doing enough to stop it. This is a clever dodge of the original question. Can you explain to me when our current inaction reaches a point where no response will ever be able to overcome the drivers of this mass extinction? Do you have an estimate you can share?
        namaria 2y ago
        Gotta be the acme of pedantic behavior to say "there's no proof climate change will kill ALL of us".
      - quesera 2y ago
        Unanimous consensus is an impossible goal. Overwhelming agreement among experts is as gold as standards get. But FWIW, I don't think anyone believes that climate change is a quick duration species-existential event. Massive slow-roll geopolitical destabilization leading to societal collapse? That's definitely on the table.
        timewizard 2y ago
        > Unanimous consensus is an impossible goal. I know this. I was responding to the OPs appeal to authority. > Overwhelming agreement among experts is as gold as standards get. What is this agreement? That it will eventually happen? That's not much of an agreement. > I don't think anyone believes that climate change is a quick duration species-existential event. Among those who "agree" is there a common timeframe that they estimate? Or do they all have varying opinions on this? > That's definitely on the table. We have nuclear weapons. In bunkers. Aimed at "targets." Everything is on the table. This isn't useful.
    - dash2 2y ago
      The good news is that the near-unanimous consensus among experts is that climate change is not an existential issue. Almost no climate scientist thinks that climate change could wipe out the human race. (That's compatible with it having very large effects on human welfare, substantial percentages of global GDP.)
      - paulryanrogers 2y ago
        Existential to our way of life. That humans will survive in caves, and maybe even a few million, is cold comfort.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - freen 2y ago
        “Yes the planet got destroyed, but for beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.” https://frankkliewer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/shareholder-value.jpg https://frankkliewer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/sharehol...
- mturmon 2y ago
  This pessimism has its place, but in this specific case, it is not accurate. Congress did decide that NEO's are an important problem, and eventually money was appropriated to address it, and a technical solution to the detection problem has been found. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEO_Surveyor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEO_Surveyor)
justinclift 2y ago
> There must be a global effort with all countries to build such a system. That bit doesn't really seem necessary though?

rob74 2y ago

Good luck with that... currently we are failing to muster a global effort for tackling climate change, which is a much more pressing issue than an asteroid which may or may not hit us. I know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up is satirical, but reality often outdoes satire, so I wouldn't be surprised if things would play out exactly like in that movie...

timewizard 2y ago
There is open doubt as to whether climate change, as presented, is truly a near-term existential issue. There is no doubt that an asteroid hitting earth is.
- freen 2y ago
  There is an open doubt whether a fully functional coffee machine is currently orbiting Venus, however one of these hypotheses is different than the other. Hint: expertise matters, evidence matters, and in a field where buildings/laws/fields of study get named after successful contrarians, a long streak of effectively unanimous consensus should not be undervalued.
  - timewizard 2y ago
    The coffee machine has no implications on my current life span. It may be true, but who would waste their time caring about this? Show me the /unanimous/ consensus that this is an immediate /existential/ issue. I don't believe such a thing exists. When attempting to understand the difference between those who care about an asteroid and climate change, which was the question, this is the critical point to concern yourself with.
    - Tepix 2y ago
      by doubting, you've already ruled it out, haven't you? 95%+ is as good as it gets probably. For starters, we know corals will be dead in the next few decades, home of 25% of all oceanic species. The mass extinction event is underway and we aren't doing enough to stop it.
      - timewizard 2y ago
        > by doubting, you've already ruled it out, haven't you? So you are attempting to create an environment where reasonable doubt is impossible. This behavior is actually part of the reason I have doubts. > we know corals will be dead in the next few decades Do we? > The mass extinction event is underway and we aren't doing enough to stop it. This is a clever dodge of the original question. Can you explain to me when our current inaction reaches a point where no response will ever be able to overcome the drivers of this mass extinction? Do you have an estimate you can share?
        namaria 2y ago
        Gotta be the acme of pedantic behavior to say "there's no proof climate change will kill ALL of us".
    - quesera 2y ago
      Unanimous consensus is an impossible goal. Overwhelming agreement among experts is as gold as standards get. But FWIW, I don't think anyone believes that climate change is a quick duration species-existential event. Massive slow-roll geopolitical destabilization leading to societal collapse? That's definitely on the table.
      - timewizard 2y ago
        > Unanimous consensus is an impossible goal. I know this. I was responding to the OPs appeal to authority. > Overwhelming agreement among experts is as gold as standards get. What is this agreement? That it will eventually happen? That's not much of an agreement. > I don't think anyone believes that climate change is a quick duration species-existential event. Among those who "agree" is there a common timeframe that they estimate? Or do they all have varying opinions on this? > That's definitely on the table. We have nuclear weapons. In bunkers. Aimed at "targets." Everything is on the table. This isn't useful.
  - dash2 2y ago
    The good news is that the near-unanimous consensus among experts is that climate change is not an existential issue. Almost no climate scientist thinks that climate change could wipe out the human race. (That's compatible with it having very large effects on human welfare, substantial percentages of global GDP.)
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      Existential to our way of life. That humans will survive in caves, and maybe even a few million, is cold comfort.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - freen 2y ago
      “Yes the planet got destroyed, but for beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.” https://frankkliewer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/shareholder-value.jpg https://frankkliewer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/sharehol...
mturmon 2y ago
This pessimism has its place, but in this specific case, it is not accurate. Congress did decide that NEO's are an important problem, and eventually money was appropriated to address it, and a technical solution to the detection problem has been found. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEO_Surveyor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEO_Surveyor)

justinclift 2y ago

> There must be a global effort with all countries to build such a system. That bit doesn't really seem necessary though?