If we knew that a planet-killer asteroid would hit us in ten years, it’s highly probable that we’d spend as much money as we could to develop a defence against it, because we would know that the expense is justified. But even though we could start building an effective asteroid defence right now, one that could detect them coming well in advance, and be able to destroy them or alter their course, the expense “might” be money wasted, or at least money spent before it was really necessary. We could also spend enormous amounts of money on trying to figure out a way in advance to replenish our ozone layer, or remove the nuclear fallout our atmosphere, or remove the atmospheric nitrogen oxides created by a GRB–”just in case”.
But we probably won’t. Because there are so many other things to spend money on–some of them very worthy, like feeding starving children, and some of them not so worthy, like developing advanced new military robots.
So what are our chances for survival? What will it take to spur us into action? A close call? The discovery of free energy (which would definitely impact our economy and ability to fund research)? Genetically enhancing the intelligence of our species? Is it even possible to defend ourselves against the above mentioned catastrophes or should we instead focus our efforts on seeding other planets with humans so that all our eggs aren’t in one basket? Perhaps terraforming Venus or Mars, or sending seeding distant planets with humans via recombinant DNA sequencers ala Arthur C. Clarke’s “The Songs of Distant Earth”, or inventing anti-gravity engines or warp-drive engines to seed distant worlds ourselves?
What do you think?
13 Responses to Ask SciScoop: How Can We Save Earth?
apsmith
October 3rd, 2003 at 3:50 pm
There are lots of people and organizations devoted to analyzing risks from various things. Market investments are based on analyses of risks vs. potential rewards (at least when they’re not based on “pack” thinking). There are a variety of centers for its study too. But mostly people ignore the rare stuff until it actually happens – which for some of these biggies might be too late.
I like Clark Chapman’s table of relative likelihood of death from various causes – asteroids are about the same risk as death from a passenger aircraft crash according to Chapman. So why do we worry about one so much more than the other?
Personally, of course, I think making sure our eggs aren’t all in one basket is the best way to go…
jdoe
October 3rd, 2003 at 11:02 pm
> Last Wednesday, there was a story about how the
> dinosaurs may have been destroyed as a result
> of a massive gamma ray burst (GRB)
Dinasaurs existed 443 million years ago? This is the greatest paleoanthological discovery in decades! Publish your evidence quickly before anyone else does.
> Global pollution destroys the ozone layer and
> causes a greenhouse effect that eventually
> makes Earth uninhabitable
Can you elaborate how exactly the warming is going to make Earth uninhabitable? Avegare temperatures on Earth were known to be at least 15C higher than now. Life florished then. Why would it be destroyed now?
> So what are our chances for survival?
They are pretty high. Humanity need another 50 years, maybe 100 years at most. Scientific research would make us immune to the planetary-scale natural disasters.
Sylvia Engdahl
October 4th, 2003 at 1:19 am
As Larry Niven said, “The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don’t have a space program, it’ll serve us right!”
For more quotes on this subject, see my Space Quotes to Ponder page
(it’s going to move in few days but there will be a redirect at that URL). There is no long term way to save the human race from extinction other than to expand beyond our mother world — the only debatable points concern the short term, and about whether whether we will retain the capability to move into space if we wait until the need is apparent.
SEWilco
October 4th, 2003 at 1:40 am
Research may protect against some planetary-level disasters. But it will take quite an effort to control an asteroid, a caldera eruption, or a rogue planet.
However, dealing with planet-level problems is not enough. It’s a dangerous universe. In addition to what was mentioned, a nearby supernova could sterilize us with radiation…or after a very long time cover the planet with debris. We could sweep through an interstellar dust cloud with nasty results. Something might miss Earth but irritate the Sun enough to cause us danger. Something that got blasted up to relativistic speeds could zip past and bathe us with radiation along with a gravitational shake. And we are ignorant of many things yet.
Anonymous
October 4th, 2003 at 4:08 pm
Humanity in general is a short sighted species.
The fact that we are still around is quite amazing to me. Hell, if our children survive to venture out into the solar system, it would be a miracle and a true testament to the tenacity of the human race.
That said, I doubt we would recognize the species that will, hopefully, one day leave this earth. Humanity as we know it will not be playing among the stars…
The most likely extinction level event would be rapid climate changes – a slow killer but no less deadly. Imagine the Earth turning into something resembling Mars or Venus in an relatively short period of time.
Humanity might survive such an event and learn something from it, but it would take a serious toll.
GRB or planet killing asteroids are external events and it seems too distant and unreal for your average Joe who goes to work everyday.
It would be a long while before we can do anything to prevent either of those things anyway, especially GRB. You try and convince the government to build billion dollar orbital weapons platforms with the purpose of shooting at rocks. A short sighted military might get a few platforms going, but their sights would be pointing down, not up.
Far more depressing to me would be if we cause our own destruction with a virus or that creepy nano-goo.
An invasion by malevolent aliens, as unlikely as it sounds, would be extremely depressing to say the least. Humanity won’t stand a chance in hell. We probably won’t even see them coming and it will all be over before we can figure out what’s happening. Slaves you say? Who would need a human slave if you can build interplanetary armadas?
Anyway, at the very least, humanity should get a self contained moon base going! Soon!
Anonymous
October 4th, 2003 at 4:47 pm
You mean interstellar armadas? :)
I agree though, the most viable and obvious solution would be to spread out as much
as possible.
Even a fully independent, self sufficient orbital station or two would help against many of the
mentioned threats. It is not a truly long term solution though. If those stations are
all that is left after an ‘extinction level event’, it would place humanity that much closer
to true extinction, since the room for error on a station (even a very advanced one) is far
narrower than on a planet.
This just day dreaming, but I often wondered if there might not be some ancient, benevolent
alien race keeping watch over us. Flicking rocks out of their collision paths,
deflecting/absorbing the occasional gamma ray burst, converting the odd invasion armada into antimatter, and sometimes even prevent specific humans from doing something really dumb like pushing big red buttons…
Drog
October 5th, 2003 at 5:36 pm
You are right, of course. Guess I wrote that one up too fast, and didn’t proof-read it either. There was indeed a mass extinction 443 million years ago, but it sure didn’t involve the dinosaurs. Sorry ’bout that!
As for how a greenhouse effect could make Earth uninhabitable, Venus is certainly an example of what can happen to a planet if a greenhouse effect goes completely out of control. When you can’t grow food anymore, due to extreme, non-sporadic temperatures and a lack of fresh water, we’re all in trouble. And the destruction of the ozone layer could certainly lead to massive sterility problems, as well as blindness and many other health problems. Such problems would affect the animal kingdom more than humans, which would upset our planet’s ecological systems, which would inevitably affect us too.
I do agree that in 100 years, we “might” have the technology to better ensure our survival. But I think the only way to “really” be safe is to colonize other worlds.
Drog
October 6th, 2003 at 7:15 am
Just removed the mention of dinosaurs in the story, so that nobody else gets confused–or thinks I’m a complete idiot. :)
jdoe
October 6th, 2003 at 10:35 am
> As for how a greenhouse effect could make Earth
> uninhabitable, Venus is certainly an example of
> what can happen to a planet if a greenhouse
> effect goes completely out of control.
And I would say it’s an example of fear mongering completely out of control :-). Venus is what, 0.7au to Sun? Which means it gets 1/(0.7^2) = about two times more solar radiation per unit area than Earth. Look at Mars. Its atmosphere is made predominantly out of CO2, a greenhouse gas. But it’s 1.5au from Sun, i.e. gets 2 times less radiation per unit area than Earth. Tell me, why isn’t the greenhouse effect out of control on Mars? Could it be due to distance to Sun?
Life *started* on Earth when its atmosphere was like that on Mars or Venus.
> When you can’t grow food anymore, due to
> extreme, non-sporadic temperatures
Yes, economic trouble on a grand scale. But your original comment was about making Earth uninhabitable. "Economic trouble" and "uninhabitable planet". See the difference?
Same goes for your other comments. Economic difficulty != extinction of all life. Be a responsible journalist, measure your words :-)
> But I think the
> only way to "really" be safe is to colonize
> other worlds.
When we gain the ability to colonize other worlds, we most likely won’t need it. I am pretty sure both economic and security needs will be addressed by other means.
As for near-term colonization of planets, colonize Antarctics first. It has a lot milder environmental conditions than any planet in solar system save for Earth; trip to Antarctics is a lot cheper than even a trip to the Moon :-)
Drog
October 6th, 2003 at 1:55 pm
Some may call it fear mongering to suggest that a greenhouse effect could ultimately lead to the destruction of our species. Others would say that disregarding the worst-case scenario for a greenhouse effect is short-term thinking–that when considering a timeline of thousands of years, it is quite possible that a never-ending drought would result in deaths on a massive scale and that humanity could eventually become extinct (just as many other species could become extinct) unless the greenhouse effect eventually leveled out or improved. Hopefully it would, but the mechanics of global warming are certainly not perfectly understood. I do see what you’re saying though, and I would agree that a greenhouse effect is not as likely to make Earth uninhabitable as a GRB or asteroid impact is.
As for new technology allowing us to ensure our survival without the need for colonizing other worlds, I doubt our ability to defend against engineered killer viruses will be able to keep pace with our ability to create them. As long as we’re all here on Earth, I think we’re all vulnerable.
jdoe
October 6th, 2003 at 10:37 pm
> Others would say that disregarding the worst-
> case scenario for a greenhouse effect is short-
> term thinking–that when considering a timeline
> of thousands of years,
Thousands of years? Thousands? Are you kiding? Let’s just consider 2 thousand years. Year 3AD, the most advanced civilization – Roman Empire. What was the largest concern then? Invasions of barbarian tribes from the north and east, slave uprisings, plague and other deseases from lack of sanitation. Suppose some roman scientist figured out that in 2 thousand years all city streets would be filled with human waste 6" deep and proposed drastic economic measures to make people sh*t less. Would it have any impact on our life now? Can you honestly say that you can imagine what humans are going to be like in 200 years, save 2 thousand? Taking current trends and then linerly projecting them to the future is exactly the short term thinking you referred to.
In late 60s Soviet scientists discovered that Caspian sea was drying up. In 70s and 80s USSR expended significant effort trying to stop shrinking of the sea. A dike was build to cut off one of the gulfs (Kara Bogaz Gol? sp.). Then all of a sudden in late 80s sea spontaneously started to fill up again. The general opinion now is that drying-filling of Caspian is a naturally occuring cycle.
> As for new technology allowing us to ensure our
> survival without the need for colonizing other
> worlds, I doubt our ability to defend against
> engineered killer viruses will be able to keep
> pace with our ability to create them. As long
> as we’re all here on Earth, I think we’re all
> vulnerable.
America was discovered by Europeans in late 15th century. By travelling to America you would be pretty much safe from any Old World epidemics because travel was long and difficult. By late 19th century travel was easy, by late 20th – trivial. Distance was no longer a protection. Same goes for your idea of other world colonization as a security measure against terrorism. In a historically short time distance will be no protection at all. Colonization will happen only if there is an economic need for it.
Alan Von Fan
October 10th, 2003 at 7:11 pm
…having a diverse portfolio of investments. Why? Well, because sometimes things just go unexpectedly wrong. It is interesting that we understand the need to be careful with our money more readily than we do the need to safeguard our species. Even if we don’t actually need to colonise other planets (which I think we do), it would still be a cool thing to do.
You are right that distance itself is not such a great guarantee of safety any more, and certainly a self-contained air supply is hard to quarantine, but so what? Better to have tried and failed, than to have sat around watching ‘Leave it to Beaver’ reruns while the house burns down.
jdoe
October 12th, 2003 at 10:00 pm
I believe stock brokers do not recommend everyone to invest everything into high-risk startups. The colonization of other planets is exactly that – high risk endeavor with unclear economic benefits which would drain a great chunk of world output. It will remain such for at least another 40 years. Colonize Antarctics first.
> Better to have tried and failed, than to have
> sat around watching ‘Leave it to Beaver’
It’s a matter of choosing priorities. If you live in a safe neighborhood you are unlikely to spend a good deal of your money on 3 meter tall electrified fence and armed guards just because there is a remote chance that the neighborhood turns rough.