What is most likely to cause the extinction of humans?

  • 100 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by SaudiFury (8707 posts) -

my thinking is we reach peak oil, the world is not ready to really jump towards diversified renewable energies.

It's really hard to get people to just sit down and fathom just how much energy we consume from oil, natural gas, and coal. Not just how much but the increase rate of demand and consumption and the loss of any one of these will cause mass disruptions to the world economy.

This'll have a knock-on effect on modern day farming techniques which produce vastly more quantities of food with much greater efficiency then traditional methods (sorry vegetarians and the 'organic' food people).

I sometimes worry about it, because the past few years like Russia had a major drought and were severely short on buckwheat grain (their primary food), India a few years ago temporarily stopped the export of rice because of droughts. Saudi Arabia and Gulf states buying land in Thailand and Sudan for the sole purpose of growing food for the client states (Those go out the window i bet in the event a national catastrophe there).

and if you think population growth is a problem, it's still a problem if the populations is declining fast. existing infrastructure needs to be maintained, the national securities of nations are threatened, the economies of major nations (Japan, Russia, Germany, France) inevitably shrink with a shrinking population. Almost everything our civilization is based on is predicated on growth or maintaining the status quo. Whenever there is a fall, bad things follow.

and i view oil as the 'thing' that is at the core of our modern world. It isn't simply a matter that we need to rely on it whether for power or synthesing chemicals to make your asphalt or the wrapper on your chocolate bar. It's that we rely on it too much. It alone has made real physical modern global trade possible around the world, is instrumental in modern farming techniques, and as a result has liftedBILLIONSof people out of incredible poverty. Even if some of those billions are still considered poor by Western standards.

If that floor drops on us suddenly or very quickly on us, were going to see mass starvations we've never seen, and we will see massive regional wars for crucial resources. Not just war for oil. wars for clean water, wars for arable land.

maybe not extinction. but pretty awful. it would certainly be a different world..

#52 Posted by dramaybaz (6020 posts) -
[QUOTE="Squeets"]

Massive Events we have no control over: - Sun expansion or recession. - Galaxy collisions. - Rogue black holes flying around space between galaxies. - Movement of other galactic bodies (stars, planets, asteroids), etc.

We will be dead before any of these happen anyway, and the black hole idea is false.
#53 Posted by superfluidity (2163 posts) -

Environmental destruction and increasing consumption leading to increasing resource competition, and ultimately leading to nuclear weapons use.

#54 Posted by Storm_Marine (10910 posts) -

Overpopulation and competition for the Earth's last resources which are becoming scarcer by the day.

As food prices will skyrocket eventually, thousands of people will die from starvation. I guess the poor will be hit the hardest from this because they will not have enough money to buy food so many poor people will die.

pariah3

Wow, literally thousands. That's a extinction level event to be sure.........

#55 Posted by Storm_Marine (10910 posts) -

I laugh at the overpopulation people. The global fertility rate is at 2.5 and shrinking. Net population decline is already a reality in Japan and Russia and before we know it the rest of the world will be following them.

#56 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12985 posts) -

my thinking is we reach peak oil, the world is not ready to really jump towards diversified renewable energies.

*snip*

SaudiFury

All true. Oil is the blood that runs the modern world in more ways than most people know.

I hate golden eggs but I think there is one: nuclear fusion. With fusion, you not only get a lot of power from not a lot of mass, but you can make anything you want if you can control it. Everything you see around you that isn't hydrogen was forged in the fusion furnace of a star.

#57 Posted by BossPerson (9469 posts) -

[QUOTE="pariah3"]

Overpopulation and competition for the Earth's last resources which are becoming scarcer by the day.

As food prices will skyrocket eventually, thousands of people will die from starvation. I guess the poor will be hit the hardest from this because they will not have enough money to buy food so many poor people will die.

Storm_Marine

Wow, literally thousands. That's a extinction level even to be sure.........

rofl
#58 Posted by Toph_Girl250 (47664 posts) -
Greed. horgen123
Yeah, you see that a lot nowadays.
#59 Posted by SaudiFury (8707 posts) -

[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]

my thinking is we reach peak oil, the world is not ready to really jump towards diversified renewable energies.

*snip*

br0kenrabbit

All true. Oil is the blood that runs the modern world in more ways than most people know.

I hate golden eggs but I think there is one: nuclear fusion. With fusion, you not only get a lot of power from not a lot of mass, but you can make anything you want if you can control it. Everything you see around you that isn't hydrogen was forged in the fusion furnace of a star.

I think nuclear fusion is one but we've yet to develop one that is worth producing for population consumption. Personally, i pin my hopes on solar energy at the moment. If i remember correctly from college if we can just get 18% efficiency - meaning 18% of the energy absorbed is turned into electricity for usage. That would make worthwhile enough to mass produce. the UAE, Qatar have solar power construction projects. Saudi apparently has some massive ones but they're still in the mediation stage. If we could get that down and build panels that could long-term withstand the beatings from sand storms you could turn every vast desert region, the Sahara, the Arabian deserts, Gobi deserts, Central Asian deserts, American southwest into vast solar panel farms.

I remember watching this documentary, where they were doing the math (and in this case they referenced an actual study).

This comes with a lot of IF statements but bear with me.

If say we went to nuclear fission power. Say we ONLY did nuclear (no anything else), we used the largest most efficient possible reactors, and we use the best nuclear fission materials (uranium 235).and used all the provable sources of uranium 235. THEN - if we assume no rise in consumption power demand - just flat-line consumption rate.

We would run out of our nuclear supply within two decades on the planet.

$hit like this just boggles the mind and just trying to explain that to average person to truly understand and appreciate that is neigh impossible.

too busy b*tching about the Arabs or their government about the price of gas in their car. or pipeline ideas that wind, geothermal or worst ethanol is gonna save us, with the exception of ethanol, all of these smaller scale renewable energy sources are very useful but they will not even come close to putting a dent in meeting our current needs. Small countries might benefit but the big ones won't.

but nuclear fusion if the theory pans out into reality, like if the French fusion reactor that is currently being constructed, works. It could be the godsend for humanity. It'll take the pressure off of oil - which will sharply decline it's price affecting states that live off of it BUT it would make the oil last longer to meet other needs.

#60 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12985 posts) -

but nuclear fusion if the theory pans out into reality, like if the French fusion reactor that is currently being constructed, works. It could be the godsend for humanity. It'll take the pressure off of oil - which will sharply decline it's price affecting states that live off of it BUT it would make the oil last longer to meet other needs.

SaudiFury

Oil in the form of plastics is infinitely recyclable.

I think we'd all be okay if we could get Fusion down. Well, other than the social issues we all fight about.

#61 Posted by brianbfds (160 posts) -

In the following 5 bilion years The sun will turn into a red giant and its diamater will go beyond earth, that will be the end for everyone , but i personally think we wont survive that long on earth, in the distant future we might be able to go to other planets, or even other dimensions and therefore prevent extinction

#62 Posted by meconate (10476 posts) -
Mankind.
#63 Posted by SulIy (112 posts) -
Ignorance and hatred, fueled by political and religious differences.
#64 Posted by jimkabrhel (15419 posts) -
The world loses the Internet and countries bomb each other in anger when there is no more free porn and access to the comments sections of political articles. Both seem the be the biggest places to blow off steam.
#65 Posted by Legend002 (7157 posts) -

Robots. They are going to take over and destroy us all.

You heard it here first.

#66 Posted by jeremiah06 (7169 posts) -
Jupiter protects us from asteroids... nukes wouldn't kill us all off... houses protect us from weather and green houses would let us grow food... would could purify water... The correct answer is nothing...
#67 Posted by loco145 (10771 posts) -

Facebook.

#68 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12985 posts) -

Jupiter protects us from asteroids... nukes wouldn't kill us all off... houses protect us from weather and green houses would let us grow food... would could purify water... The correct answer is nothing...jeremiah06

We're on the opposite side of the sun than Jupiter is half the year. Besides, not all asteroids come in from the equatorial.

Comets make it to the sun and out all the time. Jupiter isn't some magic sponge.

#69 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

In a billion years the sun will grow hot enough to boil away any water on earth.

#70 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"]Jupiter protects us from asteroids... nukes wouldn't kill us all off... houses protect us from weather and green houses would let us grow food... would could purify water... The correct answer is nothing...br0kenrabbit

We're on the opposite side of the sun than Jupiter is half the year. Besides, not all asteroids come in from the equatorial.

Comets make it to the sun and out all the time. Jupiter isn't some magic sponge.

We could detect an asteroid far in advance. An asteroid is a very unlikely but very popular way people think the world will end.

#71 Posted by wis3boi (31376 posts) -

Probably complete use of all the earth's resources and not learning to have controlled use of them and also failing to colonize a second world or more

#72 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

In the following 5 bilion years The sun will turn into a red giant and its diamater will go beyond earth, that will be the end for everyone , but i personally think we wont survive that long on earth, in the distant future we might be able to go to other planets, or even other dimensions and therefore prevent extinction

brianbfds

Actually the sun would kill us much sooner than that. And we are pretty much stuck on earth. Even if we do figure out how to go the speed of light, funny how the fastest thing in the universe is so slow.

#73 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12985 posts) -

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"]Jupiter protects us from asteroids... nukes wouldn't kill us all off... houses protect us from weather and green houses would let us grow food... would could purify water... The correct answer is nothing...GOGOGOGURT

We're on the opposite side of the sun than Jupiter is half the year. Besides, not all asteroids come in from the equatorial.

Comets make it to the sun and out all the time. Jupiter isn't some magic sponge.

We could detect an asteroid far in advance. An asteroid is a very unlikely but very popular way people think the world will end.

Oh, you mean like 2010RF12 where we got a whole THREE DAYS of warning before a 150,000-mile flyby?

We couldn't get a rocket ready to launch in THREE DAYS.

#74 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

We're on the opposite side of the sun than Jupiter is half the year. Besides, not all asteroids come in from the equatorial.

Comets make it to the sun and out all the time. Jupiter isn't some magic sponge.

br0kenrabbit

We could detect an asteroid far in advance. An asteroid is a very unlikely but very popular way people think the world will end.

Oh, you mean like 2010RF12 where we got a whole THREE DAYS of warning before a 150,000-mile flyby?

We couldn't get a rocket ready to launch in THREE DAYS.

We can get more than three days. And you don't need a rocket to deflect it. You only need to deflect it's trajectory by the slightest angle so it will miss the earth. Just throw some debris in the way. It's such a stupid way people think it's going to happen and it really isn't a danger. I mean, asteroids fall into atmosphere ALL THE TIME. From watching too many movies and listning to alarmist media.

#75 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
I am guessing some people would survive underground in the event of nuclear warfare or an asteroid impact. Also food/water should never cause extinction because once enough people starve to death the food:population ratio will rebalance itself.
#76 Posted by Syk0_k03r (1147 posts) -

Shortage of food and water is the only possibility that is not banal apesh!t retarded.

Our industrialized agriculture is heavily dependant off of cheap oil, which is about to become scarce.

Billions of people will starve thanks in large part to SUV-crazy soccer moms.

#77 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
There are only two things I could see making humans extinct: 1. Gamma ray burst 2. Rogue black hole Anything else would only take a large chunk out of the population.
#78 Posted by bigfoot2045 (773 posts) -

What people forget about full scale nuclear war is that even if you're not incinerated instantly in one of the targeted cities, you'd probably die of radiation poisoning or starve to death, as nuclear winter would make it difficult if not impossible to produce food. Full blown nuclear war could very easily wipe out all life on earth.

#79 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12985 posts) -

We can get more than three days. And you don't need a rocket to deflect it. You only need to deflect it's trajectory by the slightest angle so it will miss the earth. Just throw some debris in the way. It's such a stupid way people think it's going to happen and it really isn't a danger. I mean, asteroids fall into atmosphere ALL THE TIME. From watching too many movies and listning to alarmist media.

GOGOGOGURT

We don't know it's there unless we see it. We can't scan the whole sky at once, and it takes multiple exposures to detect an asteroid.

See, the way you detect one is that you take a picture of X part of the sky, then the next night you take a picture of that same part of the sky, and so on. Then you compare the pictures and look for anything that moves (the stars will be stationary).

And then there's the fact that it could come in from the sun, and we'd not see it till it was upon us. The satellites we have monitoring the sun like SOHO aren't designed to look for asteroids.

And if you think it can't happen, have a read about The Tunguska Event.

#80 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12985 posts) -

What people forget about full scale nuclear war is that even if you're not incinerated instantly in one of the targeted cities, you'd probably die of radiation poisoning or starve to death, as nuclear winter would make it difficult if not impossible to produce food. Full blown nuclear war could very easily wipe out all life on earth.

bigfoot2045

Nuclear Winter is probably not a concern. See, the most effective use of a nuclear weapon isn't a ground-burst, and a ground-burst is what will kick all that dust up into the air (and it will all eventually rain back down as fallout).

The optimal height for a nuclear detonation is about 1,300ft. From this height, the fireball umbrellas out before smacking into the ground so you're doing more damage that way. Further, this allows the over-pressure front to sweep a wider area, as it's not being deflected by the landscape.

It's what occurs after the over-pressure front has passed, the under-pressure front, that sucks up dust and debris. As the fireball rises into the sky (hot air rises), it has to suck in air underneath it to replace the area the fireball was in before rising. At altitude this will be straight-up air instead of dirt, parts of buildings and vehicles, and all that good stuff.

If you survive 72 hours after the initial blast you have a pretty good chance of surviving if you know how. Skin your food (plants don't 'suck up' radiation, it's the dust on the outside of the food that's a concern), evaporate and re-condense your water, move north or south not east or west and so on.

#81 Posted by sonicare (53466 posts) -

The answer is obviously violent video games.

#82 Posted by JDWolfie (1865 posts) -

Carrier_form_Halo_CE.jpg

The Flood. Duh.

#83 Posted by dramaybaz (6020 posts) -

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"]Jupiter protects us from asteroids... nukes wouldn't kill us all off... houses protect us from weather and green houses would let us grow food... would could purify water... The correct answer is nothing...br0kenrabbit

We're on the opposite side of the sun than Jupiter is half the year. Besides, not all asteroids come in from the equatorial.

Comets make it to the sun and out all the time. Jupiter isn't some magic sponge.

Besides Jupiter can't help much, there are many asteroids in the inner solar system.

neostorm.png

#84 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

We can get more than three days. And you don't need a rocket to deflect it. You only need to deflect it's trajectory by the slightest angle so it will miss the earth. Just throw some debris in the way. It's such a stupid way people think it's going to happen and it really isn't a danger. I mean, asteroids fall into atmosphere ALL THE TIME. From watching too many movies and listning to alarmist media.

br0kenrabbit

We don't know it's there unless we see it. We can't scan the whole sky at once, and it takes multiple exposures to detect an asteroid.

See, the way you detect one is that you take a picture of X part of the sky, then the next night you take a picture of that same part of the sky, and so on. Then you compare the pictures and look for anything that moves (the stars will be stationary).

And then there's the fact that it could come in from the sun, and we'd not see it till it was upon us. The satellites we have monitoring the sun like SOHO aren't designed to look for asteroids.

And if you think it can't happen, have a read about The Tunguska Event.

Yeah I know about the tunguska event. It didn't pose a serious threat even though it was loud and amazing. If a asteroid is going to pose a threat to earth it must be large making it pretty to detect. And NASA already has their eye on all the likely suspects. Extremely low chance, almost nonexistant. The technique NASA uses is with an infrared telescope scanning the skies and they have detected thousands of life threatning asteroids and none pose a threat.

Plus asteroids move pretty slow. Only what, like 40,000 MPH? We could detect one pretty far away and it would take forever to get here, especially since it isn't making a beeline for earth. Anyway, death by meterorite is exciting and romantic, but ultimately there are more urgent ways to perish.

#85 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Yeah I know about the tunguska event. It didn't pose a serious threat even though it was loud and amazing. If a asteroid is going to pose a threat to earth it must be large making it pretty to detect. And NASA already has their eye on all the likely suspects. Extremely low chance, almost nonexistant. The technique NASA uses is with an infrared telescope scanning the skies and they have detected thousands of life threatning asteroids and none pose a threat. Plus asteroids move pretty slow. Only what, like 40,000 MPH? We could detect one pretty far away and it would take forever to get here, especially since it isn't making a beeline for earth. Anyway, death by meterorite is exciting and romantic, but ultimately there are more urgent ways to perish.GOGOGOGURT
There could be fairly sizeable Oort Cloud objects that we know nothing about, that could come out of nowhere at totally random times. Granted, they likely wouldn't be as big as the average asteroid, but their velocity could make up for that.
#86 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12985 posts) -

Yeah I know about the tunguska event. It didn't pose a serious threat even though it was loud and amazing. If a asteroid is going to pose a threat to earth it must be large making it pretty to detect. And NASA already has their eye on all the likely suspects. Extremely low chance, almost nonexistant. The technique NASA uses is with an infrared telescope scanning the skies and they have detected thousands of life threatning asteroids and none pose a threat.

Plus asteroids move pretty slow. Only what, like 40,000 MPH? We could detect one pretty far away and it would take forever to get here, especially since it isn't making a beeline for earth. Anyway, death by meterorite is exciting and romantic, but ultimately there are more urgent ways to perish.

GOGOGOGURT

It doesn't matter how large an asteroid is, it's detected in the same fashion as a small one. In fact, it takes a while after detection to determine size.

And NASA doesn't know where they ALL are, that's why they're still looking and jumping up and down screaming "THIS IS SERIOUS, WE NEED MORE HELP!" They have fewer than 100 people (and just a handful of telescopes) dedicated to the task. Besides, the sky survey doesn't cover the extreme high and low latitudes.

Straight from Nasa's site:

With so many of even the larger NEOs remaining undiscovered, the most likely warning today would be zero -- the first indication of a collision would be the flash of light and the shaking of the ground as it hit. In contrast, if the current surveys actually discover a NEO on a collision course, we would expect many decades of warning. Any NEO that is going to hit the Earth will swing near our planet many times before it hits, and it should be discovered by comprehensive sky searches like Spaceguard. In almost all cases, we will either have a long lead time or none at all. - Source

#87 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12985 posts) -

There could be fairly sizeable Oort Cloud objects that we know nothing about, that could come out of nowhere at totally random times. Granted, they likely wouldn't be as big as the average asteroid, but their velocity could make up for that.Zeviander

There's a big difference between a collision at dawn and one at dusk, too. The dusk-side of the planet is the 'front of the moving car', so to speak, since the planet travels around the sun counter-clockwise.

So an impact on the dawn side would be V-EV where EV is Earth Velocity, and a dusk-side impact would be E+EV.

#88 Posted by Alter_Echo (10722 posts) -

The only thing that would be capable of extinction would be worldwide climate change that made earth totally uninhabitable or something like a large impact event so massive that it either destroyed earth entirely or knocked it out of the habitable zone which would then cause world wide unescapable climate change.

War, famine, overpopulaiton, pandemics etc etc won't be able to accomplish full extinction due to the vast distances and numbers of totally isolated groups of people.

#89 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

Yeah I know about the tunguska event. It didn't pose a serious threat even though it was loud and amazing. If a asteroid is going to pose a threat to earth it must be large making it pretty to detect. And NASA already has their eye on all the likely suspects. Extremely low chance, almost nonexistant. The technique NASA uses is with an infrared telescope scanning the skies and they have detected thousands of life threatning asteroids and none pose a threat.

Plus asteroids move pretty slow. Only what, like 40,000 MPH? We could detect one pretty far away and it would take forever to get here, especially since it isn't making a beeline for earth. Anyway, death by meterorite is exciting and romantic, but ultimately there are more urgent ways to perish.

br0kenrabbit

It doesn't matter how large an asteroid is, it's detected in the same fashion as a small one. In fact, it takes a while after detection to determine size.

And NASA doesn't know where they ALL are, that's why they're still looking and jumping up and down screaming "THIS IS SERIOUS, WE NEED MORE HELP!" They have fewer than 100 people (and just a handful of telescopes) dedicated to the task. Besides, the sky survey doesn't cover the extreme high and low latitudes.

Straight from Nasa's site:

With so many of even the larger NEOs remaining undiscovered, the most likely warning today would be zero -- the first indication of a collision would be the flash of light and the shaking of the ground as it hit. In contrast, if the current surveys actually discover a NEO on a collision course, we would expect many decades of warning. Any NEO that is going to hit the Earth will swing near our planet many times before it hits, and it should be discovered by comprehensive sky searches like Spaceguard. In almost all cases, we will either have a long lead time or none at all. - Source

It's not serious. It's just a way for gullible people like you to give them attention. Don't get me wrong. I love NASA. But we need to have a legitimate goal if they are going to recieve big bucks. Other than that, I think the work they do is fascinating.

#90 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12985 posts) -

It's not serious. It's just a way for gullible people like you to give them attention. Don't get me wrong. I love NASA. But we need to have a legitimate goal if they are going to recieve big bucks. Other than that, I think the work they do is fascinating.

GOGOGOGURT

Let's see...some guy on a forum telling me it's not serious, or scientists who dedicate their lives to the study of things outside our atmosphere telling me we'd better pay attention.

Yeah, I'm going with the scientists on this one.

It's happened before, it will happen again. Were you around when Jupiter got smacked? Did you see the size of that bruise?

#91 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

It's not serious. It's just a way for gullible people like you to give them attention. Don't get me wrong. I love NASA. But we need to have a legitimate goal if they are going to recieve big bucks. Other than that, I think the work they do is fascinating.

br0kenrabbit

Let's see...some guy on a forum telling me it's not serious, or scientists who dedicate their lives to the study of things outside our atmosphere telling me we'd better pay attention.

Yeah, I'm going with the scientists on this one.

It's happened before, it will happen again. Were you around when Jupiter got smacked? Did you see the size of that bruise?

That's a double-edged sword smart guy.

I've heard what the scientists say and there is two sides to the issue.

#92 Posted by Alter_Echo (10722 posts) -

As far as nasa goes. While fascinating I think everything they do is pretty pointless in regards to collision detection. Anything big enough to cause global damage would be too big for them to do anything about. So at best, they let us know it's going to happen and there isn't anything we can do.

This isnt Armageddon. If something the "size of texas" were headed our way it would just hit us. End of story. I'd rather not know to be honest.

#93 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12985 posts) -

That's a double-edged sword smart guy.

I've heard what the scientists say and there is two sides to the issue.

GOGOGOGURT

And you were wrong about your side: "They've found them all." lol

That right there tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

#94 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12985 posts) -

As far as nasa goes. While fascinating I think everything they do is pretty pointless in regards to collision detection. Anything big enough to cause global damage would be too big for them to do anything about. So at best, they let us know it's going to happen and there isn't anything we can do.

This isnt Armageddon. If something the "size of texas" were headed our way it would just hit us. End of story. I'd rather not know to be honest.

Alter_Echo

If NASA can raise the alarm a few decades in advance, we have the tech to do something about it. But we have to know they're coming first, and that's the role NASA is filling.

#95 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

That's a double-edged sword smart guy.

I've heard what the scientists say and there is two sides to the issue.

br0kenrabbit

And you were wrong about your side: "They've found them all." lol

That right there tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

Touche'

#96 Posted by dramaybaz (6020 posts) -

It's not serious. It's just a way for gullible people like you to give them attention. Don't get me wrong. I love NASA. But we need to have a legitimate goal if they are going to recieve big bucks. Other than that, I think the work they do is fascinating.

GOGOGOGURT
Specifically, politicians don't care. If something is to happen in 20-30 years time, it is beyond their term, why spend money on it?
#97 Posted by Alter_Echo (10722 posts) -

[QUOTE="Alter_Echo"]

As far as nasa goes. While fascinating I think everything they do is pretty pointless in regards to collision detection. Anything big enough to cause global damage would be too big for them to do anything about. So at best, they let us know it's going to happen and there isn't anything we can do.

This isnt Armageddon. If something the "size of texas" were headed our way it would just hit us. End of story. I'd rather not know to be honest.

br0kenrabbit

If NASA can raise the alarm a few decades in advance, we have the tech to do something about it. But we have to know they're coming first, and that's the role NASA is filling.

What tech are you talking about? Traction based trajectory altering? Projectile impact based trajectory altering? Sure, if it's found 40 years out and we can manage to bump it an inch to the side it'll probably miss us but you have to remember we are talking about humans who are wildly incapable of making anything happen most of the time.

#98 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12985 posts) -

What tech are you talking about? Traction based trajectory altering? Projectile impact based trajectory altering? Sure, if it's found 40 years out and we can manage to bump it an inch to the side it'll probably miss us but you have to remember we are talking about humans who are wildly incapable of making anything happen most of the time.

Alter_Echo

People tend to come together during times of duress. Look how rapidly the US pulled itself up during the two world wars, or hell even Russia.

Threaten the whole planet and we'll get $hit done.

Also, I think nukes would be a good first volley. It's not the explosion but the pulse of photons that would do the trick (even nuclear explosions aren't that big in space since there's no air to displace).

#99 Posted by roulettethedog (10970 posts) -

Humans.

psymon100

Took me a whole 3 posts to find the answer to original posters question.:lol:

#100 Posted by soulless4now (41374 posts) -

Gundams. Gundams everywhere.