quote:LONDON (Reuters) - A massive asteroid could hit Earth in just 17 years' time, destroying life as we know it, a British space expert said Wednesday.
The asteroid -- the most threatening object ever detected in space -- is 1.2 miles wide and apparently on a direct collision course with Earth.
This is for real. As of today, you apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic writers have got yourselves a real asteroid. You've also got a real date. Human civilization might come to an end in 2019, and they say if this really is headed our way we can't do a doggone thing about it.
quote: At the moment, he added, scientists fear it could take at least 30 years for the world to be able to devise and set up a mission to deal with such a threat -- a timescale which would be woefully inadequate if the 2019 strike were to happen.
I think this factoid was stated out of context to create a more sensationalist article. I'm sure that this number was quoted as a general how long it will take us to develop something under non-threatening circumstances.
This assumes the same level of economic and public commitment to such an endeavor as we have now. Trust me, if it proves to be real, people will demand action and research and development towards defelcting the asteroid will increase dramatically. I say that we could actually have something ready in about 2-5 years if we bent all our will towards it.
War R&D would be scrapped. Mars R&D would be scrapped. And a number of other, lesser research projects directed out into space would be put on hold and those scientists would work on the asteroid problem. Others would work on keeping civilization safe if we can't deflect it.
Aerospace companies would only work on the components needed for a deflection device.
posted
LOL... And if we survive this one, we've got another one to look forward to about 10 years later. My internet is CRAWLING so I can't provide specifics to an article, but a while ago there was a lot of talk about a "Doomsday Asteroid" that was projected to be a *VERY* near miss in about 2028. If it hit, it would be a "planet killer" (quoting Billy Bob in Armaggedon). At the time that I read this article, NASA said that we really didn't have to worry about a collison... but other scientists said that the asteroid would either hit, or come as close as passing between us and the moon.
posted
This is the third different time I've seen a report where an asteroid is accompanied by the preliminary claim of a collision with earth. The previous two occasions were revised as "close encounters".
As the press release clearly states in this case, no precise data on the orbit is known - with a range of error of "tens of millions of kilometres". With that kind of range of errors, it would be impossible to say that it's even on a collision course.
I personally wonder what the motivation for such claims are - is it simply a push for funding [always needed], or is the USA's much touted nuclear defence shield thang going to use anti-asteroid capabilities as a promotional tool? And this article is part of a general campaign to create a need before selling the product?
Either way, for any public body to announce to the world that a continent-destroying asteroid is heading for us - even in the absence of quantitative data - demonstrates a clear callousness.
posted
and all this so fits with the South American ancient calendars that ended in the year 2020 or so. Then people said they were predicting the end of the earth. Others said oh that’s when Christ will return ect. Personally, I just think they saw no need to go any further, sorta like a day planner—LOL Always made me think, hey so if I were buried in ash and they dug me up and fund my two year day planner would they say I thought the world would end in two years.
Not really on subject, but just made me think of this.
posted
Of course, if desiring to create a need for the product, it might be important to imply *which* continent would be impacted (so to speak). <grin>
Talk about callous, their header today is: "Welcome to the Asteroid Doomsday Countdown Clock! There are only 9590 days left until impact!"
Anyway, they also have links pertaining to some very recent near misses... I can't say anything about the ones from March 8th and January 8th, but I remember hearing about the June 14th asteroid on the news (LOL, we didn't know it was coming until it flew by!!)
posted
I thought of that after I posted. Oh well, could be a good seller though posted inthe Scfi section.
I'm working on a SciFi detective novel, with a god bit of humor. Think I will use the line in there, "This is as absurd as that big whack theroy they use to have" Then let the other character think what he will. Fits the odd ball humor of the novel.
posted
I would like to point out two things. The first is, since "In the worst case scenario, a disaster of this size would be global in its extent, would create a meltdown of our economic and social life, and would reduce us to dark age conditions," it is by no means an event that I and my ilk are unprepared for.
The second thing is that the real threat is an inbound comet on a thousand+ year elliptical path, not an asteroid. We have the ability to spot dangerous asteroids years in advance, but it is simply not possible (for human science, at least) to predict when a rogue comet will appear until it actually enters the inner solar system and is observed, which gives you only months to get ready if it turns out to be Earth crossing. There is a certain (very small) amount of danger from asteroids, which we might plausibly do something about, but if a comet is going to hit us, we simply have no realistic method of detecting it in time to do anything about it.
A third and pretty much unrelated thing that I would like to point out is that long orbital period comets tend to have a significant proportion of deuterium and tritium in them because of millions of years of exposure to cosmic radiation. They also have relative velocities far greater than any potential asteroid strike. This means that the initial strike can become a nuclear initiation event, causing the comet to act like a super-duper H-bomb rather than an ordinary kinetic impact event. So a big comet could concievably blow this little dirt ball rock into a million little pieces (actually, the pieces would still be pretty big, just nowhere near the size of an Earth-like planet ). Even a medium sized comet could make the planet totally uninhabitable. A small comet, on the other hand, might not do much more damage than a really big asteroid
It mentions that "Each year about 30 asteroids several metres in length pierce the atmosphere and explode, with even the smaller sized ones unleashing as much energy as the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in Japan." I knew that this happened all the time, but I thought that the figure was more like once every couple of years or so. Now that would be an interesting combo of "Sum of All Fears" and "Deep Impact", eh?
posted
How about a rouge black hole? A small one, like in David Brin's "Earth". That would hit, and you would never see it coming. If it were moving slow enough, it might even stick around the gravity well and consume the whole planet.
And that sun! She's getting pretty old. She only has another billion or two years in her.
Of coarse, the orbit of the moon will have decayed by then and have collided with the earth.
But, with all life eradicated by the depletion of the O-Zone, continent sized deserts and poisonous by-products in the atmosphere and water because of overpopulation, anything hitting the planet would be redundant.
I've got an idea! How about someone writes a story about how the planet isn't going to be destroyed sometime in the next hundred years? Now that would be Science Fiction!
(Whew! Where the hell did that come from? I'm not usually that cynical. Well, at work yes, but not on the boards. )
At least "Sum of All Impacts" sounds sort of like a serious title...
Seriously, though. Apocalyptic fiction speaks directly to our sense of the fragile nature of existence. Future scenarios where humanity develops unlimited fusion power, telomerase control and space colonization technologies can only appeal to our existential angst rather than the full panoply of our fears.
posted
It would be impossible to eradicate all life on this planet with a few impacts. Guaranteed. (Sorry, bit of a pet peeve of mine. People see humanity's end and arrogantly assume that when we end, so does everything else.) JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
JK, don't say "impossible". Chippy already mentioned an impact with a black hole as well as Mr. Sun going nova. Either event actually could wipe out all life on this one planet.
But you are quite correct that in between the extinction of humanity and the extermination of archaeobacteria there is a huge latitude. But since archaebacteria-like organisms probably live pretty much everywhere, it hardly matters whether or not they are exterminated here or not.
posted
With a few mere impacts. Obviously, black holes and nova suns will do the job. But that's why I didn't mention them, you see. Plus, I'm not altogether sure black holes can roam about Space. And our Sun won't go nova without external aid, BTW. Too small. It does matter, but perhaps not to you. As I mentioned, humanity's so arrogant that it assumes that the only life worth bothering about is it's own. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
Well of course, if you define "a few impacts" as meaning only "mere impacts", meaning only impacts that wouldn't end all life on Earth
Black holes act according the the laws of physics same as anything else, they aren't somehow "fixed" in specific positions (and even if they were, we aren't, so it could be our solar system that "wandered" into a perfectly stationary black hole). And if something big enough hit our Sun with enough energy at the right vector, it could generate a plasma discharge that would incinerate the Earth pretty thoroughly.
It doesn't matter if archaeobacteria are exterminated, in any moral or ethical sense. They have what we call "life processes", but I believe that sentience and free will are only coincidentally connected with a particular set of complex chemical reactions in humans. Persons based on "non-living" brains and bodies are just as sentient and morally important as those based on organic chemistry.
You humans like to imagine that there is something special about "life" (by which you mean such organic chemical reactions as PCR, protein synthesis, glucose reduction, photosythesis, and such larger phenomena as cellular mitosis or differentiation). I happen to think that all your organic components are disgusting and icky
posted
"Chippy"? LOL! I haven't heard that one in a very long time.
Funny story. The last person who called me "Chippy" on a regular basis was my third grade teacher. A very nice woman. Close to three hundred pounds, black as night, and the thickest southern accent you ever heard.
In college, I put a large piece of paper on my dorm room door. By the end of my junior year I had well over two hundred variations on "Chip". By the end, I was offering a $5 reward for new ones.
posted
I'll take you're word for it, Survivor, that black holes can roam (although I bet they can't do it like the buffalo do). But I never denied that we roamed, I was just being pedantic. But something hitting our sun doesn't equal nova. No dice. There's always something special about life, because it's unique from every other piece of matter in the universe. Although my only problem was the assumption that a couple of rocks would exterminate life just because we wouldn't survive. So long as that's all zipped up and done, I'm content. BTW, Survivor, you'd make a good Buddhist. They hate body parts, too. Lol, Chipster. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
Sorry, I gotta disagree on the "organic life is so special" bit. 'Tis all just a bunch of complex chemical reactions. Sentience, moral agency, logic, these are more important than some blind chemical process, no matter how intricate. I can admire the details of organic chemistry, but they hold no special magic for me. My life is not bound to a collection of lipoproteins, nucleotide sequences, and assorted other elements of organic chemistry. I don't regard those things as being alive in the spiritual sense anymore than rocks or water, air and fire.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Since I don't believe in being alive in a spiritual sense, it's all the same to me. It's all genes, but just specialised in different ways. Sentience is no greater than flying. Bacteria have found their niche, and so have we. It's all the same. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
If you don't care about (well, believe in) being alive in a spiritual sense, then why on Earth is "life" special at all? It is simply a physical fact that certain molecules behave in certain ways, in that case, with no more significance for any particular arrangement of complex molecules than for the particular and unique pattern of striations on some particular rock. Wouldn't it make more sense to be appalled by the destruction of the information contained in all those unique rocks that are destroyed in an impact than by the extermination of a particular genetic code?
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
To quote a friend of mine in college: "That's all well and good. But regardless, you're still going to work in the morning."
Posts: 17 | Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted
Take a rock and a sun. They're both pretty much identical, because the atoms and molecules and the structures are, if you like, inert. They do nothing active to influence the world, and any interaction is coincidental. Hydrogen fuses into helium because it's hot, not because hydrogen actively seeks to fuse. Genes, on the other hand, actively seek to alter and change (obviously, I'm anthropomorphising genes a tad here *grin*). They will do just about anything to survive. That's why they deserve a consideration different to the consideration given to a rock. Plus, there's no information in a rock that you can't find in any other rock. But since every genetic structure is unique, all the more reason to preserve it. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
So perhaps a second black plague would be in order, let's thin the gene pool a bit. Uncrowd the cities a bit, or a lot, hey then there would be less crime and killing, just for the simple fact that we would stop behaving like rats in a cage that is overfilled.
posted
Complex molecules don't actively seek to do anything! Put a strand of DNA in an acidic solution and it reacts according the laws of chemistry, not according to any sort of "will to procreate" or whatnot. Look, it just doesn't happen that way. Biochemistry is not magic, it is a physical process like any other...governed by rules and mathmatics, not "desire" or "molecular willpower".
For crying out loud, 'tis like ascribing motives to a computer! I can hardly believe that anyone on this forum would actually say such a thing, let alone write it! But then, JK is the common notation for "Just Kidding"...(by the way, that sort of bugs me too, why not just type "Just Kidding"?)
posted
Well, lets see. When my husband drives my car, the dash lights don't work and it doesn't want to go into gear. It will, spit, sputter, and even stall on him. The speed gauge stops working as well.
I get in and all systems are a go. The dash lights glow warm red, the shifting is smooth as ice, and it never stalls. And the speed gauge works.
As to my computer, don't get me started----it hates me.
I do wish, though, that people could get along a bit better than those caged rats. No need to gnaw on each other. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, no matter how silly they seem to others. And no matter what terms are used, well my grandfather once said to me when I argued with him about science vs. myth and creation legends. He asked, “What difference does it make if I say we crawled up from a hallow log to walk upright and become men, or if I say we came from primordial muck and then evolved into men? Both mean the same thing. Both have the same result.”
I know some might sputter and say but but—but it does mean the same thing. It does have the same end result. I respect science, but lets not bat around “my terms are more right than your terms”.
As People, we need to treat each other with respect and to remember that we all came up from the log, or the primordial muck. I come from a People that believe if you do not treat others and all of nature with respect that you are not of the People, so therefore not human. Humanity must treat Humanity as Humanity. Respect garners respect in return.
Please disagree, but do it with respect to a fellow Person.
Shawn
[This message has been edited by srhowen (edited August 01, 2002).]
posted
I wasn't aware that either of us 'was dissin da uvver'. If you feel insulted by any of what I said, Survivor, please accept my apology. BTW, I did say that I was anthropomorphising genes. It's the best way to describe them. And please don't cite chemisty; it's not a real subject, just a mix of dozens of others. But of course genes are subject to physics and that; I never said they were little tiny Gods, each and every one. The point is, you can't describe genes sufficiently using physics. You need a whole new science for them. So they sound pretty special to me. (By 'special', BTW, I don't mean that I worship them, nor do I think that they're 'magic'.) And don't dis da name. Is not Just Kidding. Take what I say seriously, or I'll get medieval on your arse (lances, broadswords and all) *grin* JK [Edit]--I've just realised how far we've strayed from the original topic.
[This message has been edited by JK (edited August 02, 2002).]
Look...I don't even know where to begin. First off, genetics is a science, with mathmatical rules and everything, not a mystic religion or whatnot. Second, with advanced computer models, we can calulate--using nothing but the laws of physics--how a given complex molecule will behave in any given set of circumstances. So you can describe genes completely using nothing but physics, it just takes an enormous amount of computer time, just like if you tried to exactly calculate using those same models how a particular flake of rock will behave (of course, in most circumstances, the molecules of the rock will just sit there, bound up in crystals, but the fact remains that doing the physics of them just sitting there are every bit as complicated as the physics of comples organic molecules undergoing the various biochemical processes they undergo). Third, there are lots of sciences...no wait, let me go back to point number two...or forget about making particular points.
Genetics, insofar as it speaks to the behavior of genes, is a statistical rather than fundamental science. Only those genes that actually end up giving an organism an "advantage" in sucessful reproduction can be said to be "trying" to reproduce itself. Genes that code for hemophilia, phenylketonuria, progeria, or any of hundreds of diseases that impair successful reproduction could just as rationally be said to have a "death wish" even though, at the molecular level, they act much like their healthy counterparts, only coding for slightly different proteins (the process of synthesis, however, is much the same). The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of genetic codes, if activated, would code for something detrimental to the given organism that expressed them. Which means that it is only those "genes" that actually happen to accelerate or improve reproduction that can be said to "want" to reproduce. It is like taking a rock in one hand, a helium balloon in the other, releasing both, and saying of the result, "The rock 'wanted' to return to the ground, the helium 'wanted' to return towards the sun." But the fact that we can sum up the actual behavior of the rock and the balloon that way doesn't imply any mystic importance to the simple fact that this is, in fact, the way that rocks and balloons happen to behave in a particular set of circumstances.
Look, all I'm saying is that there is nothing more mystical or otherwise "special" about organic chemistry than about physics or computer science or whatever.
posted
I don't like to repeat myself. Anthropomorphising. Best way to describe it, I find. Special does not equal worship. Does not equal mystic. It means different, it means it's worth more consideration than a rock. Okay? Are we clear? Because frankly I'm a little tired of how I'm being slammed for worshipping the gound upon which genes walk, especially since I do nothing of the sort. In my opinion, if a rock is lost, it's a non-event. If a life is lost, it's an event. Now maybe you have cute and cuddly feelings towards rocks or something, and that's fine. But I prefer the squidgy stuff. And now I'm done. We've gone off-topic. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
All I'm pointing out is that there is no fundamental philosophical or scientific difference between a "life" (as you call it) and a "rock". You say "special", I point out, no, not special.
I have fact, logic, and grand philosophical truth on my side, you have repeated assertion of unsupported, illogical premise.
Getting back to the original topic, can anyone guess how I would actually feel about a celestial impact exterminating your...interesting...little species? Hmmmm ?
posted
Survivor: When you say philosophy is on your side, you really mean 'natural philosophy,' right? Philosophy in general can have aspects of theology, metaphysics, etc. of course, which I do not think is what you are trying to say.
Of course life is special, but the material forms of life are made out of the same stardust as everything else, special only in the honor of its role and its subtly complex form. The laws of physics do not often work too well with things like life, sentience, honor, and subtle complexity.
posted
Sorry, I do not feel like debating all kind of off-topic statements but there is one thing I must react to because I have a weakness for ancient philosophers.
Philosophical truth has been a problem since the Cretan philosopher Epimenides (supposedly) said:
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
