If a meteor took out the human race, it would be the best thing to happen to the world since the dawn of human existence. Only our arrogance makes us think that a natural disaster of this type could somehow be deemed otherwise.

Just a nuclear warhead?
A few days warning?
Come on. You could evacuate the area, and later rebuild. Cities get leveled fairly frequently in the third world, by earthquakes.

Mark: Glad to know you hate yourself and the human race so much. Just as a suggestion? Medication is available to help with conditions such as yours. I suggest you consult a psychiatrist. Also possibly a urologist who can talk to you about the vasectomy option, if you're really serious.

Maor: At this point, our early detection systems are so poor, we would not be able to predict where a large meteor would hit to much more accuracy than what hemisphere it would land in. So unless you plan to evacuate areas the size of entire continents within 24-48 hours, you ought to take this idea a bit more seriously.

This is certainly every bit as real and looming a threat as "catastrophic global warming." To say the least.

Dean, you have to forgive Mark. It seems he's overdosed on George Carlin. Maybe one day he will be able to think for himself...if of course he isn't wiped out by a natural or man-made accident. Either way, he won't care, it's only life after all, the only thing a person ever has....EVER.

If you don't occasionally think about killer asteroids, it is only because you haven't read Lucifer's Hammer, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. It is one of the great catastrophe novels of all time, and the entire uncredited precursor of all the various and tedious Hollywood movies that deal with this issue.

You can see more on this topic in both Easterblogg and my own blog.

Jack

There are several categories of impact hazards which represent the greatest danger to us. These generally combine little warning with the greatest potential for damage. The largest asteroids that would represent an "extinction level event" are not much of a concern because, being so large, we already know where they are and where they're going to be. If any of these are an impact hazard they would be so only in hundreds of years, and we should be able to prepare for that should the situation arise. Small asteroids like the one in question are a real concern because they are so numerous they often impact the Earth frequently (every hundred years or so) and are large enough to do significant damage if they hit in just the right spot, yet are too small to be spotted with the surveys we have today, until it's too late. This is where a little money can go a long way. Much more robust asteroid surveys would enable us to pin down every single object of this size range and be able to determine their future orbits accurately enough to be able to mount a worthwhile evacuation campaign (and no, one or two days warning is not nearly enough time to do that). Such survey work costs a pittance compared to the possible benefits. The more serious concerns come from slightly larger objects which could cause regional destruction and which we still don't have good surveys of. These objects almost certainly have to be diverted, especially if the impact is in the ocean, since the resulting mega-tsunami would destroy many coastal cities on the surrounding seashores. For example, a big hit in the Pacific could wipe out the West Coast cities and Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc. Even if you have the time to evacuate it's almost certainly cheaper to try to divert the asteroid at tremendous cost rather than be forced to rebuild hundreds of billions of dollars in city infrastructure, industry, dwellings, etc. With a really, really good asteroid survey program we could catalog all the dangerous asteroids of this sort and predict their future orbits far enough out to give us decades or centuries of warning time. And if we had centuries of warning time we could divert the asteroids at very little cost with simple, inexpensive measures, such as sprinkling the asteroid with talc, no nukes required. The asteroid has to miss Earth by a certain distance, the longer we have to move the asteroid by that distance the smaller amount of velocity we have to impart.

This is all good news, right? With much less than a billion dollars a year in funding we could be safe, and we wouldn't even have to use big, brutish nuclear weapons. Nor would we have to develop technologies which divert asteroids on short time scales, which could be a security concern on its own. Win, win, right? Well, not so fast. There's another category I didn't mention, long period comets. You see, our Solar System is really quite large, hundreds of times larger than our little neighborhood around the Earth and the Sun, and out in the outer reaches there is a whole mess of junk left over from the creation of the Solar System. Chunks of ice and dust and rock ranging in size from grains of dust to mountains to moons or planets. And every once in a while some of them enter the inner Solar System, at which point they become comets as we know and love them when their ices and dusts vaporize and form huge tails as they approach closer to the sun. These guys can hit Earth too. And some of them are big enough to cause a mass extinction. Most worrisome is that many of them spend most of their time so far away from Earth and the Sun that we just can't spot them until they are only a few years from entering the inner Solar System. There's really little we can do to increase our ability to spot all these suckers. Our absolute best equipment can only just barely spot the planet sized comets on the inner fringes of the Kuiper belt, even if we could spot objects thousands or millions of times dimmer at those distances we would still only have a few years before they reached us. What's worse is that, unlike asteroids in the inner Solar System, we wouldn't be able to spot the larger ones much sooner than the smaller ones. So we're going to need very robust asteroid and comet deflection technologies that are strong enough to work over short lead times (years or decades) no matter what.

I couldn't agree more Dean. The press coverage was rediculous. It was only a 30m large object. But thank God it turned out to be a 500m object and missed us by 32 moons. I'm thinking to myself, 32 moons in the scope of our solar system is pretty damn close. If the Earth was the size of a automobile, that missed us by what, a pubic hair.

Some quick stats:

The moon is roughly 238,700 miles away. 32 moons is roughly 7,616,000 miles away. Thus the asteroid missed us by roughly 7,616,000.

The earth travels around the sun at roughly 66,000 miles per hour. In terms of our orbital speed, the asteroid missed us by roughly 115 hours.

Unfortunately, the sun travels through the galaxy at the speed of 432,000 miles per hour. In terms of the sun's speed, the asteroid missed us by roughly 17 hours.

I'm not going to look up the speed of the galaxy as it travels through space. What I think astronomers owe us in regards to this near miss is how near it actually was. Was it seconds, hours, days. Certainly they have the answer.

Mark,

Don't let them get you down. Your statement is the epitome of pessimism or were you being facetious? Say as silly as having planetary defense against asteroids. I would think that we are pretty much screwed if we are to be hit by an asteroid of any large size. Just don't have the technology or plan in place to take care of it. Perhaps a team of astronaut drillers...

Doesn't mean some bright people should not be trying to figure out how to take care of such a possible disaster.

Psychiatrists? Most of the human race could probably do with a little counseling.

From what I read (?validity?), the astronomers were debating on whether to call and let the president know. They didn't want to until they were absolutely certain it would miss, and apparently it did - this time.

"It's a big-ass sky..."

Mark: 'the best thing to happen to the world' from whose viewpoint? What is 'the world' and what's 'best' for it?

This is the same problem I have with those who want to save the planet. Er, from what? To what end?

The Earth changes. It changed before people, it'll change after we're gone (unless we take it with us: and if we do, it won't mind).

Don't all living organisms arrange things to suit themselves, to the best of their abilities? We're the ones with the big brains and the cool thumbs. Wouldn't it be anti-nature to play dumb, to pretend to be less than we are?

It's not a curse, and you didn't cause it; you don't have to feel guilty about being so much more capable than, say, a geranium. Just enjoy it. :)

Robin wrote a very nice post on the issue of near-earth objects. However, it's worth pointing out that not all stronomers argree with him in that there may be unknown objects out there that are plenty big enough to wipe out civilization on earth. An object a few miles wide out in space is pretty easy to miss.

If you look at the Moon (which some say used to be a piece of the earth before it was blown off by a meteor impact) it is covered with craters. Since it is not subject to erosion or continental drift, nor does it have an atmosphere to burn up the little meteors, it is a nice little record of how many asteroids are out there. There are enough giant craters on its surface for scientists to guesstimate that there might be a thousand asteroids that cross our orbit, asteriods big enough to cause a planetwide catstrophe.

In fact, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is coordinating a plan to try to identify 90% of the near-earth objects >1km in size by 2008, and may not make the deadline. The other 10% are really hard to find because of where their orbits lie. So far, all the really large NEOs we've found don't seem to be on a collision course with earth any time in the next hundred years, but many astronomers don't think we've found them all. In 2003 they found 21 new ones, and 4 more so far this year.

I think a global protection system would be a way better idea than going to mars.

...although from a person living in a tiny insignificant country at the bottom of the world, given that the US is probably the only individual nation with the resources to develop such a system, I fear the ramifications of the US owning it. Of course I'd fully expect all the other countries to help fund such a measure since it benefits them as well, but obviously there are plenty of countries that are not in a position to contribute a whole lot.

So if the US government put resources into building a system, would they then just focus on destroying threats to their own turf (or the turf of those that have contributed)? Or request payment on delivery? To be honest, I'm a bit apprehensive about owing the US after they saved my little country, mainly because in the past few years the US government has developed a reputation for being unsympathetic and heavy-handed in its international relations. Major pressure for payment or diplomatic favours could possibly render NZ (and many others) an economic and social disaster area.

Hoping I won't get flamed for that comment. I've found it really enlightening reading your blog over the last 12 months. It's really helped me to balance all the non-US commentary with an intelligent American perspective. Just I thought you might also be interested to get my view in return.

I'll be really pissed if we start a multi-billion dollar program to detect and prevent a hit that's 10 - 15 years out, and then we get wiped out like within 5 years.

Dean - I think my recent e-mails to you indicate the complete opposite of self-loathing or a dislike of my fellow man (with certain exceptions - we can do without anyone who doesn't like dogs :0P!) Also, thanks to an upbringing around this marble we call home, I made a decision early on not to bring children onto this over-populated planet. I won't divulge how I managed to not have children (too personal), but suffice it to say that my wife and I are happily child-free (as opposed to child-less). Hope you are well.
Kate - We are here, we should live life to the fullest and enjoy it, but at the same time we are our own worst enemy. And we are nature's worst enemy in many ways. Hey, don't get me wrong, I don't vote Green, but that doesn't mean I have to like my fellow man who has no appreciation for the magnificence of a 3000-year-old Coastal Redwood except for how it looks as a beam in the living room of their mini-mansion. Again, arrogance is the factor that lets us believe that we are somehow the best thing that happened to this planet and are somehow more deserving of a guarantee of the continuation of our species than a beetle unique to five acres of rainforest that was just clear-cut so you can have a mahogany deck on your sailboat that never leaves the harbor.
Tim the Soldier - I would happily challenge you to a battle of wits asto who is more able to think for themselves. As one who lives in earthquake country, I do not sit around obsessing on whether my life might end in the next hour due to a natural disaster. Life is sacred, but I refuse to get worked up about your "It's the only thing we have - ever" bullshit. At ease, soldier. You need to relax.

P.S. - Judging from everyone's reaction to my original post on this topic, it's a good G-ddamned thing I didn't weigh in with my opinions on The Passion! Stay tuned, that's coming, and will probably really piss of a lot of people. Damn, I love a lively debate! Have a great week, everybody.

My nephew has a genius IQ -- was reading at age two. We watched a TV program on asteroids and the possibility of one striking the Earth when he was about five years old and the kid freaked out.

He cried hysterically at bedtime for weeks. Nothing we could say would convince him that he was safe. He kept saying, "An asteroid could hit the Earth and nobody is doing anything about it!"

Of course, he was right. And, he was too smart to fool with the typical platitudes. He had to settle with "If it happens, it happens."

Mark,

Only you truly understand, The Earth's present 'civilization' is about to be recycled - 'spaded under'. The beings from the Higher Level are coming in a spacecraft to pick up those ready to graduate to the Next Level. And those left behind will be "spaded under" in Earth's garden in order to make room for the next civilization to be created here in a future time. We are informing Earth President Busch to immediately initiate Code Brown Alert into system. It is a warning that something is starting to fly.

Mark, basing such a weighty decision -- the decision whether or not to procreate -- on something you obviously haven't researched seems a little foolish to me. Exactly what makes you think the Earth is over-populated?

Oh come one, dowingba! The UN says the earth is over-populated! Duh! You are sooooooooooo American! ;)

Gah, but I'm Canadian! Doh!

PS but I'll be getting a passport soon. *wink* *wink* *nudge*

I'd say 32 moons is quite a bit, but I admit it's pretty subjective. I didn't realise that the place of impact couldn't be calculated on time. (Are you sure about that?)
BTW, do you know of any historic event of massive asteroid or comet impact? (by "historic", I mean the past few thousand years. I've heard about the dinosaurs) A nuke can destroy only one city, which isn't going to destroy civilization. Ask the Japanese.

Dowingba - I think I made it clear that my opinion that the world is over-populated was based on my personal experience living around the world. This is my personal research, as you call it. The short list of third world countries I have been to is too long for this space. In addition, it takes an idiot not to realize that this planet does not have the resources to support the current population, much less future generations procreating at the same (or potentially increased) rate. Further, the decision for me to have children is a personal one, not really subject to any outside influences anyway. What exactly is your point? Do you really think we need more anklebiters growing up in ignorance? Are we in danger of ceasing to exist as a species when chidren are dying in the streets of third-world nations or lying neglected in orphanages around the world? My only regret is that it seems (and you confirm my suspicions) that only the more intelligent members of mankind are ceasing to procreate. The ignorant are reproducing like jackrabbits on aphrodisiacs.

Is this why Pres. Bush wanted us to go to Mars?

No doubt you've shown us the way, Mark, and already sterilized yourself. Oh no, anklebiters! The horror!
The only reason that more "intelligent" people aren't having children is that they're buying into higher-level delusions, appropriate to their IQ. The less intelligent person believes in aliens and anal-probes (or appearances of the Virgin Mary in potato chips, depending on your outlook). The more intelligent person buys into Malthusian theories of overpopulation, or global warming.
Foregive me, Mark, but if people like you prefer to commit self-genocide, please do get on with it, and reduce the surplus population.

The fact that the global population keeps rising (like jackrabbits on aphrodisiacs, no less!)along with life spans pretty much contradicts the idea that there aren't enough resources to support the current population, unless the meaning of "resources" or "support" has been changed recently.
We don't "need" more anklebiters, but I don't think they'll kill us all. And if we don't have enough resources, the anklebiters will be the first to die off.
Perhaps Mark means: "There aren't enough resources to support the population without making the world a tackier place".
That's a completely different topic.

Third world countries have no money, and therefore not enough food. Money is not a planetary resource, however.

Look at how many people live in India. India is alot smaller than, say, Canada. Canada has only ~30 million population, 95% of that living within 100 miles of the US border. Do you know how many billions -- nay, trillions -- of people yet could live in the giant space that is Canada? The same goes for the incredibly uncrowded USA, and most other industrialized nations.

Third world countries are starving, that is true. So my advice to you: Don't raise your kid in a third world country. Seems pretty simple, to me.

But hey, if you wanna pretend your decision to not procreate is because of some intellectual superiority and not just cowardous then go right ahead.

It's cowardICE but you make a good point. There are countries that are very overcrowded (like India) but the US is not. To me, that's not really a valid reason for not having kids. Not wanting them is one and I'm sure ther are others.

"...although from a person living in a tiny insignificant country at the bottom of the world, given that the US is probably the only individual nation with the resources to develop such a system, I fear the ramifications of the US owning it."

As opposed to the ramifications of the US owning thousands of multi-megaton nuclear warheads?

A weapon is far more likely to be used as a force for good if it is in the hands of the US than if it's in practically any other hands on Earth.

"Of course I'd fully expect all the other countries to help fund such a measure since it benefits them as well, but obviously there are plenty of countries that are not in a position to contribute a whole lot."

Every little bit helps. The only ones here who would dare to refer to the little guys on the team as "poodles and lackeys" are the ones that oppose the very purpose for which the team is formed and have no compunction about insulting everyone associated with it on any available pretext.

"So if the US government put resources into building a system, would they then just focus on destroying threats to their own turf (or the turf of those that have contributed)?"

Since that would include all water strikes, and water covers 3/4 of the Earth, that probably won't be an issue.

"Or request payment on delivery? To be honest, I'm a bit apprehensive about owing the US after they saved my little country"

Talk to the British and French. Talk to the Germans, Italians, and Japanese. Ask them how much money we hit them up for after WWII. Don't overlook the negative sign in the answer.

For that matter, talk to the Iranians. Ask them how much we charged to help them clean up after their recent earthquake. You'll find that it's a single-digit number that is remarkably egg-shaped.

"mainly because in the past few years the US government has developed a reputation for being unsympathetic and heavy-handed in its international relations."

Only to those who fail to notice that that description more properly fits the UN. Not to mention the late, unlamented Iraqi regime.

"Major pressure for payment or diplomatic favours could possibly render NZ (and many others) an economic and social disaster area."

I suppose it could. But I don't really see any reason to expect such pressure for disastrous payments from the United States.

Mr. Mark D. Firestone,

Europe is currently experiencing negative population growth. The US would probably be experiencing negative population growth if it were not for illegal immigration. What this means for Europe, at the present rates of reproduction, genocide of white Europeans will occure in about 400 years. Mr. Firestone, do you advocate guilt induced genocide. If you are to post about overpopulation, I would recommend you take your schtick to Africa and Asia. I'm certain they would be happy to here your moral outrage over population growth.

dowingba,

No one is starving in this world because of lack of food. There is more than enough food to go around. The only people who are starving are being starved due to political situations. This is a fact.

Sorry about all the typos. I had a biopsy today and I'm full of tylenol with codiene.

Ralph, it should be pointed out that everyone on Earth who starves does so because of lack of food. The reason people have not enough food is because of political reasons, as I stated above.

Mark, perhaps we've all been a little too hard on you for your views. Certainly, there have been other lovable characters throughout history with your very understandable pro-genocidal views. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, to name a few.

dowingba, Not really. I'm absolutely certain there are warehouses full of UN grain that are being sold for profit whilst the citizens die of hunger. Somalia comes to mind and I'm certain it is common practice in other places as well.

Ken, thankyou for your response. Reassuring though your words are, I guess my point is just that much of the rest of the world is more scared of the US than of asteriods.

I never intended to make a judgement call about whether any of the US government's actions are right or wrong. However, events of the recent past were partly to show that America can and will do what it wants when it wants, and that's had a huge psychological impact on countries that question the government's motives or method.

...started writing and I realised I'd end up a massive essay that strayed well off-topic, but I hope you see the point I'm trying to make.

As for the asteriod protection thing, maybe it'd be quite a good project to repair some international relations through joint effort.

Interesting - All of this went from me stating that i am not concerned about a meteor smacking into Earth to me being compared to Mao, Hitler and Stalin and allegedly espousing a pro-genocidal viewpoint. As I said, idiots are procreating like jackrabbits, but the real question is: Did Dowingba, Kiwi, Jim, Ralph Ken, Kerrysucks, and Maor's parents have any children that weren't born brain-dead?

If a meteor took out the human race, it would be the best thing to happen to the world since the dawn of human existence.

You said it, not me.

Mark D. Firestone - Oh, how droll.

Dowingba - A meteor taking out the human race is a natural disaster. Genocide is the wholesale murder of a large group of people by an individual or numerous individuals. Therefore, as to your lack of intelligence, I rest my (droll) case.

Mr. Firestone,

You are a classic limp wristed, lefty ankle biter. Rather than discuss the issues, your best response is to hurl insults about other poster's children. If you looked in the dictionary, you would find that murder is not part of the definition of genocide.

Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

What better way to destroy a race of people than by convincing them that they are dangerously overpopulating the world when in fact they are not? This argument doesn't really hold any water when you consider the fact that white Europe is currently on a path to eliminate itself in 400 years. Your socialist "cradle to grave" utopia has infected Europe like a disease. Its slovenly populace looks for its next socialist handout while the women head to the clinic for their next abortion. What is more alarming is that this relativist disease is fast spreading to the US.

As I said in my previous post, take your overpopulation message and spread it in Africa and Asia. Americans need to consider the 40 million aborted fetuses since Roe vs. Wade and the tens of millions of illegal immigrants that have come into this country since Roe vs. Wade. As we slide into a morally relativistic abyss, people need to start taking this overpopulation claim in the context of our own country. We are implementing our own destruction. It is genocide no matter how you cut it. Self-induced genocide is still genocide.

Ralph - I did not initially hurl insults at anyone, least of all their children. I stated my opinion, defended it without personal attacks in spite of same against me, and only finally bit back by asking if your parents bred a brain-dead baby. For my pains you continue to insult me. You have your opinion, I, mine. I very clearly stated that I (I,I,I,I,I,I) chose not to have children, and why. Period. I did not dictate that you, or anyone else, should NOT have children. You should all state your case, keep it above the belt, and move on. We have a difference of opinion, that's all. Again, I did not, will not, have not espoused genocide in any way shape or form. Take your insults elsewhere, they only serve to underscore the ignorance you wear on your sleeve.

P.S. Genocide implies that the act is committed by humans or a human. When was the last time you heard of an automobile wreck resulting in death referred to as a homocide by an automobile? Or deaths by a tornado referred to as an act of genocide by tornado? Nice attempt at spin, but it doesn't work any way you try to twist the definition. Are you an attorney by chance?

Mr. Firestone,
You included me in your "brain dead" post. I considered that an insult. But then, that might depend on what your definition of "insult" is. I have no interest in exchanging insults with you.

Feel free to play the overpopulation card but don't be surprised when people call you out on it. You would think the left would invent new talking points by now.

Firestone, I have a lot of trouble taking you seriously at this point. Someone who won't perceive a threat until it's on his very doorstep, looking him in the face...is stupid. That's all there is to it. In the long run, intelligence is mainly of value as a survival mechanism. I mean, it's all very well to be nice and detached and able to sneer at the concern of others...but sneering irony isn't a survival virtue. What good is intelligence if it doesn't assess potential threats and work to take action to alleviate them? Otherwise, cognition is just a "glass bead game".

Ralph - You obviously ARE brain-dead. Read my last post again. But this time, read it S-L-O-W-L-Y. Sound out each word, and put them together mentally in cohesive sentence groups. Then respond.