Will mankind destroy itself?

[Red Celt]

Worried about our catastrophists.

Oh and I don't torrent (not on this computer anyway) and I can't watch that program(me) because I'm not in the UK.

If you're including me, I'm not a catastrophist; simply a realist. The odds that are being bandied about are fantasy figures based on nothing but blind hope. As for the TV programme, I did mention proxies. They allow you to fool country-specific broadcasters, so you can watch content from any country.

[Blind groper]

The odds that are being bandied about are fantasy figures based on nothing but blind hope.

The odds are based on history. They may be wrong, but they will not be wrong by major margins.

[Red Celt]

The odds that are being bandied about are fantasy figures based on nothing but blind hope.

The odds are based on history. They may be wrong, but they will not be wrong by major margins.

Why? Why do you keep saying that? Zilla and I aren't saying that it definitely could happen soon. We'd be making the same argument against someone who did. We're arguing against the certainty you have that it couldn't. And that's the problem, here: certainty. You don't have it... you really really don't.

And odds are meaningless.

The pattern of asteroids strikes could be this:-
200 million years ago
65 million years ago
today
110 million years in the future

You can have no certainty that the above pattern isn't true. None. Zero. Nada.

As atheists, we should be more open to the idea that the universe doesn't operate on what we desperately hope to be true. You can hope that we have 1000 years to get off the planet or prepare effective means to detect and destroy incoming extermination events... but the universe doesn't work on hope. It might work out that way, or it might not.

We can't be certain.

[Blind groper]

Red

Do you possibly understand how much of what you are saying is irrational bullshit?

We all live by probability. We assess risks day by day and moment by moment and make decisions based on those estimated probabilities. We plan for a future, based on an estimate that we will live long enough to have a future. I set my television to record a program based on my belief that I will be there to view it.

We do not, repeat not, assume that a 1 in a billion chance will deprive us of these futures. Probabilities are not certainties, but they are the basis we live our lives by. If I tell you something bad has only a 1 chance in 100 million of happening, and you persist in telling me that this is not good enough..... do you realise how utterly stupid your assertion is?

Sure, an utterly and unbelievably improbable event may happen to thwart our plans. But we still plan. Anything else is insane.

[Red Celt]

Red

Do you possibly understand how much of what you are saying is irrational bullshit?

I was being all understanding and sympathetic up until now.

Ho hum.

What odds are they, btw? They change each time you post them.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Don't bother, Red.

[orpheus]

Red

Do you possibly understand how much of what you are saying is irrational bullshit?

We all live by probability. We assess risks day by day and moment by moment and make decisions based on those estimated probabilities. We plan for a future, based on an estimate that we will live long enough to have a future. I set my television to record a program based on my belief that I will be there to view it.

We do not, repeat not, assume that a 1 in a billion chance will deprive us of these futures. Probabilities are not certainties, but they are the basis we live our lives by. If I tell you something bad has only a 1 chance in 100 million of happening, and you persist in telling me that this is not good enough..... do you realise how utterly stupid your assertion is?

Sure, an utterly and unbelievably improbable event may happen to thwart our plans. But we still plan. Anything else is insane.

Yes, we do live by probability - but not exclusively so. We also take into account the seriousness of consequences of any potential event. It's reasonably likely that if I go around in bare feet, I may stub my toe. But this doesn't stop me from doing it, because a stubbed toe is not that big of a deal. It's comparatively unlikely that my apartment will be burgled. But since the consequences of that are really serious, I pay for renter's insurance.

So yes, an extinction event may be quite unlikely. But given how serious the consequences are, it's worth it to take whatever steps we can to plan for it, to protect ourselves.

[Clinton Huxley]

Aye, aseroidal unpleasantness is a low probability, high impact event. Risk management needs to be conducted accordingly.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hundred-year floods don't happen every hundred years, they're just typical of the worst floods in the last hundred years. There's nothing in probability studies that says it can't happen tomorrow. In fact, that's one of the first things they teach, "This is not reality, it's math."

[Clinton Huxley]

That's the point, really. It probably won't happen but if you aren't prepared, you are in the merde. A bit of insurance is a smart move.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's the point, really. It probably won't happen but if you aren't prepared, you are in the merde. A bit of insurance is a smart move.

"Better to have a plan and not need it than to need a plan and not have it."

[Blind groper]

I have no problem with having a plan in advance of asteroidal impact. What most of you have not mentioned though, is that while an extinction event disaster is exceedingly unlikely, a Tunguska level event is much more probable (estimated frequency about once every century), and if it happened over a large population center, it would be dreadful. Insurance should, rationally be aimed at this, rather than the once per 100 million years extinction event.

The Tunguska event insurance would be to monitor all possible lumps of rock that might intersect the Earth orbit, that are big enough to cause that harm. This process has begun, though it will need further development - something that scientists are working on. What to do if a rock is discovered that might "Tunguska" over London or Paris is another question. Scientists are still in the debate stages. The best approach is to nudge it sideways when it is still outside the orbit of Mars. However, we do not yet have the technology to do that. A nuclear bomb would probably make the problem worse.

An asteroid big enough to do a 'dinosaur killer' on us would be impossible to stop. The only 'answer' is to have self sustaining colonies off the Earth, so that our species will continue to exist. That should happen within a few hundred years.

[Blind groper]

What odds are they, btw? They change each time you post them.

No.

You misunderstand.

The odds are always the same. You can dispute my assumptions, and I agree that assumptions should always be queried, but the maths are sound and the odds do not change.

I have assumed, from our planet's impact history, that a 'dinosaur killer' size impactor or bigger will strike, as an approximate average, once every 100 million years. That is the assumption you may query.

The odds do not change, but (of course) I will quote a different probability depending on what time period you refer to. The probability of such an event tomorrow are very different to the probability over a period of 1000 years. That may be what has confused you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Math is not reality.

[Blind groper]

Math is not reality.

Neither are the words we type onto this forum reality. Nor are our ideas as presented any reality. These are all merely models of reality, which is what my maths are, also. The maths is just as relevant and as much a part of the discussion as any ideas you, or anyone else puts forward.