SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A NASA thought experiment called, Defending Human Civilisation From Supervolcanic Eruptions, stated that a supervolcano eruption was more likely to happen in the future than an asteroid hitting the earth, according to the Daily Star. It said: “Supervolcanic eruptions occur more frequently than a large asteroid or comet impacts that would have a similarly catastrophic effect to human civilization.” Jet Propulsion Laboratory researchers found that collisions from asteroids which are more than 2km in diameter occurred “half as often as supervolcanic eruptions”.
[...]Yellowstone Caldera[*] is classed as a supervolcano which erupted 60,000 years ago and again 60,000 years before that.
Although there is no guarantee, if the volcano follows the same pattern then it is now due for another eruption.
Researchers have found that if a supervolcano like Yellowstone did erupt, then a “volcanic winter” would ensue which could surpass the “amount of stored food worldwide”.
People living on another continent would not be spared from the aftermath of a supervolcanic eruption.
[*] Wikipedia entry on the Yellowstone Caldera (aka Supervolcano).
The referenced NASA document — Defending Human Civilization From Supervolcanic Eruptions (pdf) — is less sensational; here is the abstract from the paper:
Large volcanic eruptions greater or equal to a magnitude 8 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index (i.e., supervolcanic eruptions) eject >10 15 kg of ash and sulfate aerosols, sufficient to blanket sizeable fractions of continents and create a regional or global "volcanic winter." Such events could seriously reduce worldwide agricultural production for multiple years, causing mass famine. Supervolcanic eruptions occur more frequently than large asteroid or comet impacts that would have a similarly catastrophic effect to human civilization, especially now that many asteroid orbits have been mapped. We assess whether future supervolcanic eruptions could be dampened, delayed, or prevented by engineering solutions.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday April 09 2019, @09:27PM (8 children)
Wouldn't it be nice if we had a self-sufficient backup copy of humanity stashed somewhere off world?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 10 2019, @04:22AM (3 children)
To end humanity, the doomsday event has to first kill 99.999999% or so of people. Not even a supervolcano will do that. People are here to stay.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday April 10 2019, @07:24AM (2 children)
I will suggest that "end of humanity" and being "stuck on this rock" are the same thing. If we get hit before we are stable on Mars or the moon, it is unlikely we will get to that point again without the material for an industrial revolution.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday April 10 2019, @03:10PM
We'll have no shortage of material - every resource ever mined is now neatly deposited in comparatively ultra-pure form in our cities, scrap yards, and landfills. Every resource except for one: energy.
There's plenty of coal left, but it mostly requires a technological civilization to find and extract. If civilization completely collapses, it's unlikely it will be able to rise again - at least not in anything like its current pace and form. Though, now that I think about it, plastic might serve the same purpose.
On the other hand, one form of modern technology *is* likely to leave many enduring gifts that survive the collapse of civilization: biotechnology. At the very least, crops with vastly improved yields and tolerance to flooding and drought, and quite possibly the ability to fix their own nitrogen from the air, allowing them to thrive in much poorer soils (those all being things we've already made great progress on). Which should free a vastly larger percentage of the population from farming and allow science, industry, and the arts to thrive far more readily than last time. And there's no telling what other incredibly useful organisms we may develop before the fall. Especially if it hits us slowly enough that we have some time to prepare.
Of course, a self-sustaining off-world colony isolated from whatever caused the collapse on Earth would help immensely in preserving knowledge and jump-starting a technological civilization again on Earth once things have settled down. No denying that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 10 2019, @06:00PM
It is likely to take 10000 years or more before a big asteroid strikes or a super-volcano erupts. Given the pace of technology, humans will know how to deal with it by then. Asteroid detection has already been tackled and geophysics is steadily improving. The only natural thing that we know can end humanity is the sun, which has a few billion more years left on its clock.
But humans have shown that they are their own biggest threat, with wars, genocide, economic mismanagement, and nuclear weapons having already killed tens of millions. For the future, we can expect the rise of robots and maybe bio-engineered weapons. Having an outpost on Mars doesn't offer much protection against those killers.
(Score: 1) by Scottingham on Wednesday April 10 2019, @02:41PM (3 children)
Creating a self sustaining colony in a sealed off cave on Earth would be 100000x easier than Mars.
Lets do that first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 10 2019, @06:58PM (1 child)
Biosphere 2 cost $200 Million and failed. If Mars is 100000x more difficult, the cost is $20 Trillion. I think $20 Trillion would be enough to pay for a failed colonization attempt on Mars.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday April 10 2019, @08:11PM
Biosphere 2 had lots of issues, and we learned a great deal from it. One of the biggest things we learned is that building a fully closed system is astoundingly hard. Biosphere 2's biggest mistake was choosing to ignore oxygen and food shortages instead of breaking the seal, fixing the issue, and continuing with the experiment under new conditions. With even moderately competent technology on Mars we won't have the seal. We'll have CO2, Nitrogen, Water, and mineral inputs. That's an open system and scales much more easily.
I hope we won't repeat the interpersonal dynamics mistakes we made there too.
I'm not implying that colonizing Mars will be easy or cheap. A bunch of people will die in the attempt. I'm willing to risk my life to be one of the people that try.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday April 10 2019, @08:00PM
It would be easier, but it could still be wiped out by a bunker buster bomb, a big enough space rock, or earthquakes/tectonic activity subsequent to volcanic eruption.