End of the world?

[Lighthawk]

A thread for the discussion of end of the world type scenarios, how you think it would happen, how you think you might survive, and what comes afterward. And to start things off, something high on the probability scale as far as world ending events go, an asteroid impact.

For the sake of the discussion, lets assume the impact is not so large as to just instantly destroy everything, and we'll assume that you weren't at the impact site itself. So after the dust clears...oh wait, the dust doesn't clear, because that's the real threat of such an impact right? So much dust and debris gets into the atmosphere that it reduces the sunlight hitting the ground significantly. Temperatures plummet world wide, crops fail, we have wide spread panic as food supplies dwindle away.

How would you survive? Could you survive? If you did, do you think you could help rebuild, or is that a goal beyond the scope of your life span?

[SolkaTruesilver]

My biggest 3 possibilities are (in decreasing likelihood):

- Massive Solar flare/collapse of the world's magnetic pole for an inversion, leaving us vulnerable to solar radiation, destroying all our electronic infrastructure and rendering our electricity network moot.
- Earthquake that provokes a massive tsunami, wiping the East/West coast. If it's San Fransisco who goes under, there goes Japan, the Phils, etc...
- Supervolcano of Yellowstone. We're doomed.

[stitch626]

1) some moron decides to use nukes and starts WWIII, and we all die.

Thats it for me really.

[SolkaTruesilver]

1) some moron decides to use nukes and starts WWIII, and we all die.

Thats it for me really.

Nah, I don't believe somebody is stupid ennough to hand over nukes to somebody ennough to use them.

AMD was a very good reason as to why we didn't go into WW3. We have to remember something: political leaders don't play to make their country win, but to avoid losing. Everybody lose in a nuclear wear.

[Tyyr]

M. A. D.

And MAD doesn't work when the people who might get a burr up their ass aren't rational.

[SolkaTruesilver]

M. A. D.

And MAD doesn't work when the people who might get a burr up their ass aren't rational.

Darn, I thought it was Assured Mutual Destruction.

But the lucky thing about nuclear politics is that irrational people don't end up with a nuke in their hands

[Tyyr]

But the lucky thing about nuclear politics is that irrational people don't end up with a nuke in their hands

...yeah, ok.

Anyways

And to start things off, something high on the probability scale as far as world ending events go, an asteroid impact.

For the sake of the discussion, lets assume the impact is not so large as to just instantly destroy everything, and we'll assume that you weren't at the impact site itself. So after the dust clears...oh wait, the dust doesn't clear, because that's the real threat of such an impact right? So much dust and debris gets into the atmosphere that it reduces the sunlight hitting the ground significantly. Temperatures plummet world wide, crops fail, we have wide spread panic as food supplies dwindle away.

How would you survive? Could you survive? If you did, do you think you could help rebuild, or is that a goal beyond the scope of your life span?

It largely depends on the duration of the nuclear winter. If its a short term thing than survival is quite possible. Living off stored and canned food. The only real issue is obtaining the supplies and holding onto them. If it's longer, more than a single growing season, things get a lot lot dicier.

Rebuilding is another question. If I survive solo or with just a small group than any kind of rebuilding is probably beyond my reach. Survival will be priority one and likely be priority only for a long time. If I'm with a larger group with better resources than rebuilding is a much more likely possibility. The downside is that so many will likely die that rebuilding to current levels is likely beyond my life span and even beyond the life span of my children's children.

[Captain Seafort]

But the lucky thing about nuclear politics is that irrational people don't end up with a nuke in their hands

Cough. Cough.

[IanKennedy]

You forgot one:

Cough

[Lighthawk]

In defense of GW...boy there's a phrase I never thought I'd use...while he might have arguably been foolish enough to use nukes, I doubt he was smart enough to have gotten around the safety precautions designed to prevent their use.

[Graham Kennedy]

Well if it's actually an "end of the world" scenario then it's something you can't survive pretty much by definition, right?


Of the "certain" ways the world will go bad on us, the one I've heard of which will happen soonest is losing the moon. The moon's orbit is gradually receding from Earth, and at the current rate then in about 15 million years it will be far enough away that we will lose it's stabilising effect on the Earth's axial alignment. At that point the Earth's axial tilt will begin to vary quite widely, resulting in catastrophic effects on the environment. It's unlikely that life on Earth could survive it in the long term.

[shran]

Would such variations be predictable? if so, humanity has to go nomadic to move continuously to stay in whatever may be considered a temperate zone. Does that zone change faster than the speed at which a group could travel to keep up?

[SolkaTruesilver]

But the lucky thing about nuclear politics is that irrational people don't end up with a nuke in their hands

Cough. Cough.

Thing is, while they might not be the friendliest country leaders around (lol!), they are still rational people who managed to get in the head of their countries. And they know (100%) that the moment they use a nuclear weapon, they are doomed. They know that the moment somebody uses a nuclear weapon that originates from them, they are doomed the moment the weapon has been tracked down (and it will be tracked down).

These people don't want to be "doomed". The people sourrounding them don't want to be "doomed" either. The close advisors of these leaders also know of the consequence of being the first stupid to provoke a nuclear war, either directly or indirectly. You don't get at the head of a country by being an irrational nuts. Even if Iran got their hand on a nuke, I doubt very much they would use it. Nukes are mainly a conventional war deterrent.

[Lighthawk]

Well if it's actually an "end of the world" scenario then it's something you can't survive pretty much by definition, right?

If it helps, tack a "as we know it" to the end then.

Would such variations be predictable? if so, humanity has to go nomadic to move continuously to stay in whatever may be considered a temperate zone. Does that zone change faster than the speed at which a group could travel to keep up?

I'm sorry, but if in 15 MILLION years the best we can do is return to our earliest form of living, then we don't deserve to survive as a species.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Well if it's actually an "end of the world" scenario then it's something you can't survive pretty much by definition, right?

If it helps, tack a "as we know it" to the end then.

Then we can also add First Contact?