A "What If" scenario... - what if we only had a 100 years left?

Byron · 2003-10-12 18:06:42

Just this afternoon, a friend was telling me something he saw on TV about a "supervolcano" located in Yellowstone National Park that supposely erupts every 600,000 years or so, sending 1000's of cubic kilometers of ash and soot into the atmosphere, causing a prolonged winter throughout the planet, not unlike the hypothetical "nuclear winter" scientists talked about back in the '80's.

This would, of course, bring human civilization to an erupt end, leaving only a few hardy groups of survivors on a devastated planet. *However*, there would be plenty of warning...indeed, the land around Yellowstone has risen a total of 19 inches in the past several decades, an indication that this thing might be getting ready to blow in the "near" future, which might not occur for another 100,000 years.

But....let's suppose that after a few years' of study, it was determined that this "supervolcano" would go off in approximately a hundred year's time, bringing an end to all of human civilization, and unlike diverting an Earth-crossing asteroid, there wouldn't be a darned thing we could do about it.

So....what do you think would happen?

Let's suppose that Zubrin and the Mars Society is able to convince the US government that the only way to save human civilization is to start anew on Mars...and as a result, we devote a huge percentage of our GDP (something like the 40% that we devoted to WWII) to colonizing Mars as quickly as possible...going all-out with Orion-style rockets blasting off from Earth and sending as many people as we possibly can to live on Mars in domed habitats.

With literally trillions of dollars (per year!) going to a Mars colonization effort, could humankind really re-establish itself on a whole new world with our existing level of technology in a mere century's time? Would the US government just be able to run up unlimited deficits for the 100 years that we would have left to get as many people to Mars before that thing blew? Or would the global economy collaspe long before the hundred years was up, halting the Mars Resettlement Program in its tracks? Even if that did occur, could the government just print money like mad to "pay" for this effort? (Hyper-inflation be dammed.) Or maybe this effort would cause economic growth rates to go through the roof, as everyone would be willing to work their butt off to save all of humanity...leading to a new age of human advancement that we can't even dream of today.

Obviously, only a small percentage of the world population could be moved off-Earth, but as far as our generation is concerned, it doesn't matter anyhow...as none of us would live to see the end of the world...but our children might, and our grandchildren would most certainly be the ones that would actually have to deal with this terrible situation. Would this cause a huge inter-generational conflict, as those of us living now would have to give up our accustomed way of life to deal with the Resettlement Program?

Ahh..what a great SF novel this would make, huh?...(no, I'm not writing a book about this....at least not yet...lol)

As always, I'm seeking your input, opinions, etc....

B

Mark Friedenbach · 2003-10-12 18:28:54

But....let's suppose that after a few years' of study, it was determined that this "supervolcano" would go off in approximately a hundred year's time, bringing an end to all of human civilization, and unlike diverting an Earth-crossing asteroid, there wouldn't be a darned thing we could do about it.

Well, I wouldn't say that. There are very few things that we can do *nothing* about. In this case a much easier solution would be to construct a release valve to ease off pressure from the mantle. Of course, this isn't the optimal scenario, as it would require turning Yellowstone, a highly treasured national park, into a man-made volcano. But it's certainly preferable to evacuating the Earth.

Free Spirit · 2003-10-12 19:28:11

Some people think that in 100 years nanotech might be so advanced that you wouldn't need to grow food anymore, you'd just create it from a bank of molecules. If technology like that happens a lot of people might survive. It could be too that space transportation won't be so reliant on technology like rockets, maybe super massive space tethers or even some totally exotic form of propulsion will make it as easy and cheap to get into outer space as a plane ticket is today. If tech doesn't advance much I doubt even moving into space will save us from extinction. Imagine the in-breeding that would occur. I have to say though, living in the promixity of Yellowstone, it didn't exactly cheer me up to read your message.

Byron · 2003-10-13 05:26:32

There are very few things that we can do *nothing* about. In this case a much easier solution would be to construct a release valve to ease off pressure from the mantle. Of course, this isn't the optimal scenario, as it would require turning Yellowstone, a highly treasured national park, into a man-made volcano. But it's certainly preferable to evacuating the Earth.

Let's just suppose for the sake of this intellectual exercise that there really wasn't anything we could do about the "supervolcano"...(besides, if we punched a hole into something that was about to blow anyhow, wouldn't it just cause the same thing, just sooner?)

Some people think that in 100 years nanotech might be so advanced that you wouldn't need to grow food anymore, you'd just create it from a bank of molecules. If technology like that happens a lot of people might survive. It could be too that space transportation won't be so reliant on technology like rockets, maybe super massive space tethers or even some totally exotic form of propulsion will make it as easy and cheap to get into outer space as a plane ticket is today.

This is the sort of thing I had in mind...if humanity had a fire lit under its feet to save itself, I would think advances of this nature would come about because it would be vitally necessary to do so. Remember, I'm talking about trillions of dollars spent every year for decades on end...in all honesty, there's no reason why humanity wouldn't be able to have a thousand years of technological advances compressed into a century...

The question I'm seeking to have answered here, however, would a massive effort such as this increase total economic output, or decrease it? What would happen to "unnecessary" endeavors, such as retailing, law firms, leisure travel, things of that nature? Would governments have the willpower to limit couples to perhaps one child per family in an effort to reduce the global population over the next century? (Of course we'd have to virtually eliminate retirement, as there wouldn't be enough working-age people to support the lopsided number of seniors after a few decades.) I would also imagine that education would be of the highest priority, with a huge emphasis in the maths and sciences (sorry Cindy! ), and school teachers being some of the highest-paid professionals in existence.

B

clark · 2003-10-13 09:25:38

What if...?

You do realise though, that individualy, we have at most one hundred years each. :laugh:

This would, of course, bring human civilization to an erupt end, leaving only a few hardy groups of survivors on a devastated planet.

So the solution is to put a few hardy groups of survivors on a different devastated planet?

So then we would have two different sets of people, on two different devastated planets, unable to really help one another.

Some might say that you have made the problem worse, not better.

This is the sort of thing I had in mind...if humanity had a fire lit under its feet to save itself, I would think advances of this nature would come about because it would be vitally necessary to do so.

Every human born has a fire lit under it's feet to save itself, but we each still die. Advances come, but not by writ.

The question I'm seeking to have answered here, however, would a massive effort such as this increase total economic output, or decrease it?

Decrease, as the plan will not provide enough chance for most people to be saved. As such, people who have little chance of going to mars, will see little reason to help the 'cause'. Better to spend the time and energy to devise a way to save yourself, since the plan as is, triages most of humanity as 'dead on arival'.

When the house is burning, you should put out the fire, not buy another house.

dicktice · 2003-10-13 16:30:54

Byron: Regarding your hypothetical volcano apocalypse scenario--how would the 100-year prediction come about, because without absolutely convincing arguments no-one is going to "drop everything" and devote full time towards getting everyyone in the know enough to be concerned--and therefore dangerous if ther're going to left behind--off to Mars. But if and when they are convenced, there's always LEO just waiting for us up there, to be colonized as a jumping-off "place" for even higher orbits around Earth. (Van Allen Belt shielding where necessary, using stored water ice.) Same problems of getting it all pulled together survival-wise as Mars, but with multipule daily launchings to transport the population, as well as supplying the necessities until self-sufficiency. Then when your volcano has gone dormant again, get to work re-terraforming Earth from your position in space.

alokmohan · 2003-10-14 05:29:10

Lords byrons ideas are relevant.I f we have to leave earth where to go?

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-15 14:26:15

I was noticing the number of detected astroids going up lately, I don't know if this is a result of astronomy picking up, better technology, or because there really are more astroids in our orbit than there were before (perhaps they were pushed off course by collisions of gravity pulled them in).

What'd we do if a planet killer was coming our way?

sethmckiness · 2003-10-16 00:20:52

I know this is more of a thinking exercise, but I would like to bring up a few points.

One, The Caldera located in Yellowstone is predicted to erupt in the next 100,000 years due to is cyclical pattern.

Two, It would put a significantly higher amount of ash/rock/dust into the Atmosphere then 1000 km-cubed/

Three, It is not a mass extinction event like the KT boundary or other various eruptions. I mix them up but Either Tambora or Krakatoa I thought was nearly 1000 cubic kilometers.

Four, We are very resilient. Humans are like Cockroaches, with a will to live and some Nuclear power we can survive anywhere, prospering is another thought, but survive, YES!

The other possibility to think about, is would we be able to stockpile enough resources and develop the technology to minimize the effect of such a large scale eruption.

Of course drilling to relieve pressure, at the risk of causeing a smaller slightly devastating eruption might help. If the Magma has a high quartz content, then it would most likely only prolong the inevitable. Typically, Violent eruptions happen due to a high quart content in the Magma, This dramatically increased the Viscosity and stickyness of the Magma. Magma that comes out of Kileau is the exact opposite. It is relatively low in Quartz, so it can flow freely. So, the ability to Relieve pressure may be somewhat diminished. Volcanos with high Quartz content in their Magma are known for their Violent eruptions, coupled with pyroclastic flows. Vesuvius, Mt. St Helens, Krakatoa, Tambora.. etc are all have had magma flows with anhigher quartz content.

sethmckiness · 2003-10-16 00:24:27

Also, noting what Dicktice said.

While we all know it takes almost the same amount of energy to get to the Moons as it does Mars, The moon may also be a good place to seek shelter. It is much closer to Earth, Shuttles could be formed to ferry people, to and from, I imagine in a situation like this there would remain a small amount of researchers on earth, Saying that a majority of the people could be Ferried off. I think in a situation like this, if we all(the world) worked for a common goal(survival) we could accomplish extraordinary things(ie moving to the moon, mars, L5 Colonies etc.)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-10-12 18:06:42

Re: A "What If" scenario... - what if we only had a 100 years left?

#2 2003-10-12 18:28:54

Re: A "What If" scenario... - what if we only had a 100 years left?

#3 2003-10-12 19:28:11

Re: A "What If" scenario... - what if we only had a 100 years left?

#4 2003-10-13 05:26:32

Re: A "What If" scenario... - what if we only had a 100 years left?

#5 2003-10-13 09:25:38

Re: A "What If" scenario... - what if we only had a 100 years left?

#6 2003-10-13 16:30:54

Re: A "What If" scenario... - what if we only had a 100 years left?

#7 2003-10-14 05:29:10

Re: A "What If" scenario... - what if we only had a 100 years left?

#8 2003-10-15 14:26:15

Re: A "What If" scenario... - what if we only had a 100 years left?

#9 2003-10-16 00:20:52

Re: A "What If" scenario... - what if we only had a 100 years left?

#10 2003-10-16 00:24:27

Re: A "What If" scenario... - what if we only had a 100 years left?

Board footer