[hypothetical] The existential threat of 2102

[El_Machinae]

2102 is far enough away that we expect to have died by then, but also expect any of our (current) children/grandchildren to have died by then. So, an existential crisis wouldn't affect us. It would certainly affect humanity.

So, imagine that there was some discovery made that implied a strong crisis that would arrive in 2102. Something terrifying, like a fleet of large asteroids heading towards us at a decent fraction of c, spaced to land over the course of months. People would be scared. Not for themselves, but for 'humanity'.

There would be calls to re-check the data, and there'd be the '20%' who wouldn't believe the data. But then there'd be the other 80%, who'd at least be motivated to consider it. And then a portion of people would want to 'do something about it'.

The question I have is who would be willing to pay to 'do something about it'? Would taxation to create solutions be morally appropriate? What level of governmental powers would be within your realm of reasonable? Are there current funded services that we should be 'forced' to give up?

 

[Crezth]

If there's a need to stop the extinction of the human race, the free market will take care of it.

 

[G-Max]

I can easily imagine both governments AND huge businesses to work on solutions. The extinction of humanity is bad for profit.

Like, imagine the movie Armageddon, but the private sector was like "what if the mission goes Challenger?", so Microsoft, Exxon-Mobil, GE, Monsanto, Vivendi, etc. all put together a backup mission and it went splendidly. I can totally imagine that happening.

 

[Omega124]

Snip

That is literally the creepiest smiley I have seen in my existance in this universe. Dear god, Crezth

Anyways, if crap like that was to happen in 2102, then I'd say "sucks to be them". I know morally its the wrong thing to say, but I'd be dead or a time lord, and if I was the latter I could easily destroy the meteors anyways. So, honestly, I'd do nothing.

 

[Winner]

The question I have is who would be willing to pay to 'do something about it'? Would taxation to create solutions be morally appropriate? What level of governmental powers would be within your realm of reasonable? Are there current funded services that we should be 'forced' to give up?

I'd sell 99% of humanity into slavery if that was necessary to save the human race from utter extinction.

 

[Crezth]

Like, imagine the movie Armageddon, except that the first mission went Challenger, so Microsoft, Exxon-Mobil, GE, Monsanto, Vivendi, etc. all put together a second mission and it went splendidly. I can totally imagine that happening.

Anything is possible with imagination!

 

[G-Max]

Anything is possible with imagination!

Oh, those colors reminded me: Google would be the project leader of the private-sector mission. They've already done stuff like the attempt to create the 100MPG hybrid, right?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I'd sell 99% of humanity into slavery if that was necessary to save the human race from utter extinction.

It in deed would be the moral thing to do.

Surely something would be done. People like power and they like fame and if you can spice it up with morally sound justifications, all the better. All can be gained by gathering money and allies to save humanity. Then, ether we turn out to be surprisingly well able to handle the situation. Or we don't, time passes and people increasingly enter the populations which are seriously threatened by it, things would get very authoritarian and - if somehow feasible without depending too much on good fortune - I think we would get it done.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Existential threat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_threat

Various existential risks have the potential to destroy, or drastically restrict, human civilization; could cause human extinction; or even cause the end of Earth.

Existential crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_crisis

An existential crisis is a stage of development at which an individual questions the very foundations of his or her life: whether his or her life has any meaning, purpose or value.[1] This issue of the meaning and purpose of existence is the topic of the philosophical school of existentialism.

Came to thread expecting some monumental philosophical change [immortality, inability to solve evil etc], occurring in 2102

I can't help but see a parallel with global warming. The problem is you haven't told us what kind of action would be necessary to stop these asteroids - the justification would be very different depending on what course of action/hardship was necessary and how high the stakes really were.

 

[Crezth]

Oh, those colors reminded me: Google would be the project leader of the private-sector mission. They've already done stuff like the attempt to create the 100MPG hybrid, right?

When a private corporation lands a man on the moon, on its own, without any help from NASA, I'll admit your proposal as remotely plausible.

 

[G-Max]

When the survival of humanity depends on them landing a man on the moon, you can bet that they'll get there faster than NASA did, and at half the cost.

 

[warpus]

The question I have is who would be willing to pay to 'do something about it'? Would taxation to create solutions be morally appropriate? What level of governmental powers would be within your realm of reasonable? Are there current funded services that we should be 'forced' to give up?

No offense to anyone here, but that's such an American thing to ask

If the world is about to be destroyed, and my government is in a position to help out with a solution.. I wouldn't mind if my taxes went up. Why would I? Let them do what it takes to fix the problem.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I'm just having a laugh imagining some of the current republican candidates charged with this responsibility . Not that Obama would necessarily be up to it , but at least he could fool me that he is .

Besides , it's not like Chuck Norris won't be here in 2102 so I'd say we're sweet

 

[Leoreth]

I'd rather expect that as soon as corporations are expected to cut their profits to contribute to a mission to save the planet, you'd see a whole lot of people popping up who label every astronomer a "asteroidist" and proclaim a huge conspiracy by the scientific community to serve ill-defined asteroid-fighting special interests that can of course be disproven by amateur science and reasoning along the lines of "I've seen a meteorite enter the atmosphere last year and it didn't destroy humanity".

To answer the actual hypothetical, I think everyone would realize that something has to be done, but typically that something will have to be done by someone else. So I think a government-organized undertaking will be necessary, and every act of force to make this possible is morally justified in the face of human extinction.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Well, of course we would need to enslave the entire human race in order to destroy an asteroid.

We couldn't just destroy it with a missile. Nope.

Amazing how fast some people are willing to fall into tyranny and slavery the moment their safety is threatened - even when tyranny and slavery are not even necessary to solve the problem.

This is why governments and leaders are so powerful - they know that every setback or threat can be used to scare people into giving up their freedom, even when loss of freedom has nothing to do with defeating the threat.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Wise words Ayn Rand . Never thought of it like that , I too just assumed that draconian measures would be required . You are dead right

 

[warpus]

Yes, because higher taxes equate to slavery.

 

[G-Max]

We couldn't just destroy it with a missile. Nope.

No, we'd need OVER NINE THOUSAAAAND missiles, each tipped with a Tsar Bomba. Yeah, that should do it.

Also, obligatory:


Link to video.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Ayn Rand
It was merely the hypothetical put to an extreme to illustrate the moral priority of saving humanity. You can go defend freedom somewhere else.

 

[Crezth]

When the survival of humanity depends on them landing a man on the moon, you can bet that they'll get there faster than NASA did, and at half the cost.

Nope, and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Well, of course we would need to enslave the entire human race in order to destroy an asteroid.

We couldn't just destroy it with a missile. Nope.

In the OP, the threat is explicitly labelled as not a single asteroid, but a cabal of asteroids. Flock? Swarm? Murder? Ah, yes. A murder of asteroids.