[hypothetical] The existential threat of 2102

[Ayn Rand]

@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.

What's the point in having a discussion thread then?

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.

 

[El_Machinae]

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

Thanks! If a mod could make a change to the title, that would help.

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.

Hmmmn, the goal actually wasn't to parallel global warming. AGW is quite a different beast, because the on-coming threat (in the OP) was supposed to be something from nature. If AGW was to cause an existential threat, then it would be a different set of analysis.

The OP was intending to outline a 'very serious' scenario, something that would require concerted and serious effort to overcome (if overcoming it was even possible). A 'fleet of large asteroids traveling at us at a decent fraction of c' is not something feasibly prevented with modern technologies. The scenario suggested that (a) the problem wouldn't affect you or your children directly and (b) require a great deal of work to overcome.

 

[GoodGame]

Government would work on a set of possible solutions through a mixture of clandestine research organizations and free market contracts, thereby putting us deeply into debt.

Happens all the time (WW2, Cold War, Space Program, gawd noes wat else).

 

[Rashiminos]

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?

I find this thread OP to be funny, in a refreshing way. Survivalists and preppers, thataways ---->(Google).

Government would work on a set of possible solutions through a mixture of clandestine research organizations

Mostly this. Note that survivalist and preppers are on the wrong* list.

 

[Quackers]

Just get all the Chinese in the world to jump at the same time and we will push the earth away from the trajectory of the asteroids.

Challenge completed.

 

[Save_Ferris]

There would be calls to re-check the data, and there'd be the '20%' who wouldn't believe the data.

Anything is possible with imagination!

They've already done stuff like the attempt to create the 100MPG hybrid, right?

Rainbow Dash approves of this thread.

 

[G-Max]

Rainbow Dash got stepped on by Starscream and is now a fine red paste.

 

[Bootstoots]

Asteroids at a decent fraction of c? That'd be a big problem indeed. Where are they coming from and how do we know they're there?

Seriously, I feel that people's answers would change significantly based on how obvious the danger is. With something like an asteroid definitely headed for Earth, I could certainly see humanity doing whatever it takes to save ourselves, with sacrifices as necessary. If it's something less certain or less obvious, like some sort of environmental problem, or probable implications of technological advance, or major long-run economic problems, etc., we'd be much less willing to cooperate.

 

[BasketCase]

The OP was intending to outline a 'very serious' scenario, something that would require concerted and serious effort to overcome (if overcoming it was even possible).

When World War II happened along, entire nations turned into command economies--for all practical purposes, autocratic states with very limited rights.

Granted, World War II doesn't fit your scenario perfectly, but it's something that really happened. When a big crisis rears its head, the necessary planetwide cooperation required to stop it could cost everybody their freedoms and turn our home nations into fascist states. Thankfully, last time that happened it was only temporary.....

 

[Crezth]

When World War II happened along, entire nations turned into command economies--for all practical purposes, autocratic states with very limited rights.

Granted, World War II doesn't fit your scenario perfectly, but it's something that really happened. When a big crisis rears its head, the necessary planetwide cooperation required to stop it could cost everybody their freedoms and turn our home nations into fascist states. Thankfully, last time that happened it was only temporary.....

The United States was fascist during World War 2?

 

[Bootstoots]

When World War II happened along, entire nations turned into command economies--for all practical purposes, autocratic states with very limited rights.

Granted, World War II doesn't fit your scenario perfectly, but it's something that really happened. When a big crisis rears its head, the necessary planetwide cooperation required to stop it could cost everybody their freedoms and turn our home nations into fascist states. Thankfully, last time that happened it was only temporary.....

I agree with you - I don't want that to happen either. But in an extreme scenario such as an existential threat to humanity, I would go along with some temporary suspensions of civil liberties if this appears to be the only possible solutions. World War II did show that it's possible to do this and revert to having full civil liberties afterwards. It does take an extreme crisis though, and obviously "state of emergency" clauses in constitutions and whatnot tend to lead to serious abuses.

The United States was fascist during World War 2?

It certainly wasn't as authoritarian as any of the Axis powers or the Soviet Union. But the US did see marked reductions in civil liberties. The "internment" of Japanese-Americans is an obvious example; there were quite a few other restrictions as well, many of which would likely be found unconstitutional under less dire circumstances.

 

[Crezth]

It certainly wasn't as authoritarian as any of the Axis powers or the Soviet Union. But the US did see marked reductions in civil liberties. The "internment" of Japanese-Americans is an obvious example; there were quite a few other restrictions as well, many of which would likely be found unconstitutional under less dire circumstances.

It reined itself in remarkably well for a remotely authoritarian nation following the war's conclusion.

 

[BasketCase]

The United States was fascist during World War 2?

Yup. The entire economy was devoted to the nation's effort to win. All goods useful for the military were appropriated for the national war effort. Mail and cables were censored and monitored to ensure national security. People received the basic necessities, and worked as hard as they could on the national war effort.

Fascism: the complete devotion to the Nation. The citizen is only important insofar as he or she contributes to the Nation. (Hitler had it completely wrong--real fascists don't care if you're Jewish, or black or Asian or Christian or Muslim for that matter--to a fascist, your race and ethnicity aren't important; only your contribution to the Nation is important)

 

[Crezth]

Fascism: the complete devotion to the Nation. The citizen is only important insofar as he or she contributes to the Nation. (Hitler had it completely wrong--real fascists don't care if you're Jewish, or black or Asian or Christian or Muslim for that matter--to a fascist, your race and ethnicity aren't important; only your contribution to the Nation is important)

Isn't a theory of nationality important to fascism, though? Wouldn't race and ethnicity factor into that?

Also I think that the United States wasn't literally fascist because of, you know, elections, but hey.

 

[BasketCase]

Isn't a theory of nationality important to fascism, though? Wouldn't race and ethnicity factor into that?

Not at all. Segregating by race and ethnicity causes the nation to lose skilled people for no good reason. Segregation causes harm to a nation. Wikipedia has the definition all wrong. Some groups have in the past have indeed segregated their nations based on ethnicity. They were not fascists. They were racist idiots.

Also I think that the United States wasn't literally fascist because of, you know, elections, but hey.

Fascism and elections can coexist just fine with each other. When the people are devoted to the well-being of the Nation, they will devote their efforts to electing good leaders. A skilled leader will step up and lead, even if he doesn't want to. He puts his personal desires aside for the good of the Nation. The citizens at large do the same; they put the Nation ahead of their personal desires.

 

[Yeekim]

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".

 

[Crezth]

Not at all. Segregating by race and ethnicity causes the nation to lose skilled people for no good reason. Segregation causes harm to a nation. Wikipedia has the definition all wrong. Some groups have in the past have indeed segregated their nations based on ethnicity. They were not fascists. They were racist idiots.

Fascism and elections can coexist just fine with each other. When the people are devoted to the well-being of the Nation, they will devote their efforts to electing good leaders. A skilled leader will step up and lead, even if he doesn't want to. He puts his personal desires aside for the good of the Nation. The citizens at large do the same; they put the Nation ahead of their personal desires.

Intriguing. Should I take this to understand that you're pro-fascism?

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

Why? I can see a case being made to save individual people. But what is the case for saving "the race"? In the OP, none of the currently alive people are at risk. The people who'd be at risk are due to die eventually anyway, and none of those people need exist, except at the whim of the parents.

Why enslave people to 'the race'?

 

[BasketCase]

Intriguing. Should I take this to understand that you're pro-fascism?

Heheh. No. I simply understand it. Self-sacrifice for the good of your nation can be a good thing, or a bad thing--it depends on what nation you're contributing to. Devotion to the government of France, for example, is a good thing. Devotion to the government of Syria is a bad thing. Marshmallows can be good or bad--they can make tasty desserts or bring about Gozor's Apocalypse......

Most people put at least some degree of personal effort and sacrifice into the well-being of their nation; fascism is simply the far end of the scale, the point where everything else is secondary: civil rights, happiness, life. The exact point where a nation becomes a fascist state is subjective, but the United States was at just about this point during World War II.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@El_Machinae
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" - I don't see why that shall not apply on those which don't exist yet but for sure would if not for the decision of the few to choose a more pleasurable life over the majorities very existence.
Does it mean that it is also immoral to not produce as many children as possible? In principle: yes, absolutely. What makes my life more precious than theirs? In practice: We also have factors like physical limits and the question at what point a life is not worth living anymore.
But of course, the total submission of ones life to morality is silly. It just would make everybody miserable.
But in this case, I'd advocate it. Mostly for sentimental reasons.