Consider for a moment that recently there was a great earthquake. This earthquake caused a great tsunami that - at this moment - is reported to have killed over 150,000 people. This is a great tragedy, but it is an even greater tragedy that a significant portion of those who have died as a result of the tsunami need not have died. It is a great irony that now there are pledges by various governments to put in tsunami detectors out in the ocean, now that the need has passed.
Premise: large earthquakes and other tsunami causing incidents are relatively rare during the short lifetimes of humans.
Information: One of the largest recorded earthquakes (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/26/quake.magnitude.reut/index.html) has occurred causing one of the world largest tsunamis at great loss of life but that is an infrequent event. [the information in the above link is to an article on cnn's web site - titled Quake '4th largest since 1899'. This indicated that there is a long time span between earthquakes of this magnitude.] This next article titled: Fatal lack of a warning system http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/asia.warningsystem.ap/index.html indicates that indeed lives could have been saved. And another article from CNN regarding the timeline of tsunamis on Earth over time: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/26/tsunami.timeline.ap/index.html
So, the greater tragedy is that the loss of life - at least some of it could have been mitigated by the presence of a relatively cheap warning system (relatively cheap in terms of governments footing the bill).
The irony is that they will create the tsunami warning system - but it appears unlikely that even if the system exists for 100 years that it will warn no one and save no lives. The time for the existence of the detection system is passed. What needs to be in place is a worldwide tsunami detector system - because the tsunamis will rarely occur in the same place in a short period of time.
I believe that the tsunami penetrated only at most a couple kilometers inland. Even though the amount of time for warning people would have been short (75 minutes for the tsunami from Earthquake to arrival) and say it took 10 minutes to get the word out - even so, many thousands of people would have sought and found higher ground. They would not have been basking in the sun on the beach. Working like everything was normal and serving tourists drinks. They would have done anything they could to save themselves. Only they were denied that opportunity.
So, what does this have to do with my opening statement, that humanity will have to change if humanity is to survive indefinitely.
Well, there are many other natural disasters that can happen to the Earth. Some of those natural disasters are so massive that all life on Earth can be wiped out. There is proof easily available that mass extinctions have occurred in the Earth's history. There is no evidence that humanity will not be on Earth when a mass extinction event occurs here.
You might be thinking, son, that if the Earth is going to have the vast majority of life removed from it sometime in the future that there is nothing that can be done about it.
That would be untrue. We should list some of the possible disasters that can happen to Earth to essentially eradicate the human species (among others).
- Asteroid, massive meteor or comet collision.
- A near by super nova explosion
- Destabilization of the ecology
- War
- I am sure you folks out there can provide some others.
A collision between the Earth and another object in the solar system is something that we have historical data on. Even the creation of the moon appears to be the result of a large body colliding with ayoung Earth. Large craters can be found on the Earth's surface, desipte erosion in its many forms.
We have certainly witnessed super novas in the night sky over the scientific history of humankind - so we know they can happen and that they have an effect of the inter-stellar neighborhood around them.
We are working in a couple ways with destabilization of the ecology. Yes I am in part talking about pollution. But there are other things that I am talking about - the way we do not live in harmony with the environment (I'll explain this in another blog and no I do not mean running around hugging trees), the blatant disreagard we have for other species and even the effects of the farming we do to feed ourselves. Our ecology could be affected by something as simple as the sun having a bit of indigestion - as explaned in a great short science fiction story about a man that observes the moon one night - and notices it get substantially brighter and then darker.
War. I recognize that perhaps it is unlikely that humans will ever do without war. It is the kind of absolutism that has been taught to our species over the centuries that leads us to an intolerance that cannot be wiped clear. Too few fight actively against intolerance (Goethe, Werther) and too many fight for intolerance (Organized religion, nationalism, etc). We fight so often about trivial things. I wonder sometimes how many protestants and catholics I can question about transubstantiation - that it seems an unfortunate matter that this one of the items they killed each other over in the dark ages. War, of course has its direct consequences. It also has indirect consequences, on the environment, on attitudes (that war is right, or as I said, that it seems unlikely that humanity can ever do without war) that it seems that it may not wipe out humanity, but most certainly will lend a helping hand in its demise.
As I mentioned, there are probably other ways that humanity could meet its extinction.
So, what, if anything can be done? It is by no means a foregone conclusion that humanity will one day cease to exist. It is certainly increased as a conclusion by our actions that lead to not having warning systems for tsunami as it is increased by the earthquake and tsunami itself.
I can say a few things that can be done. Yes we have a capable technology, but we need to invest more scientists in to the development of technology. We need to encourage children (both boys AND girls) that science is a worthy path to follow and that the benefits of science are to be had by everyone. We need to invest on warning systems of collisions that can happen to Earth - now - before there is the possibility of impact.
The problem is in essence that our science and technology are not nearly capable enough to ensure the survival of the human species. Not at present, anyway. The reason I can say that with certainty is simple. To ensure the survival of humanity, some of humanity needs to live off of the Earth. This prevents global catastrophy from destroying the entire human race in the case of mass extinction event on Earth. So, if an asteroid hits the Earth that is 10 miles wide and made of iron. No human on Earth will survive. But if some humans survive elsewhere - they can return and re-populate the Earth.
Let us talk about these people that do not live on Earth. To make it short we will call these people the OEP (Off Earth People). The OEP should be a large population - at the least in the hundreds of thousands. They should (although this is unlikely) be representative of the population of Earth (it is more likely that the OEP will be made up primarily of the people's that fund the OEP - let us hope there are at least representatives of other people's if not a representative proportion of people).
The OEP should almost all be highly technically knowledgeable people with the exception of their children who should one hopes learn and be technically knowledgeable people.The OEP need to be self-sufficient.
The OEP need to be a growing population and civilization.
If you are aware of our scientific abilities, you already know that we are incapable of creating the OEP. We lack the ability to get that many people up in orbit, and even less a place to stay, and even less food to eat, even for a day! For the OEP to be self-sufficient, they will have really two choices on where to live. Mars might be suitable and so might the asteroid belt. I rule out the moon at the moment, because I do not believe it has the resources to support a large population (ok, so it might).
For the OEP to be self-sufficient is certainly tough technologically. But without the ability to use the resources of Mars or the asteroid belt to make new things, it will be impossible. So leading the agenda just after food production and fuel production, is the production of factories to actually make things they need. You might reflect that this is backwards. After all they will need to make things in order to farm, and in order to produce energy. I am suggesting at the moment, that if we could actually get a sizeable population of Earth and support them with food for a while, that we would be able to get the initial items necessary for farming and energy production up from Earth and with them.
Once the OEP can survive, and can produce the items they need on a daily basis, then we have the groundwork for increasing the population from approximately 100,000 or so onward, so the vast majority of the OEP - at least in the begining need to be young and willing to reproduce (ok, so that second part is not so hard to come by).
With the OEP in existence, at least Earth Mass-extinction events will not wipe us all out - with the exception of the super-nova. A super-nova - if close enough to our solar system - would wipe out all life in our solar system - more than likely.
If creating the OEP is impossible with today's technology - creating the OSSP (Out of Solar System People) is even more so. The OSSP, like the OEP need to start out with a large population, need to be self-suffient and need to be growing as a civilization and as a population. It seems though that when they reach the outer portions of our solar system, resources will be minimal, their ship will need to increase in size, and face it, even if we increase our abilities to move in space with incredible feats of technology, it is going to take a long time to get wherever they are going.
Of course I have strayed from the topic a bit. We can do things on Earth to help humanity to survive in the future. Encourage children to be scientifically knowledgeable. Actively think of the ways humanity might be harmed and work on things to prevent those harmful things from happening.
But even in the smallest ways that humanity can help itself - I see a lack of desire for them to do so.
Abwägen
No comments:
Post a Comment