
Sure, Earth Could Get Hit by a Deadly Asteroid–But There’s an Upside - Mz
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-threat-getting-hit-asteroid-could-spur-international-collaboration-180961543/?no-ist
======
joeax
I wrote a science fiction novel about an asteroid crashing into Earth, and did
some extensive research on the topic (including how large an asteroid has to
be to cause worldwide damage).

Regarding global unity, my book takes the opposite stance. In it, futuristic
superpowers U.S and China squabble about who should do what, and global
politics destroys any chance of stopping the asteroid in time. Of course,
there's much more to the story, and there wouldn't be much of a plot if there
was 'global unity' :)

~~~
ehsanu1
What did you think of Seveneves, if you've read it?

~~~
joeax
I haven't read it yet. I want to read it though as I am working on my follow
up book right now and one of the concepts is a 'human genetic database'
managed by an authoritarian one-world government entity.

Speaking of global unity, the central premise of my book (and the series) is
that without the asteroid, the world descents into an authoritarian quagmire
with endless laws, taxes and regulations, and they use technology to control
every aspect of our lives.

~~~
ehsanu1
Ahh cool. I ask because _Seveneves_ has a much rosier (overly so in my
opinion) end game, in terms of world powers cooperating and most of humanity
also doing so, despite knowing for certain that almost everyone will die.

~~~
Ohtrahddis
Not sure if that's the case,

[Spoliers!] ###########

It's been a while since I've read the book, but if I recall correctly nukes
are used against Venezuela when they disagree with launching supplies to the
Ark project. There are further hints of looming conflict (e.g. Ivy's fiance
mentioning the nuclear sub he was in was on high alert).

I also believe there were numerous delays of supplies and disagreements even
within NASA / the U.S. space program. Not too certain of all the world powers
cooperating, although admittedly their cooperation on the Ark project at all
may seem odd, but doesn't seem out of place with the status quo and how world
powers "get along" in regards to the ISS?

~~~
ehsanu1
[Spoliers!] ###########

It definitely is better than GP's book, where the powers that be completely
fail to work together - in Seveneves, the Ark project actually succeeds!

There is definitely some conflict, I just don't think there was enough of it.
Part of it may just be the fact that there's not much focus on what's
happening on the ground, so we just don't hear about how it's being dealt
with.

I was most conflicted about how normal people would deal with it. Eg I would
expect mass riots and looting, very little of which happens according to the
book - only in Venezuela apparently. And the nukes are used on their military,
about a few days before everyone is going to die anyways, so I don't really
see it as that big of a deal - nukes just don't mean as much in such a
scenario.

I'm also surprised at there being only a single Ark project - I'd have thought
at least one nation, say China, would want to strike out on their own.

~~~
PJDK
Somewhat related, I remember reading some research that talked about how
during natural disasters you get very little in the way of riots and looting.
Rather people have a strong urge to cooperate [1].

It doesn't mention it in the linked article, but I also remember hearing that
the idea that people get very violent can cause serious issues as resources go
into military-police rather than relief efforts.

It makes sense when you think about it evolutionary. The groups that fell
apart when the going got tough were not the ones that survived!

[1] [http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/31/how-disasters-bring-
ou...](http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/31/how-disasters-bring-out-our-
kindness/)

~~~
ehsanu1
Thanks for the article, it makes a lot of sense. Note that in this book, the
doomsday scenario is predicted to happen 2 years in the future, so it's not
quite the same as a natural disaster that has already happened. So I don't
think it would look quite the same in terms of violence and how we've evolved.
It's more like, imagine 30% of the population suddenly lose their jobs or
something like that, you could probably see riots happening today.

------
Terr_
> Yet these threats also present an unusual opportunity for nations to band
> together

My cynical prediction: "Phew! Okay, that was intense. Good job everyone.
However, now we aren't 'due' for another impact that size for, like,
_thousands_ of years, right? Plenty of time to go fight my neighbor!"

~~~
flukus
Would we want to band together to fix it anyway? I would have thought smaller
teams from US, Russia, China and EU could all come up with independant
solutions and see which works.

If an asteroid is hurtling and don't want people fucking around in committees.

~~~
464192002d7fe1c
Why do you think that individual smaller efforts are more likely to succeed
than a single unified global effort. I see no evidence to support that. We're
obviously going to spend a few years researching this before we start figuring
out how to stop the asteroid to determine if we should be fighting this
asteroid menace as a whole, or individually.

~~~
vtange
There's no guarantee a "single, unified global effort" will be better than
multiple different efforts though, plus it sounds like putting all your eggs
in one basket.

If events in 2016 has shown anything, it is that people are naturally
divisive. We all live in our own bubbles and want to do things our way all the
time, win all the time and be right all the time. Unless you're willing to
compromise, it'll be hard to just tell people to team up with you and do
things "the global way".

~~~
andrewflnr
There's no guarantee they won't interfere with and nullify each other. For
instance, one team lands a big ion thruster on the rocket to push it out of
the way. The next detonates a nuke next to it. They screwed up the positioning
so it didn't deflect the asteroid enough, but did wreck the ion engine. Oops.

At the very least you need some communication between the "competing teams".

------
golemotron
> There’s another factor that makes the threat of asteroid impacts a unique
> opportunity for global unity. Unlike some more localized natural hazards,
> like volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, these kinds of impacts are
> theoretically preventable. “It’s the only natural disaster that we really
> have the ability to—at least in principle—prevent,” says Barbee. “That
> creates a certain type of international collaboration that is very unique.”

The desire the unify the world is powerful. It might even be deeper than any
surface issues. Sometimes I wonder whether, if we invented some machine that
quickly and easily pulled carbon out of the atmosphere, people would adopt it
or still continue to push for a global agreement. I think they'd adopt it but
then they would look for other ways to unite the world.

~~~
andrewflnr

      some machine that quickly and easily pulled
      carbon out of the atmosphere
    

I want this so we can colonize Venus.

~~~
m_mueller
It's pretty simple really - just put back all the binding energy we gained
from burning up that fossil fuel, minus what earth was able to absorb in the
meantime. Hint: Start as early as possible, because the risk for positive
feedbacks to nullify your efforts grows every year.

------
kobeya
> Yet these threats also present an unusual opportunity for nations to band
> together

Yes, that has worked so well for climate change.

~~~
andrewflnr
An asteroid is a lot more of a concrete threat than climate change, and
there's no economic upside to getting hit like there is for CO2 emission.

~~~
nck4222
But there is a "everything's fine, no need to worry, I can't admit the
horrible truth to myself" aspect that is similar in both circumstances.

------
dkarapetyan
Or complete chaos. Pillaging, plundering, and warring.

------
drivingmenuts
Well, 2016 couldn't get much worse, so bring it, Universe!

