Grow Your Own Magazine

I was watching a programme on Nat.Geog. and it got me thinking...
We have the technology to detect and track comets and we have the technology to destroy them. For example, it would seem that because some comets are less dense than a firebrick, a solar condenser would have to be used because such rocks absorb nuclear impact. The condenser acts like a magnifying glass to the sun’s energy, aimed at the comet it would divert it's path. These devices are even used in space right now for radio-wave detection.

I know that NASA and the USA are thinking about avoiding such disasters, but what does the United Kingdom do about the problem?

It's not as though an impact is unlikely, they are quite common if you consider how long life has been on this planet and the seven major extinctions.

We seem to spend millions on an Olympic Games village, illegal wars, hideously-styled council buildings and firework displays, why not spend British money on a comet defence system?

Should we be making our thoughts felt more in parliament?

A very large impact event such as a comet or meteorite is one of those occurrenes that are low short term probability (but over time is an extremely likely event), yet extremely high risk, meaning it is something that will happen at some stage but is unlikely to happen in the immediate future, but is an event that would have dire consequences!

I've seen and read much about such an impact, the aftermath of which could be as severe as to cause a mass extinction, the likelyhood of which would be to remove those at the top of the food chain (ie HUMANITY!), yet with current technology we could (if given enough warning) avert such a disaster, but as yet the funding and political will are not currently there to provide the resources to even provide a proper search of the skies for objects that could possibly cause such an event, yet alone do something about it! Most of the comets and asteroids that are located are found by amateur astronomers, even NASA doesnt seem to be making it a priority, although I believe that things have improved since the Schumacher-Levy comet impacted Jupiter a few years ago, before then it wasnt widely believed that such an impact event was at all likely, nowadays there are more people worried about it than there were! Having said this tho, the total spending on detection is still under £5M a year globally, which depending upon your choice of figures and estimates could result in the search alone taking up to another 100 years to complete, and still would not provide an absolute guarantee that we had detected everything, as some high speed comets have orbits that can take them out of the solar system for millenia at a time!

The only true way to ensure that humanity would not be at risk of total extinction from such an event would be to maintain a viable population off planet, so colonisation of the Moon and other heavenly bodies is really the only way to ensure our survival as a species, something that many folks advocate, yet something that would cost a significant proportion of the GDP of the planet and not something that many individuals would sign up to as it would result in a lowering of their standards of living.

Quite a conundrum!

BTW - This is only a superficial treatment of the subject, I'd suggest anyone interested do their own research and draw their own conclusions!

__________________
Blessings
Suzanne (aka Mrs Dobby)

'Garden naked - get some colour in your cheeks'!

The Dobby's Pumpkin Patch - a blogspot work in progress!
Last updated 26th November2008 - more new piccies!

We seem to spend millions on an Olympic Games village, illegal wars, hideously-styled council buildings and firework displays, why not spend British money on a comet defence system?

There are better things to spend tax payers money on.
1) Transport esp Railways.
2) National health.
3) Better pensions.
3) Education (including school buildings)

If you wont to spend money on"technology" why not look at "clean ways of electricity generation (fusion ect)
To spend money defending the planet from something that "may" happen once in thousands of years.

__________________
I cook with wine, sometimes I even add it to the food.
W. C. Fields

Can one also note that even the known mass extinctions were not overnight affairs. They took long enough for evolutionary development to occure and set in the genome profile.

There were no known tool using Dinosaurs yet there direct decendants, the crocodiles, are still with us. If a species like that can survive - so can we. Perhaps not at the technological level we are now and perhaps not in the numbers we are now but is that entirely a bad thing?

Terry

In the even of a comet appearing to be on collision course with Britain, the Govt. would issue every one with umbrellas. Since Comets are of course made of dirty ice, this would be deemed sufficient protection from the falling melted mucky water.

Let's play devil's advocate for a minute.

It seems quite arrogant of humanity to assume that it's right of survival on this planet is sacrosanct.

Who's to say that with the current frenzy about global warming, and the steps being taken to prevent it, that we are not going to prevent other more fit for purpose creatures from evolving to suit that environment?

Do we have that right?

Also, who's to say that the best future for this planet is by having humans on it at all.....?

Lastly, along the lines of comet detectors, it is a fact that eventually (billions of years) the sun will expand as it begins it's dying process, and engulf the first few planets anyway. It is more certain than us being hit by a catastrophic comet.

The question is, should we bother building a detector for it though?

__________________
Veni, Vidi, Velcro.
I came, I saw, I stuck around.

I'm with you on this one Doctor - who's to say that we are the 'superior race' etc?!
If we're all wiped out, how are we going to be bothered about it?! Just means God gets t start again anyway... Perhaps the next Adam & Eve won't have the gene capacity to turn into Wayne & Waynetta Slob, but will just peacefully grow some veg and be nice to each other...

__________________
Sarah

“Tell me one last thing,” said Harry. “Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?”
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

Ummm..
Why would you want to know that the world was ending? Best we can hope for is that if it does happen that it will be quick.
What exactly could/would you do about it? Nothing so why worry.
The govt aint interested in saving the world if it dosent happen during the 4 years that they are in power.Why would they spend all that money to make the other side look good while they took the flak for taking the increased taxes off you.
Personally I live life in the here and now , I enjoy it ,I make plans for the future but as we all know unforseen things happen and plans have to be adjusted.Nobody knows whats going to happen 5 mins from now and if we are all lucky we will see the morning.

Simon if somebody turned round tomorrow and said "A meteor is going to wipe us out on September 1 2007" what would you do?

__________________
Et tū, quis es?

Here Here Doctor and Beefy. I quite agree that we seem to have an incorrigible arrogance as humans which we may, or may not have any right to. Who the hell said we were the best things on the planet?
When I look at what 'Humanity' as done to each other and the planet I do wonder sometimes where it all came from.
The best thing we can do (in my humble opinion) is to try to respect all life forms, including each other, and tread lightly on Mother Earth.
I do feel that the planet will survive despite our efforts and eventually kick us off if we mistreat it too much. Who are we to fight it?

__________________
Regards, Jane
What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy? The creative adult is the child who has survived.
Ursula LeGuin
http://www.etribes.com/madderbat

I never thought I'd have to put forward an argument for humanity. Like it or not, we are at the peak of evolution. From all the millions of organisms before us, we have persevered. That of all things gives us the right to defend our species. It is thought that life evolved several times on Earth and each time it was wiped out by total extinction events, back in the time of primordial soup. Thus the genome took several shots before it hit the target.

I believe in fighting to the last! If a comet is coming I don’t want to sit around in the belief that the bacteria that follow will do a better job at caring for mother earth. After all, Your very reason for being, your children and your children’s children depend upon our defence!

I must have missed that. Who says that happened then?

__________________
Manda.

"Wouldn't it be nice
For maybe an hour
To not have a care."

The head of biological sciences at Bangor Uni taught it to me, so I guess it is the established orthodoxy. This guy is the top dog on evolution, so I hope he's right. I've also read it in a few books and can point to a couple if you want.

That would be interesting, thanks.

__________________
Manda.

"Wouldn't it be nice
For maybe an hour
To not have a care."

The best two books are:

Schopf (1999), The Cradle of Life, Princeton.
Fenchel (2002), The Origin of Life, Oxford.

These should have it mentioned somewhere and are both fantastic reads. In the 1960's a scientist called Stanley Miller was able to recreate 'primordial soup' and the ease of it's creation prompted a more statistical look at evolution. Applying the duration that the Earth had the right balance of elements for the creation of life and the time taken for it's success, we can estimate that it may have taken several attempts before life endured. "Life is a persistent phenomenon" best sums up these findings and if you have access to scientific journals, have a look at:

Connie Barlow and Tyler Volk (1990), Biosystems, 23: 371-384.

Playing devil's advocate again for a bit, to what extent do you believe this right extends?

What other species are 'fair game' for damage or extinction for us to uphold this 'right'?

We have evolved into a higher species through being fitter for our environment than others. Does this right extend into changing the environment to suit us, at the detriment of other species?

When the sun starts to expand do you think our children's children's children's children's children's (....etc!) children will be worried about trying to stop it??

Whilst in theory it is possible to build a comet defence, the practicalities in doing so mean that in practise it is not really currently feasible. Doesn't mean it won't ever be, just not now. IMO, the money it would cost would be much better spent on many other projects that could have a more immediate benefit to the planet as a whole.

__________________
Veni, Vidi, Velcro.
I came, I saw, I stuck around.

As I understand the issue, comet defence is possible on a practical level because solar condenser technology is currently being used to capture radio signals by satellites orbiting the Earth. It is just a question of money.

In response to changing the Earth to suit our needs: This has been widely disputed and one point always wins through. That is that all organisms alter the environment to suit their needs. For example, bacteria respiring, introducing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and causing global warming generated the formation of the atmosphere, as we know it today. Plants later changed the environment by introducing oxygen to the atmosphere. Even on a small ecological scale, if we go into the Amazon we notice a microclimate created by a dense tree canopy that is humid, warm and still... Trees created this. A founding ecological principle is that every organism alters the environment to it's advantage.

I can see no advantage to letting a comet destroy life on Earth for the sake of saving a few quid now. I accuse those that do of Nihilism.

I only hold Darwinian beliefs when it comes to questions of our right to alter the environment, but I also have a scientific approach to weighing up the pros and cons. For example, if the question were put: 'should we maintain the smallpox bug?' I would respond along the lines that it's genome may contain material useful to humanity, so on that basis it should be preserved, despite being potentially lethal to man-kind... You get the idea. However, science can only take us so far, so on that basis it is hard to judge whether anything is good or bad... because we may not have enough knowledge to tell. So on that basis I'd ease caution. That is not to say that I would not make a decision if the human race were in jeopardy.

First, DON'T PANIC, if an asteroid hits worry, comets tend to be built mainly of ice and gases and are easier, in theory, to destroy. We live within a giant asteroid belt, and these asteroids tend to be thrown out by passing galactic forces (like blackholes - yes, they move and travel, and are far more frightening than asteroids, two have been recorded passing close to the sol system since the late 70s - we're talking billions of miles but they still exerted such power as to create sun storms, flaring and asteroids plummeting into Jupiter). The reason why no money has been spent on a galactic protection system is the fact that the cheapest way to do this would be to deploy nuclear missiles on platforms orbitting the earth - oh yes - I know government alive would agree to that, as they could be easily pointed downwards.

The thing we have to accept, is that humanity will one day become extinct on earth, they may have gone to the stars, but we will one day cease to be homosapiens - be it through illness, natural selection, asteroids or plain stupidity, which we have in abundance.

It matters little, as life will carry on, we know little about this planet - and it could even be that man has been here before, died out, vanished and a small tribe survived, mutated, evolved and died out on and on again. There is a great book by Olaf Stapledon, about the rise of the first men and the decline of the last, taking place over billion of years - read it, truly will change your view on where we are now.

Nature finds a way, man is not great, man is not eternal as we think in too narrow a window, we think in minutes and hours, when we should be working along the lines of millenia to attain any form of greatness. We are mayflies compared to the Earth.

When an asteroid hits, Earth will carry on and something else will become the dominant species and will also garden.

__________________
Best wishes
Andrewo
Harbinger of Rhubarb tales

You have said yourself that comets are mainly gaseous. The problem we have is that comets absorb energy from nuclear bombs and don't alter their course. This would be different if the comet were solid because it could be deflected, through a series of blasts. Some scientists now believe that the best technology for destroying gaseous comets is solar condenser devices. These take 10 years to destroy a comet, so we need more notice!

Simoncole, I find your arguments convincing - but not in the way you want!

We have no 'God Given' right to control a future impossible to predict.

If you are truly a scientist then you would understand that the risk of a cataclysmic hit from a meteor, asteroid or comet is not high.

Most people who claim a scientific background are reasonable at maths - look at the GNP of the top 5 countries, read up on their balance of payments and just how much it costs to run a country - and be truly thankful that they waste most of it! Politicians are in the trough for what it can get them, despite high ideas at the outset, very few are interested in benefiting future generations. The cost involved in creating a defence as you would like it would require all of the nations on this world to agree to its production. The nations of this world are controlled by politicians!


IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

I think I tend to agree with you TPeers.

You have to believe in god for the 'god given right' idea to win through. I accept that people have a religion, but hope that we do something to prevent comet impact.

It's been a long time since I've read such a load of tosh!!!

valmarg