Five Biggest Threats to Humanity

[NowhereInTime]

1.)  Plastic.
2.)  Stupidity.
3.)  Running out of potable water.
4.)  Running out of power/oil.
5.)  Death of the oceans.

This is like old home week!
First HAL 9000 and now [Redacted]!
Awesome! Getting the band back together!

[Heather Wade]

This is like old home week!
First HAL 9000 and now [Redacted]!
Awesome! Getting the band back together!

Hell yeah, mang.  Let's get this show on the road.

[b_dubb]

This is like old home week!
First HAL 9000 and now [Redacted]!
Awesome! Getting the banned back together!

Yeahhhh

[UnscreenedCaller]

1. The Stray Asteroid/Comet
2. Contaminated water/drought
3. Pesticide induced bee colony collapse
4. Warming oceans
5. Overpopulation

Honorable mention: scientific ignorance

[SciFiAuthor]

It's interesting to see how people view the five biggest threats. I don't mean to go political, but left and right split on this one. The right tends to worry about GMO viruses, EMP, things like that which are uncontrollable by any method known to man at this time. The left tends to focus on environmental and anti-science concerns. I think this actually has nothing to do with science. I don't mean to pick on you Unscreened, I'm just making a general comment, but water is filterable and moveable. Pollination is industrially reproducible, we already do it; there are no bees in tomato hothouses and there are self-pollinating varieties of most vegetables available, the vast majority of which are ironically old heirloom "organic" varieties. Or, stop using neonicotinoids; we have no shortage of pesticides, or breed European honey bees resistant to neonicotinoids. It's an urgent problem because the solutions have not been implemented, rather than the solutions not existing. Overpopulation always fixes itself one way or another, comets and asteroids can be moved with not too much effort if you have a proper way to detect them and so on.

I've always maintained that there is a severe anti-humanist bent to the left's thinking that's getting worse. There's been too much "Humans are a cancer destined to die off for its environmental sins" and not enough "Historically, humans always solve their problems" in the philosophy of the left. Incomprehensively that's an anti-science and anti-technology point of view.

Funny enough, did you know that the European honey bee (the one that's dying from CCD) isn't native to North and South America? It's an invasive species that didn't exist here until it was brought over from Europe in the 1600's. All of the New World crops such as potatoes, peppers, tomatoes, corn, don't need it for pollination. Under different circumstances, environmentalists (if they were consistent) would be advocating the extermination of the bees outside of their native Africa and Eurasia. 

[nooryisawesome]

1. Nuclear issues
2. Space disaster (asteroids etc)
3. Pandemic
4. Pollution issues.
5. Islam

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I don't mean to pick on you Unscreened, I'm just making a general comment, but water is filterable and moveable. Pollination is industrially reproducible, we already do it; there are no bees in tomato hothouses and there are self-pollinating varieties of most vegetables available, the vast majority of which are ironically old heirloom "organic" varieties. Or, stop using neonicotinoids; we have no shortage of pesticides, or breed European honey bees resistant to neonicotinoids. It's an urgent problem because the solutions have not been implemented, rather than the solutions not existing.

The variety in the responses is because the prompt is ambiguous.  What is mean by "biggest threat"?  The biggest mortal threats, ending human life on earth?  Threat of events that would cause massive death and suffering but would be otherwise recoverable?  Events that might change the course of humanity in a way that isn't consistent with our ideals about what we are as humans?

Your answers are subject to the same critiques you pose in this post.  And you do seem to be curiously dismissive of some of the responses here.  Sure, water is filterable and transportable, but so is food.  There's enough food to go around and yet huge numbers of people die of starvation on a daily basis; more still are chronically malnourished.  "Overpopulation always fixes itself"?  Dude, are you for real?  That's about as callous as it comes.  "Comets and asteroids can be moved with not too much effort" displays an astounding level of ignorance, not only with the "not too much effort" part, but with the notion that it's plausible to detect and deflect all of them at all.

Meanwhile, on your list, you had the three-day countdown to Mad Max because of bank failure.  Setting aside whether you've assessed that risk any more accurately than the above, we've already faced that risk in 2008 and dealt with it.  It wasn't even something that was close to being out of our control. 

I've always maintained that there is a severe anti-humanist bent to the left's thinking that's getting worse. There's been too much "Humans are a cancer destined to die off for its environmental sins" and not enough "Historically, humans always solve their problems" in the philosophy of the left.

Again, that seems kind of odd coming from you, considering that at least four, and arguably all five of the items on your list originate with humans and are within their control to find a solution.

[Yorkshire pud]

1, Over population
2, Mass exodus of the poor to 'rich' countries and the ensuing carnage
3, Dirty bomb, and ensuing retaliation, and escalation
4, Rampant pollution and destruction of the planet
5, Future fresh water wars.

[albrecht]

As per my fear of biological and virus (particularly accidentally released or purposely released) you see articles like this fairly frequently:
http://news.yahoo.com/forgotten-vials-smallpox-found-storage-room-160303452.html

[SciFiAuthor]

The variety in the responses is because the prompt is ambiguous.  What is mean by "biggest threat"?  The biggest mortal threats, ending human life on earth?  Threat of events that would cause massive death and suffering but would be otherwise recoverable?  Events that might change the course of humanity in a way that isn't consistent with our ideals about what we are as humans?

It is ambiguous, but I would say that the greatest stakes would be extinction or a rapid and massive contraction of the population. I think the danger that AI presents is an event that could easily go against what we believe, universally, as humans. But it could also end up killing all of us entirely.

Your answers are subject to the same critiques you pose in this post.  And you do seem to be curiously dismissive of some of the responses here.  Sure, water is filterable and transportable, but so is food.  There's enough food to go around and yet huge numbers of people die of starvation on a daily basis; more still are chronically malnourished.  "Overpopulation always fixes itself"?  Dude, are you for real?  That's about as callous as it comes.  "Comets and asteroids can be moved with not too much effort" displays an astounding level of ignorance, not only with the "not too much effort" part, but with the notion that it's plausible to detect and deflect all of them at all.

It's because a lot of threats that we perceive are based on for-profit fear mongering. Y2K, for example, had little chance of plunging us back into the stone age. The people talking about it back then and driving the hysteria (remember Gary North on C2C? He was out to make a buck, and did) and hysterics went wild. There are more subtle cases of that kind of fear mongering present in society today that end up far more widespread hysteria, usually pushed by the environmental/anti-humanist movement. It makes people think that we can't solve these problems with technology. That's crap, we've been doing it for centuries.

People starve slowly because of logistical failures. We've got plenty of food, in fact we waste a third of it frivolously, it's just that it's really difficult to feed someone living in a warzone where combatants are specifically interested in starving off their enemies. Now, you say I'm callous, but no, you just assume that I meant that Malthusian correction (i.e. people starving en masse) would occur because you're ideology teaches you to assume that. It won't happen. Malthus was wrong. He was a fear monger that wanted to sell a book. We will simply feed people, so long as it's logistically possible. Look, you live in a world that has the luxury to reject GMO foods frivolously and their potential higher yields just because some people don't like the idea of genetically modifying food because a few fear mongers said GMO potatoes were bad. That luxury tells you right there that we are nothing close to overpopulated, we're nothing close to the carrying capacity of the Earth (most of the fucking thing still has low population density or is nearly unpopulated), we're nothing close to a problem, and I'm sure some jackass like Paul Ehrlich (also wrong) will write some new version of Malthus' stupid idea and scare everyone into thinking we're overpopulated when we're about to reach 15 billion or something and those that feared in their youth that 8 billion was unsustainable will either call themselves idiots for buying into it, or still be freaking out for no reason.

But the truth is, we won't get that far. The two most populous countries on Earth, India and China, are experiencing rapid rises in quality of life and affluence. That demographically means less children are needed or wanted. Eventually, they end up like Europe, with aging populations that aren't keeping up with replacement levels. The US is only barely keeping up. Our real problem is going to be underpopulation and the social costs of it. But that's not a catastrophic problem.

Meanwhile, on your list, you had the three-day countdown to Mad Max because of bank failure.  Setting aside whether you've assessed that risk any more accurately than the above, we've already faced that risk in 2008 and dealt with it.  It wasn't even something that was close to being out of our control. 

I no longer think we can deal with it and we got lucky that we didn't lose enough banks to bankrupt the US Government. We have a fatal flaw in our system: FDIC insurance is woefully inadequate as a system. Bailouts are needed to cover for that. But if enough banks lock the doors (i.e. shut off the debit cards) then we're back to something that's already happened in the US and continues to happen in certain parts of the world: bank runs. A large scale bank run in the US would turn the entire country into post-Katrina New Orleans very rapidly because we've got no infrastructure in place to do anything about it. People were shooting at FEMA helicopters, remember. Or, put another way, if Bank of America had gone under in 2008, then no response from the US government would have saved us. This wouldn't be on the list if we had an adequate system that could respond fast enough to avert the collapse. We don't. Three days is all we have. If too many go at once, we have no way to respond in time. Worse, there are many things beyond our control that can spark it off. I just don't see a way we can fix this one fast enough if it happens just a tiny bit bigger than in 2008.

Again, that seems kind of odd coming from you, considering that at least four, and arguably all five of the items on your list originate with humans and are within their control to find a solution.

They share a common theme: they happen so rapidly that by the time we realize that there is a problem, it's too late to fix them. It's the difference between sea levels rising over 100 years and handwringing as though we can't build a sea wall and a bullet hitting you in the back of the head from nowhere.

[SciFiAuthor]

"Comets and asteroids can be moved with not too much effort" displays an astounding level of ignorance, not only with the "not too much effort" part, but with the notion that it's plausible to detect and deflect all of them at all.

Mmmhmm.

http://www.space.com/20605-nasa-budget-asteroid-lasso-2014.html

You're brainwashed into kneejerk saying "it's impossible!" by your culture. Reject it and always start by asking "how do we do it?" instead. Free your mind from automatic negativity. It's silly. As far as detecting it, we already do that. Radar. Invented over 50 years ago. Realize that we track thousands of planes each day and air traffic control them successfully among hundreds of airports. A 10 km asteroid is no biggie, so long as you bother to track it, which we're currently doing a piss poor job of. Easily fixable with a billion or so dollars spent worldwide.

[SciFiAuthor]

As per my fear of biological and virus (particularly accidentally released or purposely released) you see articles like this fairly frequently:
http://news.yahoo.com/forgotten-vials-smallpox-found-storage-room-160303452.html

Absolutely right, Albrecht. If it had been some Iranian sect wanting to forcibly yank the Mahdi from the well and kick off the Armageddon that had got ahold of that smallpox, an infected jihadist could have flown point to point across the globe spreading it before he ever showed the symptoms and we wouldn't know a thing about it until infected people started showing up at the hospital a few days later. We have a vaccine, of which most people are not vaccinated or have lapsed long ago, but we do not have a cure. By the time we can meaningfully manufacture enough of the vaccine to start distributing it, so many are infected or dead that we go the way of the Indian tribes that were decimated by smallpox because no one has any natural immunity any longer. We're wide open.

All I can say is that I hope to hell the CDC has a plan. But, you know, we knew New Orleans could go under and there still wasn't really a plan.

[paladin1991]

Meanwhile, on your list, you had the three-day countdown to Mad Max because of bank failure.  Setting aside whether you've assessed that risk any more accurately than the above, we've already faced that risk in 2008 and dealt with it.  It wasn't even something that was close to being out of our control. 

The very fact that the .gov had to step in for a correction/hail mary/assistance to the 'too big to fail' types is a tell on just how close a thing it was.  Wake up.  The shit WILL hit the fan.  It has numerous times in the past and will continue to do so.  It just depends where you are standing when the shit hits. 

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

The very fact that the .gov had to step in for a correction/hail mary/assistance to the 'too big to fail' types is a tell on just how close a thing it was. 

No, it says nothing of the sort.  What it does "tell" is the magnitude of the event.  It never came anywhere close to a social collapse that would result in some kind of Mad Max dystopia.  It's just silly to claim otherwise.

Wake up.

Yes yes I know.  Anyone who doesn't share your alarmist POV is a sheep.  Baaaa.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Mmmhmm.

http://www.space.com/20605-nasa-budget-asteroid-lasso-2014.html

You should spend at least a little bit of time reading your own sources and trying to understand them.  The target size for the asteroid mentioned in the above program is about 8 meters with a mass comparable to the International Space Station.  An object of that size would burn up in the atmosphere and not impact the Earth; needless to say, we are not talking about a planet killer here.

You're brainwashed into kneejerk saying "it's impossible!" by your culture.

Not at all.  I am well-informed on the topic, so I understand what I am talking about.  You clearly do not.  You haven't even looked very carefully at the material you cite as support.

Reject it and always start by asking "how do we do it?" instead. Free your mind from automatic negativity.

You mean like you're doing with your Mad Max banking meltdown scenario?  Altering the path of a massive asteroid?  Piece of cake!  Free your mind!  How do we do it?  Intervening to ensure that "money" continues to move around between computers?  It's impossible!  Wake up!  People will be roaming the streets with studded leather vests and sticks with nails on the end of them within THREE DAYS!

As far as detecting it, we already do that. Radar. Invented over 50 years ago. Realize that we track thousands of planes each day and air traffic control them successfully among hundreds of airports. A 10 km asteroid is no biggie, so long as you bother to track it, which we're currently doing a piss poor job of. Easily fixable with a billion or so dollars spent worldwide.

You previous said "comets and asteroids."  Most comets take thousands of years to return to the inner solar system, and thus we don't know their trajectories until a matter of a few months or less before they would impact Earth.  As for asteroids, the biggest risk is the ones we don't know about.  Like with the comets, there simply isn't enough time for a collision avoidance project if the asteroid is on a collision course when we discover it.  Even supposing that we DO detect the NEO with enough time (years or decades) to implement collision avoidance, that process itself is not a trivial task.  For example, an NEO that is an aggregated rubble pile would be difficult to move or to deflect.  Implying that it is merely a matter of will, as you are doing, is fatuous.

During the filming of "Armageddon," someone asked Michael Bay why the story had a team of drillers trained as astronauts to plant the nuclear device on the asteroid, when it would have been much easier to take a team of highly trained astronauts and teach them how to drill a hole.  Bay told that person to shut up and walked away.  That's kind of how I see this discussion.  You are profoundly ignorant about this topic and yet pontificate like you have some unusual insight into the matter.   And a worse, you are actively blocking any attempts to educate you.  Feel free to take the last word; I'm done.

[MagnificentBastard]

 Sea creatures make all top five slots. There are things under the sea worse than zombies. At least a head shot will take a zombie out, but some of these salty monsters don't even have brains.

Quick! What would you do if a Sea Cucumber went aggro?!?

Not a goddamn thing. That's what.

[Foodlion]

If the Shit hits the fan it's either going to be from

1. Pandemic
2. Economic Collapse
3. EMP
4. Solar Flares
5. Gigantic underground volcano
6. Meteor impact
7. Seriously unfriendly alien invasion.


just sayin... 

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I no longer think we can deal with it

Oh.  It's a threat to humanity because YOU no longer think we can deal with it, like we did in 2008.

Since that time, they've introduced something called "stress testing."  It's a way to predict what will happen to a bank should there be another crisis like in 2008.  If the bank doesn't pass the test, it has to take corrective action to fall in line.  Ergo, the system is more robust, not less, than it was in 2008.

There's been a fair amount of screaming for legislation to curb bank practices, the objective being to constrain them so they can't operate in a manner that is so risky that they could fail.  To no one's surprise, the right wing (not to mention the banks themselves) have dug in their heels on this point.  So here is what the Obama administration has done: they are assessing penalties to the banks for their practices that led to the mortgage crisis in 2008.  These penalties can only be described as a brutal ass-pounding.  B of A was assessed something like $13 billion, with a "B," in penalties, although I forget whether that was what they will end up paying.  It's a clever move -- the right wing gets what they want (no expansion of legislation or government size and authority); the government gets some of their money back; and the banks are held in check by what they fear the most: shareholders pissed off that the bank isn't making any money due to the massive penalties.

You are wrong when you say that the threat is greater today than in 2008, but since you frame it as an opinion you keep it safe and sound from any conclusive debunking.  Here's a thought for you, though.  Unlike just about anything else appearing on the various lists, "catastrophic failure of the banking system" lies completely within the realm of humans.  There is no external force at work here: humans created it; humans operate it; and humans can regulate it to prevent a catastrophe.   In fact, that's exactly what has been going on as long as there have been banking systems.  Crises appear due to greed, they're averted in some way, and the scar tissue from the experience is integrated into the system to prevent a recurrence.  You might like your version of the story better, and you certainly seem to in spite of the gaping flaws and utter lack of any supporting information, but that doesn't mean it's one of the biggest threats to humanity.  Like it or not, it isn't.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Quick! What would you do if a Sea Cucumber went aggro?!?

Take it to a sushi bar.  They'll know what to do.

[albrecht]

Oh.  It's a threat to humanity because YOU no longer think we can deal with it, like we did in 2008.

Since that time, they've introduced something called "stress testing."  It's a way to predict what will happen to a bank should there be another crisis like in 2008.  If the bank doesn't pass the test, it has to take corrective action to fall in line.  Ergo, the system is more robust, not less, than it was in 2008.

There's been a fair amount of screaming for legislation to curb bank practices, the objective being to constrain them so they can't operate in a manner that is so risky that they could fail.  To no one's surprise, the right wing (not to mention the banks themselves) have dug in their heels on this point.  So here is what the Obama administration has done: they are assessing penalties to the banks for their practices that led to the mortgage crisis in 2008.  These penalties can only be described as a brutal ass-pounding.  B of A was assessed something like $13 billion, with a "B," in penalties, although I forget whether that was what they will end up paying.  It's a clever move -- the right wing gets what they want (no expansion of legislation or government size and authority); the government gets some of their money back; and the banks are held in check by what they fear the most: shareholders pissed off that the bank isn't making any money due to the massive penalties.

You are wrong when you say that the threat is greater today than in 2008, but since you frame it as an opinion you keep it safe and sound from any conclusive debunking.  Here's a thought for you, though.  Unlike just about anything else appearing on the various lists, "catastrophic failure of the banking system" lies completely within the realm of humans.  There is no external force at work here: humans created it; humans operate it; and humans can regulate it to prevent a catastrophe.   In fact, that's exactly what has been going on as long as there have been banking systems.  Crises appear due to greed, they're averted in some way, and the scar tissue from the experience is integrated into the system to prevent a recurrence.  You might like your version of the story better, and you certainly seem to in spite of the gaping flaws and utter lack of any supporting information, but that doesn't mean it's one of the biggest threats to humanity.  Like it or not, it isn't.

Banks under Bush and Obama were hardly punished at all. Even if we ignore the fraudulent banking practices that helped lead to the crisis in mortgage backed securities and the trillions in money they got as a bonus for their hard-work. Look at the "punishments" they get when they admit money-laundering for ultra-violent drug cartels, help in massive tax-evasion schemes, or do things like manipulate the LIBOR! Slap on the wrist punishments- at best. And look at the "reform" bills that simply allow them to consolidate their market position against more honest smaller credit unions and local banks that now need to conform, at high costs, with more regulations. When the problem was caused by the "big boys" who also got trillions in money for doing so!

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Banks under Bush and Obama were hardly punished at all. Even if we ignore the fraudulent banking practices that helped lead to the crisis in mortgage backed securities and the trillions in money they got as a bonus for their hard-work. Look at the "punishments" they get when they admit money-laundering for ultra-violent drug cartels, help in massive tax-evasion schemes, or do things like manipulate the LIBOR! Slap on the wrist punishments- at best. And look at the "reform" bills that simply allow them to consolidate their market position against more honest smaller credit unions and local banks that now need to conform, at high costs, with more regulations. When the problem was caused by the "big boys" who also got trillions in money for doing so!

"Trillions" of dollars in bonuses?  Trillions, as in plural?

Let's see some support for that statement.  And not by some loony right-wing fruit-loops website.

Wait, never mind.  That is just so completely preposterous on the face of it that I know you can't POSSIBLY cite a credible authority.  All you need to do is look at the Forbes billionaires list to disprove it.

Trillions of dollars in bonuses...what a credulous fucking maroon...

[albrecht]

"Trillions" of dollars in bonuses?  Trillions, as in plural?

Let's see some support for that statement.  And not by some loony right-wing fruit-loops website.

Wait, never mind.  That is just so completely preposterous on the face of it that I know you can't POSSIBLY cite a credible authority.  All you need to do is look at the Forbes billionaires list to disprove it.

Trillions of dollars in bonuses...what a credulous fucking maroon...

according to PBS, that receives much of its funding from the government and is a big pro-Obama network, claims that I am correct:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/the-true-cost-of-the-bank-bailout/3309/

and Bloomberg:
"Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy."

ps: I realize you are blinded by the light of Obama's grace and Godhead, but PBS even claims I'm correct! I wasn't, obviously, talking about the individual bonuses paid to bank management (which was paid not by the government but by their individual boards) but the bonus paid to the banking industry in general, including to foreign chartered banks, during all the bail-outs- despite their financial mismanagement or outright fraud. And, yep, it is/was in the trillions- even according to Obama's PBS!

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

according to PBS, that receives much of its funding from the government and is a big pro-Obama network, claims that I am correct:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/the-true-cost-of-the-bank-bailout/3309/

and Bloomberg:
"Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy."

And you say you are a right winger?  Shocking news.

[albrecht]

And you say you are a right winger?  Shocking news.

I was totally against the bailouts and for the financial reform laws that only allowed the larger banks to aggrandize more market-share. There should be no "too big to fail." The concept itself is an anathema to capitalism (or even just plain fairness.) And the leaders of the banks or individual that  conspired or was knowingly involved with in the financial fraud, ponzi schemes, or money-laundering for drug-cartels should face criminal as well as civil charges. Personally in addition to the wrist-slapping "punishments" in fines for the companies. Things shouldn't be viewed just as partisan games of right/left, but as right/wrong. It is wrong when Bush did it. It is wrong when Obama does it.
http://www.bankrate.com/financing/banking/banks-pay-fines-for-money-laundering/
But bigger than this all, especially in theory and- like betting in baseball- fundamentally undermines the whole system, is the LIBOR scandal that is hardly ever even reported on and, so far, I haven't seen much punishment from it. This is far worse than BCCI, S&L crisis, etc because not just individual fraud but systemic fraud on a grand scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal

Also things like front-running, commodity price manipulation, high-frequency ETF frauds, "dark pools", etc need to be more properly investigated and punished.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I was totally against the bailouts and for the financial reform laws that only allowed the larger banks to aggrandize more market-share. There should be no "too big to fail." The concept itself is an anathema to capitalism (or even just plain fairness.) And the leaders of the banks or individual that  conspired or was knowingly involved with in the financial fraud, ponzi schemes, or money-laundering for drug-cartels should face criminal as well as civil charges. Personally in addition to the wrist-slapping "punishments" in fines for the companies. Things shouldn't be viewed just as partisan games of right/left, but as right/wrong. It is wrong when Bush did it. It is wrong when Obama does it.
http://www.bankrate.com/financing/banking/banks-pay-fines-for-money-laundering/
But bigger than this all, especially in theory and- like betting in baseball- fundamentally undermines the whole system, is the LIBOR scandal that is hardly ever even reported on and, so far, I haven't seen much punishment from it. This is far worse than BCCI, S&L crisis, etc because not just individual fraud but systemic fraud on a grand scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal

Also things like front-running, commodity price manipulation, high-frequency ETF frauds, "dark pools", etc need to be more properly investigated and punished.

No no, you misunderstand me.  I'm saying you're a moron for believing that money went for bonuses, or even that it was all spent money, which it was not.

[albrecht]

No no, you misunderstand me.  I'm saying you're a moron for believing that money went for bonuses, or even that it was all spent money, which it was not.

The "bonus" of which I speak was to the industry! They got trillions in bail-outs. Even Obama's PBS admits this. Check out the link! Sure some of it trickled down to individual bonuses for executives but the real bonus of the bail-outs and the regulatory changes were to the entire industry (I take that back, to the selected big banks in the industry. A few were "not big enough" and allowed to fail.) And sure some of which was paid back (but what about our opportunity costs for lending them this money) and why should some select "too big to fail" institutions get money when there are plenty of businesses, and people, who lose everything by making poor financial decisions or committing crimes?

[paladin1991]

Yes yes I know.  Anyone who doesn't share your alarmist POV is a sheep.  Baaaa.

Careful, laddy.  You might not want to be acting coy and teasing and old Scotsman.   Baaaa yourself, If you're a mind to frolick in the heather.

[SciFiAuthor]

You should spend at least a little bit of time reading your own sources and trying to understand them.  The target size for the asteroid mentioned in the above program is about 8 meters with a mass comparable to the International Space Station.  An object of that size would burn up in the atmosphere and not impact the Earth; needless to say, we are not talking about a planet killer here.

That much arrogance followed immediately by a glaring factual error gave me quite the chuckle. An 8 meter object does not necessarily burn up and not impact the earth as you claim. Composition, entry geometry, speed of entry, and other factors play a part in whether it survives or not as a meteorite on the ground. I think what you meant to say was is enter without enough appreciable loss of kinetic energy to keep it from exploding and forming a crater. Not that it was even relevant, what was actually relevant, and you seem to have conveniently missed it, is that the mission partially serves as a technology test bed for capturing smaller objects for use in kinetic impact to deviate a larger asteroid.

Not at all.  I am well-informed on the topic, so I understand what I am talking about.  You clearly do not.  You haven't even looked very carefully at the material you cite as support.

I'm not too impressed thus far, considering you didn't seem to remember that small meteorites exist.

You mean like you're doing with your Mad Max banking meltdown scenario?  Altering the path of a massive asteroid?  Piece of cake!  Free your mind!  How do we do it?  Intervening to ensure that "money" continues to move around between computers?  It's impossible!  Wake up!  People will be roaming the streets with studded leather vests and sticks with nails on the end of them within THREE DAYS!

You dramatically underplay this potential systemic failure at your own peril. Bank runs featured prominently during the Great Depression. We never adequately fixed the systemic problem of banks shuttering to avoid runs, and one just happened this year in Russia. Pass the tipping point with enough banks shuttering within a short time and you no longer have money transferring by computer. You have people standing outside locked banks with debit cards that don't work looking for cash that only exists as a number on a computer that's turned off. The FDIC will take weeks to issue checks (if they can even be cashed). That's too late to keep chaos from ensuing. Grocery stores keep three days worth of food on hand. That's it. And it's only for those that have cash in such a situation. I'm not the first to highlight this potential problem, and Chinese banking regulators are testing their system right now in response to high NPL ratios. In 2008, had one more large bank, such as BofA (which was very close) had failed, the bailouts wouldn't have come fast enough to save it.

You previous said "comets and asteroids."  Most comets take thousands of years to return to the inner solar system, and thus we don't know their trajectories until a matter of a few months or less before they would impact Earth.  As for asteroids, the biggest risk is the ones we don't know about.  Like with the comets, there simply isn't enough time for a collision avoidance project if the asteroid is on a collision course when we discover it.  Even supposing that we DO detect the NEO with enough time (years or decades) to implement collision avoidance, that process itself is not a trivial task.  For example, an NEO that is an aggregated rubble pile would be difficult to move or to deflect.  Implying that it is merely a matter of will, as you are doing, is fatuous.

I think you mean periodic comets take thousands of years to return to the inner solar system. There are also fresh comets that have never been to the inner solar system that may or may not become periodic. Whether the approach is to use delay techniques to slow the object enough to avoid collision (the earth is also moving in an orbit), deviation to change its trajectory, or outright destruction, there are multiple theorized techniques, the nuclear and impactor options already being based on existing technology. Deep Impact, another mission intended partially to be a test bed, deviated Comet Tempel 1 by ten centimeters with only the energy equivalent of 4.7 tons of TNT. There are numerous projects in motion to build telescopes dedicated to the task of searching for and cataloging the objects and serious attention is on all of the 20+ options we have that can be used to deviate an object. As long as we know about it ahead of time, we'll get it done. Since it's exceedingly unlikely to happen in any given year, extinction events happen on the order of tens of millions of years between events, I don't think we have anything to worry about. This is an eminently fixable problem that won't be a problem in a few years. 

During the filming of "Armageddon," someone asked Michael Bay why the story had a team of drillers trained as astronauts to plant the nuclear device on the asteroid, when it would have been much easier to take a team of highly trained astronauts and teach them how to drill a hole.  Bay told that person to shut up and walked away.  That's kind of how I see this discussion.  You are profoundly ignorant about this topic and yet pontificate like you have some unusual insight into the matter.   And a worse, you are actively blocking any attempts to educate you.  Feel free to take the last word; I'm done.

Oh you mean the less scientifically accurate copycat of Deep Impact. Yeah, I'd be a touchy asshole too if I was one of the most heavily criticized directors in Hollywood. So what's your excuse?

[SciFiAuthor]

Oh.  It's a threat to humanity because YOU no longer think we can deal with it, like we did in 2008.

Since that time, they've introduced something called "stress testing."  It's a way to predict what will happen to a bank should there be another crisis like in 2008.  If the bank doesn't pass the test, it has to take corrective action to fall in line.  Ergo, the system is more robust, not less, than it was in 2008.

There's been a fair amount of screaming for legislation to curb bank practices, the objective being to constrain them so they can't operate in a manner that is so risky that they could fail.  To no one's surprise, the right wing (not to mention the banks themselves) have dug in their heels on this point.  So here is what the Obama administration has done: they are assessing penalties to the banks for their practices that led to the mortgage crisis in 2008.  These penalties can only be described as a brutal ass-pounding.  B of A was assessed something like $13 billion, with a "B," in penalties, although I forget whether that was what they will end up paying.  It's a clever move -- the right wing gets what they want (no expansion of legislation or government size and authority); the government gets some of their money back; and the banks are held in check by what they fear the most: shareholders pissed off that the bank isn't making any money due to the massive penalties.

You are wrong when you say that the threat is greater today than in 2008, but since you frame it as an opinion you keep it safe and sound from any conclusive debunking.  Here's a thought for you, though.  Unlike just about anything else appearing on the various lists, "catastrophic failure of the banking system" lies completely within the realm of humans.  There is no external force at work here: humans created it; humans operate it; and humans can regulate it to prevent a catastrophe.   In fact, that's exactly what has been going on as long as there have been banking systems.  Crises appear due to greed, they're averted in some way, and the scar tissue from the experience is integrated into the system to prevent a recurrence.  You might like your version of the story better, and you certainly seem to in spite of the gaping flaws and utter lack of any supporting information, but that doesn't mean it's one of the biggest threats to humanity.  Like it or not, it isn't.

Uh huh. Let's see, so you think problems can be fixed because they lie within the realm of humans. Every war and atrocity in human history being within the realm of humans not withstanding, the fact that systemic failure exists and happens regularly (along with ill-conceived deregulation, you seem to imply that doesn't exist), you still think that a breakdown can't occur in the invincible system that can't be responded to in time to avert disaster even though it's happened before, is happening now in similar systems, and the very preventative measures you're so proud of (shuttering to prevent runs) can only contribute to the problem. And even if it did fail, it won't result in chaos because we won't be at each other's throat over food, even after all of us having watched New Orleans go apeshit in a flood.

But you will worry about something that hasn't happened in 65 million years might come along in the next 20 and catch us off guard enough that we can't devise a strategy to deflect it and implement it fast enough.

Incidentally, penalties for bad practices does absolutely nothing to stop what I'm talking about. You don't need bad banking practices for bank runs to occur, they can happen in any financial meltdown, and have before. In previous times, we were less sensitive because we were trading in physical cash. Now, most of us aren't.  Hell, it could be precipitated by hackers under the right conditions.

[albrecht]

What about the Yellowstone Caldera? I guess it wouldn't be large enough for a worldwide extinction but certainly wouldn't be good for our continent if there was a massive eruption. Recently scientists have discovered it is twice the size. However, there is no cause for alarm. And people will likely recall the recent "bison fleeing Yellowstone" hoax video.
http://www.kulr8.com/story/25970770/super-volcano-is-bigger

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/yellowstone_monitoring_47.html