How well would modern society handle the dinosaur killing meteor if it happened today?

Right, but the point is that the majority of people get along just fine without any medications whatsoever. Especially those of younger ages.

Probably want to keep some livestock on hand, as anything left outside is likely to not survive. Don’t really need to keep a whole lot for genetic diversity, just stock up well on a bunch of sperm, and keep only females.

You can make it in a lab, you don’t need a giant factory for it. You are only serving a population of a few thousand at most.

They will mostly die off with the 99+% of the population. What does make it into your preserved population will die off as the people who have it die.

And that’s not to say that we can’t stock up.

I’ve done a fair amount of dangerous work. Tree work, utility work, construction. All stuff that would be what you would be doing while rebuilding civilization.

And the reason that we have factory farms is because we are feeding hundreds of millions of people a diet that is actually rather unsustainable even with our current technology.

You didn’t need such things when farming was less intensive.

Coal is pretty abundant. And of course you would cite your bunkers in places where the necessary resources are available, rather than leaving it to chance.

No, we are talking about sheltering enough people through the decade or so it takes before the surface becomes conducive to life again.

Wait, we’re restricting the bunker to young people, now? But how do those young people have all the skills that we need?

So, liquid nitrogen storage now, as well. This bunker is sounding more and more complicated all the time…

I didn’t say “giant”, that’s your gloss. By factory, I just mean a room where you manufacture stuff. Any lab is going to need a supply of glassware, reagents, etc…

You’re more hopeful than I am. In my view, if any makes it in to your enclosed bunker, you’re screwed.

No, I’m talking about things like working in waste recycling, working with sick people, working with animals, that kind of thing. Not “oh, I cut myself” kind of work - that doesn’t have the same call for antibiotics as, say, cholera or ETEC gastro does.

Less intensive farming happens in the great outdoors. Your bunker animals are going to resemble factory farms more than they are pastures and meadows.

If you have the time. How many bunkers now are sited in coal country?

Decade is highly optimistic, IMO.

It’s not “Choose a bunch of people to go into a bunker, and those are the people who will survive”. It’s “Some people are tough enough or well-prepared enough or lucky enough that they’ll survive, and those will be the survivors”. And yes, that will leave lots and lots of people who will die. But not all. You can’t just say “of the survivors, some won’t be tough enough, and some won’t be well-prepared enough, and some won’t be lucky enough, and so that will finish off all of the survivors”, because the survivors are, by definition, the ones who didn’t fall victim to all of those various hardships.

Lots of people would die. And society would be radically changed. Everyone acknowledges that.

In that case, I would still say the human race is doomed. Because merely surviving the event then bears next to no relation to ability to continue the human race past personal survival. Being lucky isn’t going to magic up food, being tough is not going to fight disease, being prepared isn’t going to last long enough.

We’re talking about an utterly changed world - a world where thousands of km from the event, fish literally died choking on the impact glass in their dry gills. Being temporarily lucky or tough is not going to work long-term for anyone, and I’m near-certain there’s no prepper alive who’s planned for what it would take to ride that out.

What it took to survive the last one was simple - be a small burrowing mammal. So if we could all become mole men by Impact Day, that’d be great. Otherwise, the human race is toast.

If the coal’s exposed enough to be easy to get at – what if it caught fire in that firestorm, or from lightning strikes in the following massive storms, or from failure of gas and electric lines in relatively immediate earthquakes? Such fires can smoulder for a very long time underground. I expect it’s pretty hard to try to mine coal that’s on fire. It’s certainly hard to breathe anywhere around it.

They’ll need to be tough enough and well prepared enough and lucky enough (though I suppose some people who are only tough enough and lucky enough might be taken in by, or take over the stores of, some of the well-prepared.)

That’s still not zero people, at least not in the immediate aftermath of a Chicxulub size event. But it’s going to be a whole lot fewer than if you’re thinking of those three qualifications separately.

And I’m not sure that we know enough about the conditions in the following few dozen or few hundred years. Certainly there are going to be fewer survivors in, say, year 5 than there were on day 5. Is the planetary population overall going to keep dropping, a little bit less every year or every decade, because the death rate exceeds the birth rate, and because each community has to keep being lucky, year after year for perhaps thousands of years? Or is it going to start creeping back up again?

I wouldn’t lay a bet either way; except in agreement that even if and/or during the time of survival “society would be radically changed.”

While I trust the general wisdom of the SDMB’s subject matter experts, I do find it disturbing that there isn’t already a global plan in place for what humankind will do should we ever face any potential extinction event. What are our options? How will we focus and deploy resources? Who will make final decisions? These should all be constantly discussed, reviewed and adjusted for new data or information. It should literally be the number 1 priority of humanity. Otherwise all of this competing for land, resources, wealth and power is just playing in the kiddie pool while the tsunami approaches.

I’m off to bed, but I do want to leave everyone with a last word, prompted by J-J’s post. And that word is megatsunami

…and the cheery thought that if the asteroid hits in deeper waters than Chicxulub, said megatsunami is 4+km high.

I find it disturbing, but not in the least surprising. Our species didn’t even have a good global plan for a mild pandemic, something which we know perfectly well happens to us every century or few.

We are in the kiddie pool, because, folks, we’re kiddies. I don’t know whether, as a species, we’ll survive long enough to grow up.

This reminds me of a quote from a coach for the Indianapolis Colts (American football for those not in the know) several years ago.

A reported noticed that only Peyton Manning ran all the plays in practice and the backup QB ran none. He asked if the backup should get some practice just in case. The coach replied, “We don’t practice f***ed”

What should be the cutoff for resources devoted to such measures? If it requires enough to pull from other measures (keeping people fed in the first place, for example), then that’s a very real current cost to fully prepare and maintain a certain level of readiness for an event that may not happen for thousands of years.

As of now, we are devoting some resources to it (we are on the hunt for planet killing asteroids) but not currently fitting out mine shafts to save humanity should one be found. There’s no ‘mine shaft gap’ at the moment. There’s room for debate on if we should do more, but how much it is worth to actually execute such a plan on a large scale has dubious benefits.

I’d disagree with this in part. We didn’t have a good ‘global’ plan but several countries had reasonable ‘local’ plans (where local could comprise tens or hundreds of millions of people). And health experts appear to have come up with good mediation methods very early - compliance and a lack of political leadership appear to have been more to blame in most cases rather than a lack of viable plans.

I’m including the political problems in our lack of having a good global plan [ETA: for pandemics; for diverting asteroids it’s partly a lack of technology]. In fact, I think it’s close to entirely due to political problems that a) we didn’t have one and b) some of what we did have for a plan wasn’t and isn’t being carried out.

Humans are really, really bad at politics, or at least at politics suitable for the numbers and the technology we’ve currently got. That’s what we need to grow up about. (I’m using the broader sense of politics here: everything that’s needed to sort out living in large groups without damaging each other.)

Addressing this one separately:

That is a fair question; but I’d place it higher than it is now.

Years ago, in a dry season, I had a contractor working on something outside that involved sparks going in all directions. I brought up a hose and started soaking the dry grass around where he was working. He said, ‘I’d bet 50 bucks those sparks won’t catch anything on fire.’ I said, ‘If we’re only betting $50, so will I. But what I’d actually be betting is the house and barns and everything and everybody in them.’

Our failure to feed people, right now, has to do pretty much entirely with politics. There’s enough food in the world to go around; but we don’t get it around. If everybody were going to starve by next year and money alone could fix it, then sure, the money needs to go there first and into how-do-we-divert-asteroids only after that’s taken care of. Even then, there are huge numbers of things that money’s being spent on that are far less important than either. People spend multiple thousands of dollars on one clothing outfit or one piece of jewelry or technical ownership of a batch of pixels on a computer screen.

Obviously we can’t and even shouldn’t spend every penny not needed to keep people barely alive on diverting asteroids. There’s a ceiling for that which falls somewhere well below people-will-literally-starve-if-we-do-that levels. But we do need to ‘practice fucked’. Practicing ‘don’t worry about it, everything will be fine and Manning can’t possibly get hit by a car’ may be a suitable risk for a football team – the worst that happens is that the team loses their games that season. It’s not a suitable risk when ‘the worst that happens’ is ‘everybody dies, including all the horses they rode in on.’

I’m going to stop right here. You have the belief that modern humans have no inventiveness, when that is the hallmark of the species. Boats built out of materials recycled from what there is, inclusive of old ships, using the geothermal energy they have, possibly sailing ships, maybe balloon based airships. Using the geothermal energy to produce hydrogen and running on fuel cells. Flywheel technologies. Who knows?

The risk of a Chicxulub event in the next several hundred or even thousand years is pretty small. OTOH human induced climate change is currently causing the acceleration of a mass extinction event and has some potential to lead to crises that are existential for civilization within a century, and high potential to lead to ones that cause deaths and suffering to billions.

Given that we are not doing so hot dealing with that threat that is in our face, commiting much resource to the possibility of a Chicxulub level event really would be shocking.

My point was not about building the bunkers now, but just having a coordinated global plan in place. A well thought out plan would include a variety of scenarios to address a range of lead times and lay out the responses to each of the likelier sources of the apocalyptic event. I imagine that when it’s apparent that event is imminent, the resources will come.

The COVID pandemic is a great example, as it really was hundreds of countries and US states making up their own responses on the fly. And I think most will agree that a global pandemic plan would have saved quite a bit of misery. Instead we spent a year playing whack-a-mole with it.

What does it mean for a species to “grow up”?

You know how children fight over stupid inconsequential shit?

When humanity as a whole stops doing that, then we can be considered to be grown up.

That’s pretty much what I meant.

I wasn’t going for proper evolutionary terminology, in which terms I don’t think it would make any sense. I was responding to post #206, which compared our current behavior to ‘playing in the kiddie pool’.

I do think that our social skills and our ability for long-range thinking haven’t evolved to match our technology and population levels, and that this is a problem.

Which other species would we be joining after leaving the kiddie pool?

Moderating

Let’s keep snark out of this forum.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

No, I have the belief that humans have no time for that level of inventiveness when they’re barely surviving hand-to-mouth.

Interesting question.

I think a modern day Dinokiller destroys all human societies but humanity manages to survive.

I know there are projects deliberately looking for Dinokiller 2.0; I would not be surprised if a near miss scenario could be identified vast ages in advance in terms of an object that could potentially collide with Earth. The spirit of the scenario doesn’t seem to be some kind of millennia to stop the threat, but something like a year or less.

Trying to prepare for a scenario like this sounds utterly freakish; consider having to evacuate the whole state of Florida - where do they go? How do you convince them that they need to move to something like the Australian Outback or Central Africa? The political will to act to save lives is probably not there. By the time a slowly brightening celestial body is visible in the skies, there will be only days to act.

Throwing nuclear weapons at something of this size could potentially vaporize small pieces of it, but a gigaton of nuclear weapons would change the specifics by less than a rounding error. Ideas like painting the asteroid, strap on parachutes or otherwise change its course have chances. But we have to run the premise that the impact happens.

There is a global reverse-911 call, but a lot of people either didn’t believe this would happen or are woefully unprepared. There’s enough time for people to try to protect from the blast, but nowhere enough time (or political will) to stockpile enough food to survive.

The initial deaths from the blast are soon overwhelmed by the collapse of food supply. Earth doesn’t have a year of food for its billions of people lying around; it might take a whole decade to accumulate such. Rationing in the pre-Dinokiller days would not have added much, and the massive fires that raze most of the United States and Latin America also torch the Great Plains.

It is this lack of food that is the largest killer after this disaster. It’s plausible to suggest that Switzerland survives the initial impact with minimal loss of life, owing to endless bunkers and strongpoints. But this is Carl Sagan’s nuclear winter scenario made real, and a decade of starvation awaits.

There’s a large difference between there being NO FOOD and NOT ENOUGH FOOD, with the terrible grim clarity. The spiral into societal collapse has military units turn into bandit gangs, funerals into cannibalistic feasts, and culture being replaced with the overarching need to survive. This is how human society ends–under the incredible trauma of starvation and a need to survive by killing others, the humanity that sees a dawn ten years later is immediately alien to us.

Cultures that are harsh tend to be a reflection of cruel times. There is no waking up from this nightmare; instead, the children born into this world will understand that this is reality and the strange ruins that still dot the world speak to an mythical state of civilization. The longest lasting legacy of Dinokiller 2, beyond even cultural consequences that take centuries to fade into myth, is the depopulation of humanity. The bottleneck of food supply in a nuclear war is perhaps 1 billion - the number of people that can be supported by subsidence agriculture without industrial support. The bottleneck of food supply after a decade of darkened skies and the freezing cold of endless clouds might be in the tens of millions.

There are some interesting sidelines; could humanity figure out something like turning lumber into food? Or perhaps humanity scrapes by with hydroponics. It could even be that humanity simply develops 10 gigaton nuclear weapons and simply knocks the Dinokiller around. (It’s not clear there’s a maximum size limit to H-Bombs).

Humanity has more resources and is more adaptable than dinosaurs. Remember too, that Dinosaurs did survive the Dinokiller–by learning to fly. A post Dinokiller Humanity is going to be different in ways that are hard to predict.