Having the best seat in the house to watch the end come.

I'm just here for the entertainment.

The International Space Station I'd imagine. I heard Elvis is up there at the moment, hiding from the IRS.

Shhhhh, don't rat out the king. http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif

I ain't nothin' but a hound dog ;)

The ISS would be a slow death instead of a fast one on Earth. Not sure if they would burn up in the atmosphere first because a wiped out Houston isn't doing routine controlled burns to keep them in orbit, or if they would run out of food first. I suspect they would burn up first, but that's just a guess.

But if it were reworded to apply to anything other than extinction of humanity, it wouldn't have such a spotless track record (and would require actual research to come up with the number).

There's also a human tendency to ignore or discount warnings.

The book Seveneves provides an interesting, if wildly improbable, exploration of the premise of the ISS being a survivor of a global apocalypse.

Did you enjoy that book?

:eyeroll:

Alrighty then.

The statement is 100% accurate to complete extinction;

And yet, that doesn't stop the many predictions of complete extinction;

Which, obviously, gives us a perspective on predictions that only apply to a smaller number of humans, or a smaller region of the world; those predictions are perhaps only almost entirely wrong but that can't be mathematically proven.

:eyeroll:

Yes, whole point of the thread: it's a good idea to do exactly that, for all 100% apocalyptic warnings, and most of the rest as well.

Y2K: it wasn't necessarily going to kill ALL of us, capisce?

Part 1 was quite good, hard science fiction, like I expect from Stephenson. Part 2 was a wild change in direction, that felt like the pilot for a SF TV show - more Star Trek than 2001. I probably would have enjoyed it more if it weren't tied to the first half. But overall, I did enjoy it, and will look for the sequel it quite blatantly set itself up for.

Was the lesson you took from Y2K that all of the work that was done to prepare for it by upgrading out-of-date software, and testing important systems, was wasted?

Or that institutions would have spent the money to do all that naturally, even if they hadn't been warned?

Well here we go, 780,000 years ago the earths magnetic field switched poles. 40,000 years ago it tried but snapped back. Meh, so the Boy Scouts will turn their compasses around, no big deal, right?

Oh, that sucks.
I wonder if that includes sexobon's spot?
Oh no, watching netflix by candle light.
The ultraviolet inhibitors in you window caulking don't stand a chance. :eek:

I'd second what HM said--the first 2/3 of it was great. The last bit was nuts, and completely stylistically different. Not bad on its own, just frustrating that it was pretending to be a conclusion to the first part. What it really feels like is there were three books, but the second was radically different, and maybe none were long enough, so they said "let's split the second book into the back end and the front end of books 1 and 3."

Speaking of Stephenson, I also just finished "The Rise and Fall of D.O.D.O" which he actually co-wrote with a female author known for slightly-romanticized historical fiction. Her influence was evident, and jarring, and also made Stephenson's usual style jarring by comparison. I finished it without complaint, but I probably won't get the (again, clearly set up for) sequel.

I present for your consideration that humans are extremely good at ignoring obvious, clear and present dangers which they are actually, fully aware of.

Here is a factoid which has faced varying degrees of dispute about scale and impact, which therefore you can be easily dismissed: the Roman Empire was aware of lead poisoning--its causes and effects--and yet continued to not only deliver water through lead pipes, but actually eat off of lead dishes. Why did they do that , and *how* could that even be possible?

How is it that, although an individual human will be aware that the leopard in the tree is going to jump down and eat you, a *group* of humans doesn't have this same instinct, collectively?


I would argue with equal veracity as your OP claims, that human culture is *very, VERY good* at ignoring threats.