posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 08:15 AM
What would be the point of warning us?
Forewarned is forearmed. Specifically we must remember that this is a physically large planet. In the case of solar flares, a coronal mass ejection
does take some time to arrive but as it's travelling from the Sun typically it would only impact on the lit side of the planet facing the sun. Thus
if you are warned and you were careful to only use electronic appliances AFTER DARK then they wouldn't get fried. You would only follow such a
strategy if warned.
In the case of a meteor impact. First it has to be big enough to detect but if it is and it impacts the likelihood that it will not be huge in size
also implies that the devastation would be limited to the half of the planet around the impact site. If you were warned you could move to the other
side of the planet (and quite quickly these days).
In the case of some kind of radiation from the sun that would kill life directly. A super powerful X-flare. Again only the lit side of the planet
would die. Possible evacuation for some warned in advance and afterwards everyone would spread evenly around the world again. Every 50% reduction
would still leave survivors.
With a solar flare wiping out the electricity supply. Knowing that one is the cause of the other would result in my filling the numerous empty milk
bottles I have lying around - with water from the taps, as the pumps battery backup would fail 2 hours later. That's a lot of water. Stored as a
result of the warning. With the bathtub full as well (as per Australian survival rules). The lack of water could then be accounted for by advanced
Ultimately people talk about the end of the world, but that's a matter of definition. Mostly they think it's their own demise. The planet would
always survive even if reduced to rubble it would still aggregate back into a planet eventually thus not ending. If the air became unbreathable,
vegetation would still survive so the world wouldn't end. Even if half the people died the gene pool has in the past dwindled down to 100 individuals
and it still wasn't the end of the world. Being warned leads to being prepared. What if we didn't warn drinkers not to drive?
The chaos that would be caused by a warning would extend for the duration of the warning. No warning would result in the shorter version termed mayhem
as it would be more extreme than chaos. We must confront disaster and be prepared for disaster. We must not ignore the possibility. Simple changes to
lifestyle - a kettle that you stand on a hob instead of one you plug in, could also function on a primitive fire in the absence of electricity, thus
hedging your bets and embracing more flexible technologies. The military does that all the time!
In conclusion we require a warning before the event (not after the event as the media is apt to do). Where is the news paper with tomorrows news in
it, rather than yesterdays news? If the circus come to town on Tuesday, I want to know about it on Monday, I don't want to read about how great it
was on Wednesday (if only I had known). It's better to be warned.