On Tuesday, I noted that someone needs to categorize and prioritize all the things that might kill us. Well, someone must have read my post, because the Guardian has done just that. The Daily Ablution has the story.

I'll chime in with Glenn and others, and note that I also welcome our robot overlords.

I disagree, though, that there's nothing we can do about supervolcanoes (at least in terms of preserving humanity). Having an economically independent and genetically diverse population off planet will at least preserve the species against such an event. That won't help with gamma ray bursts though. This list is a little terracentric, in that it doesn't distinguish between those events that would be a problem just for the earth (e.g., a supervolcano eruption) and those that would be more comprehensive (e.g., gamma rays, or obstreperous robots). By the way, does the robot scenario encompass gray goo?

Anyway, they need to rectify this.

[Tax day morning update]

Phil Bowermaster has all the solutions.

Gamma ray bursts?

I think that won't be too bad for people living off the Earth, since they'd already have to be protected from lots of types of radiation. A Gamma Ray Burst is worse for the Earth because it would ionize lots of our upper atmosphere, destroy ozone, make all sorts of nasty nitrogen-oxygen compounds, and leave the surface vulernable to solar UV. Life in rocks, deeper in the ocean, or otherwise protected, won't feel any direct effects.

Since space colonies would often be buried or otherwise protected, a gamma ray burst (which lasts only a few seconds anyway), shouldn't be a show-stopper. But if a gamma ray burst was accompanied by LOTS of neutrinos (and I have no idea if this is likely), no amount of shielding will work. Then everyone is toast.

I'd say robots/gray goo (anything that evolves and reproduces) are much more worrysome. Rapidly evolving and replicating techno-critters have the potential to "eat" the entire solar system (and beyond), in which case, we'd be toast.

Can't do anything about a supervolcano? Or -- you just can't IMAGINE anything that could be done about a supervolcano? These are two VERY different statements.

There are reasons that supervolcanoes go off, they are symptoms-not-causes, and those reasons are susceptible to mega-engineering. OK, it'll take 50-100 years to figure it out, and another 500 to file the environmental impact statement, but then it becomes 'manageable'. See my 'New Earths' book (1981) described and excerpted on my home page www.jamesoberg.com, and unleash your creativity.

Personally I welcome our gray goo overlords and offer up Kent Brockman as the first in a long line of automata for their deconstructing pleasure.

For supervolcanoes, why don't we just drill a fat well and let the magma ooze out, relieving the pressure and providing for copious geothermal energy. The resulting slag forms a nice artificial mountain. Fun for the whole family.
Of course, drilling that deep is pretty hard, but I think the cost of it is preferable to an eruption.

For supervolcanoes, why don't we just drill a fat well and let the magma ooze out, relieving the pressure and providing for copious geothermal energy.

Relieving the pressure can be as bad as increasing it. The roof of the magma chamber is partly supported by the magma. Let the magma start oozing out and parts of the roof will start to crack.

And if there are gas pockets in the chamber, away from your well, the result would be a super-eruption.

Of course, if you drill your well where there is a gas pocket, same thing -- except that you and your drilling equipment get fried first rather than later.

Why drill -- just blast some channels. And an eruption itself isn't the issue, it's how MUCH stuff is thrown HIGH -- into the stratosphere. The lower stuff gets washed out quickly in climatic terms. The higher stuff is very bad news for world agriculture. So we can have two different outcomes with essentially the same displaced material, and if we can keep most of the material low, we can massively mitigate climatic impact.

Have any of you ever seen a movie? There aren't any problems that can't be solved with nuclear bombs. It takes a special team, which will be whittled down to just two survivors (male and female). But, in the end the nukes will be detonated in at the right time and in the right sequance and BAM, problem solved.

LOL. Yippee-ki-yay, BD.