Practical for a civilian to build a space suit?

[CCWilson]

If a black hole were discovered flying toward the Earth and was predicted to arrive in five years - a scenario which I believe to be scientifically plausible, though - whew! - unlikely, the question is what we residents of planet Earth would do. Obviously we'd scramble to figure out the best approach to keep homo sapiens and all other surface life from going extinct. We might not have a perfect answer, we might not be able to build a perfect closed ecosystem - but we wouldn't have a choice. Yes, there would be social disruptions, but those can be good fiction material.

I don't believe that allergies would be a big problem, because the cities would be fairly large and well populated. Plenty of allergens floating around to exercise the immune system.

I agree that structures could and would be built above ground, but underground would provide better insulation and would be easier to protect against meteorites when the atmosphere is gone after a few years. Seems to me that heavy equipment - bulldozers, backhoes, excavators - could dig large cities fairly quickly and efficiently compared to conventional aboveground construction. Sink posts, pour concrete, lay beams and joists, build roofs, cover with soil, and you'd have an enormous interior space within which you could construct streets, apartments, shops, hospitals, theaters and so on, as well as hydroponic farms, livestock barns, science and engineering research labs, and manufacturing facilities.

Keep those objections coming. I want the story to be scientifically credible, and I certainly haven't thought of all possible complications. By the way, I will look for that Meela's Flowers short story you recommended and hope to learn something from it. I will point out, however, that an approaching black hole is somewhat more believable than an advanced extraterrestrial society warning us that they plan to destroy the sun.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Still short on time but I still really think you need to push the time scale further. Many tasks simply cannot be shortened by throwing more money or manpower at them. Simple illustration; 9 women cannot make a baby in 1 month. Building closed ecosystems that will work will take decades of study to observe the long term effects of isolation which will allow the next generation of experiments to try something new.

Regarding social upheaval I'm beginning to think this is more of a problem than the R&D. Human beings are not rational actors. It seems very unbelievable that in such a short amount of time the majority of the world will accept their fate and knuckle down to one purpose: saving a small amount of people. It's a nice idea but we're not like that. It's not that our species lacks the capacity for good but just look into phenomena like the tragedy of the commons. People will be motivated to try and help their loved ones more than some people they have never met.

Perhaps you could work that into the story; it would require a lot of work but the selection profess could include data mining social network sites so that when people get a letter that they aren't picked they have at least one friend or acquaintance that is. Then they are manipulated to be motivated by the thought of saving that friend.

 

[onomatomanic]

^ The standard plot device for adressing the humans-are-selfish issue is to allocate at least a fraction of the available places in the "lifeboat" by last-minute lottery. As long as the lifeboat in question offers significantly better survival chances than anything that could be accomplished individually, it seems very plausible that even a vanishingly small chance at winning that lottery would provide sufficient motivation for people to contribute to building it.

 

[CCWilson]

Ono, a lottery is among my plans for dying Earth. Probably half the population in the cities will be technical people - scientists, doctors, engineers, electronic technicians, hydroponic farmers, and so on - a labor force to keep civilization going. The remainder will be filled by a lottery - maybe a one in a hundred chance of being picked. The exclusion criteria would be tricky - mental illness or antisocial history or age over 40 might disqualify, since the future of our species must take priority. Would the families of each winner go along? That would reduce the chances to one in three hundred or so. The remainder of the population would get advice from the government for surviving as long as possible or ending their lives if desired.

 

[onomatomanic]

I'm not sure excluding the old makes any sense in this case.

It does if the impending disaster is only expected to last a time much shorter than a human lifetime, because then you want as many persons (women, really) of childbearing age as possible when things go back to normal, allowing you to repopulate the planet more rapidly. Unless I misunderstood the premise, though, this is for the long haul. The age distribution is going to normalize relatively soon anyway, so you might as well start out that way.

Or, to put it in even stronger terms, the space in the cities is obviously limited. If you only take young people, nobody is going to die for the first generation or so. So you'd either have to start with a half-empty city to accommodate the children being born in the interim, or start with a full city and ensure that no children will be born for a while. Neither seems like a appealing scenario.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Space in the cities doesn't have to be limited after everyone else has died off. They can expand by digging and building

 

[onomatomanic]

Oh, true. I guess my mentally equating them with lifeboats wasn't really appropriate after all, because of that aspect. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[CCWilson]

I'm not sure exactly where the optimal age cutoff would be, but the older the citizenry, the more medical problems. Significant disabilities would also disqualify. Political correctness has to go out the door when the survival of mankind is at stake.

I myself would not make the cut. Glad it's just a story.

 

[onomatomanic]

What about later on? There could be measures like enforced abortion if a fetus is showing any signs of abnormal development, and no medical care for those too old to productively contribute any longer, and so on. If the agenda is survival at any cost, those decisions should be made solely on the basis of material benefit versus impact on morale, with no ethical considerations directly taken into account. Examining these issues gives the story depth, but at some point can make it too "dark and edgy" to provide enjoyable escapism any longer.

ps: This is not "political correctness", though. That's a fad, whereas these are real ethical issues.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm struggling with seeing this society to be honest. The majority of humans aren't purely rational and won't stand for what is essentially a totalitarian society in order for some abstract ideology of "continuing the species". I really don't see why people would dedicate the remaining time they have left when they know that there is a slim chance that their family is going to survive (hence my proposal earlier that the selection process needs to be made so that everyone knows at least one person who will be saved [ideally more] to make it personal and identifiable).

As for age and moderate disability I don't think it's too much of a problem. You're going to need very good social medicine anyway, it really isn't going to be much of an expenditure to keep the elderly and sick alive and aside from humanitarian considerations these people will likely have skills you need. Becoming an expert in a skilled field takes decades of training, you could try to include a cut off below retirement but especially for scientific fields you're going to be loosing a hell of a lot of tacit knowledge that your high tech survival cities are going to need.

Also political correctness is not a fad, though the term gets bandied about and abused quite a lot it will be an extremely important consideration in this scenario. Social tension in a closed environment will be something that is paramount to diffuse. A riot in a modern city IRL can lead to the death of hundreds, significant damage to infrastructure and cost a lot to repair. A riot in a city where the very ecosystem is in a tight balance and breaching the wall could kill thousands is not something you want. Standard cliche is to go overboard in the totalitarianism but that's just going to delay the problem and give you one heck of a revolution when the lid gets blown off the boiler.

 

[CCWilson]

The moral issues in this scenario are thorny, all right. Let's take the following individuals - a man in jail for assault, an undocumented worker, a mentally handicapped child, a thirty year old obese woman with diabetes and heart disease, a victim of cerebral palsy, and an eighty year old man. In our current politically correct society, we feel morally bound to help them all. We want to treat the first two fairly, at minimum, and the last four will be given all necessary government assistance. But if species survival is at stake, we must make difficult and repugnant decisions, and those six people should not become residents of the underground cities.

In order to limit public outrage, there will be a national referendum before the lottery in which the people will have a say as to how residents will be selected and what categories of individuals will be included in the drawing and how many political figures will get automatic selection to facilitate organizing life underground.

Of course every country will set its own rules and build its own shelters, and those with more autocratic regimes will not be concerned with fairness and therefore will be at huge risk of revolution by those with nothing to lose.

 

[onomatomanic]

The majority of humans aren't purely rational and won't stand for what is essentially a totalitarian society in order for some abstract ideology of "continuing the species".

I partly agree. If what people see is that an authoritarian government is murdering people they love and like, the impact on morale would be disastrous. However, if the situation is one in which people for the most part believe that such measures are necessary for their own survival, humans can also be remarkably callous.

t really isn't going to be much of an expenditure to keep the elderly and sick alive [...]

That depends entirely on what you mean by "keep alive". It's one thing to not letting an 80-year-old starve just because they can't work any longer, it's quite another to go to great lengths to try an cure them if they develop cancer.

Also political correctness is not a fad, though the term gets bandied about and abused quite a lot [...]

Maybe we're using the term differently. I understand "http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=politically+correct&allowed_in_frame=0" to be the fairly recent notion that anything that could possibly be perceived as offensive ought to be avoided at all costs. People don't riot because somebody offended them, they riot because they have concrete grievances.

 

[onomatomanic]

[...] an undocumented worker [...]

Why is an undocumented worker less likely to contribute to the survival of the species than a documented worker?

[...] those six people should not become residents of the underground cities.

What's the timeframe covered by your plot? I was assuming that it continues well into the future of the cataclysm, but you keep only talking about the initial stages, so maybe that's another unfounded assumption of mine?

 

[CCWilson]

Why is an undocumented worker less likely to contribute to the survival of the species than a documented worker?j

No country is going to include in its limited survival population someone who's in the country illegally. Certainly the US wouldn't, even aside from the practical fact that you've got to be on the books in order to be in the lottery.

What's the timeframe covered by your plot? I was assuming that it continues well into the future of the cataclysm, but you keep only talking about the initial stages, so maybe that's another unfounded assumption of mine?

Oh, it's long term, as in permanent. The Sun is gone forever. Of course anyone born in the bunker with a disability or reaching a ripe old age would be treated compassionately, but common sense says you stock your city initially with able-bodied, productive, healthy, good citizen types.

 

[onomatomanic]

No country is going to include in its limited survival population someone who's in the country illegally.

Pragmatically, that makes sense, but it makes the moral high-ground of any subsequent "the survival of the species requires it" justifications rather shaky, don't you think? That would be my perspective in such a situation, anyway.

 

[sshai45]

I'm not sure exactly where the optimal age cutoff would be, but the older the citizenry, the more medical problems. Significant disabilities would also disqualify. Political correctness has to go out the door when the survival of mankind is at stake.

I myself would not make the cut. Glad it's just a story.

So is it for some kind of "eugenics"-like "improve the gene pool while we're at it" kind of thing (pseudoscientific garbage), or more like "we just don't have the resources to care for the disabled & old, and crooks would be an obvious threat to the integrity of the society"? I.e. you want your society to *work* first of all, and with things this tight, there just isn't any way to be *able* to do the caring without jeopardizing that. E.g. medicine is going to be limited, so then you don't want to bring along medical liabilities.

And what else is required for them to "make the cut", beyond being not too old, not disabled, and not a crook or illegal immigrant?

 

[CCWilson]

That should be obvious; the only consideration is what gives us the best shot at keeping homo sapiens alive for long enough that the new generations can work out the kinks in closed ecological systems. As I said above, around half the population would be technicians - doctors, dentists, veterinarians, engineers, electricians, plumbers, scientists, medical technicians, computer and electronics guys, hydroponic farmers, manufacturing experts, and so on. Once those essential positions are filled, a lottery will be held among able bodied citizens of good mental and physical health and at least decent moral character between say 15 years and 45 years of age. In order to motivate those who work to design and build the underground cities, they will be given extra tickets to increase their likelihood of having their numbers drawn. Those selected would probably be allowed to bring in their family members who meet the criteria. There will be a national referendum where the public can choose the standards to be included in the lottery, and until that vote I can't say for sure what the final criteria will be.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't think this lottery system will be that viable. You're going to need an optimum amount of every kind of skilled worker (as well as unskilled) to keep a technogivally advanced society going. Leaving it to chance won't be good enough.

As for medicine being limited I really don't see why. Just think of the scale of the industry this society is going to possess. You are proposing that they build closed underground cities for millions in a handful of years (something I think your readers will find unbelievable). Any society with that kind of industry isn't going to be short on medical devices or medicines.

 

[CCWilson]

If my scenario came to pass - if tomorrow we were told that a black hole or neutron star was approaching and would throw us out of orbit - what would we - specifically, our governments - do? I suspect it would be something like what I'm suggesting, since there would be no alternative. I will admit that I grossly misstated the lottery odds earlier. I envision building underground cities to house somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 people in perhaps 20 sites in the US, but that figure is still being worked out by my crack team of architects, biospheric scientists, engineers, climatologists, and psychiatrists.

The concept of a lottery is to give all Americans at least a chance at surviving. Seems only fair. The last thing you'd want is for the public to think that the resources of the country are going to the benefit of a privileged elite.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If my scenario came to pass - if tomorrow we were told that a black hole or neutron star was approaching and would throw us out of orbit - what would we - specifically, our governments - do?

Panic. Then spend years organising international conventions where they bring many of the worlds top experts in all fields. Honestly it's going to take a long time just to decide where to start. This isn't something that one country is going to pull off, even an economic giant like the US, China etc. Reason being that the world economy is going to have to be significantly put into this endeavour: think of all the factories in the far east, mines in Africa etc etc.

A really tricky thing to handle will be getting countries to agree on what method to take versus how they want to contribute their resources. That and deciding how much goes to what country. Imagine a scenario where smaller nations with less resources have nothing to contribute and aren't chosen as a site for a city. What are the people going to do? Probably hike to a neighbouring country as refugees (good luck building that city with hundreds of thousands of occupiers, you could turn the military on them but that could spark an international incident. Humans en mass aren't coldly logical, even if their lives are at stake).

I imagine that different cities would be built with different methods in an effort to appease this political problem and ensure a chance that some survive.

I suspect it would be something like what I'm suggesting, since there would be no alternative. I will admit that I grossly misstated the lottery odds earlier. I envision building underground cities to house somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 people in perhaps 20 sites in the US, but that figure is still being worked out by my crack team of architects, biospheric scientists, engineers, climatologists, and psychiatrists.

I'd revise that number up to at least a million, though realistically it's likely to be more than ten million.

The concept of a lottery is to give all Americans at least a chance at surviving. Seems only fair. The last thing you'd want is for the public to think that the resources of the country are going to the benefit of a privileged elite.

I advise you start thinking of this internationally, one nation isn't going to do this alone. Certainly not if you're sticking to this 5-year-plan. Whilst a lifeboat lottery is a common trope it really doesn't seem likely to work. Are tickets going to go to families and close friends? If not you're not it doesn't sound like a system people will vote for but if so it limits who can win. My advice would be as I posted above. Think outside the box and chose a system designed so that everyone personally knows one or two people selected to survive, by making it personal most people have a very concrete reason to work and sacrifice: for whoever that friend is, rather than the abstract chance that they might win a ticket that will separate them from their friends and loved ones.

 

[CCWilson]

I liken this to what happened in World War II. Each country would, I think, get off their butts and go to work with all due haste trying to save some of their own people. Closed ecological system research would be shared, in a spirit of brotherhood, but each country would start building right away. Certainly there would be international conferences and think tanks, but any country with the resources to do so would mobilize and begin construction without waiting for the science to catch up. Countries without the wherewithal to build shelters and power them would, I'm afraid, be out of luck. And obviously that would cause huge social upheaval, wars, riots, and all kinds of nastiness.

Even some developed countries would be in big trouble. Great Britain and Israel, for example, have no geothermal power plants and unless they could drill some they would have to rely on fossil fuels and nuclear for energy, which would have a limited life span.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I liken this to what happened in World War II. Each country would, I think, get off their butts and go to work with all due haste trying to save some of their own people. Closed ecological system research would be shared, in a spirit of brotherhood, but each country would start building right away. Certainly there would be international conferences and think tanks, but any country with the resources to do so would mobilize and begin construction without waiting for the science to catch up. Countries without the wherewithal to build shelters and power them would, I'm afraid, be out of luck. And obviously that would cause huge social upheaval, wars, riots, and all kinds of nastiness.

Even some developed countries would be in big trouble. Great Britain and Israel, for example, have no geothermal power plants and unless they could drill some they would have to rely on fossil fuels and nuclear for energy, which would have a limited life span.

World war two is very different to what you are considering. Building thousands of tanks, planes etc is nothing like building entire underground cities sustainable without a biosphere whilst also containing all the industry they will ever need (not to mention the nightmarishly difficult task of determining the optimum number, skill, organisation and socioeconomic model for the population of an enclosed technological society). Countries aren't going to be able to do this by themselves, they are going to have to trade. If you like world war 2 analogies think of how Great Britain nearly starved due to German blockades. For a more modern understanding think of how much around you comes from another country from the rare Earth metals in your smartphone to the food on your table. The pace of change over the 20th century was for countries to become more interdependent as society became more complex.

That's not to say there won't be countries who will be in trouble because they don't contribute enough to the world economy or have enough resources to contribute to the city construction. But the problem will be far greater than you seem to think, what are you going to do when said countries band together and threaten to invade nearby nations and halt the construction effort unless they are taken in?

Every man for himself isn't a philosophy that's going to help when you're embarking on the greatest R&D and construction project of all time that is going to require the greatest amount of cooperation.

EDIT: Final point responding to this;

begin construction without waiting for the science to catch up

What are they going to build if they have no clue what they are meant to be building that's like suggesting that the US could have started the Apollo program in 1930. Ask any engineer involved in a big project (and for perspective the biggest projects we've ever embarked on are akin to flatpack furniture construction compared to this) and they'll tell you that you can't just start building and work it out later.

 

[Evo]

Aside from panic causing a break out of world wide wars most likely preventing the ability to carry out any projects of this sort, how are they going to get water after an initial supply?

 

[CCWilson]

Recycling plus access to the surface to harvest ice plus geothermal water.

 

[Evo]

Recycling plus access to the surface to harvest ice plus geothermal water.

Naturally occurring sources of geothermal water would not necessarily occur where one could build underground. Harvesting surface ice will become more and more dificult as nearby sources are used. Basically, rivers aren't going to be flowing on a frozen earth. Recycling water would be very critical, but this would be quite an undertaking and limits on water would limit population.

Also, what effect would the loss of the gravitational pull of the sun and moon have on the earth? One large concern would be ocean levels, I would think.

Another concern would be air pollution.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Naturally occurring sources of geothermal water would not necessarily occur where one could build underground. Harvesting surface ice will become more and more dificult as nearby sources are used. Basically, rivers aren't going to be flowing on a frozen earth. Recycling water would be very critical, but this would be quite an undertaking and limits on water would limit population.

Adequate recycling of all waste (industrial and organic) is going to have to be included with our proposed handwavium powered closed ecosystem.

Also, what effect would the loss of the gravitational pull of the sun and moon have on the earth? One large concern would be ocean levels, I would think.

Another concern would be air pollution.

I'd be interested to see some numbers on how cold the Earth would get and how long it would take to cool. The oceans are a massive heat sink, without the sun they'll freeze eventually but how long I wonder?

 

[onomatomanic]

^ I tried a rough estimate here a while ago.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

^ I tried a rough estimate here a while ago.

Lol I forgot we had two threads on this and seemed to have merged them in my memory.

 

[CCWilson]

Naturally occurring sources of geothermal water would not necessarily occur where one could build underground. Harvesting surface ice will become more and more dificult as nearby sources are used. Basically, rivers aren't going to be flowing on a frozen earth. Recycling water would be very critical, but this would be quite an undertaking and limits on water would limit population.

The underground cities would be concentrated where existing geothermal plants are - and the biggest complex anywhere is in the Geysers area north of San Francisco, so a number of cities would be built there. It's an unavoidable fact that the places best suited for geothermal development are where the tectonic plates come together and the magma is closest to the surface, so there's increased danger of earthquakes, but energy needs override everything for long term survival, and earthquakes aren't that common at anyone site, really.

I don't see water needs as a major stumbling block. As long as most of the water is recycled, which would be relatively easy in a sealed chamber - where's it going to go? - the need for additional water wouldn't be too great.

Also, what effect would the loss of the gravitational pull of the sun and moon have on the earth? One large concern would be ocean levels, I would think.

Another concern would be air pollution.

The only effect of losing the moon (which isn't a sure thing; it could also crash into the Earth or have its orbit changed) is that the seas would be calmer.

Certainly air quality inside the chamber would have to be controlled. There wouldn't be too many internal combustion engines - no cars or airplanes - but the air would have to monitored closely.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The underground cities would be concentrated where existing geothermal plants are - and the biggest complex anywhere is in the Geysers area north of San Francisco, so a number of cities would be built there. It's an unavoidable fact that the places best suited for geothermal development are where the tectonic plates come together and the magma is closest to the surface, so there's increased danger of earthquakes, but energy needs override everything for long term survival, and earthquakes aren't that common at anyone site, really.

Why risk earthquake exactly? Why not use nuclear? Or space based solar power beamed from closer to the Sun? The former might be good to use whilst the latter is under construction.

The only effect of losing the moon (which isn't a sure thing; it could also crash into the Earth or have its orbit changed) is that the seas would be calmer.

If the Moon's orbit is changed drastically (i.e. becomes quite eccentric) the effect on Earth's crust could be pronounced.

Certainly air quality inside the chamber would have to be controlled. There wouldn't be too many internal combustion engines - no cars or airplanes - but the air would have to monitored closely.

Actually you may want to burn things at some point to get the carbon for your ecosystem.