I highly recommend Spaceflight Simulator if you haven't played it yet! It's free on mobile, and no I'm not sponsored yet. If you have played, what was your favourite challenge?
Hi, i just found you through rubolo's video on this topic. I think your calculations for the mass are off. You assumed it's density while rubolo used the acceleration due to gravity stated on the wiki. The mass was 100 times more than what you calculated. Moving rocks is hard i guess ;)
Ah, interesting! I was worried I made a mistake in my calculations for a moment, but I think I've worked out what's going on. As far as I can tell, if we calculate its mass based on the density of typical asteroids, 1.2564 * 10^10 kg is correct. But if we calculate its mass based on its gravitational strength, @rubolo's 5.094 * 10^12 kg seems correct. From this I think I can conclude that the SFS game developers made the captured asteroids' gravitational strength much greater than it should be given its size (around 100 times greater). This makes sense from the perspective of a game I guess. If they didn't do that, a body that size would have barely any gravity.
That's an interesting question. My take is that even for a hard antinatalist, this probably isn't the way to go, since it probably would just cause catastrophic damage and not be an extinction level event. But even for something larger, it probably still wouldn't actually kill all life on Earth even if it makes humans extinct. If we want to solve wild animal suffering first, that might be a missed opportunity.
@@vegantinatalist I'd say I'm neutral on efilism. I'm largely unsure whether the future would contain more suffering or happiness on average if humans don't go extinct. I'm certainly much more pessimistic about the long-term future than many other people. I guess the thing that would sway me to efilism is being quite confident that the future will contain more suffering. I should say that I reject Benetar's asymmetry principle, which is why I'm not a 'hard antinatalist'. I think having children is, on the margin, wrong now and for the foreseeable future, and *maybe* even forever.
Do you think deflecting an asteroid could work in real life? Let’s discuss what we could learn from both simulations and actual missions!
I highly recommend Spaceflight Simulator if you haven't played it yet! It's free on mobile, and no I'm not sponsored yet. If you have played, what was your favourite challenge?
I am talking about real life asteroid hit. Would it be nice to let it hit and cause extinction or should we really deflect it?
@@sarfarazansari8153 I have never seen such an arrogant comment honestly. Of course we'd want to deflect it! Not everyone wants to die like you!
Hi, i just found you through rubolo's video on this topic. I think your calculations for the mass are off. You assumed it's density while rubolo used the acceleration due to gravity stated on the wiki. The mass was 100 times more than what you calculated. Moving rocks is hard i guess ;)
Ah, interesting! I was worried I made a mistake in my calculations for a moment, but I think I've worked out what's going on. As far as I can tell, if we calculate its mass based on the density of typical asteroids, 1.2564 * 10^10 kg is correct. But if we calculate its mass based on its gravitational strength, @rubolo's 5.094 * 10^12 kg seems correct. From this I think I can conclude that the SFS game developers made the captured asteroids' gravitational strength much greater than it should be given its size (around 100 times greater). This makes sense from the perspective of a game I guess. If they didn't do that, a body that size would have barely any gravity.
But should we deflect an asteroid that can cause extinction forever?. I won't deflect.
That's an interesting question. My take is that even for a hard antinatalist, this probably isn't the way to go, since it probably would just cause catastrophic damage and not be an extinction level event. But even for something larger, it probably still wouldn't actually kill all life on Earth even if it makes humans extinct. If we want to solve wild animal suffering first, that might be a missed opportunity.
@@spacescienceguy youre not an efilist though are you lol
@@vegantinatalist I'd say I'm neutral on efilism. I'm largely unsure whether the future would contain more suffering or happiness on average if humans don't go extinct. I'm certainly much more pessimistic about the long-term future than many other people. I guess the thing that would sway me to efilism is being quite confident that the future will contain more suffering.
I should say that I reject Benetar's asymmetry principle, which is why I'm not a 'hard antinatalist'. I think having children is, on the margin, wrong now and for the foreseeable future, and *maybe* even forever.