Yellowstone Super Volcano

[Glen]

There were at least three or four species of Homo at the time, and yes Yellowstone had a role in their evolution/extinction; Homo neanderthalensis arose in this environment.

There is only one species of Homo now. The whole of the human race has less variation than a troop of chimps, and this will make human adaptation to the new environment much harder. IOW a population of 6,000 chimps/hominids has as good a chance of survival as a population of 6,000,000,000 humans today. The first humans to die in a global catastrophe such as this are those in agricultural societies, especially modern ones; coincidentally these are the ones who spread furthest across the earth and have the least genetic diversity.

Even genetic engineering won't help, first because society is destroyed and therefore technology is useless, second because even if we could engineer a human to adapt we would be able to engineer enough of them for a viable population.

Possibly the hardiest humans wrt surviving global catastrophes are the San of the Kalahari.

Your logic is somewhat flawed, I suggest.

While an argument could be made for us not having the genetic variation to survive such an event (though that is debatable), there very much is enough CULTURAL adaptability to survive it. Also, sheer numbers and distribution give us an advantage.

Kill off 99% of the human race, and you're left with 60 million people, still a goodly number.

We also have an advantage not previously enjoyed by any other species or society that has faced such an event in the past...widespread literacy and long term (relatively speaking) storage of knowledge.

This would definitely cause a huge, huge change in society as we know it, and probably retard the advancement of civilization for a century if not more.

But it won't cause the human species to go extinct.

But it will be at least a horrible first few decades.

 

[Umbral]

Instead of 6 billion people, we'll have 1 billion people in the best case (of a large explosion) and 6 million in the worst - except if nations go ballistic over the crisis, which might reduce the number of survivors to a few thousand.

Humanity would probably survive but all civilizations would fall. I fear all the fundamentalists in the world would see this as a sign of God(s) wrath and start killing each other. If it weren't for all those millions of people starving in China, that civilization could survive, the same for Latin-America. Imagine no sun for months and raining ashes.

May I respectfully sugges that we are exaggregating a bit?

The thing does blow every 650 000 years or so. There is no evidence of any such periodicity in the extinction rate of even large North American fauna.

So the consequences can be assumed to be of a severity where large fauna survives, even on the same continent.

I'd suppose effects on other continents would be less, restricted to several bad years of cold summers, poor harvests, and bad winters.

 

[Glen]

May I respectfully sugges that we are exaggregating a bit?

The thing does blow every 650 000 years or so. There is no evidence of any such periodicity in the extinction rate of even large North American fauna.

So the consequences can be assumed to be of a severity where large fauna survives, even on the same continent.

I'd suppose effects on other continents would be less, restricted to several bad years of cold summers, poor harvests, and bad winters.

You make a very good point there.

 

[DuQuense]

?WI this had happened in 1861? or in 1914~5? or 1941?

 

[Thermopylae]

Discovery Channel had a special on this very thing a few months back. It was destructive, but somehow humanity pulls through, and I don't believe any governments fall.

Don't know how they managed that. But one thing they did mention was that the global climate was f***ed, big-time. The monsoon stopped, which basically means that India starves, there goes about 600 million people right there...

 

[Mark]

There's no evidence for a mass extinction event 600,000 years ago, so if a modern eruption was like the last one, it's effects will be primarily local. The maps posted early on show the extent of ash fall, not the extent of heavy fall. As shown by Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo, etc, some ash doesn't kill off much and is actually helpful for vegetation. Some people argue that the Siberean trappes caused or helped cause the Permian extinctions, but these were truly massive eruptions, much larger than the Columbia River basalts.

Given the relative differences in air pressure versus the containing pressures, there is probably another reason for winter eruptions (if a correlation exists). One possibility is that there is more water available (snow) which melts and seeps into the volcano. This could lubricate the rocks along the cracks, as well as providing more water for steam.

As far as engineering solutions go, I remember discussing plans in geology classes to lubricate the San Andreas fault by injecting water. The problem was that several portions of the fault are overdue for earthquakes, so the lubrication would probably set them off. Lawyers would have a field day with those suits. The basis for the lubrication theory was an increase in small earthquakes near the Rocky Mountain Arsenal that started shortly after they started deep injections. The earthquakes diminished after they stopped the injections.

 

[jolo]

All depends upon a few factors - an eruption in winter which doesn't create too much fallout might not be as devastating as one in summer, if it's mainly just covering much of north America with debris and the rest of the northern hemisphere with more or less dust.

It needs to be considered though that we are pretty dependend upon our farming and that an interruption would cause widespread problems - which would be especially true for a spring, summer or autumn eruption.

But I admit, under certain circumstances it might just cause a billion or so people to die - which isn't such a high percentage compared to other catastrophes.