Personally, I know very few people who ever thought it was going to be any kind of doomsday scenario (though a few people seem to be stubbornly clinging to the idea, and are trying to drag it back from the grasp of facts by any means necessary). I don't understand why; there are far more serious risks to us.
For instance, with our current dependence upon electronics, the electrical power grid, and and satellite services, another Carrington event (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/) — in which a coronal mass ejection directly strikes the Earth, an event which is really only a matter of time — would be catastrophic. It would probably destroy many, perhaps all, of our satellite constellation, and potentially wreck electrical grids worldwide. Fortunately, we would have enough advance warning to be able, as a last resort, to shut down everything non-essential before it hit, but there would be very little we could do to protect our satellites.
Still, it's frankly understandable why we focus on extreme threats. We are hardwired to pay attention to imminent threats as a simple matter of survival. It is the threat you ignore that kills you. To go from there to actively seeking out threats to worry about, though, is ... bizarre. I don't understand the doomseekers.
To me, the "Oh wow" aspect of the eventual Betelgeuse supernova is the idea of a supernova happening right in our back yard, too far away to harm us, but close enough to see with the naked eye and for amateur atronomers to observe in detail with quite modest equipment. Most of us suspected right from the very first that the report would turn out to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor. But there was always just that small chance that the observation was real. It would be totally cool for it to happen right now; it would be the spectacle of a lifetime.
Still, many astronomers say Betelgeuse is still expected to go supernova any time in the next thousand years or so. It COULD still happen in any of our lifetimes.
Re: Thanks for writing this article
For instance, with our current dependence upon electronics, the electrical power grid, and and satellite services, another Carrington event (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/) — in which a coronal mass ejection directly strikes the Earth, an event which is really only a matter of time — would be catastrophic. It would probably destroy many, perhaps all, of our satellite constellation, and potentially wreck electrical grids worldwide. Fortunately, we would have enough advance warning to be able, as a last resort, to shut down everything non-essential before it hit, but there would be very little we could do to protect our satellites.
Still, it's frankly understandable why we focus on extreme threats. We are hardwired to pay attention to imminent threats as a simple matter of survival. It is the threat you ignore that kills you. To go from there to actively seeking out threats to worry about, though, is ... bizarre. I don't understand the doomseekers.
To me, the "Oh wow" aspect of the eventual Betelgeuse supernova is the idea of a supernova happening right in our back yard, too far away to harm us, but close enough to see with the naked eye and for amateur atronomers to observe in detail with quite modest equipment. Most of us suspected right from the very first that the report would turn out to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor. But there was always just that small chance that the observation was real. It would be totally cool for it to happen right now; it would be the spectacle of a lifetime.
Still, many astronomers say Betelgeuse is still expected to go supernova any time in the next thousand years or so. It COULD still happen in any of our lifetimes.