The end of us all.

[Fairweather Pure]

How do you see it all going down?

[Spang]

The world will never end. The sun will die out one day and the penguins and all other species of animals that populate the coldest places on earth will dominate. Eventually cavemen, descending from penguins, will appear and history will rewrite itself. There will be another Darwin, another Bible and another Brett Favre.

[Boogahz]

Earth will bitchslap humanity so that it might live on forever.

[Fairweather Pure]

For me, it was a close call between nukes and a plague of some sort. I went with a plague. I guess the real question in my mind is if it will be natural or man made. If you look at history, we're long overdue for a natural deadly plague. I think AIDs is a good example of a virus that has done a great deal of killing in the modern world. I could imagine a much stronger strain of virus that killed quicker. We would be wiped out before we could begin to find a cure.

Furthermore, and I'm looking more into the big picture here, if the planet is really getting so overpopulated, wouldn't it make sense for the planet to readjust itself? Seems like a natural cycle to me.

[Hesten]

Unless we manage to finish ourself off first, i would bet on natural plague. The planet adjusts, and at the moment humans are treating it badly enough to deserve to get destroyed.
A mutating ebola virus + airports could do it easily i guess.

[Truant]

I was torn between Biological and Natural Disaster. But I didn't think volcano, or tidal wave...I thought more that we destroy the planet to the point that it can't support us anymore.

I went with Biological though. Zombie virus.

[Leonaerd]

By the time our fate is even a worry we'll have multiplied grossly and expanded to further reaches of the cosmos..... or by that point we'd have starved to death.

I picked bio.

[Neziroth]

I'd bet on comet or meteor before anything else on that list. That's the one thing that could absolutely physically destroy the planet if it was big enough. Think about what they say a meteor the size of texas would do...

think about if we got unlucky enough to get hit by one the size of 10 texas states?

[Bubba Grizz]

Rapture!

[cadalano]

nuclear winter is pretty unlikely these days. i'd vote climate change. either manmade/natural progression or from an event (impact, volcanic)

[Winnow]

Poorly worded poll.

World as in Earth? World end as in the planet being completely disintegrated or just end in a way that human (or all biological) live is terminated?

What constitutes the end of the world? The end of life or the Earth being splintered somehow into a mass that would no longer qualify it as a planet?

End of the "world' could also mean the end of humanity if we haven't colonized beyond Earth itself.

[masteen]

I'm hoping for bird flu!

[Siji]

I answered with the thought of 'end of the world' being the end of humanity, because once we're gone - what do we care? I'm confident in the powers that be creating some virus that gets out of hand and wipes everyone out. (ala Captain Tripps!)

If you're talking end of planet, then I'd have to go with comet.

[Aabidano]

As far as humans go, I think if we can manage to survive long enough to create permanent settlements off planet we'll be fine. No single event besides running into something\someone else capable of wiping us out is a concern after that point.

The planet? On a geologic scale we're like a gnat, while it might give you a rash it will come and go, one way or the other very quickly on that timescale. While we can make it uninhabitable for humans, truly destroying it is beyond us right now.

[Aslanna]

I'd bet on comet or meteor before anything else on that list. That's the one thing that could absolutely physically destroy the planet if it was big enough. Think about what they say a meteor the size of texas would do...

We already have a plan for that. In a nutshell it involves landing a ragtag oil rig crew on its surface, drilling an 800-foot-deep hole, planting a nuclear bomb on a convenient fault line, and splitting the asteroid in half.

Problem solved.

[cadalano]

what I'm most concerned about is what happens when an asteroid comes at us that cannot be cleanly measured in units of Texas

[Winnow]

I'd bet on comet or meteor before anything else on that list. That's the one thing that could absolutely physically destroy the planet if it was big enough. Think about what they say a meteor the size of texas would do...

While a meteor the size of Texas would wipe out life, it most likely wouldn't destroy Earth as a planet. One of the theories for the creation of Earth's moon is a major collision between what was Earth back then and another object, creating the Moon. Considering that there doesn't seem to be anything larger than the largest asteroids that could hit the Earth, it's existence as a planet is safe for now until the Sun's end of life stage begins and it expands to consume the Earth. A little more "alternative" science speculates that the asteroid belt is the result of an exploded planet so who knows.

The Sun will eventually torch the Earth. Here's a nice timeline for that happening:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... tas97.html

And don't forget planet X!

[Neziroth]

We already have a plan for that. In a nutshell it involves landing a ragtag oil rig crew on its surface, drilling an 800-foot-deep hole, planting a nuclear bomb on a convenient fault line, and splitting the asteroid in half.

Problem solved.

Oh shit! I'm not worried now.

As far as humans go, I think if we can manage to survive long enough to create permanent settlements off planet we'll be fine. No single event besides running into something\someone else capable of wiping us out is a concern after that point.

I wonder if waaaaay back when they said the same thing about permanent settlements on other continents, heh. I'm sure there's something out there somewhere capable of taking out a huge section of the universe or even the entire thing.

Afterall... If the universe is infinite, nothing can be impossible!

[Leonaerd]

I'd bet on comet or meteor before anything else on that list. That's the one thing that could absolutely physically destroy the planet if it was big enough. Think about what they say a meteor the size of texas would do...

We already have a plan for that. In a nutshell it involves landing a ragtag oil rig crew on its surface, drilling an 800-foot-deep hole, planting a nuclear bomb on a convenient fault line, and splitting the asteroid in half.

Problem solved.

Well.., that sounds fun in lollywood, but unfortunately it's a lot more cost effective to launch something to sit nearby the comet on its path towards earth and simply use gravitational pull the alter its course. Considering we'd be able to spot a comet a long time before it hits (in most cases), it's a very feasible solution.

[Deward]

I don't think any of those things above will destroy human civilization. Humans are a lot like roaches and while many events will destroy most of us. We are creative and strong enough to survive in some way.

I personally think that our civilization will destroy itself because of a myriad of factors. Nuclear isn't much of a threat globally but one small bomb going off in DC or NYC could end America as we know it. You saw what happened after 9/11 with our economy. Now imagine that 10,000 times bigger. It would take years to recover. The psychological impact of such an attack would be pretty devastating. How many people would want to stay in a major city with that threat?

The next biggest threat to America IMO is the loss of oil. People don't want to be told this but we are at "peak oil" (google it) and maybe just a bit past it now. This means that oil is going to rapidly rise in price. The oil companies have already been testing us by raising the price $.75 and then bringing it back down $.50 before jacking it up again. They are doing this to get us used to paying higher gas prices. THey know they couldn't get away with raisign the price of gas up to $7-8 a gallon right away but over the next decade that is where we are heading. China and India are still almost third world countries. Imagine the oil consumption they will have 10 years from now. The price of everything is linked to oil prices. 95% of the food you eat travels an average of 1500 miles before you eat it. I don't know about the rest of you but I know milk has gone up at least 50% in just the last couple years.

Add the above to the looming financial crash from blooming deficits and inflation and we are in for a big rollercoaster over the next ten years.

[cadalano]

I'd bet on comet or meteor before anything else on that list. That's the one thing that could absolutely physically destroy the planet if it was big enough. Think about what they say a meteor the size of texas would do...

We already have a plan for that. In a nutshell it involves landing a ragtag oil rig crew on its surface, drilling an 800-foot-deep hole, planting a nuclear bomb on a convenient fault line, and splitting the asteroid in half.

Problem solved.

Well.., that sounds fun in lollywood, but unfortunately it's a lot more cost effective to launch something to sit nearby the comet on its path towards earth and simply use gravitational pull the alter its course. Considering we'd be able to spot a comet a long time before it hits (in most cases), it's a very feasible solution.

thanks professor potleaf

[Boogahz]

I'd bet on comet or meteor before anything else on that list. That's the one thing that could absolutely physically destroy the planet if it was big enough. Think about what they say a meteor the size of texas would do...

We already have a plan for that. In a nutshell it involves landing a ragtag oil rig crew on its surface, drilling an 800-foot-deep hole, planting a nuclear bomb on a convenient fault line, and splitting the asteroid in half.

Problem solved.

Well.., that sounds fun in lollywood, but unfortunately it's a lot more cost effective to launch something to sit nearby the comet on its path towards earth and simply use gravitational pull the alter its course. Considering we'd be able to spot a comet a long time before it hits (in most cases), it's a very feasible solution.

thanks professor potleaf

I thought it was Doctor Greenthumb?

[Sylvus]

I thought it was Doctor Greenthumb?

Doctor? He goes to Michigan State, it's "Pizza Delivery Boy".

[Leonaerd]

I'd bet on comet or meteor before anything else on that list. That's the one thing that could absolutely physically destroy the planet if it was big enough. Think about what they say a meteor the size of texas would do...

We already have a plan for that. In a nutshell it involves landing a ragtag oil rig crew on its surface, drilling an 800-foot-deep hole, planting a nuclear bomb on a convenient fault line, and splitting the asteroid in half.

Problem solved.

Well.., that sounds fun in lollywood, but unfortunately it's a lot more cost effective to launch something to sit nearby the comet on its path towards earth and simply use gravitational pull the alter its course. Considering we'd be able to spot a comet a long time before it hits (in most cases), it's a very feasible solution.

thanks professor potleaf

You're SO cool. Go drink a beer.

[Aabidano]

...it's a lot more cost effective to launch something to sit nearby the comet on its path towards earth and simply use gravitational pull the alter its course. Considering we'd be able to spot a comet a long time before it hits (in most cases), it's a very feasible solution.

I'm assuming you're joking about launching something to alter it's course.... Also, for a large number of reasons we're not too likely to spot anything until it's to close for anything we might do to matter.

[Leonaerd]

...it's a lot more cost effective to launch something to sit nearby the comet on its path towards earth and simply use gravitational pull the alter its course. Considering we'd be able to spot a comet a long time before it hits (in most cases), it's a very feasible solution.

I'm assuming you're joking about launching something to alter it's course....

I am not. I brought it up because there was an hour long history channel show that looked in-depth at the feasibility of steering a comet off its course.

Also, for a large number of reasons we're not too likely to spot anything until it's to close for anything we might do to matter.

Yeah?

[Aabidano]

I am not. I brought it up because there was an hour long history channel show that looked in-depth at the feasibility of steering a comet off its course.

Also, for a large number of reasons we're not too likely to spot anything until it's to close for anything we might do to matter.

Yeah?

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, "Space is really really big, mind bogglingly big". We won't see anything until it's too late mainly because no one is looking all that hard, and there's a lot of space to watch. Comet hunters for instance take multiple high res images of the sky, and compare them from night to night, month to month and year to year. You'd have to do that on a huge and consistent scale to find anything. They generally don't spot the objects themselves either, but the tail as they approach the inner planets. A rocky body won't have a tail. Or they get lucky when an object passes in front of something else that's being looked at for other reasons.

To deflect a body of any size you need another body with a large enough gravitational field to change it's path. The closer it is, the larger a body you'd need to cause a large enough course change. It's just not feasible at the distances we'd likely spot something at. Consider the energy needed to cause a small movement in a large building. Then figure out a way to exert a continuous comparable force millions of miles from earth. With decades of warning at our current tech level we might have a chance.

[cadalano]

oh yeah i know its a feasible scenario. i just love how you come in all matter-of-fact by paraphrasing some theory which is just as good as any you saw on the history channel. LOL You kids and your hollywood ideas. Here let me 'splain to you how asteroid handling really works in the real real world. I am expert.



cost effective.. lol



OKAY GUYS- LETS SAVE THE ENTIRE PLANET EARTH FROM GUARANTEED DESTRUCTION. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY. THE POWER. but, like... i dont want to spend a lot of money, k? lets go with the BUDGET apocalypse-avoiding plan, k guys? lets go with the WALMART save-the-entire-planet plan.


fucks sake

[Leonaerd]

OKAY GUYS- LETS SAVE THE ENTIRE PLANET EARTH FROM GUARANTEED DESTRUCTION. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY. THE POWER. but, like... i dont want to spend a lot of money,

Notice the context... I was responding to an Armageddon reference and segued into what I said with a joke. Sorry you missed my jab at the movie. As if cost effectiveness was the important part of my post anyway. Way to skip the main point and take a jab at me because I'm young and smoke pot. Super.

[Leonaerd]

I am not. I brought it up because there was an hour long history channel show that looked in-depth at the feasibility of steering a comet off its course.

Also, for a large number of reasons we're not too likely to spot anything until it's to close for anything we might do to matter.

Yeah?

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, "Space is really really big, mind bogglingly big". We won't see anything until it's too late mainly because no one is looking all that hard, and there's a lot of space to watch. Comet hunters for instance take multiple high res images of the sky, and compare them from night to night, month to month and year to year. You'd have to do that on a huge and consistent scale to find anything. They generally don't spot the objects themselves either, but the tail as they approach the inner planets. A rocky body won't have a tail. Or they get lucky when an object passes in front of something else that's being looked at for other reasons.

To deflect a body of any size you need another body with a large enough gravitational field to change it's path. The closer it is, the larger a body you'd need to cause a large enough course change. It's just not feasible at the distances we'd likely spot something at. Consider the energy needed to cause a small movement in a large building. Then figure out a way to exert a continuous comparable force millions of miles from earth. With decades of warning at our current tech level we might have a chance.

The further away we detected the comet, the more likely there would be enough time to steer its course, making early detection the bottleneck for how likely it would work. It doesn't need to be a force comparable to anything, just a force, time permitting.

To deflect a body of any size you need another body with a large enough gravitational field to change it's path.

Simply not true. Everything has gravitational pull, and that's pretty relevant when there's nothing to stop the comet from being pulled in any direction by anything. The more time there is to move the comet, the smaller the object can afford to be.

[Boogahz]

To deflect a body of any size you need another body with a large enough gravitational field to change it's path.

Simply not true. Everything has gravitational pull, and that's pretty relevant when there's nothing to stop the comet from being pulled in any direction by anything.

Did you read what you quoted?

[Leonaerd]

To deflect a body of any size you need another body with a large enough gravitational field to change it's path.

Simply not true. Everything has gravitational pull, and that's pretty relevant when there's nothing to stop the comet from being pulled in any direction by anything.

Did you read what you quoted?

Yes, I'm saying that an object being "large enough" is not necessary, since anything can pull anything, not just "large" objects.

[Boogahz]

To deflect a body of any size you need another body with a large enough gravitational field to change it's path.

Simply not true. Everything has gravitational pull, and that's pretty relevant when there's nothing to stop the comet from being pulled in any direction by anything.

Did you read what you quoted?

Yes, I'm saying that an object being "large enough" is not necessary, since anything can pull anything, not just "large" objects.

where did he say it had to be a large object?

[Leonaerd]

To deflect a body of any size you need another body with a large enough gravitational field to change it's path.

Simply not true. Everything has gravitational pull, and that's pretty relevant when there's nothing to stop the comet from being pulled in any direction by anything.

Did you read what you quoted?

Yes, I'm saying that an object being "large enough" is not necessary, since anything can pull anything, not just "large" objects.

where did he say it had to be a large object?

By saying "large enough," there is an implication that there are objects that are not large enough to deflect another body.

[Boogahz]

By saying "large enough," there is an implication that there are objects that are not large enough to deflect another body.

So, an atom would be large enough to deflect an object half of the size of the moon enough to guarantee it would not impact the Earth?

[Leonaerd]

By saying "large enough," there is an implication that there are objects that are not large enough to deflect another body.

So, an atom would be large enough to deflect an object half of the size of the moon enough to guarantee it would not impact the Earth?

Lol. If the atom was placed on the correct course and there was an extremely long amount of time to waste, SURE!! The course of the comet would change maybe 2 x 10 ^ -18 meters in about a year (guesswork don't shoot me) compared to if the atom was not placed there.

But in reality, you took what we were saying out of context.

To deflect a body of any size you need another body with a large enough gravitational field to change it's path.

Nowhere does that say anything about guaranteeing the comet does not impact the earth.

[Boogahz]

By saying "large enough," there is an implication that there are objects that are not large enough to deflect another body.

So, an atom would be large enough to deflect an object half of the size of the moon enough to guarantee it would not impact the Earth?

Lol. If the atom was placed on the correct course and there was an extremely long amount of time to waste, SURE!! The course of the comet would change maybe 2 x 10 ^ -18 meters in about a year (guesswork don't shoot me) compared to if the atom was not placed there.

But in reality, you took what we were saying out of context.

To deflect a body of any size you need another body with a large enough gravitational field to change it's path.

Nowhere does that say anything about guaranteeing the comet does not impact the earth.

The entire point is to change the path enough for it to not impact the earth, not to determine what subdivision is hit directly.

[Leonaerd]

Right, but our argument is stemming from a quote which didn't address that point. If you want to talk about THAT, then of course an atom would be ineffective in moving the comet far enough from the earth. All I was saying in response to the quote we've been arguing about is that a body does not need to be of "large" enough size to move another object in free space (not necessarily out of way of the earth!!!!), it only has to have mass.

[Boogahz]

Right, but our argument is stemming from a quote which didn't address that point. If you want to talk about THAT, then of course an atom would be ineffective in moving the comet far enough from the earth. All I was saying in response to the quote we've been arguing about is that a body does not need to be of "large" enough size to move another object in free space (not necessarily out of way of the earth!!!!), it only has to have mass.

Then, I guess you were the one that did not understand the "context."

[Leonaerd]

Right, but our argument is stemming from a quote which didn't address that point. If you want to talk about THAT, then of course an atom would be ineffective in moving the comet far enough from the earth. All I was saying in response to the quote we've been arguing about is that a body does not need to be of "large" enough size to move another object in free space (not necessarily out of way of the earth!!!!), it only has to have mass.

Then, I guess you were the one that did not understand the "context."

No,

To deflect a body of any size you need another body with a large enough gravitational field to change it's path.

was the context. It's what yours and my entire argument has stemmed from and it says nothing about planet earth. I talked about the bigger argument (the one about moving the comet away from earth) in the top half of the post just above the one we started from.

[Aabidano]

it only has to have mass.

That's a stupid statement unless unless you're speaking of cosmic timescales. And we aren't. Whatever you're using would need a fairly significant mass in comparison to the object you're trying to effect in order to do it in the time frame we'd have available. Think something the size of a small moon.

[Leonaerd]

it only has to have mass.

That's a stupid statement unless unless you're speaking of cosmic timescales. And we aren't. Whatever you're using would need a fairly significant mass in comparison to the object you're trying to effect in order to do it in the time frame we'd have available. Think something the size of a small moon.

Yes yes I understand that. All I was refuting for the past 234012489 posts is the implication of an object needing to be large enough to move an object, when all it takes is mass to move another mass. Period. If you never implied that then skip the last 1230672039 posts.

[Neziroth]

Ok I don't buy into this "launching an object to float next to a comet and move it off course from it's gravitational pull" and here's why:

First: everything has a gravitational pull, right? Chances are our little object -- be it a spaceship, a satellite of some sort of a barbie car -- is way smaller than the comet, so the comet is going to have way more gravitational pull. Won't the comet just pull the little object into itself and continue on it's merry way?

Second: Isn't there a theory somewhere that says something along the lines (I know it's not exactly like this) "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction"? So, our little object is pulling on the comet with it's gravity... doesn't that mean that there's got to be some opposing reaction that isn't going to make the comet move much?

I think that's a BS idea and we need better comet defense than flying wingman to it trying to gently move it away.

[Boogahz]

Ok I don't buy into this "launching an object to float next to a comet and move it off course from it's gravitational pull" and here's why:

First: everything has a gravitational pull, right? Chances are our little object -- be it a spaceship, a satellite of some sort of a barbie car -- is way smaller than the comet, so the comet is going to have way more gravitational pull. Won't the comet just pull the little object into itself and continue on it's merry way?

Second: Isn't there a theory somewhere that says something along the lines (I know it's not exactly like this) "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction"? So, our little object is pulling on the comet with it's gravity... doesn't that mean that there's got to be some opposing reaction that isn't going to make the comet move much?

I think that's a BS idea and we need better comet defense than flying wingman to it trying to gently move it away.

I think he was saying that we could put something near Earth's orbit to adjust the planet's course, since the whole point of adjusting the course of a large asteroid/comet would still cause it to hit Earth.

[Leonaerd]

Ok I don't buy into this "launching an object to float next to a comet and move it off course from it's gravitational pull" and here's why:

First: everything has a gravitational pull, right? Chances are our little object -- be it a spaceship, a satellite of some sort of a barbie car -- is way smaller than the comet, so the comet is going to have way more gravitational pull. Won't the comet just pull the little object into itself and continue on it's merry way?

Second: Isn't there a theory somewhere that says something along the lines (I know it's not exactly like this) "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction"? So, our little object is pulling on the comet with it's gravity... doesn't that mean that there's got to be some opposing reaction that isn't going to make the comet move much?

I think that's a BS idea and we need better comet defense than flying wingman to it trying to gently move it away.

I think he was saying that we could put something near Earth's orbit to adjust the planet's course, since the whole point of adjusting the course of a large asteroid/comet would still cause it to hit Earth.

Nez, not quite. Boog, not necessarily.

Nez, using Newton's laws in our favor is possible. Put up a massive craft with self-propulsion to keep it at a distance from the comet so that they don't collide and the comet is consistently and constantly being moved from its course. Equal reaction still applies, except instead of them colliding, the comet is subtly chasing the craft the entire time.

Boog,

since the whole point of adjusting the course of a large asteroid/comet would still cause it to hit Earth.

If we encountered the comet as it is still years away, there's no reason to think that it couldn't be moved from its course enough that it would swing harmlessly by earth. Given enough time it's feasible. It's all about how early the comet is recognized.

[Neziroth]

I think he was saying that we could put something near Earth's orbit to adjust the planet's course, since the whole point of adjusting the course of a large asteroid/comet would still cause it to hit Earth.

If he saw the same show that I did, which I think was "Megadisasters" on the Discovery Channel, then he was indeed saying that they wanted to fly an object to the comet to gently pull it off it's earthbound (that was a good snes game) course and away harmlessly into space.

It's an interesting theory, and I don't know enough about physics to say whether or not it would work, but with my limited knowledge and mindset, I can't picture it working.

I guess a plan like that is better than no plan at all, but I'd feel better if we had some sort of team, maybe miners like was suggested earlier... And they could fly some space shuttles up there like fighter planes and land on it to destroy it seconds before it's too late.

You'd need some badass like Bruce Willis though if you even wanted to have a hope.

[Boogahz]

Ok I don't buy into this "launching an object to float next to a comet and move it off course from it's gravitational pull" and here's why:

First: everything has a gravitational pull, right? Chances are our little object -- be it a spaceship, a satellite of some sort of a barbie car -- is way smaller than the comet, so the comet is going to have way more gravitational pull. Won't the comet just pull the little object into itself and continue on it's merry way?

Second: Isn't there a theory somewhere that says something along the lines (I know it's not exactly like this) "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction"? So, our little object is pulling on the comet with it's gravity... doesn't that mean that there's got to be some opposing reaction that isn't going to make the comet move much?

I think that's a BS idea and we need better comet defense than flying wingman to it trying to gently move it away.

I think he was saying that we could put something near Earth's orbit to adjust the planet's course, since the whole point of adjusting the course of a large asteroid/comet would still cause it to hit Earth.

Nez, not quite. Boog, not necessarily.

Nez, using Newton's laws in our favor is possible. Put up a massive craft with self-propulsion to keep it at a distance from the comet so that they don't collide and the comet is consistently and constantly being moved from its course. Equal reaction still applies, except instead of them colliding, the comet is subtly chasing the craft the entire time.

Boog,

since the whole point of adjusting the course of a large asteroid/comet would still cause it to hit Earth.

If we encountered the comet as it is still years away, there's no reason to think that it couldn't be moved from its course enough that it would swing harmlessly by earth. Given enough time it's feasible. It's all about how early the comet is recognized.

So, it IS about making it miss earth! Make up your mind already. I might hit 5000 posts ahead of schedule!

[Leonaerd]

It's an interesting theory, and I don't know enough about physics to say whether or not it would work, but with my limited knowledge and mindset, I can't picture it working.

Although it's on a supermassiveexplosivelylarge scale, the physics behind the operation isn't all that complicated.

Find comet
fly ship out
maintain distance from comet

The rest irons itself out.... given enough time. What happens is the comet will slowly accelerate in the direction of the craft, and will deter from its original path. Imagine a 1/x graph, with a point near the asymptote being the point at which the craft is first rigged up against the comet. Actually, no need to imagine. I built one for you!

[Cracc]

The only thing that could keep a comet/asteroid away from earth with it's gravitational pull would be launching the biggest thing we have on the face of the planet at it.

Knowing what that object is, i quickly devised a plan that will keep us safe from any future catastrophes from outer space.

[Leonaerd]

I don't see Michigan on that globe. A little more scientific accuracy next time plx.