I wrote a science fiction novel about an asteroid crashing into Earth, and did some extensive research on the topic (including how large an asteroid has to be to cause worldwide damage).
Regarding global unity, my book takes the opposite stance. In it, futuristic superpowers U.S and China squabble about who should do what, and global politics destroys any chance of stopping the asteroid in time. Of course, there's much more to the story, and there wouldn't be much of a plot if there was 'global unity' :)
I haven't read it yet. I want to read it though as I am working on my follow up book right now and one of the concepts is a 'human genetic database' managed by an authoritarian one-world government entity.
Speaking of global unity, the central premise of my book (and the series) is that without the asteroid, the world descents into an authoritarian quagmire with endless laws, taxes and regulations, and they use technology to control every aspect of our lives.
Ahh cool. I ask because Seveneves has a much rosier (overly so in my opinion) end game, in terms of world powers cooperating and most of humanity also doing so, despite knowing for certain that almost everyone will die.
It's been a while since I've read the book, but if I recall correctly nukes are used against Venezuela when they disagree with launching supplies to the Ark project. There are further hints of looming conflict (e.g. Ivy's fiance mentioning the nuclear sub he was in was on high alert).
I also believe there were numerous delays of supplies and disagreements even within NASA / the U.S. space program. Not too certain of all the world powers cooperating, although admittedly their cooperation on the Ark project at all may seem odd, but doesn't seem out of place with the status quo and how world powers "get along" in regards to the ISS?
It definitely is better than GP's book, where the powers that be completely fail to work together - in Seveneves, the Ark project actually succeeds!
There is definitely some conflict, I just don't think there was enough of it. Part of it may just be the fact that there's not much focus on what's happening on the ground, so we just don't hear about how it's being dealt with.
I was most conflicted about how normal people would deal with it. Eg I would expect mass riots and looting, very little of which happens according to the book - only in Venezuela apparently. And the nukes are used on their military, about a few days before everyone is going to die anyways, so I don't really see it as that big of a deal - nukes just don't mean as much in such a scenario.
I'm also surprised at there being only a single Ark project - I'd have thought at least one nation, say China, would want to strike out on their own.
Somewhat related, I remember reading some research that talked about how during natural disasters you get very little in the way of riots and looting. Rather people have a strong urge to cooperate [1].
It doesn't mention it in the linked article, but I also remember hearing that the idea that people get very violent can cause serious issues as resources go into military-police rather than relief efforts.
It makes sense when you think about it evolutionary. The groups that fell apart when the going got tough were not the ones that survived!
Thanks for the article, it makes a lot of sense. Note that in this book, the doomsday scenario is predicted to happen 2 years in the future, so it's not quite the same as a natural disaster that has already happened. So I don't think it would look quite the same in terms of violence and how we've evolved. It's more like, imagine 30% of the population suddenly lose their jobs or something like that, you could probably see riots happening today.
I don't know, if we knew for certain the world was doomed, I would expect at least a substantial fraction of the world to spend their last years working towards the small hope of salvation rather than giving in to complete despair.
I agree, but I also think a significant fraction would not. I'd expect a lot of markets to crash and burn, as people quit for various reasons, with a lot of knock-on effects. I'm not sure how it would turn out, I just feel like the world would be turned upside down.
Now it could end up being like war-time economies which boom due to high demand for military goods, in this case for all the work needed to build a space colony. But in a war, at least people can hope to live on.
Thank you guys for the support. I'm also giving away free pre-release copies of book 2 in the series for people who join the email list on http://www.timecrossers.com
Regarding global unity, my book takes the opposite stance. In it, futuristic superpowers U.S and China squabble about who should do what, and global politics destroys any chance of stopping the asteroid in time. Of course, there's much more to the story, and there wouldn't be much of a plot if there was 'global unity' :)