The overall implication was that humanity has, at best, a couple of thousand years to get to the point that we're able to deflect civilisation-threatening asteroids. Personally I'd hope to see it within the next two centuries (for the sake of my great-great-great-grandchildren!). I certainly don't say I can't see us ever getting there, but there's a lot that has to change before we even have a chance.

We have had the technological means for detecting and deflecting most asteroids for about 30 years. But as a civilization we have been preoccupied with other problems and wants and has not turned the technology into functioning systems. It would take about a decade and use the same skillset and manufacturing capability as for planetary probes, aviation and advanced weapon systems.

Its not our most immediate problem to solve but it would be a good example for serious long term planning.

And yet many people here see the only solution to the "long term viability" of human civilisation being to "power down" and end economic growth. Yet without advanced technology and high levels of surplus energy and wealth, we will never have the chance of protecting ourselves against such a disaster.

Quite the opposite actually.

Powerdown for society means more energy and resources available for important projects. You (not just you personally, most people here do it) conflate powerdown with some sort of lack of technology and lack of availability of energy to do anything.

Voluntary powerdown means that we change (among other things):

(1) Population. A reduction not only means more resources available per capita, but makes sustainable options more feasible and frees up resources for important global projects.

(2) The economy and our notion of economic "growth". Our economy is based on a system that fattens the few and bleeds the rest dry. This system can only squander resources. Just because it is our current system I think people have a hard time imagining anything else... but then TV and pop-culture tends to dull the imagination. Economic theory and financial theory are also tied up with current legal and political structures, so there would be some serious changes necessary... which is another reason I think so few people want to consider it. The idea of change doesn't appeal to many, even though it is the only sure thing.

(3) Our lifestyles. We in the developed world, in particular, waste a tremendous amount. That could be remedied with a powerdown lifestyle - living closer to the land (only really possible with fewer people), walking/public transport, more sustainable living practices, etc.

None of this detracts from long-term viability IMO. It only adds to it. Will it happen? I doubt any time soon - at least not voluntarily.

"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein

Reducing population? You first!

Oooo, clever grade school-level reply.

"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein

If that's your definition of "Powerdown" then I'm all for it, but I doubt that's what Heinberg and the like have in mind. And previously when I've mentioned the need for advanced technology to be able to protect ourselves from natural disasters, I've generally been scoffed at by those who see the only solution to the world's woes as some sort of return to a psuedo-agrarian age.