KEY POINTS:
The New Year is traditionally a time for resolutions and new directions, made particularly relevant this year by the fallout from the global economic crisis.
The gravity of the threat may even force a reappraisal of the prevailing economic model that has governed the world but which is demonstrably not in the long-term interests of humanity or, indeed, the planet as a whole.
The existing prescription is essentially based on continued economic growth on a worldwide basis.
This, however, is plainly unsustainable and would require three Earths if everyone in India or China, for instance, is to enjoy the comforts we take for granted in the West.
So what might an alternative paradigm, a "New Year's Resolution" for the planet look like?
First, there would be a reallocation of resources aimed at developing sustainable technologies.
The investment in this area is a tiny fraction of what is spent by most companies on advertising, yet a rational approach would give greater importance to research into fuel cell development, say, than to the latest hair growth formula for men.
Clearly a realignment away from the free market is unavoidable but not unprecedented.
During times of great peril even the United States has reacted in a manner not far removed from the Soviet Union: consider the diversion of resources from consumption that occurred in the course of World War II and later the Cold War such as the Manhattan Project, which led to the first atomic bomb, and to the Apollo project that put men on the Moon.
Today such an investment is even more necessary if our civilisation is to survive beyond the next century.
Secondly, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources will need to take place. To some extent, this has already occurred, as evidenced by the rise of much of Asia and the Middle East from the Third World to the First World in the last two decades.
However, the international community should adopt as a realistic objective the elimination of hunger throughout the globe within five years, partly financed through a "world equity tax" on multinational corporations.
Internationally enforced environmental and labour standards are also worthy objectives.
The free market approach has failed to reduce global carbon emissions. Communism may be out of fashion but, in the end, rationing is the only sure method for conserving resources. We already have fishing quotas and the like: it is not inconceivable that the future will see quotas on the consumption of oil, gas and water.
Thirdly, and perhaps most crucially, the future of humankind will hinge on its ability to discern the true nature of the universe and our relationship with it. This ought not to be an idle pursuit, left to a few scientists, but should be the concern of us all.
There has been a tendency in most of the leading universities to move away from fundamental research to servicing the needs of large corporations instead.
While remarkable strides have occurred in astronomy and physics, the most tantalising questions - such as whether we are alone in the universe - remain unanswered with paltry resources dedicated to their pursuit.
Likewise the investment dedicated to searching for asteroids on a possible collision course with Earth is minute compared with the military expenditure of advanced nations.
Unarguably, the threat represented by an extinction event such as an asteroid impact makes all other threats pale into insignificance.
Finally, the sad reality is that this wish list is about as likely to be followed as my resolution to give up chocolates and coffee.
We will no doubt be too preoccupied with the latest television reality show or sporting event when the asteroid hits us or the seas boil over to really care about the survival of our species.
Perhaps in the end we are no smarter than the dinosaurs.
Still, I bet the dinosaurs didn't make New Year's resolutions.
* Gehan Gunasekara teaches commercial law at the University of Auckland's Business School.
