I'm not sure what exactly you think we have that is going to kill every living thing on earth. Weaponized biological agents are engineered to infect humans. The majority of species are immune to them, just as we humans tend to be immune to diseases that infect trees or fish. These are also things that have been around for ages without destroying the biosphere. We modern humans didn't create anthrax; we merely engineered some more lethal strains of it. Besides which, many such agents are themselves biotic in nature. Even if anthrax somehow managed to kill off every other species on the planet, there would still be life on earth in the form of anthrax.
As for the world's nuclear arsenal, many weapons would probably decay over time rather than spontaneously detonate. If detonations did occur, the effects would be highly localized. Even if these resulted in thousands of years of local contamination, that is still an extremely short time on the biological scale, and the rest of the world would be minimally affected.
A nuclear war would be another story, but even then the bombs would be focused on the human population centers, not spread evenly across the globe. Nobody is likely to target Antarctica or the ocean floor for nuclear destruction. A nuclear war would cause severe global climate change, and this would lead to mass extinction, but life has survived plenty of mass extinctions before, and it would survive again were this to happen.
Is a stable micro black hole even dangerous? The numbers I've seen show a black hole like this would behave more or less like a neutrino. Maybe hitting an atom every few thousand or million years. The sun will enter its red giant stage, destroy Earth, and shrink down to a white dwarf before the black hole gains any significant mass. I don't think we will care much at that point.
It sounds like one stable micro black hole would not be dangerous. From the estimates I've heard, the LHC could produce as many as 1 black hole per second. I'm not clear on what proportion of its time the LHC would actually be running, but suppose that over the course of its lifetime, it spends 1 full year colliding particles.
One stable micro black hole might be safe. What about 30,000,000 of them?
What makes it a black hole isn't the absolute strength of its gravity. It's the fact that it's compressed, which means that you can get much, MUCH closer to its center of mass. Remember, the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of distance, and that makes the force skyrocket as you get closer and closer.
Conceptually, take your lead ball and place a particle at the surface, say a centimeter away from its center of mass. The gravitational force on the particle is negligible. Now collapse the lead ball into a black hole - its radius is now something like 10^-30 meters. While the particle is still a centimeter away, the force it experiences remains unchanged - but move it to the surface (the event horizon) once again, and it is now 10^28 times closer than it was before. The gravitational force on it increases by a factor of 10^56!
As an aside, a stellar mass black hole isn't the size of an atomic nucleus. It's about 30 km in radius, or about the size of Rhode Island.
So ironically, the earth would actually be destroyed by its own gravity, not that of the black hole.
Okay, firstly, a 23% sales tax isn't going to add $6 to the price of a $5 item, so it should be immediately obvious that your numbers are off. The actual final prices will be $5 * (1 +
Secondly, assume for the moment your figures were correct. Then Wal-Mart does have the advantage, because what is important is the difference between the percentages, which grows, and not the fact that both percentages increased by the same factor. However, since the percentages actually decrease by the same factor, the difference shrinks, and Wal-Mart in fact appears to be losing advantage under FairTax.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. -- John Kenneth Galbraith