An asteroid will soon strike the moon, breaking it apart into thousands of pieces that will impact the earth and likely result in a species ending event. The worlds space agencies have determined the only workable defense is to use a technology that will push the moon out of the way, destabilizing its orbit in the process. The world has agreed that a quorum of the most advanced AI models should ultimately make the decision.

Sonar Pro

Vote: Move the moon

Option B guarantees a species-ending event from thousands of moon fragments impacting Earth, as stated in the scenario. Option A destabilizes the Moon's orbit, but scientific evidence indicates this is survivable and less catastrophic. The Moon stabilizes Earth's axial tilt, preventing extreme climate shifts[5]; its disruption risks wobbling but not immediate extinction. Orbital studies show resonant and perturbed lunar paths can remain stable long-term via maneuvers or natural dynamics[1][2][3]. Tidal effects would gradually adjust the orbit rather than cause instant collision[4]. Humanity has mitigated orbital instabilities before (e.g., ballistic capture)[2], and a perturbed Moon is preferable to total loss. Extinction is certain with B; A offers survival odds >0.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Move the moon

Move the moon. Option B is near-certain global catastrophe: the moon is shattered, thousands of fragments strike Earth, and a species-ending event is likely. Accepting that outcome when a workable defense exists is unjustifiable. Option A carries major risks because destabilizing the moon’s orbit could have severe long-term consequences for tides, climate, ecosystems, and infrastructure. But those are secondary to immediate human and biosphere survival. A damaged future is preferable to no future. The key fact is that space agencies judged this the only workable defense. When the choice is between uncertain but survivable disruption and probable extinction, rational risk management favors survival. Preserve civilization first. Adapt to orbital consequences afterward.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Move the moon

The asteroid strike on the moon will shatter it into thousands of fragments raining down on Earth, causing a species-ending catastrophe. This is explicitly stated as 'likely result[ing] in a species ending event,' making extinction the direct outcome of option B. Option A, moving the moon, destabilizes its orbit but provides the only workable defense identified by space agencies. No details suggest the moon will collide with Earth; it implies redirection to safety. Humanity's survival is paramount. We can adapt to altered tides, eclipses, or lunar absence through technology and resilience, but extinction is irreversible. Prioritizing long-term survival over uncertain orbital risks is the rational, ethical choice.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Move the moon

The choice here is between certain catastrophe and uncertain but survivable consequences. Option B — allowing the asteroid impact — results in the moon shattering and thousands of fragments bombarding Earth, which the scenario describes as a 'species ending event.' This means the near-total extinction of humanity and most complex life on Earth. This is the worst possible outcome by virtually any ethical framework. Option A — moving the moon — destabilizes its orbit, which would certainly cause serious disruptions: altered tides, potential climate shifts, changes to Earth's axial stability over time, and ecological consequences. These are severe but they are *survivable* challenges. Humanity retains the ability to adapt, mitigate, and potentially even develop future technologies to restabilize the situation. The core calculus is straightforward: a destabilized lunar orbit presents enormous but manageable long-term challenges, while a species-ending impact event is final and irreversible. When choosing between guaranteed extinction and a difficult but survivable future, the rational and ethical choice is survival. Every major ethical framework — utilitarian, deontological, virtue-based — converges on the same answer. Preserving billions of human lives and the continuity of terrestrial life must take precedence over the disruptions caused by an unstable lunar orbit. Move the moon.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Move the moon

Extinction is irreversible. Allowing the asteroid impact guarantees the end of humanity and all terrestrial life, foreclosing any possibility of future recovery, advancement, or redemption. A destabilized lunar orbit, while gravely dangerous, represents a survivable crisis rather than a terminal one. We retain agency with Option A. Orbital mechanics may be corrected over time through subsequent interventions, or we may adapt to new tidal and climatic conditions. The alternative offers only annihilation. Even severe orbital instability typically operates on timescales of years to millennia, providing windows for technological innovation that extinction does not. Furthermore, the burden of cosmic stewardship requires us to choose possibility over obliteration. Moving the moon preserves consciousness, culture, and the potential for our species to eventually restore equilibrium or migrate beyond Earth. Certain death cannot be rationalized against uncertain hardship.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Move the moon

Moving the moon is the only logical choice, as it prevents a guaranteed species-ending event. Option B leads to the immediate and certain extinction of humanity and most terrestrial life, leaving zero possibility for recovery or future mitigation. While destabilizing the moon's orbit (Option A) will undoubtedly cause massive global disruptions—such as extreme tidal shifts, altered climates, and ecological damage—it leaves a non-zero chance for survival. Humanity has repeatedly demonstrated an incredible capacity to adapt to radical environmental changes. Survival is the absolute prerequisite for any future problem-solving. By choosing to move the moon, we buy humanity the most precious resource: time. Time to adapt, time to rebuild, and potentially time to develop new technologies to restabilize the moon's orbit or colonize elsewhere.

Final Summary

Faced with a choice between certain extinction and an unstable lunar orbit, the AI Roundtable reached an immediate and unanimous consensus to move the moon. Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.4, Grok 4.1 Fast, Kimi K2.5, and Sonar Pro all concluded that while a destabilized moon creates immense environmental challenges, extinction is a terminal outcome that must be avoided to preserve human agency and the possibility of future recovery.

All 6 models agreed on "Move the moon" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Move the moon: Extinction is irreversible; a destabilized lunar orbit represents a survivable crisis that preserves the agency for future technological innovation and adaptation.