Interestingly, although giant asteroids have certainly been responsible for some of the mass extinctions we see in the fossil record, apparently super volcanoes are also right up there. And I don't think there is a damn thing we can do about them

> apparently super volcanoes are also right up there. And I don't think there is a damn thing we can do about them

I'm not sure about that.

Don't get me wrong, an example of a super-volcano is Yellowstone National Park, so I agree we can't prevent them

Rather, looking at the pandemic response and various wars, I think (most) world governments are competent enough to re-organise labour and national diets to mitigate the problems one would cause: covering farms in poly-tunnels, having "national service" that's about building/repurposing farming infrastructure rather than military function, food rationing, changes to farming laws to make sure livestock is only on land that doesn't support intensive crops, etc.

> an example of a super-volcano is Yellowstone National Park, so I agree we can't prevent them

We absolutely can, and extract geothermal energy from the system to boot.

Are you sure?

Everything I've seen suggests that the thermal mass of the Yellowstone magma reservoir is order-of 10km each way (so 1000km^3 total), density order-of 3 kg/litre, and heat capacity order-of 1500 J/kg K, so lowering the temperature of that reservoir by 100 K would still yield about the entire world's energy consumption in 2017: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1000km%5E3+*+3kg%2Fl+*+...

Even though this would combine both left-coded and right-coded aspects of the USA's politics (right: the USA's love of energy intensity; left: in this scenario it helps the environment not be made of fire), I find it dubious that the US would (or could) construct enough power plants to reach that scale.

(China might even want to help, but at this point I find myself too cynical of both China and the USA for that to happen even in an emergency).