Stephen Hawking Warns Against Confining Ourselves To Earth 414
alancronin writes with this excerpt from CNet:
"Stephen Hawking, one of the world's greatest physicists and cosmologists, is once again warning his fellow humans that our extinction is on the horizon unless we figure out a way to live in space. Not known for conspiracy theories, Hawking's rationale is that the Earth is far too delicate a planet to continue to withstand the barrage of human battering. 'We must continue to go into space for humanity,' Hawking said today, according to the Los Angeles Times. 'We won't survive another 1,000 years without escaping our fragile planet.'"
Earth isn't delicate, (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans are. Earth will continue even in an environment not hospitable to us, and life too will probably go on.
Re: Earth isn't delicate, (Score:5, Insightful)
Earth, as a system for sustaining human life, most certainly is delicate. Which would be what Stephen Hawking is talking about, and what you should be concerned about. Whether or not there are rotifers once we've managed to murder ourselves is something of an academic question.
Re: Earth isn't delicate, (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's just become a horde of locusts jumping from planet to planet consuming their resources and polluting them into lifeless rocks until a coalition of alien species has to band together to eliminate the threat humanity represents to the galaxy.
Or, learn how to survive on this planet before going out and colonizing another one.
Paradox (Score:3, Interesting)
So let's just become a horde of locusts jumping from planet to planet consuming their resources and polluting them into lifeless rocks until a coalition of alien species has to band together to eliminate the threat humanity represents to the galaxy.
Or, learn how to survive on this planet before going out and colonizing another one.
And wouldn't the energy, use of resources, and capital that would be necessary to venture into space accelerate the decline of this planet?
Space travel isn't exactly a "green" endeavor.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>> Space travel isn't exactly a "green" endeavor.
I agree. I also disagree with the spacer point of view that we need to find a new planet to suck dry as quickly as possible before this one runs out.
Re:Paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
The Earth is one collision or one solar event away from complete sterilization.
Agreed.
... even without anthropocentric global warming and the like.
ITYM "anthropogenic."
Humans spreading across the stars is our only know chance of intelligent life sustaining an existence.
Once done (my opinion's mostly based on SF reading I've done), what's the point? All those far-flung human colonies are going to immediately differentiate from each other, leading to "us vs. them" on a galactic scale, so what really is the point of this exercise? Preservation of homo sapiens' DNA regardless? What for?
What's the point of the universe if there is nothing to appreciate it?
Now, that's anthropocentric. The Universe managed quite well for aeons before we dropped in and it'll continue to do so long after we're extinct. We're not the raison d'etre (despite many of us being convinced we are).
Re:Paradox (Score:4, Insightful)
Our population grows at an exponential rate. Strictly speaking, we're not overpopulated now, but in a few generations we will be. We probably won't run out of room before food production can no longer keep up. We may find a more efficient way to produce food that can keep up, but the fact is that this will only slow down the problem. When we do run out of room (or approach that point, anyway), illness will spread quite readily, the end result being plagues, regardless of our collective hygiene. We could solve this by having regularly scheduled mass death events every few hundred years, such as nuclear wars, or maybe we can get playful with it and do some kind of gladiatorial games. Perhaps better yet, is to just get a large portion of our population to colonize new worlds. That's perhaps the only practical solution that doesn't directly involve people dieing.
This solution doesn't address the environment. This is not meant to be a solution for the environment. This is a solution for human kind. There's no reason why we can't continue to develop environmentally friendly technologies while working toward colonizing other worlds. In fact, I'd say the goals are quite compatible, as technologies which require fewer resources will contribute nicely to founding new civilizations.
Re: (Score:3)
We are only capable of existing in these numbers by depleting fossile fuels for both transport and the growth of food.
That is the main issue, we ARE over-populated but we just keep marching on.
Re:Paradox (Score:5, Informative)
Hawking ought to be more concerned about remaining confined to his chair.
Hawking ought to be long dead by now. And he currently speaks at about one word per minute [slashgear.com] (via a twitch of a muscle on his cheek). Do you really think he doesn't get that? "Concern" doesn't magically reverse a medical condition for which we have no clue how to cure.
But his concern may help save the human race. I think his priorities are in order.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I vote we go the locust route
Re: (Score:3)
Seconded. Just watch out for Orks, they're doing the same thing, and have been at it longer. And I guess watch for Tyranids too, they do the same thing down to mid-mantle before moving on.
Re: Earth isn't delicate, (Score:2, Interesting)
People don't need planets to live. Or, at least, not to live on. Lagrange points to anchor habitats are a nice touch. Give me low G, controlled weather, and no Mosquitos any day. Get us out of 'natural' ( ignoring the natural/unnatural false dichotomy) environments and in to ones designed by engineers to handle hard human loving.
Re: Earth isn't delicate, (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm aware this is slashdot, but not everyone is happy living in their parents basement. For your own sake, try to stay off the internet for a little while and see what the world is really like.
But some people really are happy spending their time indoors, gaming, reading, whatever. You may not have come across them in your well adjusted, adventurous life, but not everyone enjoys nature.
To each his own, and maybe the introverted basement dwelling geeks will make the best long-term spacefarers.
Re: (Score:3)
Basement-dwelling usually does not go hand-in-hand with making useful stuff. There's a certain rough nature to proper engineering and being coddled in a space without a proper shop and ventilation isn't conducive to creativity in the physical dimensions. The builders of our civilizations usually are not basement dwellers; even the introverted asperger types.
Re: (Score:2)
Bow chicka bow wow!
Re: Earth isn't delicate, (Score:5, Funny)
People don't need planets to live. Or, at least, not to live on. Lagrange points to anchor habitats are a nice touch. Give me low G, controlled weather, and no Mosquitos any day. Get us out of 'natural' ( ignoring the natural/unnatural false dichotomy) environments and in to ones designed by engineers to handle hard human loving.
Yes. Because when you think about luxurious comfort "designed by engineers" is the first thing that comes to mind.
Re: Earth isn't delicate, (Score:4, Informative)
Humans don't actually handle low G all that well.. Vision degrades. Bones weaken. Muscle tone is lost. It would be many generations in that environment before we adapted or evolved to live comfortably in it. We need gravity. We need bugs (and the whole ecosystem). We need changing weather. Without the later two, you won't have well sustained food crops.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans don't actually handle low G all that well.. Vision degrades. Bones weaken. Muscle tone is lost. It would be many generations in that environment before we adapted or evolved to live comfortably in it. We need gravity. We need bugs (and the whole ecosystem). We need changing weather. Without the later two, you won't have well sustained food crops.
You don't have to live in zero or even low gravity for long-term space travel - just design the ship to provide 1G of artificial gravity. it would take a large ship, but you'd probably want a large ship if you're going to be living on it for your entire life. You could design it as a large rotating ring, but It needn't be a complete ring, you could have 2 living pods connected by a long beam.
You'd need a radius of around 225m to provide 1G at 2rpm of revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity isn't hard to simulate, and space has no shortage of either energy or raw materials if we want to cultivate foodstuffs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or we can just send Hawking and be done with his babble if he wants to go so bad. You got it right though, Human beings are just a Virus, moving into areas just to consume it's resources, only to move on to another after we've laid barren the lands. Guy down below is right also, at the rate we are going, I doubt we'll survive another 100 years without change.
The problem is, we can't change because all we care about is money. The day we stop caring about money and start working to better Humanity and our tin
Re: (Score:3)
I know where all you are comming from, but that's what life does, all of it. The idea that it's something restricted to virus and people is a romantic illuded idea.
Now, please explain what is the difference between we "consuming all of space's resources", or we not doing that. Who, or what gets hurt either way?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Or we can just send Hawking and be done with his babble if he wants to go so bad.
Hawking has been paralyzed for decades. It isn't that he wants to go to space, he wants humanity to survive.
You got it right though, Human beings are just a Virus, moving into areas just to consume it's resources, only to move on to another after we've laid barren the lands.
Then explain the existence of farms. You have it backwards - we're one of very few species that doesn't do that.
The problem is, we can't change because all
Re: (Score:3)
I can't say that we are even worth saving.
Why are you still typing when you could be jumping off a cliff and improving the world just a bit?
Re: Earth isn't delicate, (Score:5, Insightful)
What misanthropic crap. We can survive on this planet just fine, despite this planet's repeated, persistent, and very nearly successful efforts to wipe us out many times throughout history. The realisation of what we were doing to the biosphere has been slow in coming but I'm greatly encouraged by recent developments. Mother nature has done far worse before we humans ever made an appearance, and in case you've forgotten, the fate of the planet and all its glorious diversity WITHOUT humanity is to become cold stellar dust.
We are also the first and perhaps only living beings to have adapted sufficiently to the environment to be able to go into space, and like it or not that makes us special. We do need to take advantage of that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The planet needs humanity or it will turn to dust? You sound religious.
We are not the only living beings who have gone to space. Bacteria regularly take trips there encased in their own protective shuttles. Here's an article from a few months ago.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/loads-of-bacteria-hiding-out-in-storm-clouds-130124.htm
Re: (Score:3)
Or, learn how to survive on this planet before going out and colonizing another one.
Check, We did that. I'm sure you don't actually mean any reasonable definition of "survive", but some bullshit condition that is far harder to achieve. If we only progressed when random people with arbitrary conditions thought we should progress, we'd still be swinging in trees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Earth isn't delicate, (Score:5, Informative)
Or, learn how to survive on this planet before going out and colonizing another one.
There are things that could happen that would make it very difficult if not impossible to survive on this planet no matter how much we've learned about surviving. Like a supervolcano eruption putting enough ash in the air to shade the entire planet, sudden release of ocean methane stores, a large asteroid strike, etc.
Any of these events are unlikely, but any of them could happen tomorrow. Even if they don't lead to extinction, the collapse of civilization would prevent us from leaving the planet for a long long time.
Re: Earth isn't delicate, (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, living on Earth under a rain of poison flaming gas and ash is still a heck of a lot easier than living in space (or the Moon or Mars). If you can't survive and thrive in the very worst conditions this planet has to offer, then you won't do better off outside the atmosphere.
Barmy littlle twat, this Hawking fellow. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems to think we need to change EVERYTHING but our selves.
"Here, we've been first-rate buggers and pissed all over this trash heap.Let's move n to our next noble and inspiring endeavour - locating the next places where we can foul our own nest."
Why doesn't he get out and run around a little more often? Fresh air and sunshine! It'd clear the cobwebs in that addled brain of his.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems to think we need to change EVERYTHING but our selves.
"Here, we've been first-rate buggers and pissed all over this trash heap.Let's move n to our next noble and inspiring endeavour - locating the next places where we can foul our own nest."
Why doesn't he get out and run around a little more often? Fresh air and sunshine! It'd clear the cobwebs in that addled brain of his.
Perhaps it is because one of the most intelligent people to ever live among is isn't anywhere near as ignorant as you are in thinking that 7 billion people will EVER change their ways enough to survive here.
We won't.
Speaking of fresh air and sunshine, feel free to remove your head from your ass and get some yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Then going elsewhere will just delay the inevitable. If we can't survive here, where it's still rather lush, then good luck where it's fucking bleak in comparison.. where just about everything we have there we will have brought from here, and where our current behaviour would end the adventure even quicker than it might on Earth.
"Endless growth" is the strategy of a virus, or of cancer; if you *need* endless growth to just survive, something is super fucked up. What is destroying our planet and our society
Re: (Score:3)
He perceives the farthest, most exotic places in the universe, but can't comprehend more than half of the human population. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/stephen-hawking-women-a-mystery_n_1184468.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Re:Barmy littlle twat, this Hawking fellow. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
it's all about priorities isn't it? Money is far more important than humanity's future. Sure there will be lives lost. But it won't be mine and I don't love my children. So who cares?!
--the people who keep it going.
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of humans seem far too stupid too live in a hostile environment anyway. When we need to colonize or things go to hell here, I think a little Darwin-ism will reassert itself. I'm hoping short-sighted people like that are amongst the people that will eventually be thinned out.
Re: (Score:3)
You're very optimistic. You're talking about humans who lived and survived in harsh environments.
Most modern humans haven't walked hundreds of miles to more survivable areas, and couldn't even feed themselves if given a knife in the wild. In an ELE, a high guess would be a handful of small tribes per continent surviving. In an ELE, the dead don't just disappear. They leave massive fields of rotting flesh, feeding disease ridden bugs and other scavengers.
Re: (Score:3)
We'd likely even survive the death of Earth if we really tried hard enough. By that, I mean the natural death, not the star-engulfed death.
We can survive the star-engulfed death as well by simply not being here when it happens. It just means that one has to live further away from the Sun than Earth currently is.
It is already hanging on by a thread as is
Nonsense. For example, one of the biggest volcanic eruptions of the past 26 million years (the Toba supervolcano eruption) happened about 69-77k years ago and didn't come close to ending life on Earth. If life on Earth were truly hanging by a thread, you know, an easy to cut thing, then you'd expect at least a much more profound impact
Re: (Score:2)
You're right.
Here's an interesting essay that examines the feasibility of destroying the Earth by various means. [qntm.org]
Re: (Score:3)
In the end, does it really matter? Life will or won't continue on this rock. In time, this rock won't continue, after it's cooked dry to look like Mercury and finally absorbed into the sun.
If we care about the continuity of humanity, we need to spread to other planets in other solar systems, and in time to other galaxies.
Life will continue somewhere. We evolved over billions of years. Life has or will evolve in other places. it may be a passing curiosity, or a widespread and ongoing thing in the univers
Re: (Score:3)
A big question to me, though, is why we should "care about the continuity of humanity." I care a lot about the lives of actual living humans; but often see concern for the abstract class of "humanity" getting seriously in the way of caring for humans.
Consider for a moment that humanity is not the highest rung on the evolutionary ladder. Consider for a moment that what is truly great about this world is the wonderfully complex self replicating interactions it has in the way of life forms. The most complex interactions occur within the most complex brains, but the whole ecosystem is of value. What if there were even larger, more complex, interactions that could occur. What if Sensing, Deciding and Action could be carried out on scales no single human
Re: (Score:2)
Also the sheer amazing coincident of life is mindboggling. It still is quite fragile. It might be one of a kind we should take life as such very seriously.
Even tho life on earth still has to produce some level of intelligence. We had some hope on rats and dolphins but they were a bit of a disappointment.
Re: (Score:3)
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is that those who decide where our resources go can't see further than 10 years. (and being optimistic, here)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The sad part is where our resources have gone every time in the last century that somebody decided they had 'figured it out' and knew how to direct everyone else's resources.
Just as it is dubious to claim that mankind is all-powerful enough to completely destroy the earth, it's dubious to act like any human agency is capable of directing the 'whole show' to fix things.
Hundreds of millions of people died in the 20th century because of zealous 'leaders' who had the plan all figured out and achieved enough pow
Re: (Score:2)
"We won't survive another 1,000 years without escaping our fragile planet." The sad part is that those who decide where our resources go can't see further than 10 years. (and being optimistic, here)
Yes. That's very optimistic. Election cycles are 6 years at most in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a place in our solar system that's more hospitable to human life than Earth, now or in a thousand years? There's your problem right there.
Re: (Score:2)
There could well be a place more hospitable in a couple months, if North Korea, America and China all play there part.
Mars could be a lot more hospitable than an earth burning with nuclear (and biological) fallout...
If we can't manage a planets resources... (Score:3, Insightful)
...then we are basically a cosmic cancer.
Re:If we can't manage a planets resources... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The second law of thermodynamics is only true in a closed system. Planets aren't closed systems.
Re: (Score:3)
the masses of the universe are accelerating away from each other at in increasing rate
Nope. Acceleration is no longer F=m*a here. The space is stretching, but there's no actual change in energy or the thermodynamics of the system except that stuff slides off the edge of the universe which actually makes our entropy issues worse since our universe is losing information at a high rate.
Re: (Score:3)
...then we are basically a cosmic cancer.
Quite right. Furthermore, and this is where I find difficult to follow Hawking's spiel, if we entertain the dream that we will eventually find another place to live, this will be used to keep the lid, the already quite heavy lid, on efforts to properly address environmental issues on planet earth.
Re:If we can't manage a planets resources... (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, we can continue to have century after century of bad ideas on how to deal with human population on Earth - things like divine providence, eugenics, dictatorship of the proletariat, urban planned development, arcologies, etc. In space settlements, you have to get most of that right or you die.
So what is better, a comfortable place where we can continue to goof around for many lifetimes to come (that is the true "heavy lid" of which you speak), or a tough environment that forces us to be better? To actually solve the problems that you apparently care about?
Re: (Score:3)
I think that idiots and their "proper" ways to address environmental issues are one of the problems that we can solve by moving into space. There won't be any natural biospheres in most of space to interfere with human endeavors. And we can work out the environmental issues there without input from the people who think we should do that in only a particular way.
For example, we can continue to have century after century of bad ideas on how to deal with human population on Earth - things like divine providence, eugenics, dictatorship of the proletariat, urban planned development, arcologies, etc. In space settlements, you have to get most of that right or you die.
So what is better, a comfortable place where we can continue to goof around for many lifetimes to come (that is the true "heavy lid" of which you speak), or a tough environment that forces us to be better? To actually solve the problems that you apparently care about?
One would have to be pretty naive to think that social problems aptterns from this planet wouldn't follow people to the stars, unless you are thinking that you would be in command and everybody would just bow down and do things your way.
Re: (Score:3)
>> So what should we do
Learn how to steward our limited resources and control put population and industry? That's just a guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agenda 21 is that certain types of men are a cancer, not all of mankind. My kind of man is, of course, acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer is a human disease, which has perfect meaning this context.
Re: (Score:2)
CORRECTION (Score:2)
Re:CORRECTION (Score:5, Insightful)
It's extremely small minded/short sighted of the worlds most famous physicist, to assume the current system will keep chugging along, with business as usual, for a THOUSAND more years. He should do a little historical research...
You're right. Given the historical precedent, I'd say mankind will probably find faster, more efficient ways to deplete the planet of its resources in well under a thousand years.
Re: (Score:2)
It's extremely small minded/short sighted of the worlds most famous physicist, to assume the current system will keep chugging along, with business as usual, for a THOUSAND more years.
Well, he's opinionating a little out of his field. Kind of like a sociologist opinionating about subatomic particle physics. Where's Hari Seldon when you need him?
Fragile. (Score:2, Insightful)
The planet is not fragile.
- The planet is fine - the people are fucked.
What a load of crap, coming from a idol.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe we already have...
Obligitory XKCD (Score:4, Insightful)
http://what-if.xkcd.com/7/ [xkcd.com]
Basically, this advice either boils down to "get out if/while you can", or else we're going to have to take some amazing steps to even get a small portion of the population out of the gravity well.
Which is actually good advice from one perspective - it's a very good negotiating approach.
We know that all paths we see before us seem to lead to epic population tragedies.
The cost of each of them is almost unlimited, in terms of taking away a meaningful future for humanity.
The private sector very strongly resists any attempt to do basic non-commercial research that can lead to a solution to any of these tragedies (and in fact is at least the indirect cause of many of them).
The reasonable answer, without requesting it, would seem to be an increase in funding by many of the nations of the earth for basic research. An increase in space exploration by China, for instance, would lead to a new space race, meaning more research and education.
More research and education will lead to progress towards solving basic problems, and possible escape from earth.
But for now in the US, conservatives think it will lead to more liberals, so it will be opposed strongly until they fear China enough to allow some progress.
Ryan Fenton
Low Earth Orbit (Score:2)
Escape the Solar System (Score:3)
Do we dare play for the longest payoff and work for future generations to have the resources and tech they need to spread out, or do we continue to think only of the immediate future? How do we prevent the latter from cannibalizing humanity and resources for their own gain while working on these "blue sky" issues, rely on those few who have "beaten them at their own game" and amassed large fortunes of their own? - HEX
Only if it's profitable (Score:3)
More to worry about the next 100 years (Score:2)
Yeah, we're so great that... (Score:2)
Aaaah, all those new cosmic markets of unlimited potential, just sitting there,waiting for our neo-liberalism, our lawyers and our banking system All those rivers to poison, life-forms to exterminate...We'll share with aliens everywhere all the greatest recent accomplishments of human civilization: we'll sell them iPhones, have them have Facebook accounts, invite them on Oprah. And if they happen to have lots of oil...well, even better: we'll prete
M-Theory (Score:2)
He's right in one respect (Score:3, Insightful)
Population.
To continue at the way we intelligent monkeys are going, the 'earth' will soon give up.
Lets take a quick look at how quick this could happen:
In the UK there about 60,000,000 people. Lets suppose only half of that number eat eggs. Lets suppose that only half of that number have an egg (or a product that contains eggs) a day.
That is STILL 15,000,000 eggs a day that need to be produced in the UK alone ~ let alone the rest of the World.
Now consider other things in a similar vain: heat(power/fuel et al), water, rice, wheat, potatoes etc.
It soon gets pretty scary thinking what can happen if/(when) the infrastructure breaks down.
The only way to get on is to EXPAND into other places ~ but there isn't any left here on Earth now.
Re: (Score:3)
Population.
To continue at the way we intelligent monkeys are going, the 'earth' will soon give up.
Lets take a quick look at how quick this could happen:
In the UK there about 60,000,000 people. Lets suppose only half of that number eat eggs. Lets suppose that only half of that number have an egg (or a product that contains eggs) a day.
That is STILL 15,000,000 eggs a day that need to be produced in the UK alone ~ let alone the rest of the World.
Now consider other things in a similar vain: heat(power/fuel et al), water, rice, wheat, potatoes etc.
It soon gets pretty scary thinking what can happen if/(when) the infrastructure breaks down.
The only way to get on is to EXPAND into other places ~ but there isn't any left here on Earth now.
The problem you describe is not one of capacity, but one of distribution. There is more than enough food and resources to go around. However, when certain countries, who remain unamed, have a minority of the world's population, but consume the majority of the world's resources, then an imbalance is created. Those same countries are now worried about an obesity epidemic while half way around the planet there is famine and starvation.
In 1972, Pope Paul VI said "If you want peace, work for justice." The firs
False. Don't space travel! (Score:2)
"God probably has life forms on every planet and star. Earth he has given to the sons of men. He wants us to stay here and don't space travel. We are to live on a perfected earth as perfect humans..God's plan for earth from the beginning..it will be done."
A common human viewpoint: (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like quite a number of the people answering are quite happy to see those they like go extinct in order to revel in the anticipation of the extinction of those they don't like.
*shrug* To steal the title of Dan Ariely's book: Predictably Irrational.
It's a perverse modification of the judgement of Solomon with the mother saying "That's fine, as long as I can be sure her half of the child is truly dead."
Hawking is just afraid to die. (Score:2)
Hawking is a cool dude, he has a wheelchair that communicates for him.
Other then that, I don't listen to him, he's a bit unbalanced mentally, IMO.
Dude is smart, had a brilliant mind. Now though? I think he's feeling old and frail and his fear of death shows in his statements.
Re: (Score:3)
Now though? I think he's feeling old and frail and his fear of death shows in his statements.
Maybe he's regretting trying to disprove the existing of God and is concerned that if he was wrong on that account, it may not bode well. Lucky for him, he was born into a european culture that had it's pinnings on a judea-christian belief that you care for the sick and the weak instead of only the fittest survive. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been here to do all of the work he has done.
Of course, the strength of that culture is much less today than it was when Hawking was born and with the push in modern
Why do we take these statements seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
One thousand years? Seriously? If we think that the planet we currently inhabit is going to become more hostile for human habitation than any other place in the solar system in the next thousand years, what sorts of scenarios are we talking about? Even if we got hit by another major comet, this planet ould STILL be tremendously more habitable for humans than anywhere else. What sort of extraterrestrial habitation do we envision that wouldn't be orders of magnitude less expensive without leaving the gravity well?
By far, the greatest threats to humanity are certain non-malevolent activities of other humans. Might some extraterrestrial science help in solving some of the problems created by these activities? Sure. However, we need to keep in mind that sending some 'seed' of humanity to space isn't going to improve the lives of other humans here on Earth. Thinking that everyone is better off because of the 'success' of a few is the very sort of thinking which makes it more difficult to solve the social problems which are causing us to think this way to begin with. So, as much as I respect cosmologists and other space scientists, they need to set their egos aside before making policy recommendations to improve the lot of humanity.
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the question. Why?
Hawking is a proponent that everything that we know about the universe happened on its own, there is no higher power, no purpose, none of that. The fact that we are here discussing all of this is just because of randomness. As such, what difference does it make if the human race goes on or not? What are we preserving for future generations or even the rest of the universe? Our (the human race) contributions to the universe are no more important than that of an ameoba. We are here because of pure chance and whether we are here a 1000 years from now or not doesn't change anything. It is only our own eqotism that would lead to the conclusion that we must leave the planet because eventually we will become extinct here. Everyone reading this will eventually die, too. That is how the universe works.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that (Score:3)
Good luck with that.
If we cannot survive on the planet that nurtured us for millions of years, we might be doomed to destroy the habitability of every planet we touch, assuming we find a habitable planet, and export enough genetic diversity, and plants and animals to survive as a species.
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
I think he's wrong. While escaping our planet is a great way of increasing our chances of survival as a species in the extremely long run, even if we completely destroy the ecosystem that keeps us alive, planet earth is still a vastly less hostile environment than just about the entire known universe.
Leaving Earth really won't help us at all. Only finding an exact copy Earth will help us. And chances of doing so are pretty much zero. We might find something that provides us with energy, resources and a magnetic field, though, but finding a place were we'd be able to breathe outside, even after terraforming the hell out of it, is an unrealistic goal. And even then, I'd rather be locked up in a biosphere on a dead planet earth than on some foreign world.
And even that would be pretty damn hard; possibly the biggest hurdle to take would be to create a proper artificial self-sustaining isolated ecosystem to keep us alive. I don't think we've managed to do that yet, though ESA, amongst others, is working on that.
How quick to judge SH (Score:3)
Stephen Hawking is probably a good deal smarter than most of us. How quickly most folks here discount that and assume that he hasn't considered some basic and obvious fact or evaluated some assumption. 1000 years is a heck of a long time for a civilization. If this guy thinks on that scale, he's obviously not considering the constraints that are true for us today.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But he has one cool armchair. :)
Save a place for me in hell.. Right by all the whores and drugs, and rock & roll music..
Re: (Score:2)
Until, of course, we become the owl... at which point we need to hide from farmers with shot guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Chicken farmers seem to be enough, I would say. And perhaps hunters. Also consider that in advanced enough civilization *individuals* might have the power to eliminate our young stellar empire (picture a few kids flooding an anthill with a garden hose).
The old joke (Score:2)
Mr. Hawking went on a date:
It was his first one in over ten years. When he came back, his glasses were smashed, his wrists broken. He had twisted his ankle and grazed his knees.
Apparently she stood him up.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong!
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/27/stephen-hawking-holds-it-together-in-zero-g-vomit-comet/ [engadget.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Since some people die before having children, or simply decide not to, 2 children per family would quickly lead to the extinction of our race.
Re: (Score:2)
But there is nowhere else in the entire universe that's anywhere near as friendly to humans as Earth.
We don't know one way or another, but if you're talking about the entire universe, there are billions of stars in just this galaxy alone. Mars was once wet and warm enough for humans to live comfortably on. It's highly unlikely that there are no other habitable planets anywhere. There probably are in our own galaxy.
Re:Not too bright (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if there's a literal Heavenly Paradise a mere 1000 light years away, that's as unfriendly to humans as the surface of Venus.
How, pray tell, is one supposed to make the six quadrillion mile journey to get there?
With the amount of energy you'd need to send just a single schoolbus-sized Space Shuttle that distance fast enough that the astronauts wouldn't be collecting Social Security several hundred millennia before they got there (which actually is physically possible thanks to relativistic time dilation), you could power the most ludicrous imaginable planet-wide environmental cleanup program here on Earth. Hell, with that much energy, you could probably terraform Mars as a side job, turn it into a luscious garden. And that's just a single ship....
Suggesting we colonize the Solar System to protect the species, as Professor Hawking has done, is simply idiotic. But the stars? They're beyond idiocy.
Cheers,
b&
Re: (Score:3)
Colony ships need at least as much energy, if not more. You've got an entire postmodern industrial complex to keep running, after all -- plus, you've also got the added energy overhead from recycling literally everything.
And sleeper ships are a no-go. At those timescales, any and all gasses will leak out of any container, no matter how thick and sturdy, as surely as it does from a rubber balloon...plus all your plastics and rubber will turn brittle, your silicon chips will be completely fried from cosmic ra