LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks1000 years give or take a couple of hundred sounds about right to me, and I thought hawking was more of an optimist. My mistake, but yes I do believe he's getting it right.
Hawking: Mankind has 1,000 years to escape Earth ? RT News
12Likes
May 24th, 2013, 05:59 PM
1000 years give or take a couple of hundred sounds about right to me, and I thought hawking was more of an optimist. My mistake, but yes I do believe he's getting it right.
Hawking: Mankind has 1,000 years to escape Earth ? RT News
I agree with him because I have strong doubts humanity will amend its ways anytime soon, no matter how informed we are of the dangers.
As a society we never have taken the long view of things. It's just not good for business. The short sighted bastards.Originally Posted by Neverfly
1,000 years might BE optimistic. I've always figured we had about half that time.
But humans have already "left the earth" and went to the moon, or has he forgotten already?
I don't really know that leaving the Earth is the answer. If we level out our numbers and don't overpopulate the world or turn it into a wasteland, we can stay here indefinitely. Like Bad Robot said, we just need to learn to look up every once in a while. When you stare at the ground as you walk, you might not trip over a curb, but you'll never see that bus coming right at you.
On the contrary unless it's an electric bus, you will, in fact, hear it coming.
Maybe we'll meet the intelligence life in another planet.
areyouallfreakinginsane?
Y'all remind me of those nuts of 40 years ago walking around in robes and signboards which declared
"THE END IS NEAR"
Mend your evil ways and come back to jesus?
.....................
forget escape
love the earth that bred and bore you as you love your mother
and we'll all do well.
I wish it was in human nature to do as you suggested. Because the fact is, is even if we do find another place in this galaxy to call home and can put some people there, the rest of us will still be stuck here. But like Hawking, I have a desire to see the human species survive extinction and the best way to do that is not to have all our eggs in one basket.
I think that there is far too much "doom and gloom" and that the resilience of this earth is far too undervalued.
When we are capable of traveling the stars, then that will offer us an opportunity to colonize many exoplanets, and it is a worthy goal.
But claiming less than 1000 years is pure lunacy, borne of ignorance and prejudice.(no offense intended to any of you ignorant prejudiced bastards)
I'm thinking nuclear drive space ships, with massive sails to catch and ride the solar winds, and then the cosmic winds.
Meanwhile, plant some trees
reduce
repair
rebuild
retask
then recycle everything under your control.
"escape" is like a small child running away from home
far better to grow up and make of your home a better place.
The reason we have doom & gloom people is because we have a lot of examples in history to support that point of view. As far as the resilience of this earth is concerned, that is not in question. The Earth will do just fine with or without humans. The current mild climate on Earth won't last. Humans may be speeding up the change in Earths climate, but it will change on it's own without humans doing anything. Either way that change will be bad for human living conditions. It won't take a whole lot of climate change to cause a major population crash and our current state of high tech living could be a very short lived house of cards.
Humans could struggle for survival for a long time before going extinct. But only a high tech human population will get us to the stars if were ever going to get there. IMO if humans can't take advantage of our technological advances now, we may not get a second chance later as the resources on the planet won't support it. Because we are using them up. Sure it's easy to say something new will come up when we need it. Maybe yes and maybe no, but if we have a climate set back, can we get back to where we are now without the same resources we are enjoying now? I wouldn't want to bet on it.
Where did he come up with 1000 years? What is supposed to happen within that time?
I don't know, but 1000 years is a good round number and it's a good bet a lot of shit is going to happen before we reach 1000 years from now. As I said in the OP, I thought this was a bit pessimistic for Hawking, but I'm open for discussing his motives for saying what he did.
I'm pretty sure he thinks our window of opportunity to get human settlements going on other worlds is a lot shorter than most others believe. The one fact that you can't argue with is if we don't spread out to other worlds we are guaranteed to go extinct.
He used 1000 years, IMO, to make humans want to hurry developing ways to travel through space, away from Earth. He is only lighting a fire under everyone to make them hurry along with their intergalactic travels and forgets about trying to save the Earth.
Just because he wants to push the space travel point of view, doesn't mean he's not in favor of saving the Earth for as long as possible. Remember whether we leave or not, most of us will be here on Earth regardless of what happens.
Er, couldn't leaving the Earth be considered the most heinous crime committed by humanity? I'm not against space travel, but leaving the Earth instead of attempting to maintain it spells genocide for almost every other species that lives here. Sentient species, in some ways similar to ourselves. In 1,000 years I imagine humans will have far greater abilities to alter the global environment, whether through improved reforestation processes, or just minimizing our pollution output. Why buy another house when it's cheaper and better for your family if you just fix the problems of your current house?
1000 years is a long time. Given the trend of earth warming, we might not have more than 100 years.
Then why doesn't he ever mention trying to save the Earth but instead only considers space travel? I've never seen him once try to encourage environmental clean ups or other environmental issues to lend his name in trying to help with that endeavor, wonder why not?Just because he wants to push the space travel point of view, doesn't mean he's not in favor of saving the Earth for as long as possible. Remember whether we leave or not, most of us will be here on Earth regardless of what happens.
I didn't see any persuasive arguments from Hawking that we face extinction in that time frame or that, even badly damaged as it's bound to be, our world would be less habitable and have less resources than anything that space has to offer. I suspect the garbage tips we are leaving for future generations will contain more and more usable resources for a struggling humanity than all the asteroids and comets.
I really don't think our problems are ones of limits of resources and technologies or of lack of frontiers, but of failures of social organisation and governance. We are failing to incorporate understanding of the limits of our world and knowledge of consequences into our personal, business or collective choices and I think that's something we are going to have to fix first, before we can succeed at such grand schemes as colonising space. Without sorting that out first the seeds of failure go with those 'lucky' few - and without a big world that has enough room and time for people to make mistakes and learn from them, failures truly can lead to extinction.
Last edited by Ken Fabos; May 25th, 2013 at 07:31 PM.
I'd agree with you on that.We are failing to incorporate understanding of the limits of our world and knowledge of consequences into our personal, business or collective choices and I think that's something we are going to have to fix first, before we can succeed at such grand schemes as colonising space.
There's lot's of more qualified scientists to talk about that subject and they have been. Not many scientists are willing to go out on a limb and say we need to also find other places to live within a given amount of time or it will never happen. I happen to agree with his view, but think 1000 years might be a bit optimistic on his part.Then why doesn't he ever mention trying to save the Earth but instead only considers space travel? I've never seen him once try to encourage environmental clean ups or other environmental issues to lend his name in trying to help with that endeavor, wonder why not?Just because he wants to push the space travel point of view, doesn't mean he's not in favor of saving the Earth for as long as possible. Remember whether we leave or not, most of us will be here on Earth regardless of what happens.
Another thing he has talked about that I agree with, is we should quit trying to contact aliens thinking they will be benevolent to us. They will be very dangerous anyway you want to look at them if they find us. Life as we know it will be gone. However that could be good if they save us from ourselves even to make slaves out of us.
Don't worry all of the communications humans have sent out won't ever reach an inhabited civilization because the energy needed to transmit that far has not been established as yet. In other words communications can't be heard because it will just dissipate over the space it travels until there's no signal strength left at all.Another thing he has talked about that I agree with, is we should quit trying to contact aliens thinking they will be benevolent to us. They will be very dangerous anyway you want to look at them if they find us.
Lucky us. so far, so good.
The moon is still Earth's orbit, we haven't really left Earth.
We've not even rolled over in our crib yet.
I share Hawkins concerns though think his "1000 years" is just an open discussion point--almost an allegory for any number of natural or man-mad disasters that almost certainly will hammer our one planet. Distributing our species (or what ever we become) to other places is really a no brainer if we want to survive and have options.
I suspect humans will go extinct whether or not they spread out to other worlds. But 1000 years is a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms. What is the scenario you envision which leads to extinction?I don't know, but 1000 years is a good round number and it's a good bet a lot of shit is going to happen before we reach 1000 years from now. As I said in the OP, I thought this was a bit pessimistic for Hawking, but I'm open for discussing his motives for saying what he did.
I'm pretty sure he thinks our window of opportunity to get human settlements going on other worlds is a lot shorter than most others believe. The one fact that you can't argue with is if we don't spread out to other worlds we are guaranteed to go extinct.
Personally, I don't see spreading out to other worlds as a route to avoid extinction. We don't actually know of any other habitable planets.
Hawking was a great physicist, but I think maybe his disease is catching up with him and affecting his brain. He's been saying some weird stuff lately. The man is barely alive now.
I think Venus would be the frontier to move. Although Venus is nearby Sun than Earth, but moving over Space to Venus will be easy.The moon is still Earth's orbit, we haven't really left Earth.
We've not even rolled over in our crib yet.
I share Hawkins concerns though think his "1000 years" is just an open discussion point--almost an allegory for any number of natural or man-mad disasters that almost certainly will hammer our one planet. Distributing our species (or what ever we become) to other places is really a no brainer if we want to survive and have options.
Going extinct is only a matter of time. I'm only suggesting if we lived on several planets instead of just one, that amount of time will be greatly extended. Yes we don't know if we can live anywhere else at this time, but I'd like to keep looking until we know for sure one way or the other. Hawking may sense he's getting very near the end of his life, so he's now talking about what he believes and has believed all along. I seriously doubt he has had any last minute change of heart that he wants us all to know about.I suspect humans will go extinct whether or not they spread out to other worlds. But 1000 years is a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms. What is the scenario you envision which leads to extinction?I don't know, but 1000 years is a good round number and it's a good bet a lot of shit is going to happen before we reach 1000 years from now. As I said in the OP, I thought this was a bit pessimistic for Hawking, but I'm open for discussing his motives for saying what he did.
I'm pretty sure he thinks our window of opportunity to get human settlements going on other worlds is a lot shorter than most others believe. The one fact that you can't argue with is if we don't spread out to other worlds we are guaranteed to go extinct.
Personally, I don't see spreading out to other worlds as a route to avoid extinction. We don't actually know of any other habitable planets.
Hawking was a great physicist, but I think maybe his disease is catching up with him and affecting his brain. He's been saying some weird stuff lately. The man is barely alive now.
Venus wouldn't be my first choice, and I'm not sure I like Mars very well either. But at least on Mars you don't have to figure out how to cool it down. If we can mine the asteroids for all the materials we need, I wouldn't be opposed to building an artificial place to live in space. An example that many of us have seen on TV would be like the Babylon 5 program that ran for 5 seasons, minus all the aliens that we haven't met yet.
EDIT: ~humans already "left" earth to go to the moon~ Yes, thats why imo its very important to focus on permanent self sufficient bases or colonies instead of there-and-back "trips" to anywhere. Plus the technology derived from making a permanent self sufficient colony will have direct use here to help dramatically reduce our ecological/resource foot print and recycle materials etc
1- Would it be more difficult and longer to build a colony on the Moon or to build a rotating space station colony? The colony would have to be self sufficient and support 300 colonists. (I think there would be benefits to be on the moon since there would be matter with with to build expansion more easily, though a space station in orbit is easier to resupply)
2- If you could choose between living on a colony on Ganymede or Titan, which Jovian moon would you choose or appear more suitable for a colony?
Last edited by icewendigo; May 26th, 2013 at 11:35 AM.
Asides from an instinctual desire to carry on our species, what exactly is the point in prolonging the human species only to meet its inevitable end? Is the goal to create more human beings to enjoy "or not enjoy if mental illness rates continue their increase" existence? Is it to build a greater understanding of the universe, which seems rather pointless if all the accumulated knowledge will simply cease to exist in a few thousand/million "unlikely" years.
Humans want to be immortal.
Apparently the universe doesn't want us to be. That cold blooded bastard.
Looking at it that way, why did you go to school to learn what you know? After all your just going to die to soon anyway. We don't know what the universe holds for us, but it's a worth while puzzle to keep us working on and I find it very satisfying to know more than our primitive ancestors did. I like the feeling of superiority I get from knowing more than those I came from. True or not it's a fantasy that many of us have.
Whats the point of not living in caves with dear skins in Africa? Were all going to die so we might as well have stayed in Africa in caves and not explore other continents. No point in going to another continent since were all going to die right? Fortunately humans have struggled and ventured, created and explored, to other regions and other continents. If cavemen had settle for life as they knew it since there was no point since eventually all will end, they would not have grown to create marvels of engineering, literature music, arts, from being able to travel in sailboats to crossing half way around the world in an A380, from stories of Ulysses to Star Wars movies and Casablanca, the music of Vivaldi or Poledouris, the paintings of Renoir and so on. If we settle for just waiting to be snuffed out by what ever man made or astral cataclysm that could destroy the earth habitat within decades or centuries or the sun's eventual expansion, what poetry, music, movies, art, literature, inventions, discoveries, understanding would we and would the universe be missing out on, and who knows if our civilization changes and continues in other forms we may find ways to travel to another universes.
I hear suicide is high amongst immortals. Apparently life gets real boring after a few centuries.
I think outright extinction isn't an immediate concern although the human race reduced to a few remnants in nuclear powered bunkers, whether underground or in orbit, isn't a happy prospect, even if it's technically better than total extinction. It's a future worth some effort to avoid - especially given that I don't expect me or mine will be high on the triage list for a ticket. I'm all for trillion dollar investments in sorting out our Earthly problems but I am not so devoid of hope for a better future that I would support it's diversion to pie in the sky bolt holes for the few.
I remain of the view that space is actually much harder and harsher than people like Hawking seem prepared to admit and that without a strong and healthy Earth economy behind them space colonies will face much more likely extinction over a far shorter time span than 1000 years. The kinds of advances needed for it to be otherwise may not be impossible but those need a continuing, healthy, Earth economy to be realised - eg, energy out beyond Earth orbit - given that usable ores of fissionable materials for nuclear power are products of hydro/geothermal processes within planets and they've decayed to traces in all those 'easy' to access asteroids and comets, fusion power looks like it could be a necessary minimum. Not just working reliably and safely but the kind of fusion technology that is within the capabilities of smallish space colonies and economies to reliably build themselves from scratch. Given how hard it is to get controlled fusion to work at all - with the combined efforts of the cream of physics and engineering and budgets that other energy tech startups can only be awed and envious of being insufficient so far - I think it's a long, long way off. And may actually end up being something only a really big advanced economy can ever get to work.
I have to echo CosmicTraveller' comment @19 - like some other 'big' thinkers (Dyson comes to mind) there seems to be a presumption we are doomed to failure here on Earth but that somehow, starting afresh within an environment that's utterly hostile to life as we know it, we will leave our problematic nature behind us and be sensible. I do concede that aboard a space habitat environmental problems cannot be ignored the way we do so down here in the real world so they probably won't be - the consequences tend to be short term, up front and deadly. Unlike our big world that can tolerate a lot of poor decision making based on powerful vested interests employing cheap populism to advance their cause with the expectation that unfortunate mistakes made now can be fixed later (with no responsibility taken), the "citizens" of space habitats will not have that freedom.
Sure. But I think Venus needs a satellite. The satellite will make reducing gravity pressure on Venus and make decreasing geothermal heat on Venus. One of possibility, though Sun will also get reduction by the satellite, like Moon.
Didn't make any sense to me either. Venus is beyond our 1000 year capabilities. Best to consider more viable options.This is either ignorant or incoherent, I can't be bothered to work out which.Sure. But I think Venus needs a satellite. The satellite will make reducing gravity pressure on Venus and make decreasing geothermal heat on Venus. One of possibility, though Sun will also get reduction by the satellite, like Moon.
The biggest advantage won't be the ability to send humans up to live there. It will be the ability to bring stuff down. We'd solve our energy problems real quick and become independent of fossil fuels.
The Moon is covered in silicon. Zero gravity is an ideal place to manufacture semiconductors. Solar panels in space don't have to wait for nice weather.
Well, totally I can reply, we can use the term of 1000 years well. It's a common sense on science.Didn't make any sense to me either. Venus is beyond our 1000 year capabilities. Best to consider more viable options.This is either ignorant or incoherent, I can't be bothered to work out which.Sure. But I think Venus needs a satellite. The satellite will make reducing gravity pressure on Venus and make decreasing geothermal heat on Venus. One of possibility, though Sun will also get reduction by the satellite, like Moon.
What?
What?
No common sense, no science here.
Well, my fault.What?
No common sense, no science here.
"You mean."
The Moon and Mars have light gravity, which would cause colonists to lose bone mass. Spinning space stations could at least simulate Earth's gravity properly to avoid that. So.... ironically, it's easier to solve that problem in deep space than it is on a small planet.
Venus' gravity is 90% that of Earth, however, which makes it a candidate. The temperature of Venus is ok in the upper atmosphere. Also breathable air is a lifting gas in the upper atmosphere. So a colony might consist of floating zeppelin cities.
(wild guess du jour)
Within a small percentage of 1000 years, we will find dozens or hundreds of exoplanets with earth-like size and position from their stars(needs vary based on the strength of their stars), and some with extant earth like atmospheres.
Finding one ain't a problem. Getting there needs work. And, based on current exponential increases in technology, I doubt that that will be a problem for very long.
(None of which alters the fact that Hawking is an arogant nut job------brillaint fersure, but, ofttimes, a tad on the wild side.)
Without knowing more about why Hawking is making that statement, I think calling him a nut job is a bit premature. Also, yes a 1000 years could provide us with enough time to find and maybe send one or more of the generation ships they are talking about building. But the problem comes when humans get distracted and side tracked on other issues. Such as ice ages, or rising oceans and changing climates....etc. There could be a lot of distractions in the 1000 year queue, that could prevent the kind of progress we need to make it happen. Never mind governments cutting the funding for these type of scientific efforts, because they say we can no longer afford it.
I suspect that there ain't no way 10 billion of us could survive another period of glaciation.
Throw in another tobo, and we could have another bottleneck and evolutionary step.
The question arises, When will the glaciers return?
........................
Hawking:"extinction" is an extreemly charged concept, especially when it refers to us."we won't survive another 1,000 years without escaping our fragile planet."
kinda like "GOD" saying
"Leave this planet before I throw you off."
.....................
So, yeh, charging whatever it was that he was trying to communicate with the threat of extinction, qualifies him for the gathering of nut jobs.
(Right up there with "boiling oceans")
................
eschew hyperbole
Last edited by sculptor; May 27th, 2013 at 03:13 PM.
Aren't hunter-gatherer societies usually more egalitarian and collective more happy than most societies functioning in modern civilization? If one looks upon human accomplishments, must one not also reflect upon human follies? Countless genocides, countless wars, societal injustice, persecution, ostracism, mass-torturing, sufferers of diseases. Not to mention the progressively worsening rates of mental illnesses "some, not all". Perhaps I'm a pessimist, or ignorant, most likely both. But, in terms of collective happiness, wouldn't the human species have been better off sticking with hunter-gatherer societies? Sorry if it seems like I'm trying to provoke an argument, just a bit curious for another opinion that's better than my own.Whats the point of not living in caves with dear skins in Africa? Were all going to die so we might as well have stayed in Africa in caves and not explore other continents. No point in going to another continent since were all going to die right? Fortunately humans have struggled and ventured, created and explored, to other regions and other continents. If cavemen had settle for life as they knew it since there was no point since eventually all will end, they would not have grown to create marvels of engineering, literature music, arts, from being able to travel in sailboats to crossing half way around the world in an A380, from stories of Ulysses to Star Wars movies and Casablanca, the music of Vivaldi or Poledouris, the paintings of Renoir and so on. If we settle for just waiting to be snuffed out by what ever man made or astral cataclysm that could destroy the earth habitat within decades or centuries or the sun's eventual expansion, what poetry, music, movies, art, literature, inventions, discoveries, understanding would we and would the universe be missing out on, and who knows if our civilization changes and continues in other forms we may find ways to travel to another universes.
Last edited by shlunka; May 27th, 2013 at 04:35 PM. Reason: The potatoes were trying to git me.
Do you think this world could support 7 billion hunter-gathers or are you okay with a few billion deaths?
Aren't hunter-gatherer societies usually more egalitarian and collective more happy than most societies functioning in modern civilization? If one looks upon human accomplishments, must one not also reflect upon human follies? Countless genocides, countless wars, societal injustice, persecution, ostracism, mass-torturing, sufferers of diseases. Not to mention the progressively worsening rates of mental illnesses "some, not all". Perhaps I'm a pessimist, or ignorant, most likely both. But, in terms of collective happiness, wouldn't the human species have been better off sticking with hunter-gatherer societies? Sorry if it seems like I'm trying to provoke an argument, just a bit curious for another opinion that's better than my own.
Assuming the world would have followed the civilized population curve, which, to me at least, would be unlikely. Population expansions occurred only after agricultural revolutions, and since in a hunter-gatherer society no such revolutions would have occurred, no population explosions would have occurred either.Do you think this world could support 7 billion hunter-gathers or are you okay with a few billion deaths?
Aren't hunter-gatherer societies usually more egalitarian and collective more happy than most societies functioning in modern civilization? If one looks upon human accomplishments, must one not also reflect upon human follies? Countless genocides, countless wars, societal injustice, persecution, ostracism, mass-torturing, sufferers of diseases. Not to mention the progressively worsening rates of mental illnesses "some, not all". Perhaps I'm a pessimist, or ignorant, most likely both. But, in terms of collective happiness, wouldn't the human species have been better off sticking with hunter-gatherer societies? Sorry if it seems like I'm trying to provoke an argument, just a bit curious for another opinion that's better than my own.
[QUOTE=shlunka;426314]But we can't now go back to that without knocking off a lot of humans. Also, are you okay with the much shorter lifespan of hunter-gatherer societys?
[QUOTE=Bad Robot;426319]As opposed to living physically incapacitated, mentally dulled down, and sometimes in chronic pain. Yes, I am okay with dying in my 40s-50s. My point wasn't a suggestion to revert back to hunter gatherer society, but that the human species could have been collectively happier should civilization not occurred. A lot less meaningful in the grand scheme, but, happier nonetheless.But we can't now go back to that without knocking off a lot of humans. Also, are you okay with the much shorter lifespan of hunter-gatherer societys?
Yes. It will be the exciting simulation for population problem.
actually, based on studies into the missippian culture, when they started maize agriculture, they died younger, with more tooth decay.
and, we are talking about average lifespan not maximum lifespan which ain't changed in thousands of years.
in one archaeology class, it was claimed that hunter gatherers spent about 1/5 the time gathering food as compared to agriculture.
and, the food was healthier.
it seems that the main gain of agriculture was the increase of the carrying capacity of the land, so we most likely swapped quality for quantity.
The hunter gatherer lifestyle was not so great. Some modern tribes studied by anthropologists lose up to 60% of their males in inter tribal conflict.
On the 1000 years, that is just a number plucked from the air, and means nothing. I agree humanity should work towards a big chunk of population living off Earth. Around another star if possible. Reason , insurance. I see no immediate likelihood of our species going extinct, but insurance would be good.
Like a couple other posters, I see a space habitat or city as the best option. We build in orbit, a giant rotating cylinder, with a magnetic system for deflecting cosmic rays away from the living habitat. Such a structure could be moved, albeit slowly, around the solar system to permit it to harvest ice and minerals from comets, asteroids, Saturn's rings etc. Eventually one or more of those structures could be converted to starships.
Life aboard could be rich and fulfilling, with virtual reality learning and entertainment, not to mention a rich social life with the other 999, 999 inhabitants of the space city.
It's not easy to write down all detail of human's future. I think I have a plan to dowell for the World, although without completely assurance to draw the plan for the real.
We have just two ways, very simple. It's win, and lose. We can have the imagine to do that, actually by now. But I can't get the answer completely by now. The reason is simple. It must be on forecasting stock of resource. It is difficult for now.
But, well, things are very important to live. Therefore, I have to work for the things.
I think I have to study more ...Is it just me or does this make absolutely no sense (even accounting for English not being a first language)?
"Some" modern tribes. Perhaps they have been isolated by deforestation or other man-made occurrences have forced increased competition over land/food. Other hunter-gatherer societies "I believe there are a few on the hawaiin islands?" have functioned very peacefully for over a hundred years.
pure nonsense
I think Prof. Steven Pinker would disagree with you. He has made a major study of the history of violence. Totally peaceable tribes were the exception. Here in NZ, the pre European Maori were all warlike, with one exception. The Chatham Island Maori were very isolated, meaning one tribe with no contact with others. They developed a pacifist society until another Maori tribe bought passage on a sailing ship. At that stage the pacifists became extinct.
| « closed regenerative systems | Download astronomical software » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
