E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
We may have just 100 to 200 years to figure out how to get off this rock and give our species a cosmic insurance policy, physicist Stephen Hawking says in a fresh interview with BigThink. Hawking has said this sort of thing several times before - but every time he mentions the time frame, it adds an extra bit of urgency to the warning.
This time, Hawking's views are given a stark spin: "Abandon Earth - or Face Extinction." But Hawking isn't really suggesting we should just give up on our planet. It's just that right now we have all our eggs in one planetary basket. Here's the key passage:
"If we are the only intelligent beings in the galaxy, we should make sure we survive and continue. But we are entering an increasingly dangerous period of our history. Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill. But our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts that were of survival advantage in the past. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward-looking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years, but if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space. That is why I'm in favor of manned, or should I say, 'personed' spaceflight."
Hawking said that "if we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe as we spread into space."
The threats that Hawking is worried about break down into two categories: First, there are the doomsdays we could bring down upon ourselves - such as biological or nuclear attacks, or human-caused climate change that has such sudden effects that we can't adjust. The other category would be catastrophes that we don't cause: for example, a direct hit by a huge space rock or a supernova blast; or a bizarre, world-changing eruption of super-volcanoes; or the emergence of a novel pathogen that our species can't fight.
The first category encompasses issues that we can do something about, and Hawking of course favors taking whatever action is necessary to save the environment and human society. The second category, however, takes in plausible extinction scenarios that humans couldn't do much about. Either category of catastrophe would require the human species to have an off-planet Plan B.
I've said for years that extinction avoidance is one of the five E's that explain why we have to spend our time and effort on space science and exploration. And I'm not by any means the first person to figure that out:
"The earth is the cradle of humankind, but one cannot live in the cradle forever" - Russian rocket pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, 1895
"Earth is too small a basket for mankind to keep all its eggs in." - science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein
"Since, in the long run, every planetary civilization will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring - not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive." - astronomer-author Carl Sagan, 1994
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" - science-fiction writer Larry Niven, as quoted by Arthur C. Clarke in 2001
Mars would offer the best nearby second home for humanity and our allied species - and on that score, Hawking's view has been echoed by SpaceX founder Elon Musk, who says his ultimate aim is to make Homo sapiens a multiplanet species. In the longer term, our distant descendants will have to leave Earth entirely before the sun goes all red-giant on us. Humans would have to move outward to the solar system's rim - or perhaps eventually to other star systems, on a voyage that would most likely take many generations.
How can humans do that? Hawking doesn't put forward any detailed answers, but in recent months he has outlined three way-out ideas for time travel, including wormholes, black-hole encounters and super-fast acceleration. In the "Star Trek: First Contact" time line, humans came up with warp drive - and were visited by friendly Vulcans - in the year 2063. Will humans get that lucky in real life? Maybe there's an astronomically remote chance. But Hawking has another warning about that: We'd better be careful about the aliens we come across.
So what do you think? Considering all the trouble that NASA has been having with human spaceflight lately, how much do you think we can get done by 2110? Will it make a difference for our species' survival? Weigh in with your thoughts in the comment space below.
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
We need to start working on aggressive plans to Terraform Mars ASAP. It may take 800 or more years to accomplish this. That gives us some time to work out the kinks of mass transportation to the red planet. Lets get the youth of the world to at least start pondering the options and possibilities!
"If you can imagine it, you can create it. If you can dream it, you can become it." Napoleon Hill
I think we should populate the asteroids (inside them) and use them for long-range orbiting stations. We could gather-up smaller ones and make bigger ones.
I mentioned the Oort Cloud, before- we should bring water ice back from there and bombard Mars with it- that would turn it into a water world. It would add quite a bit of gravity and be an instant atmosphere
Don, i'm not sure about the asteroids but the idea about turning mars into a livable planet doesn't sound so far out there that it couldn't be accomplished. This space program of ours has stalled - look how fast it was moving when we put the first man on the moon. If we could just redirect some of those billions being spent on war and head it to people not unlike yourself who have vision no matter how bizzare it may sound we might actually find a way to inhabit another planet Keep on thinking, America!
Most of your reponses are sad and selfish. Thank God we have people like Dr. Hawking and Dr. Kaku to keep us looking forward. I wish I had a fraction of their education and wisdom. Why don't we stop with war and spend all of our money with NASA?
I am one of the dwindling few who still believe in Darwin's work, but sadly we are not all equally evolved.
Good luck to us humans!
I can see myself now.... cruising through the galaxy in my pimp red "Hawkinsmobile". As I materialize from folding space I realize that my new Iphone 79084G has the live video of Earths SUN going super Nova. I quickly flip, after the excellant interstellar destruction live feed, to my fav galaxy blog vidcasting that Illegal "aliens" are in fact Alien. As I put may spanking new Hawkinsmobile into my asteroid recluse, I realise I am not alone.....
Hawkins is one of the most intelligent scientist living. His views however are just his views. This is his opinion/view, not his scientific data or proven theory. Lets not get the too confused:) His view, to say the least, is interesting.
Excellent, if not a novel proposal, but it does not address the finite life of our solar system. Hopefully, while such a course might give us a respite for many, many years, we absolutely have to find a means to travel to the stars if we want to continue to exist as a species.
I'm willing to bet that aliens have already taken a few of us to other galaxies. No need to waste time planning an exit. We're already there.
Hmmm... rescue mission
This is far beyond the imagination realm of most our world "leaders," but is absolutely right on the mark. It should be a fundamental reason for NASA's existence, engraved on a bronze plate at their headquarters: "Space exploration- for the survival and betterment of the human species." Thank you Dr. Hawking.
Our "world leaders" interest is solely in maintaining the control they have over people and expanding it here on earth and ensuring they stay in power. Moving off-planet is nowhere on their agendas. That would be giving up control.
I love the idea that we could perhaps travel someday farther than the moon. Universe is unique place and it is infinite. The sad thing of all I think might be, If we do get out into outer Space, as we know there is dirty people right here in our planet Earth and we cant get along, not here not out there. I hope I'm wrong!
I hope and that we can awaken , human rights are taken away by politicians and government. wars, corruption and control of greedy and mean people and have peace and love one another.
Going to Mars still leaves us, essentially, a planet-bound species. It's not living in space, it's just hopping from planet to planet. We have a much better chance if we can actually figure out how to live in space itself.
Keep on thinking - it's people like you who are going to find a way to make this happen
Byron - True, but this is waaay beyond our capability right now. For the immediate future other planets are our best bet (until we can figure out how to build these things artificially): protection from meteors, atmosphere, gravity, magnetosphere, etc.
That being said, your comment immediately brought to mind the ring worlds from Halo :-)
Sorry Byron, but I feel it's wishful thinking to "figure out how to live in space". Technology can help us make a planet home, but I don't believe we can create a planet from technology. It's way too complex a problem.
For a start, let's try and jump start the magnetic field on Mars?
Lets not forget, having sex in space is "very" difficult. Living in Zero G is even MORE difficult for long periods.
Here is a Video that will "enlighten you" on SEX in space, incase you are not aware of what it really takes. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rf7SaSEhqo
Artificail gravity can be created by spinning. Very large orbital habitats could be spun enough to give 1g gravity on the inside of the hull. What, you never watched Babylon 5?
It's going to be a race. Either we get off the Earth, or social and political forces will keep us focused on the homeworld's problems for so long, we miss the boat.
I do see your point :) I am looking at the space station we have now around our planet, and thats no B5 :) I do however concur with you, we need to get off this rock and seek TRUE freedom:)
I am asking why no circular motion (small, medium, or large swing...) has ever been tried or 'seriously' proposed as a project: We hear so much of the damage to human health of long term low gravity stays on our space station. Is there a proven medical reason why this isn't be tried? Discuss please.
Also what of the nonsense of crashing & burning the station in 10 years. Really?! are we on something... lets push it higher and further out and build some real propulsion system to experiment with it.
Just look at how far humanity was able to advance in the past 100 years. There is no reason to believe we are not capable of expanding our minds, and therefore our planetary addresses, even further. Those pioneers of the past 100 years were willing to take the gamble and stretch themselves father than the naysayers thought was humanly possible. Today's generation, and the next 3 or 4 generations, will be able to stretch humanity even further. We just need to believe in our own abilities.
We already have a new plasma rocket design that is capable of reaching Mars within 45 days (vs 6 months or so with currently planned methods). Remember: people used to think the Earth was flat, and the center of the universe. There is no limit to what we can achieve, it just takes time.
We already have a new plasma rocket design that is capable of reaching Mars within 45 days (vs 6 months or so with currently planned methods). Remember: people used to think the Earth was flat, and the center of the universe. There is no limit to what we can achieve, it just takes time.
woops, double post!
guess it was worth repeating
I completely disagree with his timeline. 100 years seems to be at least 100 years too soon given the glacial pace of human spaceflight development. The will to accomplish such a feat does not currently exist. Unless acted on by outside forces, I can't imagine that the will to invest so much resources into spaceflight will exist for at least four generations. My kids are 1 year old. Their grandchildren will not know the spaceflight of Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey.
Considering that at the turn of the last century air flight was not possible yet, other than balloons, and yet we achieved landing people on the moon, multiple times just 60 years later. Sadly after that the military severely took over the space program and it languished until just recently. Now, we happen to have civilian businesspeople looking at how to make a go of it in space, this is the Real start to the Space Age. When you have people looking at how to make money from something then it really gets to moving just like aircraft were primarily military up through WWI and WWII and after that there was a large impetus to go towards civilian aircraft which greatly brought down costs and now we have jets flying everywhere imaginable on Earth. With SpaceX and Bigelow getting into the fray, along with several others, we are looking at a space-based renaissance that should propel us from being a one planet species to a space faring one, likely within the next generation or two to really get it going. The Apollo Project was extremely expensive for what they actually accomplished and now that the groundwork has been laid and private money is being funneled into it, we can actually get back to where we SHOULD have been with the Shuttle Program.
Hawking is absolutely correct that we HAVE to get off of our single wet ball of rock if we want to survive long-term. Of course, the nay-sayers have been with us all along, even Columbus had his detractors and without him it would have been someone else 'finding' the NorAm Continent and Spain would not have had such a great leap in that era. Likewise, if you do not believe in space travel, stay home and deal with the problems we already face here. There are plenty enough folks that would take up space travel in a heartbeat if they were only given the chance. There is plenty of impetus and lots of opportunity right now. The main bottleneck is called Governments because they do not want people to colonize since colonies have this habit of splitting off from their parent culture thus 'wasting' the money put into it. This is why civilian exploration and investment in the space programs are so important: it takes the Governments out of the equations and lets businesses succeed as they always have.
We have certainly squandered valuable time and money on wars (specifically) and mundane, meaningless, time consuming efforts such as fossil fueled vehicles and coal mines. The future lies in our abilities to advance our technologies and adapt them to new energy sources and getting man to the Moon and Mars as soon as possible. Our "Friends" the Chinese, have designs and they don't include us; and our corporations are running America through their friends in Congress and Wall Street.............we're screwed.....bring on that long duration Gamma Ray Burst. Too many short sighted idiots on this planet anyway. They'd rather die clutching their Billions to their chests rather than trying to lend a hand and save themselves and their species....
With the current state of human evolution there are to many physiologically unfit people to populate ANYWHERE much less polluting space with mentally deficient people. We as humans have a very tough question answer, should we populate space with our backward people? I sure hope someone with a moral , compassionate, giving, humorous, and loving personality has the smarts to decide what traits we will require for potential galactic ambassadors. To be sure we WILL need to expand our "home turf", be it here on "mother earth" or another planet, or the best place of all SPACE we should be working to wards that goal as fast as humanly possible.
No body is perfect. It's true, humans have many deficiencies...but we are also capable of astounding acts of kindness and we create amazing works of art, literature, music, etc. It is our deficiencies that make us human.
I'm not arguing we should send serial killers into space, but trying to weed out the 'bad' human traits is not likely to lead to a stronger species or even a kinder or more rational species. We should accept our weakness (which are sometimes also our strengths) and strive to better understand them and how they define who we are.
Ray4a,
Can anyone say "eugenics"? Or better yet "Master Race"? What exactly are the physiological and intellectual characteristics of a galactic ambassador? You are hoping for a compassionate dictator to decide who should be able to colonize the universe? I know that we all march to the beat of our own drummer, but your march, sir or madame, is too close to a goose-step for me. I agree with ax23000. It is genetic variation and diversity that make all humans into humans and whatever we will be post-human.
This is one of the mor unssettling posts I have seen in a few days.
Ray4a
Under your scenario or desire, I'm not entirely sure which, Dr. Hawking would not be considered 'fit' enough to colonize anywhere.... And that is the most egregeous error to make. The man's body has failed him, that is the fact of Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS) but his mind is as brilliant as it was when he was a young man first at Cambridge....
bnbreilly - no, actually Steven Hawking would be the last person I'd want as a colonist on a new planet. Don't get me wrong, the man is definitely a genius and I have the utmost respect for him: But when you're colonizing a new place, you need everyone there to be able to help out 100%. Steven would not be able to do much in such a place, and in my humble opinion he can do a lot more good here on Earth where he has access to the medical support he needs.
Depending on how huge the colonization effort is, it may take a while to get sufficient medical facilities up and running to support people like Steven, and even then a LOT of the supplies will still be imported from Earth.
So yeah, the first few generations of colonists need to be both mentally and physically fit to handle whatever gets thrown at them.
Ohh I agree with you on that aspect Brokinarrow....I truely believe a person such as Dr. Hawking would more then likely take himself out of the colonization picture should he live long enough to even entertain that idea. He himself probably realizes he can do more good here on earth. Sadly due to his disease as well as his age this world will not have Dr. Hawking around for much longer. It's a miracle (if you believe in that stuff) that he has survived this long to begin with. Lou Gehrig's disease is a horrible condition which sufferers have to accept their life span's will be cut short.
I've followed Dr. Hawking's theories for a long time... And I often wonder if research could cure ALS or reverse it what he could contribute to Cosmology and Physics.
"mundane, meaningless, time consuming efforts such as fossil fueled vehicles and coal mines"
Really? Do you have any idea how much progress has been made because of these things? Without fossil fueled vehicles you'd still be growing your own food for a living. Nobody would have had time to invent the internet (Al Gore?) and the coal mines to provide the energy to power it.
Think before you post next time.
Well just how long do you propose to burn fossil fuels in a 20 ton grain combine (X-infinitum) ? Your Paleolithic grand mother was burning her hasenpfeffer (probably fur and all) over a roaring class 'A' fire how many millions of years ago there professor? I am quite aware that almost everything we do is connected, in some way, to fossil burning. The gist of my post Einstein, is that I believe, as well as many others (except you apparently) that we as a species have been "stuck" in the fossil energy mode for WAY TOO LONG. Of course my supposition would be that you probably work for Exxon/Mobile or a local utility, hence the attack on my first amendment right.........Jesus...think before you post next time...........(You've been a good little corporate lackey.)
Not to down technology(I do love my i-phone), but if it were not for technology in the first place we would not even have to worry about the earth becoming unlivable. The technology that I am speeaking of is cars, trains, planes, drilling for oil useing up the earths natural resources; we are killing this planet. Where is the non gas using flying cars already? Over population (who needs 10 children especially in the society that we live in), the cutting down of trees/rainforests, streets and roads covering the earth; this is all a part how humans are responsible for the reason that we need to find a new home other than earth. With all that being said, I think that our best bet would be to find a way to live in space because we are just going to keep running into the same problems no matter what planet we do occupy. It is our human nature. Also, If there are aliens out there we as americans are already experienced at taking over other peoples land so Im sure aliens would not be a problem. By the way, to them we would be the "aliens".
I think Hawking has many good points. Even if the human species somehow learned to coexist on this rock, the odds are still very much against us if we stay put for a few million years more. Humans were reminded of the risks of remaining permanently earth bound in July of 1994, with a ringside seat to comet Showmaker-Levy's impact on Jupiter. Reportedly, some of the resulting impact craters were several times larger than our planet.
I feel lucky to be living in such a dynamic time in human history. It seems to me we're facing crucial tests of our species that will determine whether we succeed or evaporate. Personally, I'm pessimistic about the outcome - but hopeful of being surprised.
If Stephen Hawking is completely paralyzed and can't talk but used a machine to produce his words, how do we know it's really him? I mean couldn't it just be a person using Stephen to express his beliefs and scientific agenda, almost like a puppet. On the subject matter though I believe inter-planetary space travel will occur. I personally believe that we are tricked into believing distances in the universe are greater than they are due to our very limited technology. I believe as we look into space we look through dark matter that makes us percieve things are more distant than they are. This is inclusive of everytype of telescope. It would be like observing a star or planetary system filtered through an oil like sludge. To get through the dark matter spaceships will have to be designed like a combo between the starship enterprize and a heavy duty submarine.
Might I suggest more physics and astronomy courses...and less science fiction
I completely agree, the we would have people in the near future that could actually make living in space a reality.
The proposed timeframe is too consevative.
The proposed timeframe is far too conservative.
OK, in my earlier posts I have tried to point out that nanotech and minimum efforts to put valueable payloads into stable orbits could be achieved if such new info like solar sails and cheap high altitude launch systems could be utilized. I don't know all the logistics required, but anything is better than existing tech. If you can launch above most of our atmosphere then most of the energy required is now useful for orbital velocity. If only water(ice) were in recoverable orbit then solar power could do the rest.
Well at least JAXA (the Japanese version of NASA) has successfully steered a solar-sail craft they've deployed into space (article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38624193/)
Definitely a very cool propulsion advancement for future craft and missions. I see it as a "secondary" level of propulsion, as opposed to a "primary" one (sorta like a complimentary apparatus).
In the (hopefully) near future, I think Ion propulsion will provide the mainstay of "impulse" propulsion power for spacecraft (and, perhaps even aircraft once the technology has been successfully mastered). And, perhaps, the Ion drive will set the stage for "warp drive" and/or "light drive" propulsion, because, of course, without it, man's ability to traverse the immediate solar system(s) of this section of the galaxy will be severely limited, if not impossible.
At any rate, as a matter of practicality, fossil-fuel-based propulsion systems will inherently have to be dispensed with because they're not gonna get us anywhere very distant.
I agree with the premise of what Hawking is saying as I've felt this way ever since I was a young child. It's unfortunate to me that a lot of (what I would classify as being "fearfully and willfully ignorant") people would be determined to only view homo-sapien as an "earth-only-dwelling" species. The whole "space-is-space, and earth-is-earth, and humans-should-only-concern-itself-with-being-on-earth" argument is lame and old. If nature truly had a hardcore "check-and-balance" system that stipulated that we weren't meant to exist in space or on other planets, then, we wouldn't have already been able to launch to space, the moon, and mars (with regard to the rovers).
To make a long point short: it wouldn't matter if over-population, climate change, and the use of finite resources were not even an issue. If everything were "great" and "peachy" on this planet, I'd still be an advocate for space exploration and colonization. Why? Because, Why Not?
ION drive is the future of space travel. With the knowledge that we are getting with the New Horizon's ion propulsion systems as she heads to Pluto, building a bigger engine is not out of the question. I also think that the artificial gravity systems on the drawing boards for the Prometheus project will one day be attainable. As long as humanity keeps striving for discovery at least.
Maybe Bill gates and other billionaires should donate a chunk of their money to save mankind through space travel.
Let's just say that if we don't get off the Earth in 100 years we have either nuked ourselves back to the Stone Age or grew collectively stupid. I'd damn near bet it is even-stevens. ;)
"If Stephen Hawking is completely paralyzed and can't talk but used a machine to produce his words, how do we know it's really him?"
It's not really him. I hear Tom Hanks is playing him now. :)
Jeff - What a totally disrespectful ignoramus you are
Lee - What a totally humorless ignoramus you are
Brokinarrow i totally agree with you..
I'm all in favor of sending the top Iranian ayatollahs along with Akmedinajad to another planet, no matter how far away and Kim Jong Il should be the pilot of the spacecraft.
Pretty much nobody wants to say it, but the base problem is overpopulation. Hawking seems to hint at it, but doesn't really say it.
Plenty of room for everyone, eh? Is that why we're drilling for oil two miles under water? Is that why we start wars over fossil fuels? Is that why we're wrecking our environment digging for coal? Is that why there are hundreds of thousands of people living in flood plains? Is that why greenhouse gases are melting glaciers?
Overpopulation is a fact, like it or not. The evidence is in front of your nose.
You hit the nail on the head Dave. Overpopulation is our most urgent and unpleasant problem in the fact that our food resources and energy resources are already way past the balance threshold. We are also in iminent danger from quickly adapting viruses and other diseases.
Jacques Coustou discussed this decades ago before the united nations at the g8 summit. One of the most respected naturalistic scientists ever. He said that we needed to reduce the human population of the planet down to a few hundred thousand or the entire ecosystem would face systemic extinction because of the ability of our species to extract and utilize all the resources around us until they are gone with no ability to restore themselves.
Problem is that only the chinese have even made an attempt at population stagnation, let alone reduction and everybody thinks thats the most inhumane thing in the world. Maybe, just maybe they have the right idea.
World leaders also know this problem is #1 and refuse to discuss it.
Put that in your conspiracy pipe and smoke it.
Actually water is our biggest problem. That's not something readily apparent in the US but it is in much of the rest of the developing world.
This article has engendered the biggest collection of stupid posts of any I have seen. Dave in Minnesota has hit the nail on the head. The problem on Earth is overpopulation. Has anyone among you ever heard of Malthus? English economist, Thomas Malthus, 1766-1834. He had the sense to see what most of you appear unable to, that the earth could not allow its population to grow indefinitely. Sure there are uninhabited or thinly inhabited areas of the earth, tropical rainforest, deserts, oceans (thank you, Tom Cruise). But they cannot be made productive at the drop of an irrigation system.
But what makes you think that another habitable planet won't be already inhabited. The chances are that the inhabitants are already far ahead of us in their technological evolution or way behind us. If they are ahead of us, perhaps our colonists will be welcomed, perhaps put in zoos, perhaps eaten, perhaps sent back here. If they are behind us, perhaps a few million earth years, we will simply exterminate them and take over their planet.
But few of the pposters have thought out the distances, either. The nearest planet may be hundreds of light years away. A light year is the distance light travels in one year (5,878,000,000,000 miles) and Einstein (remember him?) told us that nothing can travel at the speed of light ("Star Wars" not excepted). Does anyone have any idea how we are going to determine whether the target planet is inhabitable?
Go back to Dave in MN. We need to learn to manage our population on this planet, to live within our resources, and let the Earth do what it can do well. Bring our numbers down to, say, three billion. I think that is more possible than sending colonists to another solar system. Of course, there's always the scenario of mass destruction, the population crash, to get us back to that three billion. I don't really care; I won't be here more than another 25 years, in all probablility.
no overpopulation? Guess that's why no one in this world is starving - oh wait....
While I agree with you.... I also can understand why people find the idea of population control a very slippery slope to traverse. The main problem is WHO/WHOM makes the decision on population control policies. No one person or group should ever be given that power.
Maybe a major natural catastrophe is what this planet needs to descrease it's population to manageable levels?
I agree about the over population but it is not the only issue. The over-use of the earths natural recourse's and the fact that soon there will be no plants left to provide us with oxygen is the main contributors to the destruction of our planet, not to mention the pollution problems.
Here is a better idea, stop f@*king up this planet.
Read it again, and this time read it ALL. Hawking is talking chiefly about situations outside of our control and even suggests that for human caused problems we should try to solve them ourselves. He's talking about things like impact by space rock as well as other situations that we simply can't do anything about.
Actually if you read it again you will see that Hawking made three main points and the fact that a "rock" might hit the earth was only one of them not the primary one. He did not give a primary reason he just gave reason. I do agree with him about all three reasons and I believe that just finding another planet to go to is not the solution to the problem because we would just have the same problems in the future. I think that finding a way to live in space would be the solution.
If overpopulation continues along with stupidly handling resources of land and water, global war may be the only possible outcome.
Hawking, I think has went from a man looking at the universe with wonder and intrigue to a person who has become afraid of his surroundings. I don't know for sure, but I wonder if he has met his own inmortality and realized there is no way out of here without dieing. Kind of sad to use his stature to get those that know him to go into a frenzy about the death of the planet. It will happen and for a few to get off and go somewhere else seems a bit non-sensical. Why? What are humans gaining trying to keep our species alive? I don't know. Perhaps our term as keepers of the earth and our quest for understanding has run out and it is time to let it go. The Creator has control. Running away seems a bit childish.
Creator? There's a good one. Let's all believe that some imaginary, ill-tempered being somewhere in the sky is going to solve all our problems. That'll work.
Running away? Isn't this whole place our home? Not just the earth, but the solar system. Not just the solar system, but the galaxy. Not just the galaxy, but indeed the entire universe. We were born into this vast universe, filled with wonders that I don't even think we can imagine yet.
You ask why we should continue as a species. I say that we should continue because for all our flaws. For all the mistakes that we make...there is good in us. I think of my mom reading to me when I was little out on the porch with my siblings. It was just her voice and the story weaving together and floating on the air.
I think we should keep our species alive for moments like that.
Maybe you see nothing worth saving in us. I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for you because that means that you must have no moment in your life that seemed worthwhile--no moment in your life that you'd hope would happen again for someone else. What a horrible world you live in.
Maybe it's true that we also do horrible things, that for every mother reading to her children there are ten people suffering somewhere. Even so I think it's worth it. I think that there should be a future where people suffer and know love, often in the same life.
You're the one who seems childish and afraid to me. You're the one who wants to quit and give up on the species. You're the one who is trying to run away.
John has put it well. Let humanity run its course and if it goes extinct, the cockroaaches will take over the planet.
Without suffering, how would you know joy?
My vote is with the Cephalopods....
Let me propose a hypothetical situation.
Let's assume there is a creator that is in control of everything. If the creator is in control of everything then everything that happens was brought about by an instance predesigned to occur. If this is the case, then humanity is not in control of anything. For instance, when i ate breakfast this morning, the creator made that desion for me and I followed it like sheep to a shepard.
If the creator does not control every action that occurs, then we are free to make mistakes, decisions, and actions of our own accord, even if they only affect a small portion of our surroundings. Thus, the big actions are still presided over by this creator. Then the gray area begins, what is a big action? Since we don't know what amount we have control over, the only sensible way of determining it is by testing the waters metaphorically. Therefore, if by testing the waters we screw up, we have an obligation, not to ourselves, but to those around us, to try to fix it, typically, an obligation to our children. Do what is best for them and teach them to do what's best for their children.
I would only support this program if we restrict travel to antitheists. No need to pollute the galaxy with Earth humans' psychoses.
An interesting idea, to think we could...
But- hey- who's going to talk to God, if we see him, out there?
I'd be a little hang-backish, myself
Your reasoning assumes God exists in a form that is capable of human speech. Or that God exists at all. We should be exploring in search of truth and observing reality. If I do meet human God, we'd slap five and then I'd sock him in the gut. We'd share a laugh about it.
We're made in his image
He might hit back
No we weren't.
He was made in ours.
Overpopulation pretty much guarantees that humanity will continue screwing up the planet. Human reproductive potential evolved back when we were getting eaten by big predators, killed off by diseases a few hundred thousand years before there were vaccines, etc. We don't have time to evolve a lower reproductive potential -- evolution sorta takes a long time, y'know. Maybe we need to learn to act like we have some sense.
IMPOSSIBLE!.....how many people on the earth? Nearly 7 BILLIION?? Oh sure, let's round up 7 billion and ship them off to a distant planet...no problem easy. Hell I have a hard enough time riding into New York City or to my local supermarket...Mars?? why not. get real will ya!
No body is talking about shipping the entire species off the planet (in fact that would put us right back where we started) anymore than Britain was trying to move the entire British people to America back in the day.
Read the article more closely.
If you want to get yourself really worked up, get real and consider:
-We have long been, and now vigorously continue, making the choices necessary to destroy our ability to live on this planet in the future.
-Earth has before, and will again, outlive its inhabitants.
-It is very likely that only the extremely rich who are also genetically strong will make it to alternative places to live as the rest of humanity dies out on Earth, unable to live in such a grossly polluted environment.
Education and mental abilities go a long way...it is interesting how some people prefer to rely on paranoia and whipped up fear and anger about knowledge of all things. Ignorance is not something of which to be proud, yet some flaunt ignorance as if they expect respect for it...amazing, simply amazing.
Oh sure 6.8 billion people off to Mars...no problem at all. Where can I get a six pack to make my journey fun!
Not to mention all the stuff we would need to bring with us.
Please try not to comment if you're an idiot or if your screen name is peeblesdropped (on head) or John Magnusson. thank you. signed, the human race.
You realize that you're asking for self-diagnosis of idiocy. Somehow I doubt that will result in accurate diagnoses. Would t'were that it were possible. :-)