7 ms·

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet earth in the next 100 years, let alone the next 1000 or million. The human race shouldn't have all its

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet earth in the next 100 years, let alone the next 1000 or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket or on one planet. Getting a portion of the human race permanently off the planet is imperative for our future as a species." - Stephen Hawking

x5n1 11y ago
Yet we have no idea how to build a self-sustaining colony of human beings anywhere other than planet earth. And even here it does not seem to be the case that we are self-sustaining, hence the need to leave the planet in the first place. A much better statement should be we need to create a self-sustaining civilization here on Earth at any cost. Don't take it easy, it's no longer business as usual.
- rgawdzik 11y ago
  I don't think Hawking's primary concern was in the self-sustaining sense, rather with the more immediate threats as in the 'asteroid/epidemic/natural disaster' sense. Hawking believes humanity needs to figure out space colonization ASAP.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    Well then what would be the point? Any thing that can cut off the life support mechanism of the Earth to the Astronauts or the colony, would mean their survival was no longer guaranteed.
    - rgawdzik 11y ago
      I assume in his quote when he means "Getting a portion of the human race permanently...", he means resource independence from Earth, which would be the point.
  - furyofantares 11y ago
    I don't think non-human-created disasters are that much of a threat to civilization in the 100/1000 year time scales, so I don't think that's what is meant.
  - joesmo 11y ago
    I don't think so, simply because of the way he phrases it and the timeline. There's no way Hawking would predict such a huge natural disaster in the next 1000 years, let alone in the next 100 years with such certainty. I think it's clear he's talking about man-made disasters which have already been set in play (like global warming, overpopulation, war, etc.).
- robbiep 11y ago
  We're not going to find out by not continuing to invest in manned missions though
- ectoplasm 11y ago
  I'm not convinced at all that we can turn things around. Most likely scenario is that we will just keep growing, there will be a massive die-off at some point, and then the remaining humans will ensure survival of the species.
  - codyb 11y ago
    The Deutsche Bank is already predicting peak population [0] by 2055 so maybe a mass grow isn't as likely as it seems as industrializing nations lower birth rates. Although the UN is predicting continued growth until 2100. It would be pretty amazing if we stopped expanding in 2025. [0] - http://www.cnbc.com/id/101018722 http://www.cnbc.com/id/101018722
  - adventured 11y ago
    We can grow ten times the food inside that we currently do outside. We can grow it faster, with far greater quality, and with a fraction of the water we use now. And that's before we get into really advanced crop engineering, which is inevitable in the next few decades. Nuclear power can easily solve our energy problems as desired. If it comes down to it, and there are no other options, they'll turn back to nuclear power. Most likely the radical acceleration of solar will solve half of our energy problem all by itself. I see no reason why a die-off would occur due to population growth.
    - ectoplasm 11y ago
      I don't believe the population will stop growing, ever. I also don't believe that we will forever be able to break through resource walls with our technology. Maybe it takes 10000 years and a population of 500 billion, I just think that's the most likely scenario.
      - andybak 11y ago
        > I don't believe the population will stop growing, ever. 'Peak child' has already been reached so I struggle to understand what you don't think peak population will follow.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  We're much less likely to develop that technology if we don't try. Automobiles in 1900 weren't terribly capable to what we have today, but because they were made use of then we've had over a century of improvements on them.
mullingitover 11y ago
Focus on getting any life at all surviving off planet. We can build up to primates from there.
idlewords 11y ago
I don't understand this imperative at all. This planet was good enough for my grandpappy, and it's good enough for me.
- rgawdzik 11y ago
  It wasn't good enough for the dinosaurs. Do you want to condemn the human race to their fate?
- vlasev 11y ago
  Just like a house is good enough until it burns down. Not every house burns down but a lot of them do. It would be nice to have another one, just in case.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  "For no cradle lasts forever; every bird must learn to fly..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ryd_p20XEU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ryd_p20XEU
eudox 11y ago
Living on the ocean floor is infinitely cheaper and more feasible than living in space, is definitely safer, and protects you from all the potential dangers of being a one-planet species. Huge asteroid? Just dive into a deep trench. Gamma ray burst? You'll barely detect any radiation under a few meters of water. War? The ocean's a big place and you can hide somewhere and weather a war that might last centuries. The argument that we need space exploration so humanity doesn't go extinct is a ridiculous last-ditch effort to save people's sci-fi fantasies.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  > Huge asteroid? Just dive into a deep trench. How do you move a big settlement into a trench? How do you even move enough submersibles, given little warning?
  - eudox 11y ago
    You evacuate people in a big submarine, if you have to. It might not even be necessary, if the impact site is sufficiently far away or the settlement is deep enough. But this is all a moot point, any realistic asteroid that threatens this planet can be blown to smithereens and will probably be spotted unless it's coming perpendicular to the ecliptic.
    - rgawdzik 11y ago
      *citation needed for both being able to blow up an asteroid adequately, and to have a high probability to spot them. At least from my childhood on discovery channel, both are nearly impossible (With respect to seeing the asteroid, it would be too late to make a difference)
      - eudox 11y ago
        You fly some nukes into it. Usually, at this point someone links to some NDT interview with Jon Stewart or something where he says "but if you blow up an asteroid, the chunks will still hit you". Yes, well, if you blow up an asteroid the ratio of surface area to volume will change, and a greater percentage of the asteroid's mass will be
joesmo 11y ago
Honestly, I'm not sure our species deserves a future if we lay waste to an entire planet and make it uninhabitable for ourselves (something which we seem to have already set in motion). What's to stop us from doing so to any other planet we colonize? Or, more pertinently, what's the point of preserving the human race if the only outcome is planetary destruction? I'm not trying to be dreary, but I do think Hawking is completely wrong on this point, not to mention its feasibility in the next 100 years.
- kayoone 11y ago
  I am also sure we do not really deserve it, but we also can't stop our own urge for self preservation which is fundamental to every species. So we can't really stop it anyway, but we as a species might eliminate ourselves before any meanigful progress on space colonization can be made, for better or worse. The universe certainly wouldn't care.
  - joesmo 11y ago
    True. I just think there's more we can do here on Earth for this purpose. Yes, some problems are inevitable, but as a whole species we haven't yet done anything to destroy all life.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Who cares if we destroy another planet? I mean, I'm also appalled by what we're doing on this one, but say we all decide to curl up and die, saving countless planets from our interference. Who's going to care? Universe will go on, and so far there's no evidence that there are other beings like us, who could reflect on themselves and the state of the world they live in. We may not be the centre of the universe, but it is still ours for the taking, we're the only Player Characters around. There's no point in making honourable self-sacrifice when there won't be anyone to appreciate it.
japhyr 11y ago
I used to find hope in this idea of going to another planet, so if we nuke one planet we're still okay as a species. But heck, if our species is inclined to wage destructive war on ourselves, we're probably going to do it a second time. We'd have to colonize a lot of planets to find the rare group of humans who would not resort to destructive power struggles. I'm not yet convinced that we're going to destroy ourselves, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that self-destruction is in our nature. To put some numbers on it, if humanity has a 25% chance of destroying itself within 1000 years of discovering nuclear power, how many planets do we need to colonize to have a reasonable chance of surviving another 10,000 years? (survival = no catastrophic nuclear event, survival != a subset of humans barely making it in a post-apocalyptic world)

x5n1 11y ago

Yet we have no idea how to build a self-sustaining colony of human beings anywhere other than planet earth. And even here it does not seem to be the case that we are self-sustaining, hence the need to leave the planet in the first place. A much better statement should be we need to create a self-sustaining civilization here on Earth at any cost. Don't take it easy, it's no longer business as usual.

rgawdzik 11y ago
I don't think Hawking's primary concern was in the self-sustaining sense, rather with the more immediate threats as in the 'asteroid/epidemic/natural disaster' sense. Hawking believes humanity needs to figure out space colonization ASAP.
- x5n1 11y ago
  Well then what would be the point? Any thing that can cut off the life support mechanism of the Earth to the Astronauts or the colony, would mean their survival was no longer guaranteed.
  - rgawdzik 11y ago
    I assume in his quote when he means "Getting a portion of the human race permanently...", he means resource independence from Earth, which would be the point.
- furyofantares 11y ago
  I don't think non-human-created disasters are that much of a threat to civilization in the 100/1000 year time scales, so I don't think that's what is meant.
- joesmo 11y ago
  I don't think so, simply because of the way he phrases it and the timeline. There's no way Hawking would predict such a huge natural disaster in the next 1000 years, let alone in the next 100 years with such certainty. I think it's clear he's talking about man-made disasters which have already been set in play (like global warming, overpopulation, war, etc.).
robbiep 11y ago
We're not going to find out by not continuing to invest in manned missions though
ectoplasm 11y ago
I'm not convinced at all that we can turn things around. Most likely scenario is that we will just keep growing, there will be a massive die-off at some point, and then the remaining humans will ensure survival of the species.
- codyb 11y ago
  The Deutsche Bank is already predicting peak population [0] by 2055 so maybe a mass grow isn't as likely as it seems as industrializing nations lower birth rates. Although the UN is predicting continued growth until 2100. It would be pretty amazing if we stopped expanding in 2025. [0] - http://www.cnbc.com/id/101018722 http://www.cnbc.com/id/101018722
- adventured 11y ago
  We can grow ten times the food inside that we currently do outside. We can grow it faster, with far greater quality, and with a fraction of the water we use now. And that's before we get into really advanced crop engineering, which is inevitable in the next few decades. Nuclear power can easily solve our energy problems as desired. If it comes down to it, and there are no other options, they'll turn back to nuclear power. Most likely the radical acceleration of solar will solve half of our energy problem all by itself. I see no reason why a die-off would occur due to population growth.
  - ectoplasm 11y ago
    I don't believe the population will stop growing, ever. I also don't believe that we will forever be able to break through resource walls with our technology. Maybe it takes 10000 years and a population of 500 billion, I just think that's the most likely scenario.
    - andybak 11y ago
      > I don't believe the population will stop growing, ever. 'Peak child' has already been reached so I struggle to understand what you don't think peak population will follow.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
We're much less likely to develop that technology if we don't try. Automobiles in 1900 weren't terribly capable to what we have today, but because they were made use of then we've had over a century of improvements on them.

mullingitover 11y ago

Focus on getting any life at all surviving off planet. We can build up to primates from there.

idlewords 11y ago

I don't understand this imperative at all. This planet was good enough for my grandpappy, and it's good enough for me.

rgawdzik 11y ago
It wasn't good enough for the dinosaurs. Do you want to condemn the human race to their fate?
vlasev 11y ago
Just like a house is good enough until it burns down. Not every house burns down but a lot of them do. It would be nice to have another one, just in case.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
"For no cradle lasts forever; every bird must learn to fly..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ryd_p20XEU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ryd_p20XEU

eudox 11y ago

Living on the ocean floor is infinitely cheaper and more feasible than living in space, is definitely safer, and protects you from all the potential dangers of being a one-planet species. Huge asteroid? Just dive into a deep trench. Gamma ray burst? You'll barely detect any radiation under a few meters of water. War? The ocean's a big place and you can hide somewhere and weather a war that might last centuries. The argument that we need space exploration so humanity doesn't go extinct is a ridiculous last-ditch effort to save people's sci-fi fantasies.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
> Huge asteroid? Just dive into a deep trench. How do you move a big settlement into a trench? How do you even move enough submersibles, given little warning?
- eudox 11y ago
  You evacuate people in a big submarine, if you have to. It might not even be necessary, if the impact site is sufficiently far away or the settlement is deep enough. But this is all a moot point, any realistic asteroid that threatens this planet can be blown to smithereens and will probably be spotted unless it's coming perpendicular to the ecliptic.
  - rgawdzik 11y ago
    *citation needed for both being able to blow up an asteroid adequately, and to have a high probability to spot them. At least from my childhood on discovery channel, both are nearly impossible (With respect to seeing the asteroid, it would be too late to make a difference)
    - eudox 11y ago
      You fly some nukes into it. Usually, at this point someone links to some NDT interview with Jon Stewart or something where he says "but if you blow up an asteroid, the chunks will still hit you". Yes, well, if you blow up an asteroid the ratio of surface area to volume will change, and a greater percentage of the asteroid's mass will be

joesmo 11y ago

Honestly, I'm not sure our species deserves a future if we lay waste to an entire planet and make it uninhabitable for ourselves (something which we seem to have already set in motion). What's to stop us from doing so to any other planet we colonize? Or, more pertinently, what's the point of preserving the human race if the only outcome is planetary destruction? I'm not trying to be dreary, but I do think Hawking is completely wrong on this point, not to mention its feasibility in the next 100 years.

kayoone 11y ago
I am also sure we do not really deserve it, but we also can't stop our own urge for self preservation which is fundamental to every species. So we can't really stop it anyway, but we as a species might eliminate ourselves before any meanigful progress on space colonization can be made, for better or worse. The universe certainly wouldn't care.
- joesmo 11y ago
  True. I just think there's more we can do here on Earth for this purpose. Yes, some problems are inevitable, but as a whole species we haven't yet done anything to destroy all life.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Who cares if we destroy another planet? I mean, I'm also appalled by what we're doing on this one, but say we all decide to curl up and die, saving countless planets from our interference. Who's going to care? Universe will go on, and so far there's no evidence that there are other beings like us, who could reflect on themselves and the state of the world they live in. We may not be the centre of the universe, but it is still ours for the taking, we're the only Player Characters around. There's no point in making honourable self-sacrifice when there won't be anyone to appreciate it.

japhyr 11y ago

I used to find hope in this idea of going to another planet, so if we nuke one planet we're still okay as a species. But heck, if our species is inclined to wage destructive war on ourselves, we're probably going to do it a second time. We'd have to colonize a lot of planets to find the rare group of humans who would not resort to destructive power struggles. I'm not yet convinced that we're going to destroy ourselves, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that self-destruction is in our nature. To put some numbers on it, if humanity has a 25% chance of destroying itself within 1000 years of discovering nuclear power, how many planets do we need to colonize to have a reasonable chance of surviving another 10,000 years? (survival = no catastrophic nuclear event, survival != a subset of humans barely making it in a post-apocalyptic world)