20
   

STEPHEN HAWKING: WE HAVE 100 YEARS TO LEAVE EARTH

 
 
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 11:08 am
Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has warned that humanity needs to become a multi-planetary species within the next century in order to avoid extinction.

Hawking made the prediction in a new documentary called Expedition New Earth, which is set to be released this summer as part of the BBC’s Tomorrow’s World science season.

Existential risks include climate change, overpopulation, epidemics and asteroid strikes, according to Hawking.

Efforts to create a human colony on Mars are already underway, with billionaire Elon Musk hoping to establish a settlement within the next few decades through his aerospace firm SpaceX. “I don’t have a doomsday prophecy,” Musk said in 2016, “but history suggests some doomsday event will happen.”

Hawking predicted last year that the chance of a species-ending event on Earth was a “near certainty” when all possibilities were taken into consideration.

“Although the chance of disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next 1,000 or 10,000 years,” Hawking told the Oxford University Union in November.

“By that time, we should have spread out into space and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the human race.

http://www.newsweek.com/stephen-hawking-warns-100-years-earth-extinction-593609
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 11:22 am
Save
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 11:58 am
@edgarblythe,
Neal Degrasse Tyson wrote:
Whatever it would cost to ship a billion people to a terraformed Mars will certainly be vastly more than fixing Earth. (Laughing) I can tell you that right now. Now first, we can barely predict next week's weather. To believe that some time in the foreseeable future we're going to terraform Mars, turn Mars into an oasis where we can live on it again? I'm just not convinced of this.

Now, the concern that Mars does not have a magnetic field and you need some - it doesn't have an ozone layer - you need some things that would protect us here on earth. A lot of that's resolvable. I mean you can have radiation shields, you'd just live indoors, whatever. Life would be different on Mars, even if it were terraformed. I don't think that's the - that's a showstopper. But the urge to be a multi-planet species is high, and it can protect the species if something bad happens on one planet and on another. You protect the species, not the individual.

But if an asteroid's coming, I'd rather just deflect the damn asteroid and - rather than say, oh, half of you move here, so that when we die, you'll still be alive. (Laughing) That's not a satisfying solution to me. I'd rather use our clever engineering, our clever understanding of science, find solutions to the viruses that might threaten us, bring world peace, so that we don't kill ourselves with our nuclear weapons, and deflect the asteroid when it comes in.



I agree with DeGrasse Tyson. The money and resources spent on terraforming Mars would be high enough to deflect pretty much anything that the Universe is likely to hurl at us.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 12:35 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I agree with DeGrasse Tyson. The money and resources spent on terraforming Mars would be high enough to deflect pretty much anything that the Universe is likely to hurl at us.

Well, we couldn't deflect a vacuum metastability disaster. But then again colonizing Mars won't save us from that either.

How would you save humanity from a gamma ray burst aimed at earth from within our galaxy? (I acknowledge that colonizing Mars might not save us from that one either.)
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 12:56 pm
@edgarblythe,
While leaving earth is in the cards for humanity if it wishes to continue beyond the inevitable destruction of the planet, 100 years seems to be too short a window.

However a lot can get done in only a century. Unfortunately, we won't see.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 01:00 pm
@maxdancona,
I don't necessarily disagree with Tyson, but he is to sanguine about the money being spent on prevention. This hasn't been our history.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 01:28 pm
I don't see it as feasible to move huge numbers to Mars. Just enough to establish a colony with a sustainable gene pool. I'm not sure how many is enough. The project just a stepping stone for learning on the way to great distances.
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 02:08 pm
If the view is that we're helplessly heading to a "Soylent Green" type Earth of our own creation, and we feel that the only recourse is to move to another planet and despoil that too, then why should our species survive? Better that our species goes extinct and let the Earth recover than to completely destroy its ecosystems.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 02:23 pm
@edgarblythe,
I am all for a sustainable gene pool... in fact I volunteer.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 02:32 pm
@maxdancona,
Bring along frozen eggs and sperm. Smile
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 02:33 pm
@edgarblythe,
My idea is a lot more fun. And it involves zero g.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 04:32 pm
@coluber2001,
This presupposes that there is some inherent value in a planet that is superior to any invested in humanity.

Our species should survive because it is our species and that's what species are driven to do.

Other species have had an impact on their ecology (elephants for example) and while the impact of humans is far beyond any other species, it's simply a matter of degree unless you believe we are truly capable of utterly destroying the planet.

Clearly we are capable of creating an event of planet-wide devastation, but with time, life would replenish itself.

A myriad of species have been rendered extinct over the eons. With or without humans present, a myriad more will too. Our species may now be the cause of extinction events as opposed to asteroids and mega-volcanoes but we are as natural as any of the other causes. The fact that we might regret this makes us very special and worthy of preservation.



0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2017 05:01 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Neal Degrasse Tyson wrote:
Whatever it would cost to ship a billion people to a terraformed Mars will certainly be vastly more than fixing Earth. (Laughing) I can tell you that right now. Now first, we can barely predict next week's weather. To believe that some time in the foreseeable future we're going to terraform Mars, turn Mars into an oasis where we can live on it again? I'm just not convinced of this.

Now, the concern that Mars does not have a magnetic field and you need some - it doesn't have an ozone layer - you need some things that would protect us here on earth. A lot of that's resolvable. I mean you can have radiation shields, you'd just live indoors, whatever. Life would be different on Mars, even if it were terraformed. I don't think that's the - that's a showstopper. But the urge to be a multi-planet species is high, and it can protect the species if something bad happens on one planet and on another. You protect the species, not the individual.

But if an asteroid's coming, I'd rather just deflect the damn asteroid and - rather than say, oh, half of you move here, so that when we die, you'll still be alive. (Laughing) That's not a satisfying solution to me. I'd rather use our clever engineering, our clever understanding of science, find solutions to the viruses that might threaten us, bring world peace, so that we don't kill ourselves with our nuclear weapons, and deflect the asteroid when it comes in.



I agree with DeGrasse Tyson. The money and resources spent on terraforming Mars would be high enough to deflect pretty much anything that the Universe is likely to hurl at us.



Neil's take is fairly reasonable but kickstarting a small colony on Mars as insurance policy wouldn't hurt either.While I agree we don't have to move half the population anywhere soon and that Steve is just doing his usual sound byte big sale every now n then to keep afloat, we can and should do both things. That is, take better care of Earth by having a global uniform rule of Law which is fundamental at this stage, and secure an controlled well prepared expansion without blowing the bank.
0 Replies
 
ekename
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2017 07:13 am
Quote:
Hawking predicted last year that the chance of a species-ending event on Earth was a “near certainty” when all possibilities were taken into consideration.

“Although the chance of disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next 1,000 or 10,000 years,” Hawking told the Oxford University Union in November.


Steve says some pretty dumb stuff when he's allowed to scoot away off into the distance from his special subject.

The sun enveloping the earth will be a species ending event.

Show me the math on the next 10,000 years.

Probability doesn't add up over time.

I see he's dropped annihilation due to nuclear holocaust from his list.

Why no mention of his "aliens will arrive before then to show us the secrets of interstellar travel and get us up to speed."

Quote:
Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has warned that humanity needs to become a multi-planetary species within the next century in order to avoid extinction.


Why would the inevitable extinction of this species (and any others, and all) matter?
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2017 09:08 am
@ekename,
I've been reading a few sites that give the planet just 30 years or less before virtually every living thing on the planet goes extinct. Some include even microscopic life. Based on the ways we have been poisoning ourselves. Many of which we pay attention to, such as polluting our water and food and contributing to global warming. One major point they make is based on the numbers of nuclear tests conducted since WWII, and adding in Fukushima. Radiation is spread planet-wide, including below the equator, which had at one time been viewed as relatively safe from the consequences. I don't have enough education to sort all the bull from the truth in such things, but I do know so much radiation can't be a positive thing.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2017 10:35 am
@edgarblythe,
The same amount of science exists on websites as does in other places. Some real, some not so much. Your job, should you accept it, is to determine which
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2017 10:46 am
@edgarblythe,
Those are suppositions way out on the fringe.

If life on earth had only another 30 years we would surely be seeing massive die-offs beyond anything we see today.

The sites don't predict it all will go to hell in the 29th year do they?


0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2017 11:21 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I've been reading a few sites that give the planet just 30 years or less before virtually every living thing on the planet goes extinct. Some include even microscopic life. Based on the ways we have been poisoning ourselves. Many of which we pay attention to, such as polluting our water and food and contributing to global warming. One major point they make is based on the numbers of nuclear tests conducted since WWII, and adding in Fukushima. Radiation is spread planet-wide, including below the equator, which had at one time been viewed as relatively safe from the consequences. I don't have enough education to sort all the bull from the truth in such things, but I do know so much radiation can't be a positive thing.


I read the same things in the 1970s. Those earlier articles are now demonstrably false.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 May, 2017 04:32 am
@edgarblythe,
Well life is thriving in Cherrnobil Ed. I very much doubt the nuclear tests and Fukushima can have such a huge impact. I am more concerned with superpopulation, the destruction of the equatorial forest and its diverse biomass and oceans acidity.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 May, 2017 05:35 am
A headline this morning on Hawking: he moved the timeline to 1,000 years.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » STEPHEN HAWKING: WE HAVE 100 YEARS TO LEAVE EARTH
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/23/2020 at 08:55:56