Abandon Earth Or Die, Warns Hawking

siliconbits writes "According to famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, it's time to free ourselves from Mother Earth. 'I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be in space,' Hawking tells Big Think. 'It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let's hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load.'"

Comments

Re:Die.

[Tuan121]

What's wrong with dying? We all do it sooner or later as individuals. Why should the race last forever?

If that was everyone's attitude then we wouldn't have our outrageously lavish lifestyles now would we? You would be stuck in an era where you still have to worry every day about if you will have any food to live or if your crappy shelter will shield you from the coming storm.

After all, why dedicate time to inventing things and passing on knowledge when we can just give up and die because as an individual we will eventually. Great idea.

Re:This is pretty much what I've been telling peop

[Americano]

Your original statement was that the US spends most of its money on social programs and infrastructure.

Do you need a refresher in elementary math & logic?

Social Programs Budget + Infrastructure Budget > 50% -- thus, "a majority";
AND
Social Programs Budget + Infrastructure Budget > Military Spending -- thus "significantly more money being spent on the first 2 than the last."

The original post I responded to made the statement that "the only thing we're willing to spend on is war." I responded that this was false, because stuff outside military spending accounts for much more than military spending. In fact I offered NO statement as to whether or not I felt the infrastructure spending was "enough".

Then a second person came along and said, "NUH UH, Infrastructure is a small part of the budget." In essence, arguing (like you) against a point I never made, because I never said that Infrastructure was better-funded than the military, or that it comprised a larger part of the budget on its own.

VA programs aren't infrastructure. Infrastructure is things like roads, pipelines, bridges, etc.

And I said that VA programs such as the GI Bill could be considered at least as much "infrastructure / social program" as they could "military spending." Did you bother to read my post before you decided you were a lawyer, or do you just fire from the hip and hope that something you say is relevant?