Slashdot Mirror
Stephen Hawking: We Might Have 1,000 Years Left on Earth (usatoday.com)
Stephen Hawking says the only way humankind can escape mass extinction is to find another planet. And the clock is ticking. From a report on USA Today:During a speech at Britain's Oxford University Union, Hawking detailed the history of man's understanding of the universe and reiterated that the future of humankind lies in space. "We must also continue to go into space for the future of humanity," he said. "I don't think we will survive another 1000 years without escaping beyond our fragile planet."
Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man and solid scientist. His abilities as a futurist leave something to be desired.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
In the span of 1000 years, I can certainly see humans being able to travel and inhabit other nearby planets but do we really think we'll be at a point where we can move large groups of humans >25 trillion miles away? Or does he see this more as we'll be putting civilization into space for centuries-long travel toward those other systems?
Barring entirely any entirely unforeseen and wholly unprecedented breakthroughs in physics and technology, based on the historical (and exponential) rate of humanity's technological progress, I had once heard that we could reasonably expect humanity to be interstellar by about the year 3000.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Battlefield: Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard was set a thousand years into the future, where humans were almost extinct due to aliens killing off humanity to strip mine the planet. Great minds think alike... Meh.
All scientists know we only have 998 years left.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
... says the man who has outlived his own predicted life expectancy by more than 3x.
---
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
That's the mentality of a cockroach. Where's my can of RAID?!
Disaster may hit the planet, but we've had hundreds of millions of years of multicellular life, and humans are likely the most adaptable variety yet. I don't think there's any reason to suppose humans will be completely wiped out by any global-scale disaster that doesn't wipe out essentially all land-based life. We haven't had one of those kind of disasters yet, so I don't see it happening any time in the next 1000 years.
Yes, there will likely be a disaster of global proportions, and I sure don't want to be around for it. I seriously doubt, though, that it could be an extinction level event for humanity.
We're overrunning the planet. Trying to get Humans to curb their hardwired instinctual drive to reproduce is almost completely futile for various reasons ranging from religions frowning upon any sort of birth control methods, to people too poor to afford birth control, to people who just won't stop having kids -- and since geriatric medicine is getting better, people are living longer. Meanwhile it's harder and harder every decade to feed everyone, and the world seems to be increasingly full of agitators and aggressors making life more difficult and dangerous for everyone else. We do need to make a way to get off this planet to relieve the ever-growing population pressure -- and to give the restless types something to conquer that doesn't involve attacking someone else. Personally I'm big on the idea of a permanent colony on the Moon for starters. Give it 50 years to build infrastructure and industry, and you've got a great jumping-off point for the rest of the solar system. Then, maybe, Mars? The Asteroid belt?
This critical issue deserves a more subtle discussion that guesses about when humans will go extinct on earth. Without human foolishness (nuclear weapons, pollution, etc) we would expect we have millions of years. But humans are foolish, so we really don't know. I am suspicious of claims that the human future is in space. Both because there is no plausible way for sustainable human settlements off planet to be manufactured with current technology and because it enables a short sighted approach that treats this planet as a disposable stepping stone to better things. More likely, intelligent machines we make will colonize space before we do since it is much easier to design them to tolerate the harsh environment than it is to modify biology to survive off planet. Maybe we will teach them to build habitats for us, but in that case, it will really be the machines that are doing the colonizing. And this is much further off than many people suspect.
There is no reason whatsoever to think that a civilization of hunter gatherers cannot continue to survive on Earth for a long, long time to come. Even if the oceans rise several feet there will still be arable land somewhere. The people who say we are destroying the planet are full of sh*t. The only thing we can do is make it inhospitable for humans to exist. The *Earth* will continue and some kind of life will survive and even thrive. It just may not include homo sapiens.
So he cites three scenarios: Nuclear war, global warming, and genetically-engineered viruses. Then says we should have more planets to ensure a single incident doesn't destroy us. Given how much he and others have been spewing "AI is our DOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!" I'm surprised that's not on his list too. That aside his entire talk comes down to saying "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." Thanks man.
The technology we would need to survive on any other planet besides Earth would also make surviving any catastrophe that could b fall Earth -- including catastrophic climate change, nuclear winter, or a giant meteor -- trivially easy in comparison.
The worst thing that could conceivably happen to Earth, at least until the sun becomes a red giant billions of years in the future, is something like the above catastrophes would render it a barren wasteland utterly inhospitable to life. But every other planet is already a barren wasteland utterly inhospitable to life. If we could survive at all on any other planet, we could also survive anything that happens to Earth.
Call me when self-sustaining cities on the seafloor, Antarctica, or in the middle of the Sahara are normal things, and then we can talk about living on another planet just because it's there.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The more sustainable we become as an economy, the longer we can stay. The less sustainable we are the less likely are we able to leave. Presently, we are not able to leave. To be able to leave, we need a machine which is sustainable in all aspects. In case it is not, we run out of material we can transform and entropy will destroy the machine and subsequently all inhabitants of it (yes a space ship/ark is a machine). However, in case we achieve the goal to be sustainable in the context of such space ship, we are also able to apply that on Earth.
Fun fact, we have 34 years to get CO2 neutral (this is being sustainable with the atmosphere) or else we are fucked up. Unfortunately, the US will not go in this direction for the next 4 years. So dear US citizens, 30 years left and the clock is ticking.
Beside the CO2 problem, we have also sustainability problems in electronics, food, water, cement, fishing/oceans, ecosystem-diversity etc. All of them have a point of no return and many of them are linked to others. Therefore, we should get on with it. Now is the time. Not tomorrow. NOW.
Which is what people are saying about us now. That we are artificial constructs in some big super computer.
So ... Inception ?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You're assuming you're actually better than a cockroach, when in fact, you are just the same. Except I believe cockroaches will outlive humans.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I don't think anyone [even Stephen Hawking] can say anything meaningful about where we'll be 1000 years from now. Did anyone in the year 1016 A.D. foresee conditions today?
At present growth rates, it looks more like ~400 years before we boil off the oceans. The planet's surface area is fixed and can only dissipate so much heat. On the slightly bigger scale we have a little more than 2400 years before we consume all the energy generated by the entire galaxy
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What's the real need to ensure that those who live get to live well? If we're all dead who the fuck cares what happened along the way.
Well, so far Homo sapiens has survived on the order of a million years on this "fragile" planet. Obviously the current exponential growth in population and consumption of material resources cannot continue for even 1000 years, but all that means is that our lifestyle WILL change markedly one way or another, and very probably our quality of life will be greatly reduced. But even if there is a mass die-off of 99-99.9% of the population, the species will continue. That goes even for the case of a catastrophic nuclear exchange or a catastrophic asteroid impact. Possibly the surviving form of Homo sapiens would be all but unrecognizable to us.
None of which is to be construed as an argument that we SHOULDN'T colonize extraterrestrial places. This, however, would not be effective analogs of lifeboats. That would be utterly impossible due to the scale. It would simply be a seeding.
Sure. 'Lots of species' have gone extinct in the 4.5B years of Earth's lifespan so far, but we are the the dominant, and very-much sentient, self-aware, tool-making-and-using species of Earth, that distguishes ourselves by being the only one on the planet that changes our environment to suit us, rather than allowing the environment to dictate our adaptation. Other, lesser species have gone extinct for that reason; we don't have to. Of course, we might go extinct anyway -- but only if we sit on our opposable thumbs, contemplating our navels, until it's too late to do anything about it. Another unique ability that homo sapiens has? Planning for the future.
But -100 for taking a bit too long a view.
Technically there's no reason we can't actually populate other planets or solar systems in 1000 years if we decide to. On the other hand there's no reason we can't sustain human culture on this planet for another billion years if we decide to.
So sure, by all means lets investigate technologies to more efficiently explore our surroundings but let's spend a bit more effort on sustainability in the balance. For starters we could stop spending the vast majority of our energy arguing over issues that don't matter one bit (where to go to the bathroom, sexual preference of the person 4 doors down).
If we can't figure out how to solve sustainability problems moving to another planet is just a change of scenery.
This guy got famous for saying nothing leaves black holes and then walking it back.
What about cosmology/physics could make him worth listening to on this subject?
You're assuming you're actually better than a cockroach, when in fact, you are just the same.
You're the one making an assumption.
Except I believe cockroaches will outlive humans.
Of course.
Sure, make a prediction that no one will be around to check.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
The worst thing that could conceivably happen to Earth, at least until the sun becomes a red giant billions of years in the future, is something like the above catastrophes would render it a barren wasteland utterly inhospitable to life.
Wrong.
The worst thing that could conceivably happen to earth is a meteor blasting it and all the things on it to chunky kibbles. Phaeton style.
And that could happen in 3 months if destiny wanted it so.
It could even happen without us ever knowing what hit us. Literally.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I doubt we have 1000 years left on earth. The current max lifespan seems to be about 115. Even with modern advancements in science I doubt we'll make it to having 1000 years left on earth.
Now, our descendants might be here in 1000 years, but we won't be- at least not in one piece any more.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Clinton wasn't going to do anything about climate change and her starting WW3 with Russia to appease the defence contractors that own her definitely wouldn't have helped the situation.
With nanotech and other technologies, it's likely that the human form will be extensively redesigned in coming decades, with all kinds of replacement forms possible. Why be stuck with flimsy, fragile biology? Some of the new designs might live in space and have no need for Earth. There may be a few human hold-outs around living on land set aside for them.
A lot of geologists think we'll have a pretty decent culling of the human population when the poles flip. That could happen in our lifetime or thousands of years from now. The main contention is the parts of the Earth surface are going to get fried with radiation when that happens. Stock up on sun block and lead lined suits.
Clinton wasn't going to do anything about climate change and her starting WW3 with Russia to appease the defence contractors that own her definitely wouldn't have helped the situation.
Now that's just not true! Nuclear winter would have set back global warming by decades, if not centuries. She was the only candidate willing to actually do something about global warming!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The planet's not fragile, but us humans collectively take that as a challenge.
So now Hawking's advocating the "interstellar plague of locusts" future for humanity, just like Newt Gingrich. Who woulda thought?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Neither candidate was any good. We chose the psychopath over the sociopath.
Once more, a "No shit, Sherlock!" moment! Thanks, guy, nobody else would have ever guessed . . . .
What are the odds? How many people get it overall?
About 3.9 per 100,000 people, at least in the USA, according to this paper.
And why him specifically?
Genetics and/or environmental factors. Nobody knows for sure. The fact that he's a white male stacked the deck against him.
Even to me, as a non-religious person, it appears like a punishment of some sort.
Then I think you need to re-evaluate your concepts of morality. People who get ALS don't "deserve" to get it.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
And basically every animal that has ever lived.
What is it with crazy Americans claiming that candidate XYZ will surely start nuking everything the day he gets into office, whenever there's someone to be elected?
Ezekiel 23:20
I voted for "Extinction-Event Asteroid" rather than Clinton or Trump....
The planet will recover just fine after we're gone, no matter what cataclysmic event leads to our extinction.
The crazy Americans are a minority
Citation needed.
Fry: This snow is beautiful. I'm glad global warming never happened.
Leela: Actually, it did. But thank God nuclear winter canceled it out.
but now he is just a whacko predicting the end of the world like all those religious nut jobs. No one has a crystal ball. An asteroid could hit tomorrow and wipe us out. Or it could be a million years before we are ended. Either way, I'm not losing sleep over it.
Who cares about what's in 1000 years? Seriously, we will see that much change until then. Maybe technology, maybe back to the stone age ... but nothing will be like today.
And possibly we will all live in a computer and nobody cares about earth climate and similiar stuff.
Let's just lay down and die instead.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
He's giving it approximately 996 years more than I would.
As an American I approve OP's comment.
Another unique ability that homo sapiens has? Planning for the future.
Next quarter's profits? Sure. Next year and beyond? Not so much.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Because there are only two* parties in the U.S., Democrat and Republican. Once you register with one party, anything anyone does in that party is Right and Good and anything anyone does in the other party is Dumb and Wrong.
*no one cares about third parties, they just throw your vote away.
Repealed? Or perhaps correctly interpreted.
One word: beavers.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You are too late on climate change at any rate. The story is the same as it always was: Adapt or die.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Hopefully humanity is just as lucky as Hawkin's and outlives its extintion-expectancy by X10 and counting
How many would you evacuate? 1 million tops? I'm willing to bet that a million would survive on Earth anyway, and even a wrecked planet will be more hospitable than the alternatives. Maybe we could send all the telephone hygienists first though.
It seems to be that whatever difficulties exist in making human civilization sustainable on Earth, they pale in comparison to the difficulties of colonizing a planet many light years away.
One would hope that curbing or reversing global warming will be easier than colonizing and terraforming another planet....
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Me too, but since we cannot predict all future threats, we should hedge our bets by taking multiple preservation approaches. The more backups and spares we make, the more likely at least one will survive chaos and wars. (Remember the days when floppy disks were very unreliable? One backup was not enough.)
As far as the bot-versus-human debate, it's possible the future is both: human minds will be scanned and then digitally emulated. That way our "personality" can travel among the stars without the expensive life support of biological bodies. ("Death" scans may be easier than scanning living brains because at first it may require slicing or other harmful techniques to get a good scan.)
But scan-and-emulate may be a ways off such that a biological Noah's Ark(s) would be a first step.
Table-ized A.I.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We've been going extinct for a long time.....yet here we are.
Not saying it's impossible, but our species seems to find a way.
Human kind in general? It will require the death of all life on Earth, and even then, there might be some bunkers in places that will be designed for sustainability in the next 1000 years. Generational bunkers might sound bad, but it's a lot better than generational spaceships. At least you'll have gravity and geothermal, and you're *at* your destination, so no worries about landing.
What is it with crazy Americans claiming that candidate XYZ will surely start nuking everything the day he gets into office, whenever there's someone to be elected?
George W Bush would've nuked the Middle East if it didn't have such a negative public opinion. He was itching (this was quoted many times) to invade Iraq weeks after being sworn in back in 2000. 9/11 just helped green light the invasion.
"I don't think we will survive another 1000 years without escaping beyond our fragile planet." What...? escape to a stable non-threatening environment like Mars, Europa or an Asteroid ? I think the Earth (which has gone through ice ages as recently as 50,000 years ago) and was very much warmer for most of its 4 billion year of existence... is much less fragile than you think.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Algore said we'd all be dead by 2016? You mean we are to believe THIS theory?
You would stagnate our capitalist economy!
Anyway it is probably self limiting. You're assuming growth based on historical data, which assumes no self limiting systems inherently in place. Conflict for example, and other things like famine and sickness. As growth continues it will outstrip resources (baring some sort of magic technology). As resources become more scarce, they become more valuable. As they become more valuable they will become more desired. As they become more desired, well you probably get the point. Most conflict is about resources, this really just takes it to the next level. Arable land, water, power, fossil fuels, mineral, etc...
So yeah it will hit a point where shall we say significant decline is inevitable. Should we not reach that point without doing some pretty bad damage to the Earth, could prompt an even further decline. Will we reach I point where Earth is less habitable than some other planet in our solar system? I think on the planetary/geologic scale that is pretty unlikely. Even were humans intentionally trying to mess up the planet, it will still be better than some barren rock in space.
If the idea is that we better find a way to move our civilization to another planet in the next 1000 years, then we better just give up now because we're all doomed.
Now that's just not true! Nuclear winter would have set back global warming by decades, if not centuries. She was the only candidate willing to actually do something about global warming!
All I can tell you about that is that patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
It's always been "adapt or die." Always will be. I object to calling Earth a "fragile planet." We evolved here - We're tailor fit for this planet. Finding another that's more robust against us is laughably unlikely. I'm not against exploring or even inhabiting other planets, but this "pick up the species and move" in the next 1,000 years seems silly.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
The example you should use is China. They have a significant issue in the next couple of decades. Due to their reproduction policies whole generations had artificially reduced birthrates, so their demographics are all top heavy basically. They've stopped the policy, but I'd imagine that for the period for however long it was in place they will basically have too many old people and too few young people to support them.
Give 'em a million years or so, and perhaps this debate will be held by Beavers, on a Beaver-created version of the Internet. Until then, we're it.
Best comment in this topic. Why is it indispensable that humans survive?
When there's no more there's no more. Fucking off from the earth changes what exactly?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
The crazy Americans are the 96% majority who voted for what they knew was a horrible candidate, on the grounds that they didn't want the other lizard to win.
This space intentionally left blank
With Trump in the White House, we will be lucky to survive 10 years.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Heh.
...and suddenly a Trump presidency begins to make sense...
"Finding another that's more robust against us is laughably unlikely. "
Cockroaches.
Supercomputer? I, for one, claim it is a Celeron.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
So we went from NO SELF-POWERED VEHICLES AT ALL about 120 years ago to LANDING ON THE DAMN MOON about 75 years later, and he doesn't think we'll be able to figure out ANY way to keep ourselves living over the course of the next THOUSAND? He thinks we're totally done thinking, innovating, and solving problems, so we're just totally fucked with what we've done to the Earth as of right now?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
if we don't stop breeding like rats.
I said this very thing back in 2015. I bet 10, no... $20US that we Terraform Mars in the next thousand years or so. We need to spread our wings and get of this rock, and leap-frog to the next rock.
Well, you see we've got about 7 billion humans here all sabotaging any effort to fix global warming.
There will only be a few on Mars and they'll all have a vested interest in terraforming their new home.
Earth for human inhabitants is screwed.
Never happened. True story.
It's may be logical to say if you are a HRC supporter you are not a Trump supporter.
You appear to have interpreted "sounds like" in a way that the OP did not intend. "Sounds like a Trump supporter" could mean "seems to be a Trump supporter" or it could mean "uses rhetoric similar to that of a Trump supporter". I am reasonable confident that the latter was the intended meaning: uses the trailer trash rhetoric of a typical deplorable Trump supporter. Of course, not all Trump supporters are deplorable, or at least, not all of them are completely deplorable, but the ones who say things like "why don't you shut the fuck up" certainly are.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The bulk of the attacks I've heard about have been done to Trump supporters.
You have remarkably selective hearing.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
If you need evidence, check out the comments to any Youtube video involving Trump, for one thing.
As I said, you have remarkably selective hearing, in addition to being an ass.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Well, he did repeatedly publicly promise to violate basic human rights on a massive scale during his campaign rallies.
How's life in cloud-cuckoo-land?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
this "pick up the species and move" in the next 1,000 years seems silly
Indeed, terraforming Mars for human habitation won't happen until we work out how to fix/maintain the life support system on this planet.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
So "Operation Fast and Furious" happened before you were born? That scandal, which resulted in the death of one of the American Border Patrol, was a Democrat conspiracy intended to result in the seizure of guns. It would have, too, if it hadn't been exposed.
Then there's also the orchestrated outcry over the nonexistent "gun show loophole".
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Who's rioting now? And why is George Soros paying them $1500/week?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
So "Operation Fast and Furious" happened before you were born? That scandal, which resulted in the death of one of the American Border Patrol, was a Democrat conspiracy intended to result in the seizure of guns.
While a complete and utter clusterfuck, that is not what Operation Fast and Furious was at all. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite, where they were letting criminals walk away with guns instead of seizing them. That's why it's called the ATF "gunwalking" scandal.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
I wish I'd read this before responding to your comment above.
So uh, yeah, Operation Fast and Furious is whatever you want it to be. Have a nice day!
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Hawking's quote and the article's headline do not have identical meanings. He said we won't have another 1000, meaning we'll have less than that number and probably implying much less than that, whereas the article headline says we might get a full 1000. Bad journalism isn't the worst thing in the world, but to constantly have news headlines doing this just serves to further homogenise the English language to the point where those of us who actually know how to speak English, with all it's infinite(hyperbole, of course) variety of meanings, are having our speech dumbed down by proxy.
CEOs are paid to ignore the future and may be fired and replaced if they do not. Because their metric of success is profits this quarter and not profits 10 years from now, and to maximize profits today it is necessary to sacrifice future potential. While they are also incentivized to increase future profits, that means little vs the risk of being fired for incompetence (then good luck getting another CEO job, the company's profits are public record so they will know why, and the next CEO will be credited for any increase in the future).
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Let's see how much Trump and his Nutcase Republicans in House & Senate can drive that number down in the next 4 years ...
Jacque Cousteau says the future of mankind is deep under the ocean.
It's lucky the bastards are so tiny or they'd totally pwn us.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The good news is some of us will still be alive to see if he was correct or not: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/...
This video makes the round in intergalactic circles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And now it happens, this awful species is on the point to spread out and infect other worlds.
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
You mean the 25% minority that voted for the other lizard? Half of us were too busy with bread and circuses to be bothered.
What is it with crazy Americans claiming that candidate XYZ will surely start nuking everything the day he gets into office, whenever there's someone to be elected?
No, you fail to see the brilliance of that claim. If they don't nuke everything, you get to survive. And if they do, you get to say I told you so.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
It's kind of like how the crazy Americans keep claiming that "Democrat candidate XYZ is going to steal our guns!" - despite the very carefully not discussed fact that the total number of guns Obama stole was zero. It's a convenient thing to rage about and accuse them of being even more evil than whatever candidate ZYX just did in public and bragged about.
Also why they kept screaming that Obama was going to lock them all up in FEMA death camps - which they're now bragging that their new Furer will be locking their enemies up in. (Hint: He's not going to do that any more than Obama was. These people are just delusional. Unfortunately, they also vote.)
The crazy Americans are a minority, but unfortunately, they're a really loud one, and the American media loves pretending to be "balanced" by giving lots of airtime to people who are clearly unbalanced.
Simple statistics. Surveys etc. look like approx. 25% of the public are high functioning cognitive defectives, whether through "low IQ", "emotional illness", "bad upbringing", "lack of education", whatever; can't be relied on to always make an appropriate, optimal decision in situations where that decision is obvious, but can fake it well enough most of the time to survive in society. Another 25% might be generally capable of making decisions which do not injure themselves or others, but are fixated on particular issues to the exclusion of all other factors; islamophobia, antisemitism, other prejudices; animal rights, progun, antigun, other causes; excessive party loyalty, etc. which overrule "good judgement". And now we've nearly got a majority, if these folks all skew the same direction.
Similar to the observation that half the population has less than average intelligence. or wisdom. or integrity. or decency. etc.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Best comment in this topic. Why is it indispensable that humans survive?
When there's no more there's no more. Fucking off from the earth changes what exactly?
Because collectively as a specie, we're a bunch of selfish fucks?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Before, the story was "adapt or die". Currently, it's "adapt real fast or die". Humans are really, really good at adapting, but that isn't true of all the species we really want to keep around.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There's nothing on Mars that can help us, though. Living there is pure hardship, very needy hardship. The true key is: Enlightenment. People need to snap into consciousness that we are doing harm to the world everywhere humans live! We have to STOP doing harm, that's all. (Can we do that? i doubt it)
You're assuming you're actually better than a cockroach, when in fact, you are just the same. Except I believe cockroaches will outlive humans.
I don't think cockroaches are that successful outside of human dwelling spaces.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The cited article, 2016/11/17, gives no further references. The Daily Express citation doesn't even contain the word "1000". The Independent, Tuesday 15 November 2016, cites USA Today as a source....
Google finds a VOA News of April 11, 2013 2:07 PM, mentioning the same 1000 years theory three years ago. The phrase is ascribed to a 2008 ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the NASA. So perhaps it should be 992.
Hawking's original reckoning is missing.
What is it with crazy Americans claiming that candidate XYZ will surely start nuking everything the day he gets into office, whenever there's someone to be elected?
Because they might be able to, and it's our responsibility to make sure that they don't.
That is why our government system is so different, we break up the power centers into "separation of powers" to make sure one person doesn't cause too much damage. We do take our resonsibilities seriously, even though the people you hear on TV might not know about it. 8-)
So "Operation Fast and Furious" happened before you were born? That scandal, which resulted in the death of one of the American Border Patrol, was a Democrat conspiracy intended to result in the seizure of guns.
While a complete and utter clusterfuck, that is not what Operation Fast and Furious was at all. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite, where they were letting criminals walk away with guns instead of seizing them. That's why it's called the ATF "gunwalking" scandal.
True, but the -reason- they were letting the guns "walk" was so they could then point to them as a reason to ban guns. Someone in that mess believed that "the end justifies the means". If they had been just trying to catch smugglers, they would not have let so many go. 8-P
My first presidential election was in 1964.
I was told that if I voted for Goldwater there would be war.
I voted for Goldwater.
There was war. Johnson started it by lying about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Another unique ability that homo sapiens has? Planning for the future.
Yeah we're planning for climate change, fossil fuel depletion and automation just fine.
For the rest, we have the capability now to build near perfect artificial environments.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The correct interpretation is that there should be NO REGULATIONS of guns. Any other interpretation is just creative misapplication of grammar rules.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well trained militia (consists of all men between 18 and 40), being required to protect our country (from invasion); (everything before here is just ONE reason, not the ONLY reason, and it doesn't even put any restrictions), the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The only restriction legally allowed by the actual wording of the amendment (not the one you made up), is that training should be required for all gun owners. Any other restriction is against the amendment's "shall not be infringed" portion.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?