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?
... says the man who has outlived his own predicted life expectancy by more than 3x.
---
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
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.
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?
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.
I'd agree except this has been fixed in the developed world with universal negative population growth among populations around longer than second generation immigrant. You keep talking about how people can't stop having kids... but they have.
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.
Population growth already slowing down. Many countries are already in demographic decline. It's not hard to imagine that the rest of the planet will follow and growth will stop by the end of the 21st Century or so.
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.
and then walking it back.
That's not how he rolls.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I said that's what I'd like to see -- I never said I thought it would happen. For that to happen, hearts and minds have to change, on a grand scale, so that people are thinking far into the future, and people are not thinking about short-term profits, or really about money at all. Also, try to get Joe and Jane average, with their 2.5 kids, 30 year mortgage, two car payments, plus all their other monthly expenses, plus thinking about their retirement accounts, to give a rats ass about anything happening even in LEO, let alone on the Moon; it's just not happening. That's just in 1st World countries; in non-first-world countries, people are occupied with day-to-day survival. Also, overall, the vast majority of people don't even really understand any of this 'space stuff', and many of those think it's just a waste of money. That all is really what we're up against on ideas like permanent off-world colonies.
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.
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.
Growth has only been exponential for the last 100 to 150 years
What do you mean, growth is always exponential even a million years ago.
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 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.
Call me when the overall curve is heading downhill.
<ring>
The developed world is calling you, and the second derivative is already negative globally. The world population growth rate should hit zero around 2050 and then begin declining.
To put it another way, the number of children born per year is already declining and has been for some time. The only reason the population isn't already declining is that the global population is still skewed young. Today's population growth is entirely due to the "filling out" of the age distribution. If you divide the population into five generations, each of 20 years -- so you have the 0-19, 20-39, 40-59, 60-79 and 80-99 groups -- There are about 2B in each of the first two groups, then it drops off rapidly. As the upper groups fill out over the next 35 years or so, you'll end up with roughly 2B per generation times five generations, for a total of about 10B people. Barring significant life extension, that will be the peak. Because the supply flowing into the first generation is slowly declining, the overall population will then begin to decline.
That's if current demographic trends continue, but it's likely that they'll accelerate. The biggest factors in reducing birthrates are (1) female education (2) infant survival rate and (3) wealth. Educated women who have confidence their children will survive and the resources to invest in them tend to have few children and invest heavily in the education and development of those fewer children. Since the trends in the developing world (the areas still producing lots of babies) are toward more education, better availability of medical services and increasing wealth in the developing world, it's likely that the current birth rate numbers will be further reduced.
No, the population crisis that is coming is one of not *enough* people, rather than too many. Some northern European countries are already facing this issue, especially since their systems for supporting the elderly require that there be plenty of young people working. Denmark, for example, has been running ads for several years now, encouraging couples to do the patriotic thing for their country by having babies.
The one thing that might change this is if medical technology progresses to allow the average person to live many decades longer. Add another 2B to the peak population for every 20 years of (universally-available) life extension.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
earth shattering kaboom.
you should have gone with earth shattering kaboom.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
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
That is exactly what we are afraid of.
Trump is just a stupid greedy trust fund brat who is famous for being a bully and really doesn't have what it takes to lead.. while Pence is truly scary in his zealotry and bigotry (never mind that his doctrine directly counterfeits the bible he claims to believe)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Wrong, the worst would be the Earth getting demolished in order to build a hyperspace bypass.