Stephen Hawking Says He Is Convinced That Humans Need To Leave Earth (sciencealert.com)

Reader dryriver writes: Back in May, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking made yet another doomsday prediction. He said that humanity has 100 years left on Earth, which knocked 900 years off the prediction he made in November 2016, which had given humanity 1,000 years left. With his new estimate, Hawking suggested the only way to prolong humanity's existence is for us to find a new home, on another planet (alternative source). Speaking at the Starmus Festival in Trondheim, Norway on Tuesday, Hawking reiterated his point: "If humanity is to continue for another million years, our future lies in boldly going where no one else has gone before," he explained, according to the BBC. Specifically, Hawking said that we should aim for another Moon landing by 2020, and work to build a lunar base in the next 30 years -- projects that could help prepare us to send human beings to Mars by 2025. "We are running out of space and the only places to go to are other worlds. It is time to explore other solar systems. Spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves. I am convinced that humans need to leave Earth," Hawking added.

Comments

However bad he thinks Earth is

[Anonymous Coward]

Space is way, way worse. Unimaginably worse. Like, instant death worse.

Re:However bad he thinks Earth is

[Sperbels]

Indeed. Working in a factory, fulfilling my 2.3 child obligation to society, and dying of cancer in my 40's due to the hazardous chemicals my employer exposed me to throughout my career sounds like a much more worthwhile goal.

Re:However bad he thinks Earth is

[110010001000]

OR you could work to improve things here on Earth, rather than dreaming about leaving it. You can't live anywhere else but Earth anyway.

Re:However bad he thinks Earth is

[Sumus Semper Una]

Yeah, but we're in the only livable part of space that we know of. Every other part that we can get to, and all of the parts that we can't get to but observe, hold nothing but beautiful views and death. If we can't survive on the only livable spot in the universe that we know of (and only making it worse over time) what chance do we out there? Forget about terraforming Mars, we'll need to be terraforming Earth before too long.

There is a distinct advantage in attempting to terraform Mars before Earth: if it fails, then we didn't wipe out the human race.

Also, there are livable parts of space that we created that are now orbiting the Earth in ways that were previously utterly devoid of all life. It's not unreasonable to think that we might be able to extend our ability to adapt to even more previously completely inhospitable and deadly environments. That's pretty much been the pattern for humanity for thousands of years.

Re:However bad he thinks Earth is

[swillden]

OR you could work to improve things here on Earth, rather than dreaming about leaving it.

Or we could do both.

You can't live anywhere else but Earth anyway.

This is both illogical and demonstrably false, since people have been living off of this planet for most of the last half century. All human life is technology-dependent. Many of the places lots of people live are unsurvivable without fairly extensive technology. Living on other planets, or in space, will require more and different technology, but there's nothing inherently impossible about it.

It's so sad....

[Holi]

It's so sad when scientists get old and turn in to crackpots.

Re:It's so sad....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so sad when scientists get old and turn in to crackpots.

Really, half the western world won't eat anything genetically modified or touched by any form of chemical, thus requiring additional farming space. Conversely, the rest of the world will eat anything rather than go hungry, but the per acre production isn't high enough to produce enough. All the water on the planet is being contaminated by thousands if not milions of chemicals.

The only way we can continue to inhabit this planet is a mass human extinction event, say WWIII, a pandemic or impact event taking out 50% or more of the population.

The only real question is the timing.

I disagree on the timing

[Anonymous Coward]

Before we leave Earth we need to learn how to live with one Earth. Until then I think we're not mature enough to leave. We'd just keep expanding and fight over resources.

Mixed feelings about this

[Oswald McWeany]

Hawkings is obviously a very intelligent man who has made some very important contributions.

He's also right, we should be trying to establish outposts outside of earth; but his claiming we have 100 years left is alarmist and unscientific.

We don't know when the earth might collide with a giant asteroid or if nuclear war might erupt and wipeout mankind. We certainly couldn't say it will happen within 100 years with any scientific certainty.

Even with the worst case global warming, the earth will still be more hospitable than any body in the universe outside of earth.

Yes, we should be trying hard to find alternative places to settle, but let's not go nutso and alarmist about this and make claims that no one can accurately back up.

Famous People Syndrome

[moehoward]

Why do we hype anything someone famous has to say? Would Slashdot run the story if Justin Bieber said the same thing? Why not? It would be exactly as meaningful. Unless Hawking thinks that a black hole is sneaking up on us, he is out of his league.

Re:After the 2016 election

[Archangel Michael]

So, you're saying Hillary would be better for the planet?

Here's my thesis, if you believe that one person has THAT much power, then we are already slaves to the power class (and either don't know it, or don't want to admit it). And being slaves to the power class, we are already doomed to whatever whim they might have.

Easy to break things, hard to improve

[XXongo]

Here's my thesis, if you believe that one person has THAT much power, then we are already slaves to the power class

Here's a useful observation: one person can make things considerably worse, but it takes a lot of people working together to make things better.

This is the central problem with humans: breaking stuff is always much easier than making stuff.

Re:Stephen Hawking is a brilliant... nutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any species that wants its descendants to survive any arbitrary amount of time less that that still has to work on the same issue in case of asteroid strike or other major catastrophe that could happen somewhere in the next five minutes to 700 million years.

Nothing has happened in Earth's history that would make it a worse place for humans than anywhere else in the solar system. For example, whatever did actually kill off the dinosaurs can't be worse than trying to survive on Mars.

As for another solar system? Not likely. I think the probable explanation for the Fermi Paradox is distance, and there is just no way to get around it.

Re:Earth has room for 36 Billion

[gnick]

Granted, there are vast areas of Russia & Africa that are uninhabitable...

Uninhabitable compared to Mars?

Re:Non-habitable-planet colonies need not apply

[Anonymous Coward]

Option 3: Forget the planets. Work on self-sustaining space stations. Start by working out how to make an arctic colony self sustaining.

Why bother?

[fish_in_the_c]

No seriously. If you believe in God then I suppose there is an argument for exploring creation, but it isn't all the strong because it isn't and doesn't seem to be very practical in the near future.

If you don't believe in God, like Hawkings, what logical reason can you possible give to have any concern about the survival of the species? Your personal survival or happiness is not going to be affected by anything so far term and when you are dead it won't make the slightest difference.

I guess maybe to make you feel like you are doing something useful? How could the survival of the species be useful to you?