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

However bad he thinks Earth is by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 05:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Tailhook · 2017-06-22 05:23 · Score: 5, Funny

We're in space. There is this thin layer of atmosphere confusing you about your location.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Sperbels · 2017-06-22 05:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

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 by timmee · 2017-06-22 06:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by PoopJuggler · 2017-06-22 06:22 · Score: 1

There's places on Earth that once held nothing but beautiful views and death, and yet people live in those places now.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by 110010001000 · 2017-06-22 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by lactose99 · 2017-06-22 06:32 · Score: 2

The reverse is also true.

--
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by cayenne8 · 2017-06-22 06:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Well, I'll be long dead in 100 years, so, not terribly worried about it.
I"m having fun, and enjoying my life and lifestyle on earth right now thank you.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by xtal · 2017-06-22 06:38 · Score: 2

Space may be worse, but it's not space that will kill us. There are no other humans in space. Over half of the population are essentially living like cavemen; eventually we'll set off a major nuclear conflict or some other catastrophe.
Ark-B jokes aside, that's what Hawking is getting at.
Eventually we'll do ourselves in here; living someplace else too means we can can come back when everything stops glowing.
That's what Hawking is getting at.

--
..don't panic
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by butchersong · 2017-06-22 06:53 · Score: 1

Respectfully, this is really bull. At least in the US. Life expectancy is great in the US unless you feed yourself garbage and you can easily get a job with any construction crew making a good living even with no education. We're talking 60-90k a year and you can retire in 20 years which is really pretty decent most areas. Other than construction there is plumbing, electrical work etc. Life is good in the US. It is only entitled youngsters that don't really want to work for a living that have a problem with it.
Ironically, the only thing you likely will have trouble finding is work in a factory. Your comment probably has merit if you live in China.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by SensitiveMale · 2017-06-22 06:56 · Score: 1

Actually, going underwater after a few feet is infinitely more dangerous than space.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 07:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Construction workers do not make 60-99k a year. Atleast not starting out with no education.
How do I know? My nephew didn't graduate high school, he's now in construction. He makes $15 an hour.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 07:07 · Score: 1

There goes Hawking.
Man what is it with age and scientists ? The older they get, the more they lose their intellect and become crackpots.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Sperbels · 2017-06-22 07:22 · Score: 1, Flamebait

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

OR you could realize the futility of changing the will of billions of selfish humans and escape.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Sumus+Semper+Una · 2017-06-22 07:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 07:30 · Score: 1

I work for a construction company (not as a construction worker), and you're full of shit. Our crew has huge turnover and it's not because they're retiring early or being scooped up by other companies. The work sucks, the benefits suck, the pay sucks. You're better off working at the local quickie-mart because they have AC.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by matthewmok · 2017-06-22 07:34 · Score: 1

This man needs to stick to what he knows about - otherwise we should send him out into space so we don't have to listen to his dumb ideas.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 07:37 · Score: 1

The Earth is huge and humans are hard to wipe out. Even if we kill the industrialized civilizations there are plenty places left with humans in them that will survive.
As an example Toba failed to wipe out humans 70,000 and that was when we were cavemen.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by 110010001000 · 2017-06-22 07:47 · Score: 1

You can't "escape" from Earth. Biology and Physics dictates that. Guess you will need to live here with the "selfish" ones instead of running away.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by 110010001000 · 2017-06-22 07:48 · Score: 1

Yes. Space WILL kill you. You are naive and watch too much Scifi.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by butchersong · 2017-06-22 07:54 · Score: 1

Well I know several guys in road construction and they do very well and they get winter off. I don't think I live in an especially affluent area -Kentucky. If you are building houses you will make very little as a laborer competing against Hispanic labor but union road construction is severely under manned right now and they really need people but can't find kids wanting to go into the trade. I don't know what the best site would be for checking median salaries but here is one: https://www.glassdoor.com/Sala...
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by swillden · 2017-06-22 07:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, but we're in the only livable part of space that we know of.
You are under the mistaken impression that unaided humans can live on Earth. This is not true. There is nowhere on this planet that I could drop you, sans technology (remember; clothing is technology) or any knowledge of the local environment, and reasonably expect you to still be alive in a few months. The only way humans can survive anywhere on Earth is through the application of specialized knowledge and tools.
There are some regions where the tools and knowledge required are fairly minimal, where temperature swings are mild, food is easy to identify and obtain, and there aren't too many dangerous plants or animals. But much of the human population today lives in regions where the required tooling and knowledge for survival is quite extensive. For example where, I live no human could survive the winter without knowing how to obtain or make heavy protective clothing, a good insulated shelter, some method for generating external heat (e.g. fire), and extensive knowledge on the collection and preservation of food. Other places have steeper survival requirements yet.
I'll readily grant that Mars, for example, requires more technology that any place on Earth where significant populations of people are found. It requires less, though, than is required to live in orbit, and we've had people doing that almost continuously for the last half century or so.
The key thing to note is that all human survival, everywhere, including on Earth, is technology-dependent. Our evolution has lost us the physical characteristics and instinctual knowledge that our distant ancestor species had. We survive by the use of our big brains, but even with them we generally aren't capable of figuring out enough stuff, fast enough, to stay alive. Culturally-received knowledge is indispensable to us. That is true whether the knowledge in question is how to make crude fire-hardened spears or build space ships. It's just a matter of degree.
Given that it's a matter of degree, there is no reason why we cannot survive and thrive just as well on other planets as we do here. Doing so will require creating lots of new knowledge and technology, certainly. That's a good thing. We should do it just for the opportunity to learn. Moving some of our eggs to another basket is another good reason to do it.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by swillden · 2017-06-22 07:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by sound+vision · 2017-06-22 08:02 · Score: 1

We've been terraforming Earth for a while already. The problem is, it's being done in a completely disorganized way and will probably end up making things worse.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by butchersong · 2017-06-22 08:04 · Score: 1

Apparently there are a lot of states where workers make quite a bit less. I always assume being in rural Kentucky with very low cost of living that other areas pay better. I'm not sure how accurate this is because I have several friends and a brother in law that do quite a bit better than this but here is a map for Iron workers for instance that includes all states link
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Sumus+Semper+Una · 2017-06-22 08:05 · Score: 1

Try orbiting outside the Van Allen belt though and see how long humans live.
The astronauts who have been near and on the moon didn't seem to die from it. Granted, it was a short duration outside of the belt, but hard and inefficient with today's technology != impossible.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by ShanghaiBill · 2017-06-22 08:07 · Score: 1, Troll

How do we improve things when Americans continue to vote congenital idiots in Congress and the White House ?
The first thing to do is to stop expecting politicians to solve your problems. Change will come from technological improvements, not political speeches.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by ShanghaiBill · 2017-06-22 08:17 · Score: 1

OR you could realize the futility of changing the will of billions of selfish humans and escape.
You should read The Population Bomb. Paul Ehrlich, the author, believed as you do, and felt the future of humanity was hopeless. He laid out many scenarios for the future, from worst case (human extinction) to best case (massive die offs from famine in the 1980s followed by stabilization).
None of his predictions came true. Instead, humanity's collective behavior and progress was far better than he, or the "educated" consensus believed. People are not as stupid or as selfish as you think they are. Despite some occasional backsliding, we are collectively making good progress on all the major problems facing humanity. Solutions won't be perfect, and will take time, but we'll muddle through.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by MountainLogic · 2017-06-22 08:25 · Score: 1

There was an interview about very thoughtful report by the Guardian's Chris Arnade about the impacts to income to people who are unwilling to relocate for work. The relevant takeaway is that you are at a substantial financial disadvantage if you are unwilling to relocate. It is also talked about here.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by ShanghaiBill · 2017-06-22 08:26 · Score: 2

Eventually we'll do ourselves in here; living someplace else too means we can can come back when everything stops glowing.
That makes no sense. If there is a nuclear war here, it would be way way way cheaper to survive in a fallout shelter with a HEPA filter for ventilation than to go to Mars. Everything you need to survive, including oxygen, clean water, food, warmth, electrical power, would be WAY harder to obtain on Mars. It would even be more radioactive, since there is no magnetic field. There would be zero advantages to going there.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by that+this+is+not+und · 2017-06-22 08:33 · Score: 2

All human survival is also dependent on symbiotes. Big things like fellow animals, and the bacteria in our gut. The mites in our eyelids.
One of the things that make things like "Star Trek" ridiculous is how little understanding there seems to be of this fact. When a "transporter beam" moves a human to some new location, what travels along and what stays behind?
To travel to space we would need to transport big samples of the Earth's biomass with us. And we don't even really know what part we have to take, really. We are too distracted looking up at the sky to have learned yet.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Bender0x7D1 · 2017-06-22 08:42 · Score: 1, Troll

You contradict yourself. First you say:
You are under the mistaken impression that unaided humans can live on Earth. This is not true. There is nowhere on this planet that I could drop you, sans technology (remember; clothing is technology) or any knowledge of the local environment, and reasonably expect you to still be alive in a few months. The only way humans can survive anywhere on Earth is through the application of specialized knowledge and tools.
Then you almost immediately walk back your argument with:
There are some regions where the tools and knowledge required are fairly minimal, where temperature swings are mild, food is easy to identify and obtain, and there aren't too many dangerous plants or animals. But much of the human population today lives in regions where the required tooling and knowledge for survival is quite extensive.
Well, of course we can't support our current population without technology - we needed the technology BEFORE we could grow our population to its current state.
However, that has nothing to do with your initial claim that humans can't manage to live anywhere on Earth without some kind of initial technology. What you really mean is, "There isn't space on Earth where 7 billion people can live without advanced technology."

--
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-06-22 08:44 · Score: 1

We're in space. There is this thin layer of atmosphere confusing you about your location.
But AC is safe because he's hiding under one of the turtles.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Sperbels · 2017-06-22 08:52 · Score: 1

I am familiar with The Population Bomb. Why is this relevant? He's one dude who was wrong. Why is this a legitimate argument about anything?
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Sumus+Semper+Una · 2017-06-22 08:56 · Score: 1

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.
That's an odd argument. 200 year ago people couldn't fly either, so why dream about leaving the ground? It's important to distinguish between the impossible and the currently unfeasible.
And it's not as if throwing money at problems here on Earth has done any good at solving them, so why not continue to spend a very modest amount on experimental research? We've already reaped some technological benefits from space exploration that filter into every day society, so what's so terrible about continuing?
That said, I do agree that putting all our eggs in the "we have to get off the planet within 100 years and put most of our resources towards that" basket is ludicrous as well.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by Kabukiwookie · 2017-06-22 09:00 · Score: 1

We're talking 60-90k a year and you can retire in 20 years
This is utter bullcrap. First builders don't make this sort of money. Second even without paying for any living expenses at all during these 20 years, earning the highest rate you've given, someone would have earned 1.8mill. Maybe enough to retire on on fairyland where people get huge interest rates on their savings and pay no living expenses, but not in the real world where people pay rent, get sick and raise children.

--
The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 09:02 · Score: 1

How thoughtful could it be when the presenter does not take into account moving expenses, living expenses, spousal income loss, and removal from social support?
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Joce640k · 2017-06-22 09:16 · Score: 1

Then Trump.
(I'm guessing this new wave of earth-wrecking stupidity is why Steven has downgraded his estimate - Idiocracy has never looked more like a documentary).

--
No sig today...
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by AmericaRunsOnDunkin · 2017-06-22 09:20 · Score: 1

Whoa there. You're glossing over a huuuuuge difference. On earth the needed raw materials for our technology are immediately at hand, available with minimal effort. Bang some rocks, skins some animals, boom you're good.
On Mars we can't even breathe without help. The kinds of complex technology needed have to be imported from two gravity wells and 50 million km away. You can't make replacement parts on Mars for any but the simplest machines.
Colonizing other planets is a pipe dream. The energy and technology requirements are mind-boggling. They will never be more than a curiosity, dependent on Earth for their survival. Complete waste of time and resources.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by swillden · 2017-06-22 09:22 · Score: 1

You contradict yourself. First you say:
No, I didn't.

Then you almost immediately walk back your argument with:
There are some regions where the tools and knowledge required are fairly minimal
That's not a "walk back". What I said means that in all regions, at least some tools and technology are require for human survival.

Well, of course we can't support our current population without technology

I'm not talking about "current population", I'm talking about any humans at all

What you really mean is, "There isn't space on Earth where 7 billion people can live without advanced technology."
Nope. I mean that all human life is technology-dependent, in any numbers, and in any locations. Different locations require more or less, but the point is that it's only a matter of degree. Space is just another environment. One that requires a greater degree of technological knowledge, but it's still just a difference of degree, not of kind.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by swillden · 2017-06-22 09:28 · Score: 1

All human survival is also dependent on symbiotes.
At present, yes, but this dependency isn't inherent.

Big things like fellow animals
Those we can actually do without just fine.

and the bacteria in our gut. The mites in our eyelids.
Those matter, though they're not irreplaceable. Note that I'm not saying we know how to replace them. There are many, many things we need to learn to be able to thrive in space, or on Mars, etc. Perhaps we need to learn to replace some of our internal fauna. Or perhaps we just take them with us.

To travel to space we would need to transport big samples of the Earth's biomass with us.
Or develop alternatives.

And we don't even really know what part we have to take, really.
An essential element of figuring that out is to try.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by OrangeTide · 2017-06-22 09:59 · Score: 1

if death takes 50-60 years to set in, then I'm willing to move.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by KGIII · 2017-06-22 10:13 · Score: 1

No. No laws of physics prevent us from getting off this planet. I would suggest that you aren't actually well versed in physics. There are a number of plausible ways off the planet, that do not break the laws of physics. They do stretch credulity, however.
No, we could get off the planet. We could even live the rest of our species lives without ever entering another gravity well. Physics doesn't actually say you can't do that. Engineering says we won't do it. Politics says we won't do it. Practicality says we won't do it. Physics doesn't say much about the subject.
No, we are not going to infest the galaxy with humans. This is probably a good thing. We simply can't stop competing long enough to cooperate and we've not actually invented anything with which to do this. We could, physics absolutely allows for this. We're not going to, because we suck.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by Areyoukiddingme · 2017-06-22 10:16 · Score: 1

One of the things that make things like "Star Trek" ridiculous is how little understanding there seems to be of this fact. When a "transporter beam" moves a human to some new location, what travels along and what stays behind?
Your problem with transporters is whether or not gut flora goes too? What about their clothes? Yeesh. Transporters are a literary device, nothing more, because depicting travel from orbit to a planetary surface by shuttle is repetitious, boring, and expensive in special effects (have to depict a ship).
As for the necessary symbiotes, astronauts in orbit as you read this still have all of them. There's no reason to assume astronauts going to the Moon, Mars, and beyond won't have them too.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by CaptnCrud · 2017-06-22 10:37 · Score: 1

Actually about 120 kw would probably be sufficient to mimic our magnetic field for a space craft. Right now the ISS generates about that with its solar panels. In fact there was a patent put out in 2010 for such a device, here is a summary:
In order to provide an effective shield, the strength of the shield magnetic field at the source is preferably at least 1×104 Tesla. To obtain a boundary between the shield magnetic field and a typical solar wind background magnetic field of around 1×107 Tesla (perhaps 5×108 to 5×106 Tesla depending on the conditions of the solar wind) at a distance of up to a few hundred metres from the spacecraft a field strength of less than 0.1 Tesla at the magnetic field source will generally be sufficient. Allowing for effects of field persistence in the plasma environment, average electrical power from about 100 W to 10 kW, and more preferably from about 500 W to 5 kW may be provided by the power supply to drive the magnetic field source to generate the shield magnetic field.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by swillden · 2017-06-22 10:41 · Score: 1

Whoa there. You're glossing over a huuuuuge difference.
I'm not glossing over it. Clearly there are differences. The point is that those differences are a matter of degree, not of kind. You can't live anywhere without technology. Yes, you need a lot more of it to live on Mars, than you do to live in Antarctica, and more to live in Antarctica than to live in Alaska, and so on, but it's all a matter of degree.

Colonizing other planets is a pipe dream. The energy and technology requirements are mind-boggling.
Your great-great-great grandfather would have said the same of many of the great engineering projects which have been completed. Many people, just a few generations ago, said that the energy and technology requirements of producing food to support three billion people were unreachable. Just because we don't know how to do something now doesn't mean we can never do it.
On the contrary, the only rational position is that nothing that is not prohibited by the laws of physics is impossible.

They will never be more than a curiosity, dependent on Earth for their survival.
That is clearly nonsense. Every element that exists on Earth exists on Mars. There is ample energy available on Mars. The only thing missing is putting the matter and energy into the correct configurations, which at core, is what technology is: techniques for arranging matter and energy in convenient configurations.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by swillden · 2017-06-22 10:51 · Score: 1

I don't think you really read my post.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 10:55 · Score: 1

Probably to point out that Hawking, like Ehrlich, is just a guy spouting off about his fears rather than rational projection. Just because Hawking is really good at math doesn't mean he knows jackshit about anything else.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 11:13 · Score: 1

The pinball wizard reached his Peter point.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by dougdonovan · 2017-06-22 11:18 · Score: 1

the humans f..... the earth up so make them stay.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by 110010001000 · 2017-06-22 11:18 · Score: 1

Well when I mean YOU, I mean "humans". Such a narcissist.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by 110010001000 · 2017-06-22 11:20 · Score: 1

Um, you can get off the planet for sure. You just can't get anywhere habitable. And don't give the that "Mars" or "Venus" shit. They aren't habitable, despite the wishes of the Space Nutters. And any other planet is out of bounds due to Physics (a.k.a distance and the speed of light).
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by 110010001000 · 2017-06-22 11:21 · Score: 1

Oh look its the "since one thing is possible all things must be possible" guy. How original.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 11:44 · Score: 1

Living in low earth orbit. For a few years at a time.
That's like living a mile away from your mom who still sends you cooked meals and is in constant phone contact with you.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by KGIII · 2017-06-22 12:10 · Score: 1

Oh, they'd have to figure out how to live for many generations in space - like, lots. If they can do that, there's no reason for them to even enter a gravity well - except to mine it for resources. Physics doesn't prevent this. Engineering kinda does, for the moment and probably the remainder of our lives as a species. Physics really isn't all that stringent. Physics allows for even time travel - it's just really unlikely that we'll ever figure out how to do it. Physics doesn't much care if we get off the planet.
This is probably a good thing. In the end, entropy will kill us all - no matter what. It's probably best that we not infest the universe with humans. We pretty much suck, as a species. We're far more likely to cause our own extinction than we are to cooperate.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by Sperbels · 2017-06-22 12:38 · Score: 1

We simply can't stop competing long enough to cooperate and we've not actually invented anything with which to do this.
Sure we have. Humans naturally organize themselves into small tribes. We've invented all sorts things to organize human into massive nation states. Most of the things we invent nowadays help keep us organized and passive enough to keep the nation state alive.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by SensitiveMale · 2017-06-22 13:43 · Score: 1

What a douche. No wonder you replied as AC. Only a troll would understand that as "Three feet deep."
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by KGIII · 2017-06-22 14:44 · Score: 1

I can think of no time when the planet cooperated, as far as humans go. There is always conflict and competition. We're not going to ever have peace.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by dryeo · 2017-06-22 16:38 · Score: 1

Actually, Pripyat is liveable now. You will have a higher chance of cancer, of course, but the fact that there's a lot of wildlife living there right now implies that death will be rather slow.
Is it that the animals are thriving or is it that as quick as they die, new animals move in. My understanding is that it mostly the latter, at least with big animals. When you have empty wilderness surrounded by civilization, the animals will tend to move into the empty wilderness

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by xenog · 2017-06-22 19:29 · Score: 1

They are not the healthiest of animals, but they are thriving in the area.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by maestroX · 2017-06-23 00:11 · Score: 1

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.

Humankind is *earth* dependent, not technology-dependent. Plummeting people into space is *earth* dependent.
Technology is human-, monkey-, crow-, computer or whatever trait, all depend on earth in one way or the other, because you cannot replace raw materials with technology.
Then, humankind and its predecessors evolved in the isolated environment of the evoluting earth. It's likely any environment, even artificially augmented, is lacking in one way or the other, e.g. bacteria, sunlight, minerals, aging, reproduction, gravity you name it.
These deficiences may take very long, even generations, to be exposed, living long-term. At that point, the issue might not be technologically solvable within the appropriate time frame or the humans may have evolved/deteriorated in such a way the colony is stuck or doomed.
Or maybe this era is at the peak of our technology achievements in all humankind and there will be no space technology revolution in the future.
Also, there is absolutely no case for people living off of this planet for generations, not a first birth in outer space.
Colonizing outer space is nothing more than a dream for years to come, the greatest nation of the earth just invested in *coal*. Most financial and raw resources on earth have been spent last century, unlikely there will be the huge funds of the moonlanding days. In the meantime, humankind will be tied to earth forever by ancestry,
immediate priority should be housekeeping to obtain the time for any technological development beyond "The Inner Light".
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by swillden · 2017-06-23 01:30 · Score: 1

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.
Humankind is *earth* dependent, not technology-dependent.
Nope. You'd die anywhere on Earth without technology.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Sumus+Semper+Una · 2017-06-23 03:46 · Score: 1

Oh look its the "since one thing is possible all things must be possible" guy. How original.
That argument would be no worse than, "we haven't done that and can't do it now, therefore we never can." Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure what other argument could be inferred from "You can't live anywhere else but Earth anyway" except that since you gave no reason why you believe this to be the case.
Plus, just to clarify, my argument was "since similar problems (getting to and staying alive in previously uninhabitable places) have already been overcome, this problem likely can be overcome too." Not all things are possible. But the distinction between impossible and infeasible is important and worth discussing regarding this topic.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by KGIII · 2017-06-23 04:10 · Score: 1

I am going to guess that you're far less learned than Greene. What, specifically, prevents time travel - according to physics?

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2017-06-23 04:21 · Score: 1

Maybe not you, but anybody who has read the Foxfire books should do just fine.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by Bender0x7D1 · 2017-06-23 04:53 · Score: 1

You are wrong.
Here is a counter example to your argument... Humans are here. Therefore, at least at some point in our past, we survived without technology.
Or, are you arguing from the absurd point that we are complete simpletons that can't know we are able to eat other animals or plants? Or we can't figure out we can use rocks and stick to hit things? Or we are unable to emulate a hermit crab which uses shells from the environment as protection?
If that is the case, then sure - I agree with you. However, I will also point out that it is a ridiculous assumption since even creatures with brains the size of a grain of rice can figure that stuff out.

--
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 05:29 · Score: 1

At least in some Star Trek episodes and movies, a phaser on "disintegrate" will utterly destroy a person, clothes and all, and leave no other visible marks. There also seems to be a requirement to be still, which some of my internal organs never are.
The transporter was "invented" back in the 1960s, when any shuttlecraft operations had to be done expensively in miniatures. The writer's guide said not to include them with anything else that might be expensive, to avoid blowing the budget for the episode. The producers then found that a near-instantaneous way to get characters around was very useful for the plot and keeping the action going.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 05:37 · Score: 1

I really don't understand the physics, but I've read that time travel requires either structures of infinite size or some sort of thing with negative mass (I don't know if antimatter might possibly qualify). Further, it apparently is impossible to go back in time to before the construction of the time machine.
That doesn't mean that time travel is impossible, but it makes it look improbable at best and does explain why we don't have large number of people from the future popping in.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 05:40 · Score: 1

I observe lots of non-technological life-forms near my house. I don't see why I couldn't live without technology in some places (I'd die fairly quickly in the winters where I live without tech). I also don't see why I'd possibly want to.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by ebvwfbw · 2017-06-23 05:42 · Score: 1

You're so right. I would have thought a guy like Hawking would understand what he's saying. We might make 1000 years if that's a deadline to get expand out of here. I don't think we'd make 100. Too much to invent and debug before then. Like about as much as mankind has done to this point and possibly more. We can't even seem to solve social problems. I understand some people have an interest in social problems not being solved and do what they can to make them worse. They get useful idiots to help them. Their terminology, not mine.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 05:45 · Score: 1

Infinitely more dangerous? I can't breathe either in space or underwater, and will die within not that many minutes in either case. The technology required to go really deep underwater is a lot simpler than the technology required to go into space, assuming that I want to survive both experiences.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by swillden · 2017-06-23 08:37 · Score: 1

Here is a counter example to your argument... Humans are here. Therefore, at least at some point in our past, we survived without technology.
You didn't think about that very hard :-)
Think about it from an evolutionary perspective. A species doesn't spring fully-formed from nothing, it arises as a small variation on an ancestor species. Clearly, our ability to use abstract reasoning to alter our environment to suit our needs didn't come into existence at exactly the same time as we lost physical adaptations and instinct. As our pre-human ancestors learned how to do things, and how to pass that knowledge on to their children and others in the tribe, various physical characteristics which previous generations had needed to survive became less important. Over time, the success of intelligence increasingly selected for bigger and more capable brains (including brains that were more able to share knowledge with other brains), and selected against useful amounts of fur, claws, instinctive ability to recognize foods, etc.
Note that the above paragraph seems to assume that evolution selects for organism/species survival traits, which isn't actually true. It selects for gene replication competitive advantage. But being careful about that just makes the explanation more complicated, without actually changing it.

Or, are you arguing from the absurd point that we are complete simpletons that can't know we are able to eat other animals or plants?
Sort of. Not "simpletons", but lacking knowledge of which animals and plants are safe, how to find them and collect them, how to prepare them, etc. Look at it this way: Imagine a person who has grown up in NYC, never left, never watched the nature channel, has never seen food outside of a grocery store, etc., and never really thought about where it might come from or how. Now, take that person and drop them in a wilderness preserve in the Great Rift Valley, where we believe Homo Sapiens first emerged. Drop them naked, shoeless, without any tools or any information about the local flora or fauna, how to distinguish between safe and unsafe water, etc. They'll die.
And note that this hypothetical New Yorker is actually not a fair test subject, because he or she has a tremendous amount of know-how, much of which probably can be applied for survival. I tried to pick a person whose knowledge would be as wrong as possible, but only because it's impossible to find the right kind of person, one with no knowledge at all. This is because it's impossible for a human to grow to adulthood without using and learning vast amounts of technology. A baby's level of knowledge is what we really need for the thought experiment, but we want to assume a full adult's physical and cognitive skills.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by KGIII · 2017-06-23 08:40 · Score: 1

It is definitely improbably - but physics doesn't say it is impossible. The most accepted beliefs are that one could only move forward in time from a given point and only back as far as that given point. (Notably, time is relative.)
If you invented a device to enable time travel in 2020, you'd be able to go to 2030 and back to 2020. But, you'd never be able to go back to 2019.
That's the most accepted theory that I'm aware of, in a nutshell. You can also move forward in relative time and slow down your relative time by going fast or hanging out next to something with a lot of mass. Time is warped by gravity. If you stand next to the Great Pyramid at Giza, time moves just a teeny bit slower for you - than it will if I stand further away from said pyramid.
There are *no* "laws of physics" that prevent time travel. It's just REALLY unlikely that we'll ever figure out how. The laws don't prevent it, the engineering and knowledge does.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by swillden · 2017-06-23 08:55 · Score: 1

Oops, missed this last part:

However, I will also point out that it is a ridiculous assumption since even creatures with brains the size of a grain of rice can figure that stuff out.
No, actually, they can't. Creatures with tiny brains don't figure anything out. Most of them have no capacity at all for learning, and absolutely none for abstract thought as needed to analyze problems and create solutions. Instead, they have "hard-wired" knowledge that comes from their genes. All of their actions are instinctual.
Note that I'm not claiming that humans are the only ones who do figure stuff out. Not by a long shot. Most larger creatures can and do learn, though in most cases they only learn that specific sequences of actions bring about specific results, with no ability to abstract the elements of the actions to synthesize variations that might be more effective. Many of them even pass knowledge (usually the same sort of rote knowledge) along to their young, meaning they have cultural knowledge. A few of them even evidence abstract thinking skills, and rudimentary communication. And in fact, I think there are other species on Earth which are technology-dependent, in that if you could remove all of their cultural knowledge they might lose the ability to survive. None of them, of course, have the same capacity for creation of knowledge that we do, which is why none of them are as incredibly adaptable as we are.
Homo Sapiens is the only species on the planet which is found (at least occasionally) on every continent, at every latitude, at every elevation, including moderately deep under water. Well, us and the species that we carry with us, either inside our bodies or in our engineered habitats. This is because with sufficient knowledge it's possible to live anywhere that it's physically possible to create the conditions needed for life. By "physically possible" I mean "does not defy the laws of physics".

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by swillden · 2017-06-23 09:27 · Score: 1

I observe lots of non-technological life-forms near my house.
Indeed. Those species, unlike humans, are not technology-dependent. They have physical adaptations and instinctive knowledge that enables them to survive without having to invent ways to alter their environment. Note that some of them actually do alter their environment. For example, if you see squirrels, they have a well-known instinct for gathering and storing food to help them survive the winter. However, this is instinctual knowledge, not cultural knowledge.
It's also worth pointing out that humans aren't the only species that makes use of cultural knowledge, meaning knowledge received from parents or other members of the species. There may even be some other technology-dependent species, meaning species whose individuals could not survive without cultural knowledge. I suspect that many primates are like this, and dolphins and whales, elephants, perhaps many others.
The point, though, is that human life is especially technology-dependent. We've evolved to use our brains and cultural knowledge instead of instinct and the sort of physical abilities that other large species rely upon. We no longer have useful amounts of fur because that is not useful in a species that can learn from its tribe to make clothing (or to make other things which can be traded for clothing). We no longer have claws, because clubs, and spears, and swords and McMillan TAC-50s are more effective. We've even lost the ability to digest many kinds of food because we learned how to cook it.

I also don't see why I'd possibly want to.
Here you're talking about advanced technology, and I completely agree, I like my comforts, too. But I'm talking about the fullest meaning of the word, any and all techniques involving the application of learned knowledge. You and I needed someone to teach us not to drink bad water, eat poisonous things, play with rattlesnakes, or even wipe the feces from our butts to prevent sores. Your cat needed no one to teach it any of those things.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by KingBenny · 2017-06-23 12:07 · Score: 1

Well, i have had the same idea for quite a while. Not just kurzweil style or anything but. If theres a limited amount of matter, or molecules, or atoms, whatever you wanna call it that makes up the planet. Or how to call it? "intrasphere?" everything inside the atmosphere ... its limited , right ? even if comets or small objects burn up on entering and add some stuff, pardon my lack of dustball department language but stuff adequately describes whatever residue is left that would add to the already available amount of "stuff" present inside the atmosphere (lol sorry but its been bugging me for years). This is not simply sustainability where the number of feeders surpasses the amount of food by (by when was that? ) 2050 at this rate ? Its more like a theoretical question but i dont know any great mathematicians of our time and im certainly not the numbers guy. So, long elaboration shortened: If taken for a fact that sapients simply cants stop breeding like locusts. How long before the available amount of , i'll say atoms, (or matter for that matter) is all transformed into humans ? (its theoretical because it would end long before that ofcourse since by the time it would be a pile of humans on dead rock it would already be game over (long before that). Leaving out the fact that you can't launch a rocket on a woodstove (well not the interstellar, probably not the simply intersolar-kind it seems like an inevitability, if only for lack of resources. Question is how long ? i cant do that math. If anyone knows the exact amount of available matter and the rate at which population is expanding and can calculate how many years it would take before all matter has turned homo sapiens i think that would be an awesome calculation actually. Am i being weird again ? should i talk about the weather more ? or sports ?

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Re: However bad he thinks Earth is by RespekMyAthorati · 2017-06-23 14:57 · Score: 1

I always assume being in rural Kentucky

Then your nephew is probably supplementing his $12/hour construction job with a $100/hour job making meth.
Re:However bad he thinks Earth is by RespekMyAthorati · 2017-06-23 15:01 · Score: 1

Am i being weird again ?

Without a doubt.

should i talk about the weather more ? or sports ?
Sure, as long as I don't have to listen.

It's so sad.... by Holi · 2017-06-22 05:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.

Re:It's so sad.... by JudgeFurious · 2017-06-22 05:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

Exactly! I realize that he was (maybe still is on some level) absolutely brilliant but in his own way he's doing the same thing my Uncle Rudy is doing at that age. Slowly losing all sense of reality and proportion. Unfortunate but mostly inevitable.

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Re:It's so sad.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 05:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.
Re:It's so sad.... by avandesande · 2017-06-22 05:45 · Score: 2

Or maybe he's just saying provocative things to generate discussion.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Re:It's so sad.... by Archangel+Michael · 2017-06-22 05:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

He's trying to establish his immortality. Science is his god, and his faith is in himself. IF we manage to get off planet, he'll be hailed as a great visionary who made it all possible (not really), while if we fail, and mankind destroys itself, there will be nobody to remember who Stephen Hawking was, and his whole life would be in vain.
Our Mortality makes us do irrational things, because as inevitable as it is, it is something we will never get comfortable with.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:It's so sad.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 05:49 · Score: 1

>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.
The free market will quickly solve this problem. Idiots will be priced out of the market and the fad will end.
>All the water on the planet is being contaminated by thousands if not milions of chemicals.
We have filtration systems. Sure, they are expensive, but there will always be clean water. Always.
>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.
Thank you David Suzuki. Canada's version of Stephen Hawking.
Re:It's so sad.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 06:09 · Score: 1

Very true. We're biologically integrated with the biome of Earth. We can't really leave Earth in the foreseeable future without taking Earth with us (i.e. a large subset of the biome).
Re:It's so sad.... by TheCastro1689 · 2017-06-22 06:32 · Score: 1

If I recall correctly many African countries turned away GMO food aide.
Re:It's so sad.... by atheos · 2017-06-22 06:39 · Score: 1

yup, this is the Scientific equivalency to the Heavens Gate exodus plan.
Re:It's so sad.... by zifn4b · 2017-06-22 07:14 · Score: 1

It's so sad when scientists get old and turn in to crackpots.
As the Earth's population continues to increase exponentially what happens? I'm sure the answer is PROFIT! Yeah...

--
We'll make great pets
Re:It's so sad.... by SuricouRaven · 2017-06-22 07:22 · Score: 1

Probably won't happen. Ever-increasing population used to be a real concern, but demographics are trending differently now. The story is the same in country after country, and should be true on a global scale too: There is a huge population explosion following industrialisation due to reliable food, medicine, clean water, etc. People stop dying. But eventually the birth rate falls as well, due to the progression of other social factors that follow industrialisation - the need for longer periods in education, and increasing numbers of women in employment. Sure, people don't drop dead of old age at forty any more - but they don't start breeding at 17 either.
Re:It's so sad.... by scatbomb · 2017-06-22 07:28 · Score: 1

Wow, panic much? FYI, there's more food and clean water today than there ever was in the past. There's no cause to believe this trend will not continue.
Re:It's so sad.... by Baton+Rogue · 2017-06-22 08:01 · Score: 1

The third option is he is wrong, and mankind lives for another 100,000 years, and he is only remembered as the old deranged scientist with the wacky and false predictions.
Re: It's so sad.... by that+this+is+not+und · 2017-06-22 08:47 · Score: 1

He is angry because he cannot run through a meadow in the springtime. So he'd just as soon we all gave it up and ditched this place.
Re:It's so sad.... by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-06-22 09:12 · Score: 1

"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."
Neither group is going to colonize space. It will be those of us who are most accepting of technology, from the robots that prepare the way for us to the heavily genetically modified species that will be our food to the energy sources we will have to use.
Re:It's so sad.... by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 11:19 · Score: 1

All conventional non-trivial definitions of god are either self-contradictory or contradict known and demonstrable facts. Contradictions do not exist in reality, therefor god is not real.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:It's so sad.... by Tenebrousedge · 2017-06-22 11:26 · Score: 1

Science is his god, and his faith is in himself.

The biggest issue faith has with religion is projection.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re:It's so sad.... by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 11:39 · Score: 1

There are many such groups, Muslims, Mormons, and Amish among them. Overall, religious belief is falling and even among those who claim to believe such belief is more nominal than it used to be.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:It's so sad.... by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 11:46 · Score: 1

If you're looking for visionaries, we've had science fiction authors who have done hard thinking about space for about a century. Many of them have done their hard thinking and decided not to try to panic the general public, unlike Hawking.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:It's so sad.... by Dr.+Evil · 2017-06-23 01:26 · Score: 1

You're putting words and motives into his mou... well, synthesizer.
You can't know his thoughts, unless you have a citation of something he's said.
You make it sound as though he's spiritually misguided and looking for a purpose where religion readily provides one.
If this is true, then surrendering any hope for the longevity of humanity on a fabricated notion of some eternal life or loving creator, means that for the basic survival of the species, these religious notions are harmful and should be abandoned.
Religion has no answers. It's just made up stuff left over from a time when the structure of organized religion was beneficial to society.
Re:It's so sad.... by zifn4b · 2017-06-23 02:34 · Score: 1

Probably won't happen. Ever-increasing population used to be a real concern, but demographics are trending differently now. The story is the same in country after country, and should be true on a global scale too: There is a huge population explosion following industrialisation due to reliable food, medicine, clean water, etc. People stop dying. But eventually the birth rate falls as well, due to the progression of other social factors that follow industrialisation - the need for longer periods in education, and increasing numbers of women in employment. Sure, people don't drop dead of old age at forty any more - but they don't start breeding at 17 either.
That is the nature of human hubris right there. :) Have you perhaps researched what has happened to other animals whose natural habitat and/or food source availability changes? Your entire claim is predicated on that humans are smart enough to solve whatever problems come their way. Those problems are increasing significantly in terms of complexity and difficulty as the population increases. One thing to consider is we are drawing on an unknown well. Science is compelled to investigate certain topics especially the ones where we think a discovery will yield progress towards a solution with a problem we are currently facing. For example, energy. We try to increase fuel economy and seek alternate energy and so forth. The only way to do that is scientific and technological progress. But you see your claim is that there is an infinite amount of scientific discovery to be made that will solve ALL problems eventually and there is not sufficient evidence to support that claim. It's a logical possibility but to claim you are certain that is the case is equivalent to religious faith. Your claim amounts to "we always seem to find a solution to all of our problems, therefore that should continue infinitely." That claim is very similar to some economic claims which are proving to be false over a long enough period of time in the sense of positive upward trend as t (time) approaches infinity. When you get to this level, you should not be thinking in terms of absolutes but more in terms of probabilities.

--
We'll make great pets
Re:It's so sad.... by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 05:49 · Score: 1

David Suzuki is an ass he charges massive amounts of money to speak at public schools and always has concubines with him.

Damn, how do you get a job like that?
(For the bulk of Slashdot readers, a "concubine" is a person you get to have "sex" with without legal formalities.)

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:It's so sad.... by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 05:52 · Score: 1

Alternately, you could react to what GP actually wrote, which is that current demographical analysis and observation shows that the birth rate drops off to slightly under replacement level, given some conditions we're busy creating over the entire planet.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:It's so sad.... by zifn4b · 2017-06-23 06:00 · Score: 1

Alternately, you could react to what GP actually wrote, which is that current demographical analysis and observation shows that the birth rate drops off to slightly under replacement level, given some conditions we're busy creating over the entire planet.
Ok, post the fucking data then instead of claiming that it exists.

--
We'll make great pets
Re:It's so sad.... by zifn4b · 2017-06-23 06:59 · Score: 1

Here I'll save you the trouble, here's the data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are 3 different statistical models, only the "low" one shows a scenario where there is increased population growth followed by a decline. The other two show a high population increase. In the worst case scenario, the projection is somewhere between 15-18 billion people by 2100. Happy? I aim to please.

--
We'll make great pets
Re:It's so sad.... by SuricouRaven · 2017-06-27 05:31 · Score: 1

The medium one looks like it's leveling off as well.

Well no shit Stevie by SensitiveMale · 2017-06-22 05:26 · Score: 1

The earth has been pummeled with catastrophic meteor strikes for billions of years.

Re:Well no shit Stevie by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 05:54 · Score: 1

Life on Earth has survived despite catastrophic meteor strikes for over a billion years, which is a pretty good record. The catastrophic meteor strikes generally happen at intervals of tens of millions of years, which means there's a really small chance that we'll get one in the next thousand years - and we're working on finding and stopping any such strikes that are going to happen.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Get'r Done! by sycodon · 2017-06-22 05:26 · Score: 1

Guess he needs to get started on figuring out FTL drive. Because even the worst place on earth is far better than Mars.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.

Re:Get'r Done! by KiloByte · 2017-06-22 06:33 · Score: 2

We're not really going to find any place significantly better than a few of locations in the Solar System. Giving a planet a breathable atmosphere and letting that atmosphere stay will upset its heat budget so much the current values hardly matter. Not in comparison in what we can do by making that atmosphere more opaque or more greenhousey.
And we don't need FTL: if you want to get there in the flesh, I guess it's 50-100 years before we get a breakthrough that defeats aging. We'll then see a lot of health conditions that don't matter today but are fatal by the age of 200. Once we figure those out, there'll be another iteration at 1000 or so.
But then, hard AI can also be expected within those 50-100 years. That's a form of earthlings who don't suffer from biological limitations and can be beamed as a stream of bits as soon as you get a suitable receiver to the destination.
So while engineering issues on the way will be quite interesting, no fundamental research is needed to colonize the galaxy. Then we'll proceed to the Local Group, then shake our fists at the redshifted ghosts of galaxies that are not gravitationally bound to us.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:Get'r Done! by 110010001000 · 2017-06-22 07:51 · Score: 2

SO all we need is give a planet an atmosphere, defeat aging and develop hard AI. Meanwhile, on planet Earth, we have global warming, we can barely develop software that is reliable and haven't cured the common cold. But yeah, I'm sure some breakthrough is coming real soon now!

Earth has room for 36 Billion by UnknownSoldier · 2017-06-22 05:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

The problem is NOT that we don't have room -- the problem is that we as a species are so stupid, short-sighted, and greedy-as-fuck to figure out a way to make room for everyone.

If we would spend less time focused on killing one over trivial shit such as oil and religion and more on putting our petty differences aside we sure as hell could easily support 30+ billion on this planet.

I'll be REAL interesting to hear his perspective in ~2025 after First Contact happens.

Re:Earth has room for 36 Billion by imrahilj · 2017-06-22 05:34 · Score: 2

Yeah, when you start comparing earth to every other place we know of, earth looks pretty darn good. Even if things go hellishly wrong horribly fast, it will almost certainly still be a more habitable place than Mars.
Re:Earth has room for 36 Billion by Sperbels · 2017-06-22 05:39 · Score: 1

The problem is NOT that we don't have room -- the problem is that we as a species are so stupid, short-sighted, and greedy-as-fuck to figure out a way to make room for everyone.
So then, we don't actually have room for 36 billion people...for the reasons I just quoted, right?
Re:Earth has room for 36 Billion by XxtraLarGe · 2017-06-22 05:53 · Score: 1

The problem is NOT that we don't have room...
There's plenty of room. The earth has a population density of 56 people per km^2. You could move the entire population to Russia, and you'd have a pop. density of 439/km^2. That would rank 27th on the current population density chart. Change that to Africa, and it would be 247/km^2, or 56th on the current chart, right above Pakistan. Granted, there are vast areas of Russia & Africa that are uninhabitable, but these are just for illustration purposes.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:Earth has room for 36 Billion by gnick · 2017-06-22 07:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Granted, there are vast areas of Russia & Africa that are uninhabitable...
Uninhabitable compared to Mars?

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Earth has room for 36 Billion by Sperbels · 2017-06-22 07:43 · Score: 3, Funny

Yes. Blanket the Earth in humans! I can't imagine anything awesomer.
Re:Earth has room for 36 Billion by swillden · 2017-06-22 08:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

If we would spend less time focused on killing one over trivial shit such as oil and religion and more on putting our petty differences aside we sure as hell could easily support 30+ billion on this planet.
We'll never need to do that. The global birth rate (babies per year) has already peaked and has been declining steadily for a while; it looks like global population will peak at 10B and then start falling. But in any case overpopulation isn't the only issue (and space travel wouldn't be a solution for it if it were the problem). The motivation for getting off of Earth is that having the entire species on one planet means that if something Really Bad happens to this planet, we're gone.
And something Really Bad will happen. Whether it's a chain of supervolcano explosions, a mega meteor, a world war with planet-shattering doomsday weapons or out of control bioweapons, or gray goo, something will happen. Maybe we can figure out how to address each of the existential risks, eventually, but there's no way of knowing if we'll do it soon enough.
To put it in a nutshell: We have no disaster recovery strategy. We need an offsite backup of our species.
Plus, we'll learn one hell of a lot in the process of trying to colonize another planet. It's worth doing just for that reason.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Earth has room for 36 Billion by stabiesoft · 2017-06-22 08:58 · Score: 1

So if we take the roughly 1 acre/person of farmland needed for them to eat, 439/km2 exceeds the 250/km2 people you can feed with a km2. You must live in the city and get your food at the store.
Re:Earth has room for 36 Billion by Kjella · 2017-06-22 12:01 · Score: 1

And something Really Bad will happen. Whether it's a chain of supervolcano explosions, a mega meteor, a world war with planet-shattering doomsday weapons or out of control bioweapons, or gray goo, something will happen. Maybe we can figure out how to address each of the existential risks, eventually, but there's no way of knowing if we'll do it soon enough. To put it in a nutshell: We have no disaster recovery strategy. We need an offsite backup of our species.
And we have no disaster recovery strategy for the heat death of the universe, we should start looking for another one right now. There's been life on this planet for billions of years and despite our best ambitions humanity is not nearly capable of eradicating all life on this planet. Maybe ourselves, but not every plant and cockroach and fish in the sea.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Earth has room for 36 Billion by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 12:05 · Score: 1

About 1968, Isaac Asimov stated that at the then present rate of growth the mass of humanity would exceed the mass of the universe in 6000 years. That puts a very definite hard limit on population growth,

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Earth has room for 36 Billion by swillden · 2017-06-22 14:36 · Score: 1

And something Really Bad will happen. Whether it's a chain of supervolcano explosions, a mega meteor, a world war with planet-shattering doomsday weapons or out of control bioweapons, or gray goo, something will happen. Maybe we can figure out how to address each of the existential risks, eventually, but there's no way of knowing if we'll do it soon enough. To put it in a nutshell: We have no disaster recovery strategy. We need an offsite backup of our species.
And we have no disaster recovery strategy for the heat death of the universe, we should start looking for another one right now.
/me rolls eyes

There's been life on this planet for billions of years and despite our best ambitions humanity is not nearly capable of eradicating all life on this planet. Maybe ourselves, but not every plant and cockroach and fish in the sea.
Did you even read my post? What gave you the idea I'km worried about cockroaches and fish?

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Earth has room for 36 Billion by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 05:57 · Score: 1

I once assumed a constant population growth rate and the volume of a typical human, and calculated when humanity would be a solid ball expanding through space at greater than the speed of light. Exponential growth is fun.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Non-habitable-planet colonies need not apply by GameboyRMH · 2017-06-22 05:30 · Score: 1

Human colonies on non-habitable planets would only last a little longer than the people on the ISS would without support from Earth - thanks to their greater amount of storage space. Things would turn ugly real fast after the second or third missed resupply shipment.

Now obviously there are no habitable planets in the solar system, so to get to one, we'll either need to crack physics wide open and invent FTL travel, or gamble all our resources on a generation ship that will become a debris field sprinkled with freeze-dried corpses the first time something goes seriously wrong with it on its seven-zillion mile, centuries-long journey through space.

Nobody's living outside of Earth long-term any time soon.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Non-habitable-planet colonies need not apply by XXongo · 2017-06-22 06:00 · Score: 1

Human colonies on non-habitable planets would only last a little longer than the people on the ISS would without support from Earth
Well, that's present technology. Not even present technology-- the Space Station's technology is what was available when it was being designed in the mid 1990s.
If you're saying "we'll need to considerably improve our technology to be able to survive for long times on other planets"-- yep, no objection there.
Re:Non-habitable-planet colonies need not apply by SuricouRaven · 2017-06-22 07:27 · Score: 1

For the first few decades, certainly. You don't build a self-sustaining colony overnight. There's no physical reason it can't be done, and most of the technology already exists - the real barrier is financial. It would be, quite possibly, the single most expensive endeavour in the history of mankind.
Mars is 'habitable' for a loose enough definition - because it has resources. There are things to mine. Raw materials to harvest and refine. Humans would have to do the thing that they do best in hostile environments: Adapt through technology. A space suit might be a bit more sophisticated than a mammoth-fur coat, but the principle is the same.
Re:Non-habitable-planet colonies need not apply by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 07:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Stephen Hawking is a brilliant... nutter. by Baron_Yam · 2017-06-22 05:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yes, any terrestrial species that wants its descendants to survive more than another 700 million years or so must expand its territory beyond Earth orbit before that time has passed and the Sun cooks the Earth dry.

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.

So yes, we ought to be working on how to survive and thrive in space with just an energy gradient and a source of raw materials to keep us going.

However, Hawking also beaks off about aliens wanting to invade and kill/enslave us, so however good he may be at figuring out the math of black holes, he's not so great at interstellar economics. Sometimes he talks about how we're all going to die in a nuclear holocaust next Thursday, just for variety.

Personally, I think he likes staying in the public eye and nobody's talking about A Brief History of Time any more.

Re:Stephen Hawking is a brilliant... nutter. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 06:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Mixed feelings about this by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-06-22 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch

Re:Mixed feelings about this by Wraithlyn · 2017-06-22 11:30 · Score: 1

Even with the worst case global warming, the earth will still be more hospitable than any body in the universe outside of earth.
The entire universe???
This is an extraordinarily broad statement from someone railing against unscientific and unverifiable claims.
Let me guess, you're basing this on "The War of the Worlds"; we'd all be killed by alien bacteria on any foreign world?

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:Mixed feelings about this by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 12:57 · Score: 1

Carrington events or gamma-ray bursts
don't have the capability to wipe out humanity.

nuclear war
Even the worst nuclear war that could be pulled off now wouldn't kill everyone ("We must not have a mine shaft gap!")

giant asteroids
Well, we have to look out for that one. Still, the odds are small for reasonable periods of time, and the technology to redirect or destroy a large asteroid may be less difficult than a sustaining off-earth civilization.
The claim that we're likely to run out of resources in the next hundred years is just plain silly. Do you realize just how much iron-aluminum-silicon-whatever there is in the earth? Do you understand that the energy output of the sun is in principle capable of being used to form any fuel we might decide to use? The technology to make such transformations, the methods of spaceship propulsion, and all underlying technology can be reasonably assumed to be better in 100 years than it is now.
Rushing this job will look as silly in 100 years as those people who bought home bomb shelters in 1960.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Mixed feelings about this by jezwel · 2017-06-22 18:53 · Score: 1

The timeframe given (100 years) means that we will not have reached anything outside our solar system before this occurs. Therefore, the 'entire universe' available to humanity for this problem is entirely contained within Sols grip.
An FTL (or close to it) drive changes that limitation, though I have no information about the probability of one of those being manufactured and actually working in the timeframe given, nor of the habitability of worlds with say 50 light years of Earth.
Re:Mixed feelings about this by Wraithlyn · 2017-06-24 11:11 · Score: 1

Then why didn't you simply say "any body we will be capable of reaching"?
"Any body in the universe" is not remotely the same thing. At all. You can't just redefine words to mean whatever you feel like.

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson

Re:I disagree... by Sperbels · 2017-06-22 05:34 · Score: 1

If your goal is to prevent the destruction of habitable worlds, doesn't it make the most sense for us to go there and ensure no other intelligent species evolve and destroy the planet with industry?

Running out of space is a myth by burtosis · 2017-06-22 05:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

While it is likely bad for the long term effects of the environment, we are not running out of space. The best scientific minds 130 years ago thought today's population was impossible, and they were right (using 1890s tech). More people means more geniuses who can solve problems. We will likely achieve fusion within 50 years, and have cheap automation driven by weak AI. In the long term nothing is stopping artificial farms from reaching a half mile depth around the globe, we stack nearly 30k people per square mile in cities already and just the land mass of earth has roughly 200 million sq miles. That's 6 trillion people considering we can up the current city density through nearly unlimited energy and cheap power. Further we could start using the oceans too, floating cities are already being planned. While I am in favor of expanding humanity, we need to realize that there is plenty of room right now if we take into account increases in technology. Within 500 years we may see the planet support over one trillion people, it seems likely to me at least.

Re:Running out of space is a myth by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-06-22 05:49 · Score: 1

While it is likely bad for the long term effects of the environment, we are not running out of space. The best scientific minds 130 years ago thought today's population was impossible, and they were right (using 1890s tech). More people means more geniuses who can solve problems. We will likely achieve fusion within 50 years, and have cheap automation driven by weak AI. In the long term nothing is stopping artificial farms from reaching a half mile depth around the globe, we stack nearly 30k people per square mile in cities already and just the land mass of earth has roughly 200 million sq miles. That's 6 trillion people considering we can up the current city density through nearly unlimited energy and cheap power. Further we could start using the oceans too, floating cities are already being planned. While I am in favor of expanding humanity, we need to realize that there is plenty of room right now if we take into account increases in technology. Within 500 years we may see the planet support over one trillion people, it seems likely to me at least.
I wouldn't want to live on this planet with 999,999,999,999 other people.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:Running out of space is a myth by c · 2017-06-22 06:10 · Score: 2

Within 500 years we may see the planet support over one trillion people, it seems likely to me at least.
I wouldn't want to live on this planet with 999,999,999,999 other people.
The odds are pretty good that you'll be dead long before we reach that point.

--
Log in or piss off.
Re:Running out of space is a myth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 06:15 · Score: 1

Within 500 years we may see the planet support over one trillion people, it seems likely to me at least.
One trillion? Where are all the other species (plants and animals) supposed to live?
Re:Running out of space is a myth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 07:26 · Score: 1

We will likely achieve fusion within 50 years,
We've been saying that for more than 50 years already. Where's my Mr. Fusion?
Re:Running out of space is a myth by computerchimp · 2017-06-22 08:07 · Score: 1

the only way we are fitting 1 trillion people on this planet is if we shrink our species to the size of garden gnomes and stack us 50 high.
Re:Running out of space is a myth by swillden · 2017-06-22 08:17 · Score: 1

Within 500 years we may see the planet support over one trillion people, it seems likely to me at least.
I doubt it. Our global birth rate is already declining, both in relative and absolute terms. This isn't because of insufficient resources. Indeed birth rate is strongly negatively correlated with wealth. Even if the birth rate were to suddenly freeze at its current level (stop the decline), we'll still peak at just over 10B people, barring significant life extension.
I think the only way we'll ever see even double our current population is if we eventually conquer death, and I'm not sure even that would do it. I think most people with unlimited years ahead of them would defer children indefinitely.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Running out of space is a myth by burtosis · 2017-06-22 08:28 · Score: 1

Sounds like you are opting for space colonization.
Re:Running out of space is a myth by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-06-22 08:29 · Score: 1

I have good genes and take my fish oil... I hope I can live a few more millennia if I remember to do my pushups.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:Running out of space is a myth by Rakarra · 2017-06-22 09:29 · Score: 1

half mile depth around the globe, we stack nearly 30k people per square mile in cities already and just the land mass of earth has roughly 200 million sq miles.

Yeah. And quality of life will be absolute shit. I don't want to live shoulder to shoulder with little space with a ton of other people... for what? For the stupid goal of packing an ever growing amount of people on the planet? How miserable do we have to be before we decide that maybe.. maybe allowing other folks to pump out that many children is no longer in our interest?
Why is "We can see the planet support over one trillian people" anything resembling a desirable goal?
Re:Running out of space is a myth by Rakarra · 2017-06-22 09:31 · Score: 1

Sounds like you are opting for space colonization.
Or he's saying that a milder version of China's one-child policy might be a good idea.
Re:Running out of space is a myth by burtosis · 2017-06-22 12:40 · Score: 1

On the top level, essentially the rooftop of a 3/4 mile deep city. Doubt it would be done this way but the design is possible.
Re:Running out of space is a myth by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 13:06 · Score: 1

The area of the Earth is 5.5 quadrillion square feet. For one trillion people, that's 5,500 square feet each. I don't want to live on a trillion-person Earth, especially if they're all poor at math.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Running out of space is a myth by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 13:18 · Score: 1

Having children is already heavily government subsidized. There are tax deductions for people with children, and government spending on public education exceeds $10,000 / child-year in the US. Take away these and other subsidies and the birth rate will fall further (as more adults realize "Hey, we can't afford this.") No need for an even more draconian government.
Here's another upside for that plan. All those people complaining about losing their jobs to automation won't be able to afford professional teaching for their children, and will have to home-school them. Imagine being taught by someone who cares about you more than their salary or their next cigarette break.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Running out of space is a myth by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 13:22 · Score: 1

...maybe allowing other folks to pump out that many children...
'scuse me, Adolf, that's not a decision you get to make.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Running out of space is a myth by computerchimp · 2017-06-23 01:17 · Score: 1

I don't like sharing my earth with people that can't think more than 1 step ahead. That is how we got into a lot of the messes we have now.
5500 sq feet sounds like a lot but that number is wrong. and misleading.
70% of the earth is covered in water, that means it is 1650 sq ft per person.
40ftx40ft for each person if we include mountains, hot and cold deserts.
Room for forests?
Room for common areas?
Outdoor spaces?
Transportation space even if it is just sidewalks?
Food growing space?
Space to keep us from gnawing each others heads off like rats in the sewers?
Re:Running out of space is a myth by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 06:05 · Score: 1

We will likely achieve fusion within 50 years, and have cheap automation driven by weak AI.

Fifty years ago was 1967, and I was around and reading about fusion being practical in another 20 years or so, and strong AI that was going to automate almost all work away long before 50 years. They don't seem to make hopes for the future like they did when I was a kid.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Running out of space is a myth by Rakarra · 2017-06-23 06:33 · Score: 1

...maybe allowing other folks to pump out that many children...
'scuse me, Adolf, that's not a decision you get to make.
Oh no? If it's a direct threat to the rest of us, then maybe we'll collectively decide that perhaps that right isn't so sacred.
Re:Running out of space is a myth by Rakarra · 2017-06-23 06:36 · Score: 1

Having children is already heavily government subsidized. There are tax deductions for people with children, and government spending on public education exceeds $10,000 / child-year in the US. Take away these and other subsidies and the birth rate will fall further (as more adults realize "Hey, we can't afford this.") No need for an even more draconian government.
I wish that was the case, but I don't think it will be. Sure, children are government subsidized, but they're still pretty damned expensive -- far more expensive than not having kids. There are plenty, plenty of people who have quite a few kids who can't afford them now, the financial disincentive doesn't seem to have that much effect. They might -regret- that life with kids is harder, but .. it doesn't stop them from having them and doing their best to raise them.

Famous People Syndrome by moehoward · 2017-06-22 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus

Re:Famous People Syndrome by timmee · 2017-06-22 06:12 · Score: 2

Could we just send Justin Bieber to Mars? That might help the situation here on Earth a bit.
Re:Famous People Syndrome by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 13:24 · Score: 1

How about sending Justin Bieber to Stephen Hawking?

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Alien Resurrection quote... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-22 05:39 · Score: 1

"Earth, man. What a shithole."

Seriously Stephen? You don't know any of this. by bobbied · 2017-06-22 05:42 · Score: 1

Just stop making all these crazy predictions. You don't know, seriously, you cannot know any of these things.

I applaud your theoretical work on astrophysics and agree that it's ground breaking work, but stop with the rest of this stuff. You are just soiling your name, diminishing your reputation with this garbage. I know you face your forthcoming mortality and it must be hard to realize that it will very soon be over for you, but these recent PR ploys are only going to damage your memory. Please stop. I beg you. Let us remember you for the good stuff you've done, not this craziness.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

Prepper Hawking by BinBoy · 2017-06-22 05:42 · Score: 3, Funny

Stephen Hawking, the ultimate prepper.

Yeah, no shit by tietokone-olmi · 2017-06-22 05:42 · Score: 1

One planet among many. Why should humanity stay just here?

Re:Yeah, no shit by Kazymyr · 2017-06-22 06:25 · Score: 1

Well, for the current state of technology, 2 major reasons. Water and air.

--
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem

Re:I disagree... by RightSaidFred99 · 2017-06-22 05:43 · Score: 1

Derp. Yes, because each of the trillions of literal lifeless rocks in space need to be "protected" so that nobody and nothing can enjoy them.

If anything we should be seeding life wherever we can, build bacteria that can survive the different vaguely livable planets in our system, and launch them to the planets.

We are NOT running out of space by Theovon · 2017-06-22 05:46 · Score: 1

If we had fusion power, we could economically grow crops in vertical farms. If we did this, then we could house many times the whole planet’s population JUST along the coastlines in tall buildings and give every person ample personal space.

Even if we didn’t do that, there’s plenty of uninhabited space on earth that we could utilize as long as we brought water in and improved farming efficiency.

While I agree that we’re wrecking our environment, any other place in the solar system will be far more inhospitable.

Re:We are NOT running out of space by Mal-2 · 2017-06-22 10:52 · Score: 1

Fusion power is also what will break us of dependence on solar energy, even if it is abstracted away in the natural world. Plants need photons, but they don't really care how they're produced so long as they're at the right wavelengths. Fusion would be great for this planet, and for leaving it.

--
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.

Re:I disagree... by Archangel+Michael · 2017-06-22 05:50 · Score: 1

I saw this movie!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt14...

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Hey, Mr. Hawking by ooloorie · 2017-06-22 05:52 · Score: 1

Spend the few years you still have left on what you are good at: physics.

Re:After the 2016 election by Archangel+Michael · 2017-06-22 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Re:Rapturing into space. by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-06-22 05:54 · Score: 1

Won't the Rapture take care of the "too crowded" problem?

If the rapture is real. The vast majority of people will stay behind. A tiny % of people ascending to heaven won't save us from overpopulation.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch

What does he think is going to kill all human life by fplant · 2017-06-22 05:57 · Score: 1

Nothing has been able to kill all life on earth for the 3.8 billion years that it has existed, and I believe human intelligence gives us a huge advantage to surviving catastrophic events, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.

If he's afraid that we will kill ourselves, then what's to prevent us from doing the same thing in short order on any other planet we colonize?

Easy to break things, hard to improve by XXongo · 2017-06-22 06:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Easy to break things, hard to improve by intellitech · 2017-06-22 14:21 · Score: 1

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.
Sounds like Trump / Congress.

--
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.

Re:After the 2016 election by Opportunist · 2017-06-22 06:12 · Score: 1

After the 2016 election, I'm more inclined to say we better stay on this rock. Let's contain the disease while we can.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:After the 2016 election by Opportunist · 2017-06-22 06:14 · Score: 1

Nope. What I say is that watching who was offered as a "choice", how the election was done, how people reacted before and after to the candidates and how people act now after the results, I can't say that this species should now, or ever, be allowed to contaminate any other planet. It's bad enough that it infests this one.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

No argument from the Earth by s1d3track3D · 2017-06-22 06:20 · Score: 4, Funny

I am convinced that humans need to leave Earth - Hawking

I completely agree! - Earth

Re:No argument from the Earth by avandesande · 2017-06-22 10:01 · Score: 2

Earth doesn't care! - George Carlin

--
love is just extroverted narcissism

Re:What does he think is going to kill all human l by Spy+Handler · 2017-06-22 06:23 · Score: 2

Actually no, microbes are far better suited to survive catastrophic events than large animals like apes or theropods. For instance, there is no way human species survives the Permian extinction event if it were to happen today. The Cretaceous asteroid, maybe. Those luxury survival bunkers built inside missile silos might make it, depending on how much food they stored and how good their water supply is.

Anyways the "species survival depends on getting to Mars" trope is getting old. I'm all in favor of going to Mars but honestly it would be so much easier and cheaper to build bunkers. Costwise you're looking at around $1 trillion for a self-sustaining Mars colony, and maybe like 0.01 percent of that for building that same colony underground.

You don't even need nuclear power (although it would be nice to have it). You can build the bunker near a reliable geothermal source.

Re:After the 2016 election by x0ra · 2017-06-22 06:25 · Score: 1

If you think so high of yourself to say such crap, feel free to get a free one-way ticket to Mars. You won't be missed.

If Earth were divided equally by TheOuterLinux · 2017-06-22 06:40 · Score: 1

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/cours...

Re:If Earth were divided equally by TheOuterLinux · 2017-06-24 18:37 · Score: 1

Road Warriors vs. Water World

Pauling by JBMcB · 2017-06-22 07:00 · Score: 1

Linus Pauling was a certified genius, and basically created the field of molecular biology.

He was also a complete crank who thought Vitamin C could cure any disease, people with genetic defects should be branded so people wouldn't mate with them, and basically shilled for the Soviet Union for decades.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.

Re:Pauling by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 11:32 · Score: 1

Interesting comment, although I've never seen the branding claim before. Kinda stupid, given that 1) there's no definition of genetic perfection and if there were, 2) there would be at most one person in the world not genetically defective. Puts a real limit on the future of humanity.
Almost all diseases are more easily defeated with a higher vitamin C intake than can be achieved by diet alone. I think you are exaggerating his claims for vitamin C.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:After the 2016 election by Archangel+Michael · 2017-06-22 07:05 · Score: 1

If you wanted choice, then the Republicans actually had a large number of actual options. The Democrats had it fixed for Hillary (see Bernie Sanders for example).

There was a choice, at least on one side of the twin parties. And the Libertarians actually had a nice convention, and several options to choose from. My personal favorite didn't win, but Johnson was a good alternative.

I can't say that this species should now, or ever, be allowed to contaminate any other planet. It's bad enough that it infests this one.

At this point in time, and for the foreseeable future, there is no chance Humans escape this planet. Until we can Tarraform Mars we're not leaving. And if we can Terraform Mars, we can actually fix this planet. And moving to unknown world in an unknown system in an unknown part of our galaxy, isn't safe. I can assure you, that if we find an inhabitable planet, it will seek to kill us with microbes we are unable to fend off. Evolution is a bitch. We evolved to live HERE, not elsewhere.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Spread humanity? Really? by GeodesicGnome · 2017-06-22 07:06 · Score: 1

If we're going to destroy Earth, why would we want to spread humanity to other planets? We'd be like an infection that kills its hosts.

What the hell would he know? by sciengin · 2017-06-22 07:09 · Score: 2

What the hell would he know about leaving earth, dude cannot even leave his wheelchair.

Joke aside: This, like his rant about the dangers of AI when no general AI is even being developed, shows that brilliant people can be utter morons as soon as they leave their areas of expertise.

Re:After the 2016 election by ryen · 2017-06-22 07:11 · Score: 1

Certainly one person can't save a planet, but a US administration can set reasonable policy to put us in a direction to do so over the course of several decades. The alternative is to let corporations drive themselves towards that goal, which would likely not happen due to profit motivations unless they're forward-looking enough to understand that a shitty climate will indeed impact their sales and supply chain. Someone's gotta take the lead at some point...

Re:What does he think is going to kill all human l by Spy+Handler · 2017-06-22 07:20 · Score: 2

Humans can engineer around anything that gives them centuries to do it.

Only if there's a source of funding and a societal structure (i.e. other humans) providing the engineers with food and other things.

I think you underestimate the Permian event. There are competing theories but the most plausible one I've seen says a giant asteroid (bigger than the Cretaceous one) hit, and the antipodal side of earth ruptured out, forming the Siberian traps. It functioned basically like a super volcano, but instead of one brief eruption, it kept going and going for centuries. Result was that it rained sulfuric acid all over the world, nonstop. The very air you breathe became a poisonous fume (to paraphrase Boromir).

I do not see human species surviving this. The initial impact would pretty much wipe out governments and civilization so it wouldn't be possible to put together a large expensive engineering project. The remaining survivors would gradually die out in the following decades of acid rain and poisonous fumes.

But I think a large self-sustaining underground colony can be built that can survive it, for a tiny fraction of the cost of a Mars colony. Any of the big tech billionaires could fund it solo.

Prof. Hawking is out of touch by golodh · 2017-06-22 07:23 · Score: 2

Much as I respect prof. Hawking, I think he's making a serious mistake here.

Where he thinks that settling other planets will increase mankind's chances of survival, I believe they will lead to war. Interplanetary war that will see planets being nuked or targeted with swarms of asteroids.

There doesn't have to be a reason, we'll find one. And if we can't find one, we'll manufacture one.

A new religion. Economics. A new way of running society. Differences in life expectancy. Mutations caused by the environment. Genetic engineering leading to a superior strain of humanity.

Leave it to us. We'll find a reason. We always do. Together on o planet we need to show some restraint, 'cause we're on the same planet. Throw that out and why not bomb a world?

Re:Prof. Hawking is out of touch by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 14:22 · Score: 1

Interplanetary war is difficult. What weapon do you have that is greatly different than a fighter jet in atmospheric warfare, and a spaceship is a vehicle that can't refuel - one strafing run and it's going to have to go back home.
Lasers, particle beams - to destroy a whole planet's population? Get real.
Nuclear weapons delivered by spaceship are a possibility, and could do great damage. But that still leaves the questions of "why?" and "what's to be gained?" Destroy a planet's surface and there's nothing left to rule over, and most conquerors are the sick minds that want to rule (Although there are exceptions, loonies like Kim Jong-un and jihadists.)
I'm not saying it's impossible, but tactical difficulties and persuading the population to tolerate such a war reduce the likelihood, especially for the next few centuries. Long term, perhaps we'll develop a way to prevent mental illness.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2017-06-22 07:24 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Rapturing into space. by Hognoxious · 2017-06-22 07:26 · Score: 1

If it takes the people who believe in it that'd still be a big improvement, if only due to the noise reduction.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Or we could.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 07:27 · Score: 1

Go underwater in the oceans.

* Closer to home.
* Plenty of raw materials, food, water, oxygen, etc.
* Good practice for going out in to actual space.
* Large areas of ocean to work with compared to land.

We could easily create underwater cities and things if we put our minds to it and have shorter supply lines that don't require expensive rockets.

Re:I disagree... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 07:28 · Score: 1

Please, allow me to show you how links work. This way, people don't have to visit imdb just for you to make a joke.

Prometheus

Re:After the 2016 election by SuricouRaven · 2017-06-22 07:29 · Score: 1

The US administration can't do anything over the course of decades, because every few years the pendulum swings, the other party takes over, and their first order of business is to burn to the ground anything that their rivals just achieved.

Re:After the 2016 election by SuricouRaven · 2017-06-22 07:29 · Score: 1

Somewhere, in the Encyclopedia Galactica, is the entry for this planet. And it reads "no intelligent life."

Questions? by rholtzjr · 2017-06-22 07:29 · Score: 1

Who get to choose who stays and who goes? Is it voluntary or involuntary?

Why bother? by fish_in_the_c · 2017-06-22 07:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

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?

--
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.

Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 09:49 · Score: 1

Honest assessment of your 'questions'.
You've asked loaded questions backed by loaded opinions. And seriously you've asked no questions at all really, but 'told' us what you think instead.
>If you believe in God then I suppose there is an argument for exploring creation...
Belief in god has zero to do with it. If you're a curious species, (as we are), there IS an argument, motivation, and instinct to explore. Calling it 'creation' does not make its exploration a theological necessity. Exploration is just something that some of us do- just head out the door and go for broke because humans do that. Think of Leif Eriksson and a billion other explorers.
>..and doesn't seem to be very practical in the near future
Well then you've answered it for us then, right? Title = Why Bother, right? OK so no testing, no reports or small baby steps, for your satisfaction we must already be able to colonize Mars (and more) today, for us to consider any programs to get us there in the future. OK.
>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?
God need not even be brought into the sentence, (unless of course you're pre-loading the question- which you are). People can be altruistic beyond their own needs. In fact, you may have heard of a little story about god's son who gave his time, energy, and life towards the spiritual survival of our species. And yes even mere mortals can apply their vast professional studies towards something that can use it. In this case Hawking's pursuit of math, science, etc. He's not offering the NFL his football expertise right? He can offer space agencies his expertise.
>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.
But in sum with others' contributions, it will make a difference. Shall we say one of your ancient forefathers just not find a mate and have a kid? Roll the dice, will you not be born or will you? See, even that anonymous family member has a contribution, and here you are today.
>I guess maybe to make you feel like you are doing something useful?
We all can be doing something useful, it's good for us and society. Don't you remember what happens to folks, and their societies, when they are just lounging around doing next to nothing?
>How could the survival of the species be useful to you?
Yes, how dare your parents change your poopy diaper when you were certain to just fill it up again! Nevertheless, caring interest from the old days has contributed to a person today who has no skin lesions on their ass from laying in old poop. They aided you, with no immediate reward, knowing (although never certain if they'd live to see it), your success and maturation to society. Perhaps we who contribute to mankind's future do it out of love. Love and a paycheck, don't forget these contributions are mostly from professionals you know! ;)
So now you know! :D
No seriously. Now you know... so in the future you will not be left off so easily ;)
-signed your loving forum-parents who believe in you, even if you do not.
Re:Why bother? by Hoodsen · 2017-06-22 10:33 · Score: 2

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?
Thoughtful questions. I think it's probably driven by two things. One, basic survival instinct. Even if it wouldn't affect us personally, it would make sense from an evolutionary point of view for us to have a drive to not just preserve ourselves, but the species as a whole.

Second, I think behind it there's idea driven by hope. That the human species is capable of great deal. That we can be much more than we are now. That we can become something that can do good for ourselves, other life forms, and the places we inhabit.
Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 10:38 · Score: 1

Would you shoot your children from your deathbed? What difference does it make if you'll be dead in another moment?
Re:Why bother? by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 14:36 · Score: 1

Do you have a sports team you like? You want them to win, don't you?
Humanity is our team. We want humanity to do well, to win, and to keep on doing so.
--
Human life involves improving things, making life better for ourselves, and being proud that we've made the world better for ourselves and others. One such accomplishment to be proud of is contributing to a Mars colony. It's the human thing to do.
Living a great life is more than just doing what's useful. Be great. Reach for the stars.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Why bother? by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 06:10 · Score: 1

You seem to have no idea what atheists are like. Aside from religion, there aren't that many differences between people who believe in God and people who don't.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Well, what's the alternative to NOT going? by shoor · 2017-06-22 07:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

We stay here and...? A thousand years from now we're just here? A million years?

Personally, I think if we do go in to space in a big way, it will be to live in space habitats with artificial gravity and so on, though probably mining raw materials from asteroids or the Moon to build them.

Things change no matter what. We may become transhuman cyborgs, or we may be replaced by AI's (not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion, the AI's could be considered our children and could be the best part of us, or it could turn out a lot grimmer.)

We may just go extinct. Global warming (our fault) may turn earth into another Venus, in which case we've not just driven ourselves extinct but all life on earth.

If we continue to be more or less conventionally human, with our meatsuits, and if the population continues to grow, it will be an explosion. Imagine layers of population out from the earth, out from the solar system. And the population growing in each of those layers. People would have to keep moving outward. And the people in the inner layers who wanted to move out would either have to skip over the layers outwards from them to find fresh empty space, or push the people in those layers out so they could take their place. I just don't believe it could come to that. Assuming the more dismal scenarios like extinction don't happen first, something, and probably something literally unimaginable to us 21st century humans, will happen before it comes to that.

--
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)

Humans are the monsterous planet killers by computerchimp · 2017-06-22 08:03 · Score: 1

Are humans destined to be those planet killers from the movies sucking up all the resources and moving on to the next planet?
We are going to have to get it together and solve issues here first otherwise it is same crap different pile.
Besides, I don't think my kids can afford to move that far.

Re:After the 2016 election by skapunker21 · 2017-06-22 08:07 · Score: 1

Mostly harmless.

Radical alternative: plant a garden or something by Accordion+Noir · 2017-06-22 08:08 · Score: 2

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there's more habitable space on the roof of my apartment building than in the whole rest of the solar-system off-earth.

The urge to quit Earth is the urge to dump our problems without fixing them. This will not help us survive in more hostile environments. If we send a tiny group of people, or even somehow hundreds or thousands, they will take the lessons our species learned on Earth. Long after a few brave adventurers have fallen to the same challenges we face here (times x), the many billions (or even if disaster strikes millions) of adaptable people at home will be muddling on.

Space exploration is an interesting fantasy. It may be worthwhile, but as an alternative to creating better conditions in the real world, it is a sad escapist trap.

--
"Ruthlessly pursuing the idea that the accordion is just another instrument."

Earth is the only game in town for a LONG time. by sbaker · 2017-06-22 08:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

We know for sure that the only other halfway usable planet that we can possibly ever reach is Mars. Elon Musk claims he can get us there soon and cheaply - and I believe him. BUT he didn't address how we'd be able to live there after his re-usable spacecraft drops off 100 people and 450 tonnes of cargo.

1) We have no idea of the health risks of 1/3rd g gravity - we know zero g is very unhealthy. That's all we know.
2) On a 2700 calorie/day diet, with a reasonable mix of nutrients - you need one acre of farmland per person to keep them fed...so 100 acres of farmland per 100 person "team".
3) On Mars, it's too cold for crops to grow. Mean temps of -55 C are what you get - plants don't grow below +5 degC.
4) To heat one acre of land to +5 degC will require 1.7MWatts of power - and 170MW of solar power requires about 3.7 acres of solar panels - weighing 10kg per sq.meter. To keep ourselves warm and with lights, vehicles, etc will add another 2 to 3 acres of solar panels. Crunch the numbers and roughly 250 tonnes out of our 450- tonne cargo allowance will be Solar panels. How many tonnes does it take to build 100 acres of well insulated, pressurized, heated greenhouses? Probably another 100 tonnes. That leaves just 1 tonne per person for housing, recycling, water mining, vehicles, space suits, etc.
5) There isn't enough nitrogen in Mars soil to grow plants (one part per 1000 or so is what we've seen in rover sampling). So we'll either need around 6 tonnes of fertilizer...and some means to very efficiently recycle nitrogen....or a way to mine about 6,000 tonnes of Martial soil and heat it enough to release it's nitrogen. NASA deems nitrogen too impractical to recycle aboard the ISS - so we know this ain't gonna be easy.
6) Setting up all of those acres of greenhouses and solar panels will take a long time - and the plants will take many months to produce crops. Realistically, we're going to need a year's worth of food...that's another 100 tonnes.

So for sure, there isn't enough cargo capacity in Elon's otherwise excellent plan. So instead of getting people there for $200,000 per person - it's going to be more like twice that...just for the cargo. At $400,000 per ticket - vastly fewer people can go there.

The only way out of this is to make MUCH lighter solar panels...and to come up with ways to make an acre of greenhouse that weighs a LOT less than a ton!

So, with what we currently know - I think a self-sustaining Mars colony is a bust...sadly.

If we can't get Mars up and going like that - we're talking slow, painful terraforming - bioengineered greenhous-gas-producing bacteria to warm the planet - then bioengineered algae to sit in those new lakes and make oxygen - and the problem with THAT is finding someone to pay for a project that won't produce results for 1000 years. No project in all of human history has taken more than a couple of human lifetimes (I'm thinking of the great Cathedrals of Europe and arguably, the Pyramids)...in both cases each generation who worked on them believed they'd get their reward in heaven...so it wasn't a total waste for them.

But between taxpayers and government - NOBODY will pay for a trillion dollar, 1000 year project.

So - we're not going to colonize Mars, there is no place else in the solar system that's even as good at that - and we stand ZERO chance of making it outside the solar system (see funding issues, above).

We'd better make the best of what we've got. Ways out are to become longer lived so that a 1000 year project doesn't seem quite so bad - or scan our brains into computers and shoot computers out into space where we can all be immortal.

--
www.sjbaker.org

Re:Earth is the only game in town for a LONG time. by Mal-2 · 2017-06-22 10:57 · Score: 1

Your solar panel problem can be sidestepped. Send a rudimentary fission reactor and fuel. Put it far enough away that a lack of shielding won't affect the colony itself. Solar panels can be manufactured on site later.
Also, who said this has to all fit in one ship? Frankly, supplies should be getting sent out years before the first humans leave Earth.

--
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Re:Earth is the only game in town for a LONG time. by Areyoukiddingme · 2017-06-22 11:22 · Score: 1

So for sure, there isn't enough cargo capacity in Elon's otherwise excellent plan.
Uh, Elon's excellent plan calls for 20 unmanned full mass capacity cargo launches per manned launch. All sent prior to the manned launch. So that was an excellent analysis... of an irrelevant assumption. You could watch his video presentation that mentions that number, or if you're allergic to video you could read the paper that was basically a transcription of the video, covered by Slashdot yesterday. Personally I'm disappointed that the paper wasn't much more information dense than the video, but even Elon Musk has admitted that his ambitions for Mars are so sweeping that SpaceX can't do it all alone. There's simply too much work. Even if SpaceX actually builds the ITS, even if SpaceX figured out how to robotically deploy 170MW of solar panels on the surface of Mars, there's still an enormous amount of engineering work to do before there are usable habitats on Mars.
Possible? Certainly. Even cheaply, compared to typical US military boondoggles. But aside from Elon Musk himself, the will to do it is mostly absent among owners of capital.
Re:Earth is the only game in town for a LONG time. by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 06:14 · Score: 1

You seem to be talking about getting a colony going. Getting a self-sustaining colony going is far harder, since it has to be able, using locally available resources, to replace anything and everything in the colony. As a SWAG, I doubt that 100K people could keep a technological civilization going without assistance.
I'm in favor of space colonization, but it's extremely unlikely to produce a self-sustaining off-Earth colony in the next few centuries.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Why? by fish_in_the_c · 2017-06-22 08:40 · Score: 1

Why should we be so concerned about the species surviving?
I mean the 'species' doesn't want anything only individuals.
No one currently living affected if the species goes extinct any time after the next 150 years.
I mean I guess a person could want you great great great grandchildren to survive, but really what are they to you other then other people possible future people who may or may not ever exists.

--
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.

Re:Why? by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 12:31 · Score: 1

meaningless lives
Life is what you make it.
One part of wisdom is balancing the concerns of today with the concerns of the future.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Why? by RespekMyAthorati · 2017-06-24 11:15 · Score: 1

Exactly.
Do we deserve to survive?

Because nobody lives in Europe or Asia any more by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-06-22 08:58 · Score: 2

Exploring new places and developing whatever tech it takes to survive there is worthwhile because each new colony represents a new place for us to put our eggs in, not because there was ever any instance of 'everyone has to move there'. Every group of people living in a new place, be it Massachusetts or McMurdo Bay or Mars, gets to discover new things and organize in potentially interesting new ways. If a colony becomes self-sustaining, it can develop brainpower that influences the older world, as in Ben Franklin being ambassador to France.

We need to get off this rock. But not yet by Hoodsen · 2017-06-22 09:01 · Score: 2

We're more likely to kill ourselves as a species than we are to be destroyed by some external force. Wherever we go, we will take our problems with us. As the saying goes, "wherever you go, there you are". If we face violence, poverty, hunger, and overpopulation now, we will eventually face the same problems on the moon, Mars, or wherever. Our challenge as a species is going to be working together to solve these internal problems. If we can do this, we can colonize the galaxy as benevolent stewards instead of as a destructive virus.

In conversations like this, a question we should be asking is whether it does more good or harm to bring our species to another place, with our species as it is right now. Is it really right to bring pollution, global warming, and the potential for nuclear destruction with us anywhere? To me it seems very speciesist to look at the problem from only the human point of view. Is it good for the universe for us to carry our problems with us right now?

Exponential Growth and Space by foxalopex · 2017-06-22 09:07 · Score: 1

I think the reason why Hawking thinks this way is actually very logical. As much as we might believe that we're absolutely above nature, we are not. Most biological systems such as bacteria will grow exponentially provided they have their needs met. It's only when they're suffering from massive shortages that they stop growing exponentially. As smart as humans are, this trend doesn't appear to be stopping which means we need more space and places to expand to in order to keep our rich lifestyles.

The irony of it is space is mostly empty space. Too much empty space in fact. I remember someone showing a scale where if the sun was a pea, the solar system would be a football field and the nearest star is an hour's drive away at least! Considering how long it took us to shoot the Horizon's Probe to Pluto, it's an understatement to say things are far apart!

Re:Exponential Growth and Space by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 06:17 · Score: 1

Most biological systems such as bacteria will grow exponentially provided they have their needs met.

In more advanced societies on Earth, who typically get all their needs and a whole lot of wants met, the birth rate is slightly below replacement level. Humans are not bacteria (unless, I guess, you count by number of cells, in which case humanity is over half bacteria).

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re:I disagree... by Rakarra · 2017-06-22 09:17 · Score: 1

Please, allow me to show you how links work. This way, people don't have to visit imdb just for you to make a joke.

Prometheus

Prometheus was not a very good joke..

Better take our jackets by turkeyfish · 2017-06-22 09:18 · Score: 1

As a biologist, Hawkins may be close in his prediction of 100 years. pH in the ocean is falling so fast that 300 years is an outer limit to human survival (people seem to forget that about 50% of all protein consumed comes from the sea). However, getting off Earth because we will have to will be the easy part. Getting to Mars will be no panacea. Its cold there. Make sure you take your jacket.

Re:Better take our jackets by Areyoukiddingme · 2017-06-22 11:28 · Score: 1

As a biologist, Hawkins may be close in his prediction of 100 years.
Who? According to Google, there are half a dozen biologists named Hawkins, none of whom are famous. The famous biologist is Richard Dawkins. This article is about something said by Stephen Hawking, the theoretical physicist.
I know we don't read the article around here, and even reading the summary is passé, but you could at least read the headline.

Maybe Somebody Hacked into Hawkings "Voice" puter by BBF_BBF · 2017-06-22 09:35 · Score: 1

This makes absolutely no logical sense. Maybe some 4chan jokester has hacked into Hawking's "voice" computer and is trolling us all.

So whenever Hawking tries to correct the outrageous statement by entering something else into his computer, the hacker changes it to something like: "I need an enema NOW!"

nope by supernova87a · 2017-06-22 10:09 · Score: 1

Just like a married couple who think that going on a vacation is going to solve their problems... Or having a kid will solve their problems...

Doesn't work.

Running out of space? by Trondheim · 2017-06-22 10:41 · Score: 1

Hawking sayeth, "We are running out of space and the only places to go to are other worlds."

Obviously Hawking has never been to Wyoming.

Teleporting intelligence is easy by aberglas · 2017-06-22 10:47 · Score: 1, Interesting

When the intelligence is a computer program.

Interesting that nobody on this thread, nor Hawkins, realizes that the age of man is almost over. Maybe 100 years, maybe 200 years, but over.

Why would intelligent computers want to keep parasitic humans around? Computers need humans today to build and program them, just like an Apple tree needs humans. But once the computer can do that for itself, the humans are expensive appendages.

http://www.computersthink.com/

Re: Teleporting intelligence is easy by guruevi · 2017-06-22 15:19 · Score: 1

We have gone in a few hundred years from steam engine to very fast electric calculators, we are nowhere near any form of intelligence yet, most likely because we haven't even defined it yet. Computers take over the world in the next 100 is highly unlikely, we will get more and more "helping hands" but true intelligence and "life" won't be programmed in the foreseeable future.
You may see more life-like simulations perhaps in supercomputers and robots will be able to help design robots but they're still going to be strongly guided and when they're not, they won't be able to nor have the drive to perpetuate themselves.
Life evolves on geological scales, even if we can accelerate that hundreds of times, we are still at hundreds if not thousands of years.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re: Teleporting intelligence is easy by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 05:32 · Score: 1

We're getting computational devices that might well be on the same complexity scale as human brains. We're not ever going to get intelligence well-defined, so part of AI research is doing stuff that looks plausible and hoping something intelligent happens. That could happen pretty much any time, since we don't know what we're doing.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

"I don't want to be on this planet anymore." by antdude · 2017-06-22 11:00 · Score: 1

I am ready to leave Earf. :P

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

Uh... no. by mark-t · 2017-06-22 11:11 · Score: 1

Just making a blanket assertion that humanity needs to get off this rock to survive is pointless unless one actually has a plan that considers all the logistical hurdles of limitations on technology, reasonable expectations on the limitations of human labor, funding, etc, and still be able to demonstrate that it is realistically achievable. Has Hawking provided such a detailed plan, and been able to show that it would actually work in the real world? I doubt it..... just like every other crackpot who says the same thing.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:Uh... no. by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 06:18 · Score: 1

Yup. If we've got 100 years to get a self-sustaining colony going off Earth or die, we're doomed, because it isn't going to happen even with a massive worldwide effort.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Digitized humans are coming by MyrddinBach · 2017-06-22 11:12 · Score: 2

I believe within that 100 years, if we don't nuke ourselves, we will have the capability to digitize our brains and become immortal pieces of code. At that point I think it's likely flesh and blood human populations will shrink considerably. And even if it doesn't those individuals who have chosen to be digitized can now leave this planet and explore the universe without the need for all that stuff required to support fleshy life.

If that does occur then humanity will live forever - just not in its current form.

He's partly right. by Trogre · 2017-06-22 12:07 · Score: 1

Some humans need to leave Earth for the rest of us to survive.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re:After the 2016 election by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 12:23 · Score: 1

I can't say that this species should now, or ever, be allowed to contaminate any other planet. It's bad enough that it infests this one.

So you are the benevolent mastermind who knows how everything should be, who knows what constitutes contamination and infestation? You are a living being, aren't you? You need to eat and eliminate waste products.

No living creature can exist without using resources and creating byproducts that are in some way toxic. However, I encourage you to try to do so. Until you do, STFU.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Just consider it a RAID-1 solution by Brama · 2017-06-22 12:46 · Score: 2

The odds of an event wiping out the entire population on this planet in a thousand years is not that small that you'd want to take the risk if you can help it. Would be nice if you could restore from a copy.

Re:It is absolutely not possible by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 13:41 · Score: 1

Exactly?
There's no long-term data, but I'd guess +/- 20% on gravity shouldn't be a problem.

For atmosphere, we're mostly interested in the partial pressure of oxygen. We need it not to be poisonous, not to have grossly too much nitrogen or other other mostly-inactive gasses (our plants do need enough to do nitrogen fixing). Denver's air pressure is only 80% of sea level, so that's not too critical.
We do have some ability to selectively absorb minerals in our diet. There are places on earth where iodine shortage is a real problem; that's not a no-go difficulty here or (likely) on other planets. A very serious problem would be a planet with high concentrations of arsenic everywhere.
Radiation - there's good evidence that the average radiation on earth is less than half optimum for maximum lifespan. On the other hand, low radiation probably isn't a terrible problem and getting additional synthetic radiation is not impossible.

Mars is a problem, but humans aren't as tender as you imagine.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:What the earth really needs is... by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 13:47 · Score: 1

The name of the place is "I Like It Like That".

Come on, let me show you where it's at.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:What does he think is going to kill all human l by ChrisMaple · 2017-06-22 14:02 · Score: 1

I don't like the idea of a large underground colony for survival of a really big asteroid impact. Big asteroid means big earthquakes and unpredictable lava flows. Collapse of underground structures is a real risk. You'd want multiple structures just to improve the odd of not being at ground zero.

Nothing survives any collision that's a significant fraction of the collision that created the moon. Maybe not even a moon colony.

Mars is a better bet, but much more difficult and expensive.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

neil degrasse tyson by sdinfoserv · 2017-06-22 16:43 · Score: 1

I rather like Dr. Tyson's answer on this topic: "the effort required to establish a self sustaining colony of humans on another world far exceeds any effort that would be required to fix this one."

Re:neil degrasse tyson by woodystanford · 2017-06-23 09:15 · Score: 1

clever and true but still reflects the..."old numbers". Yeah I'm telling joke. No one please be mad.

--
"There are only two types of men in this world: those who lead and those who are lead."

Re:After the 2016 election by Opportunist · 2017-06-22 19:56 · Score: 1

So ... we should be allowed to contaminate other planets with our droppings?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:After the 2016 election by Opportunist · 2017-06-22 19:58 · Score: 1

We could still start with not fucking up this planet in the first place, then there's no reason to terraform it later.

And choice... sorry, I've seen the choices offered. Some worse than others, but none where I really could have said "That's my man/woman, I WANT that person in office!"

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:I disagree... by kattisch · 2017-06-23 04:14 · Score: 1

Our species needs to die out here so we don't destroy any other planets we can get our hands on.

So are you volunteering to be the first?

Re:I disagree... by david_thornley · 2017-06-23 05:55 · Score: 1

We haven't destroyed any planets. Not yet anyway, and we'd need some major tech advances to get the ability to destroy one.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Double Thumbs Up! by woodystanford · 2017-06-23 09:09 · Score: 1

Matches my numbers. :D

--
"There are only two types of men in this world: those who lead and those who are lead."

Hitler was a Socialist. by scatbomb · 2017-06-23 19:27 · Score: 1

Moderate? Is that what we are calling mentally handicapped fascists nowadays? So was Hitler just a tad bit to the right?

Quite trying to rewrite history. Read some more about Hitler. Here's a quote.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions” -Hitler

Idiots

Try to guess the idiot again. You'll get it right eventually.

Goober. Smart but goober. by howhurley · 2017-06-24 02:53 · Score: 1

Neo-Malthusian. Always wrong.

Goober. Smart but goober. by howhurley · 2017-06-24 02:55 · Score: 1

Neo-Malthusian. Always wrong. Space is great. Love it. Reason to explore is silly.

Another game of cowboys and Indians? by PeterL.Berghold · 2017-06-24 02:59 · Score: 1

First thing I think of when people say we need to colonize other worlds in other star systems is how Europeans came over to the Americas and pushed the native peoples aside or worse yet subjugated them. Have we sufficiently learned our lessons in that regard? I'm not sure we have learned our lessons. Human nature hasn't progressed much further than the state it was in the fifteenth century...

Slashdot Mirror

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

245 of 391 comments (clear)