Stephen Hawking says we have 100 years left

[Airbrush]

"Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has already asserted that humans need to colonize a new planet soon — and now he’s arguing that we need to start within 100 years to keep the species alive.

Hawking will lay out his reasoning for why and how people must start inhabiting another planet in a BBC program airing this summer called Stephen Hawking: Expedition New Earth. He has theorized in the past that the chance of a disaster on Earth adds up over time, so that it’s a “near certainty” in the next 1,000 or 10,000 years, but the human race will survive if it expands into outer space.

“With climate change, overdue asteroid strikes, epidemics and population growth, our own planet is increasingly precarious,” BBC said in a statement about the show. “Prof. Hawking’s ambition isn’t as fantastical as it sounds.”

http://www.time.com/4767595/stephen-hawking-100-years-new-planet/

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

"Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has already asserted that humans need to colonize a new planet soon — and now he’s arguing that we need to start within 100 years to keep the species alive.

Hawking will lay out his reasoning for why and how people must start inhabiting another planet in a BBC program airing this summer called Stephen Hawking: Expedition New Earth. He has theorized in the past that the chance of a disaster on Earth adds up over time, so that it’s a “near certainty” in the next 1,000 or 10,000 years, but the human race will survive if it expands into outer space.

“With climate change, overdue asteroid strikes, epidemics and population growth, our own planet is increasingly precarious,” BBC said in a statement about the show. “Prof. Hawking’s ambition isn’t as fantastical as it sounds.”

http://www.time.com/4767595/stephen-hawking-100-years-new-planet/

Whether he is correct in his estimations or not, and whether we need to do it within a 100 years, 500 years or a 1000 years, it will certainly in my opinion be inevitable. First of course the Moon, then Mars and further afield.

[Airbrush]

Stephen Hawking is not noted for making outrageous claims.  In 2016 he said it looked to him like humanity had about 1,000 years before humanity gets sent back to a pre-industrial age, if not a stone age.  In 2017, he revised his estimate to only 100 years before we lose technology.  We have population always growing, resources shrinking, global temperatures rising, and threats increasing.  We could have a supervolcano eruption, asteroid strike, bio-disaster, nuclear war, or things we don't even know about.  Maybe Trump has intuited this and therefore why not withdraw from the Paris climate accord?  Why do anything if the whole world is going to hell in 100 years?  Will 100 years give us time to colonize the Moon or Mars?  I doubt that.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Stephen Hawking is not noted for making outrageous claims.  In 2016 he said it looked to him like humanity had about 1,000 years before humanity gets sent back to a pre-industrial age, if not a stone age.  In 2017, he revised his estimate to only 100 years before we lose technology.  We have population always growing, resources shrinking, global temperatures rising, and threats increasing.  We could have a supervolcano eruption, asteroid strike, bio-disaster, nuclear war, or things we don't even know about.  Maybe Trump has intuited this and therefore why not withdraw from the Paris climate accord?  Why do anything if the whole world is going to hell in 100 years?  Will 100 years give us time to colonize the Moon or Mars?  I doubt that.

Trump's only "methodology"  is as we say where I come from, "F%#@ you, I'm alright Jack, mentality" I do agree that 100 years is too soon, but avoiding any catastrophic astronomical disaster, or other global threat, we will at the very least have out posts on the Moon and Mars, similar to Antarctica. Colonisation of another world and stellar travel may take the better part of a 1000 years.

[EdEarl]

With 4C estimated temperature rise by 2100, it seems likely 2017 will be bad. Perhaps Hawking's 100 year prediction is related. The US will resist effective change. I hope the remainder of the world can move quickly enough to avoid the worst. 

[beecee]

45 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

With 4C estimated temperature rise by 2100, it seems likely 2017 will be bad. Perhaps Hawking's 100 year prediction is related. The US will resist effective change. I hope the remainder of the world can move quickly enough to avoid the worst. 

Or sensible Americans can give this fool a kick in the backside and oust him from power, and once again make the USA part of the solution and not against it.

[EdEarl]

Unfortunately, I believe that will not happen, but there is a chance. For many elections, the amount spent by a candidate for advertising for them determines who will win. With current interpretation of law, the super rich can spend any amount on their candidates, which means republicans have an advantage. Maybe the voters will awaken.

[Ken Fabian]

I think space is a lot harder to colonise successfully than people like Pr Hawking are saying. I also don't think "preserving the species" or preserving our civilisation is a motivation that will work; colonies will arise as a flow on consequence of economically viable exploitation of space resources by a successful, not a failing, Earth economy; those economic activities have to be the enabling motivation and some form of self reliant colonisation may, in time, be an emergent outcome. 

Outposts are one thing - everything they rely on is a product of a large, successful, resourceful Earth economy. Self sufficient colonies are something much larger and more comprehensive - they need to be the large, successful, resourceful economy. If they aren't then they won't be able to make the high tech essentials survival in such places requires and they won't thrive. If they aren't economically viable outposts - and I don't think there is any resource on Mars that cannot be mined, refined and delivered to customers more easily and cheaply here on Earth - then they won't become the successful economy they need to be to survive without support.

And I wonder if even a multitude of space colonies would still be more at risk of extinction than people on Earth and besides being reliant on a lifeline from Earth, there is a strong likelihood they could end up calling upon Earth for rescue; we cannot ignore just how extremely harsh and unforgiving the destinations on offer really are. Unlike the historic examples of colonisation, this grand dream relies on exceptional, purpose built - yet to be achieved - technology, rather than the thoroughly proven sort that was in every day use.

With some extraordinary technological leaps, perhaps the economics of using space resources will shift from being prohibitive to become compelling but I'm not sure it's something that can be achieved incrementally; the giant steps require a huge pre-investment and that level of investment is unlikely without the compelling economics of a compelling business plan.

[MigL]

I think Stephen Hawking has become addicted to popularity.

[hoola]

thankfully, someone of note mentions population overgrowth as a major issue. Would CO2 even be an issue if there was a sustainable population of say, one billion? Population control should be issue #1 in climate sustainability talk, plus the negative social aspects of overcrowding even if we were to somehow conquer the CO2 problem. We would be just trading in one  big problem for many others. I say we stay and make this planet long term sustainable, with a small colony on the moon to give some distance from earth that offers an objective reflection on human affairs,  as well as an asteroid detection and eradication base. That small colony would also serve as a genesis of the human race if some unavoidable tragedy should occur on earth, so should be large and genetically diverse enough to serve as an effective seed population.

[beecee]

On 12/30/2017 at 9:37 AM, MigL said:

I think Stephen Hawking has become addicted to popularity.

I see it more like the media hanging on his every word, and sometimes taking that "word" out of context, or creating some sensationalist aspect where there is none. eg: the false headlines a few years ago "Hawking says BHs do not exist"