Hawking Says Spread Out Or Become Extinct To Press>>>

[johns805]

Hi: This isn't new to most readers here at space.com....Stephen Hawking, noted scientist, has stated his advocacy of humans moving offplanet to other homes in space...Today, CNN is running an article about it, refer to the following link:<br /><br />http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/11/30/space.hawking.reut/index.html<br /><br />I think it's a plus that this is given more prominence in the mainstream press instead of the usual dry repetitive "preaching to the choir" of zealous space cadets....I hope something positive comes from the new coverage....Best Regards! ~JBK<br /><br />Holiday And Space Music 2006 On Freeform Radio /><br />Surf City Sounds Plus:<br />http://www.Live365.com/stations/johns805<br /><br />

 

[kane007]

Wasn't it Konstantin Tsiolkovsky who said "The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one can not live in a cradle forever!", early last century?

 

[kane007]

It would appear that the YES votes in the CNN quick vote - "should we colonize or not" - are MASSIVELY in the YES camp! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I was the 8459 yes. Good to check up in a few more days.

 

[5stone10]

He's sure getting loopy in his old age!

 

[brandbll]

Bazooka Joe wrapper? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[kane007]

1899 I think is the first documented mention of this quote.

 

[barrykirk]

I love that quote. I used it as my quote in my high<br />school yearbook ( 1982 ) .

 

[alokmohan]

Cheer up for mars.Most suitable candidate.

 

[scottb50]

Cheer up for mars.Most suitable candidate.<br /><br />Which appears to be the only candidate we have available. Even if we could establish a Mars colony it couldn't be self sufficient for a very long time.<br /><br />Not that I don't agree with Hawkings, just that there is no where in the Solar system humans could survive without support from Earth. At some point that may be possible on Mars, but the odds of something happening to Mars are at least as good, or better that it happening to Earth. <br /><br />From what I see life will probably survive on Earth unless the entire Planet is obliterated. It probably wouldn't be us, but from what has happened before, short of complete destruction, life would return or what is left would expand and continue. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kane007]

I guess I must have been tired when writing that post, so unlike me not to attach footnotes or links. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Here at lower left of page.<br /><br />Results so far 16,967 YES, 3592 NO!<br /><br />Totally non scientific! <br />

 

[oscar1]

"Which appears to be the only candidate we have available. Even if we could establish a Mars colony it couldn't be self sufficient for a very long time."<br /><br />You are likely right where self-sufficiency as we are used to in our day and age is concerned, but an adapted middle age type of lifestyle, food and clothing wise, should not be that hard to achieve over there. That is, after the initial colony, supplied with ample spare parts, has been built with material from Earth. With chickens you already have meat, liver, animal fat, eggs, gelatine, feathers and fertiliser (guano type), which can be used for growing maize and watercress. When Mars could provide oxygen, water and most trace elements himself, I think we could set up shop there. And, yes, Mars can also be struck by a rock from space, but he would help us devide, thus lower, the risk of extinction.<br />

 

[j05h]

>> "Which appears to be the only candidate we have available. Even if we could establish a Mars colony it couldn't be self sufficient for a very long time."<br /><br /> /> You are likely right where self-sufficiency as we are used to in our day and age is concerned...<br /><br />Self-sufficient colonies in the short term are impossible, it requires to much infrastructure. That is beside the point, however, because we have to start colonizing at some point or go extinct. We need to foster a market for getting into deep space or this won't happen. We also need some kind of property rights guarantee as citizens and companies. Dr. Hawking is right, we will go extinct if we don't spread out. <br /><br />Carl Sagan said something like "The dinosaurs went extinct because they didn't have a space program."<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[askold]

If the human race can't make a go of it on Earth - a veritable paradise - how are we going to do better in the harshness of space or nearby planets?

 

[kauboi]

<font color="yellow">If the human race can't make a go of it on Earth - a veritable paradise - how are we going to do better in the harshness of space or nearby planets?</font><br /><br />I agree completely. I think it would be wiser to first work things out here before considering moving to other planets, eventually we would be saying the same about Mars /> "we should get out of here or we are finished!!!" if we continue along the same lines.<br /><br />I like to think Africa was the cradle of humanity, now we are out living on our pretty little house we so proudly built with great effort but limited vision. I just hope we don't need a cane soon because sooner than we think we could find ourselves in bed with a broken hip.<br /><br />Our main problem is not the neighborhood, we don't even have annoying neighbors to bother us. Our main problem is us.

 

[mental_avenger]

Scottb50 says: <font color="yellow"> Even if we could establish a Mars colony it couldn't be self sufficient for a very long time. </font><br /><br /> Probably true, but not because we cannot, but rather because it would be difficult if not impossible to get the backing necessary to establish a self-sufficient colony in a short time, say 20 years.<br /><br />Scottb50 says: <font color="yellow"> Not that I don't agree with Hawkings, just that there is no where in the Solar system humans could survive without support from Earth. </font><br /><br />Currently no, but it is possible to establish a self-sufficient viable colony on Mars. We currently have all the technologies required to send large numbers of humans to Mars along with sufficient supplies to make the colony viable. We just don’t have the funding available, nor are we likely to get it anytime soon.<br /><br />Scottb50 says: <font color="yellow"> At some point that may be possible on Mars, but the odds of something happening to Mars are at least as good, or better that it happening to Earth. </font><br /><br />But there is a major difference between the end results of the same type of event happening on Mars or happening on Earth. Because we live above ground on Earth and depend upon food grown in open fields, a K-T class impact could destroy most of our food and therefore most of the people and animals. On Mars, with everyone living underground or in protected domes, growing their food in controlled enclosures, a K-T impact would affect only those living within a very short distance from the impact itself. Virtually all the rest of the inhabitants of Mars would be relatively unaffected. That is the main reason it makes sense to start populating Mars as soon as possible.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

kauboi says: <font color="yellow"> I agree completely. I think it would be wiser to first work things out here before considering moving to other planets </font><br /><br />There is nothing that needs to be “worked out”. We are doing just fine. There are problems, but they are not insurmountable. There have always been problems, and there always will be. That is human nature and it is not going to change. Anyone who thinks it is possible, or even wise, to “solve all mankind’s problems” is living in a fantasy. If we wait until we “first work things out here”, we would never leave Earth.<br /><br />kauboi says: <font color="yellow"> eventually we would be saying the same about Mars> "we should get out of here or we are finished!!! </font><br /><br />See my post above about the major difference between “catastrophes” on Earth and on Mars.<br /><br />kauboi says: <font color="yellow"> Our main problem is not the neighborhood, we don't even have annoying neighbors to bother us. Our main problem is us. </font><br /><br />When (not if) Earth is hit by a major comet or asteroid, “us” will cease to be a problem.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[halman]

Scottb50, et al,<br /><br />Come on, people, let go of your prejudices about living on a planet! Space is infinite, planets are extremely rare. Dyson spheres are the ultimate example of creating the environment that we desire, but we must start somewhere, and now would be a good time. Resources like metals will probably be extracted from planets for quite a while, but there are a lot of rocks floating around which are high in iron and nickel, and who knows what else. With enough energy, almost anything is possible, and the Sun is cranking out quite a bit, as I understand.<br /><br />We don't have to travel hundreds of millions of kilometers to create colonies, we can do it ANYWHERE! Sure, the chances of racial extinction would be diminished considerably if we were to establish colonies around another star, but they go down quite a bit just by having a habitat off of Earth in this solar system. We need to be more than just a 'space faring race', we need to be race that can live wherever there is energy. Every colony that is self-sufficient is a starship, just like Earth, sailing the Cosmos. We don't need to find more Earths, we need to create them. Space is a destination in and of itself, not a just medium through which we travel to reach another place. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[kauboi]

<font color="yellow">There is nothing that needs to be “worked out”. We are doing just fine. There are problems, but they are not insurmountable. There have always been problems, and there always will be. That is human nature and it is not going to change.</font><br /><br />That kind of thinking is what keeps us from achieving a better life here on Earth. Thanks for the advice but no thanks, I try to aim a little higher.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Anyone who thinks it is possible, or even wise, to “solve all mankind’s problems” is living in a fantasy. If we wait until we “first work things out here”, we would never leave Earth.</font><br /><br />I never said “solve all mankind’s problems”. Interesting that you quoted it like it came directly from my post or something. Isn't that against the rules of the forum?<br /><br />A thousand years ago, people who thought about going to the moon were also living in a fantasy world probably being told that by people like you who saw it as a waste of time. Sorry to bust your bubble but there are quite some people who think like I do and who think we can do better. We have the capacity and potential to do that and even more. If everyone thought the way you do we would probably have faced extinction a long time ago. I think I know which side I want to be on.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">When (not if) Earth is hit by a major comet or asteroid, “us” will cease to be a problem.</font><br /><br />Yea well, I would like to focus on the problems and things that we actually have the power to control now, like ourselves, I suggest you do the same.

 

[oscar1]

You are already thinking of some kind of Marsian cadastral deeds office are you? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />But then we would simultaneously need a building society or bank as well, and more importantly, money! The dollar is named after the germanic word for valley and the euro after Europe, so I propose the Martian currency to be named " the mons", after "Olympus Mons". <br /><br />OK, that was easy. But what are we going to do about the setting up places for prayer? I have a feeling that the Muslims will be highly upset if the first such place on Mars is going to be a church!<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

<i>>> If the human race can't make a go of it on Earth - a veritable paradise - how are we going to do better in the harshness of space or nearby planets?<br /> /> I agree completely. I think it would be wiser to first work things out here before considering moving to other planets, eventually we would be saying the same about Mars> "we should get out of here or we are finished!!!" if we continue along the same lines. </i><br /><br />We must expand to survive, otherwise there won't be anyone to repopulate Earth when the Big One hits. <br /><br />If you are blaming human nature, you will keep us on Earth because of our innate behavior? I don't think so. Our "problems" are not going to be solved by turning Earth into a concetration camp. Some issues, like access to food, information, medicine and manufactured goods, will be largely solved by continuing the industrial revolution outside of our biosphere. Imagine being able to create factories in a place where "pollution" doesn't exist because there are no life forms to pollute? Imagine being able to space-drop grain and network hardware to comfort the oppressed. Or simply gaining first-hand knowledge of new places like Mars and Luna. We can't do these things if socialists insist on locking us down on Earth. To claim we can "solve" humanity's problems is the same utopian logic that has failed us throughout history. <br /><br />The thing that differentiates humans from the other great apes is that a gorilla or chimp looks at the place they are in and thinks "ahh, home" while the human looks at the horizon and thinks "I wonder what's on the other side of that hill?"<br /><br /><i>> Our main problem is not the neighborhood, we don't even have annoying neighbors to bother us. Our main problem is us.</i><br /><br />Tell that to the next 25 mile wide asteroid that smacks into Earth. Our main problem is extremely large devastating events that we can not prevent like extinction-level impacts , tsunamis and volcanoes. Which w <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[oscar1]

I agree with you. And I think that even the cost factor of setting up a Mars colony shouldn't be a major obstacle. The only thing that is holding us back, I think, is 'motivation'. If the US can spend some 350 bio. dollars on getting rid of Saddam of Iraq alone, the US could have spent this on a Mars project just the same. Europe and Asia are certainly capable of coughing up another 650 bio. to make up a full rounded trillion dollars. <br /><br />Wouldn't it be very sad if the temporary survivors of a calamity like, among other, a meteorite hit, an allround nuclear disaster, a virus one, or a potpourri of such, would have to say to themselves "humanity could have gone further than this!".

 

[kauboi]

I'm not saying we shouldn't expand, I think we eventually would and should do it. What I'm saying is that we have the wisdom to do it better now than before on our history. You can't lay all the responsibility on technology. With power, responsibility should be greater. We have been expanding almost exponentially since we got out of Africa, the first solution was the agricultural revolution, a major technological and social breakthrough I agree but with it came other kinds of problems, after that we had some other types of agricultural technological revolutions which helped us increase production and support an increasing population. Then the industrial revolution came to 'save' us from another huge increase on population which started a series of other problems which we have now accumulated and for which we struggle to find a solution. What if we don't find the means to expand to other worlds soon enough? (I think that's a bigger probability than being hit by a huge fireball right now) will we then run out of resources? of water? or just the increasing rioting coming from extremely poor and decayed societies will disrupt things up? I don't know, what I do know is that we don't have the means to expand today, huge amounts of budget that could be spend on that should now be deviated on defense systems, useless charity foundations, futile wars about politics and other kneejerk reactions to the huge problems we are facing. I also know that we have in our hands the potential to slow down and change the way we do things. <br /><br />I don't advocate socialsm, I advocate common sense and intelligence, now that we have a past from where we can learn about ourselves we should know better. We are a part of nature but nature works in wise ways, when an organism starts working in unwise ways it gets shown the door out. I don't want that to happen to us but the way things are going it might as well happen if we don't use our intelligence for other stuff other than for making tech

 

[kauboi]

<font color="yellow">Wouldn't it be very sad if the temporary survivors of a calamity like, among other, a meteorite hit, an allround nuclear disaster, a virus one, or a potpourri of such, would have to say to themselves "humanity could have gone further than this!".</font><br /><br />If we kill ourselves, it would be thousands of times more shameful to hear that few say "humanity could have been wiser than this".

 

[oscar1]

You are right, but given that we are wiser scientifically than politically, I'd go for the Mars colony rather.

 

[kauboi]

IMHO, we are not scientifically wise, we are scientifically knowledgeable and creative but not wise. Wisdom would mean to always use <b>all</b> of our knowledge for a greater good (and a greater good doesn't mean having a biggest tv or faster car, etc). We now use much of our knowledge for average, little, tiny or no good at all.