Abandon Earth or face extinction: Hawking

catefrances

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1323 ... on-Hawking

Mankind's only chance of long-term survival lies in colonising space, as humans drain Earth of resources and face a terrifying array of new threats, warned British scientist Stephen Hawking.


Add your comment

"The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," the renowned astrophysicist told the website Big Think, a forum which airs ideas on many subjects from experts.

"Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space," he added.

He warned that the human race was likely to face an increased number of events that threaten its very existence, as the Cuban missile crisis did in 1962.

The Cold War showdown saw the United States and Soviet Union in a confrontation over Soviet missiles deployed in Cuba, near US shores, and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

"We are entering an increasingly dangerous period of our history," said Hawking.

"Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill."

If we want to survive beyond the next century, "our future is in space," added the scientist.

"That is why I'm in favour of manned, or should I say 'personed', space flight."

His comments came after he warned in a recent television series that mankind should avoid contact with aliens at all costs, as the consequences could be devastating.

Drowned Out

That dude's biased, I mean, he's an astrophysicist for chrissake. Promoting space travel? pffft.
This is just more global warming BS with no science behind it, from the lefties in academia.

catefrances

it would have been nice had he come out and spoken about the need for a sustainable earth instead of us star trekking across the universe..

CJMST3K

This is just logical though. If we destroy ourselves, or if a large comet destroys the planet or whatnot, a colony elsewhere that would be unaffected is the only insurance against extinction. But phrasing it as "Abandon Earth or face extinction" makes it sound like a calamity might happen unless we abandon earth. Either way, we're talking about probably 0.000001% of humans would go on in such a circumstance.

catefrances

ok then mr hawking...
what planet should we colonise?
who should colonise it?
who picks who should colonise it?
how do we make the chosen planet habitable for humans?
how do we sustain that?
will we be taking animals with us?
which animals would that be?
will we be eating soylent green to survive?
can you guarantee such colonisation will be enough for the human species to keep going?
what happens when our new planet is threatened by a meteor?
can i hold the rights to the movie franchise?

norm

catefrances wrote:

His comments came after he warned in a recent television series that mankind should avoid contact with aliens at all costs, as the consequences could be devastating.

thanks for the 411 stevie!

next time i see these guys walking down the street



i'll make a point to cross to the other side

EZ1221C

norm wrote:

catefrances wrote:

His comments came after he warned in a recent television series that mankind should avoid contact with aliens at all costs, as the consequences could be devastating.

thanks for the 411 stevie!

next time i see these guys walking down the street



i'll make a point to cross to the other side

Or these ones:

norm

EZ1221C wrote:

norm wrote:

catefrances wrote:

His comments came after he warned in a recent television series that mankind should avoid contact with aliens at all costs, as the consequences could be devastating.

thanks for the 411 stevie!

next time i see these guys walking down the street



i'll make a point to cross to the other side

Or these ones:

my first thought was this

ONCE DEVIDED

If we are not gunna travel ouot to these distant planets, They why bother sending rockets out to explore.

I agree lets try and fix this one , before bailing on it

Jason P

GET YOUR ASS TO MARS!!!

catefrances

Jason P wrote:

GET YOUR ASS TO MARS!!!
...

and what about the rest of me???

Jason P

catefrances wrote:

Jason P wrote:

GET YOUR ASS TO MARS!!!
...

and what about the rest of me???

I would suggest the moon Titan. The views would be outstanding. You would just need the following modifications . . .

LikeAnOcean

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

If we are not gunna travel ouot to these distant planets, They why bother sending rockets out to explore.

I agree lets try and fix this one , before bailing on it

Only way we are going to fix this one is to stop having children. If we could go from 6 billion to perhaps a billion people in a few generations there may be hope.. but you really can't tell people to stop having so many kids.

catefrances

LikeAnOcean wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

If we are not gunna travel ouot to these distant planets, They why bother sending rockets out to explore.

I agree lets try and fix this one , before bailing on it

Only way we are going to fix this one is to stop having children. If we could go from 6 billion to perhaps a billion people in a few generations there may be hope.. but you really can't tell people to stop having so many kids.

if you stop providing food for an expected amount of people then the population will plateau and maybe then start to decrease.

LikeAnOcean

catefrances wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

If we are not gunna travel ouot to these distant planets, They why bother sending rockets out to explore.

I agree lets try and fix this one , before bailing on it

Only way we are going to fix this one is to stop having children. If we could go from 6 billion to perhaps a billion people in a few generations there may be hope.. but you really can't tell people to stop having so many kids.

if you stop providing food for an expected amount of people then the population will plateau and maybe then start to decrease.

Tell that to everyone who is trying to solve world hunger.. If anyone read Ishmael, as long as there is agriculture, there will be hunger. We are always make just barely enough food, and the more food we make, the more mouths there will be to feed.

catefrances

LikeAnOcean wrote:

catefrances wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Only way we are going to fix this one is to stop having children. If we could go from 6 billion to perhaps a billion people in a few generations there may be hope.. but you really can't tell people to stop having so many kids.

if you stop providing food for an expected amount of people then the population will plateau and maybe then start to decrease.

Tell that to everyone who is trying to solve world hunger.. If anyone read Ishmael, as long as there is agriculture, there will be hunger. We are always make just barely enough food, and the more food we make, the more mouths there will be to feed.

so do you reckon we should stop trying to 'solve' world hunger and let it sort itself out??

i have to admit im in 2 minds about this. i understand the problem and i can see the solution but...

LikeAnOcean

catefrances wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Tell that to everyone who is trying to solve world hunger.. If anyone read Ishmael, as long as there is agriculture, there will be hunger. We are always make just barely enough food, and the more food we make, the more mouths there will be to feed.

so do you reckon we should stop trying to 'solve' world hunger and let it sort itself out??

i have to admit im in 2 minds about this. i understand the problem and i can see the solution but...

I don't know what the solution is. We can't tell these third world countries to lay down and die, but I'm not sure the planet is designed to help them or us help them.

catefrances

LikeAnOcean wrote:

catefrances wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Tell that to everyone who is trying to solve world hunger.. If anyone read Ishmael, as long as there is agriculture, there will be hunger. We are always make just barely enough food, and the more food we make, the more mouths there will be to feed.

so do you reckon we should stop trying to 'solve' world hunger and let it sort itself out??

i have to admit im in 2 minds about this. i understand the problem and i can see the solution but...

I don't know what the solution is. We can't tell these third world countries to lay down and die, but I'm not sure the planet is designed to help them or us help them.

i think, as you said, agriculture is a huge part of the problem. the patterns that agriculturalists have made for their lives is a hindrance to a great many people, usually those who dont subscribe to that lifestyle, whilst sustaining the lives of a great deal of other people.. unfortunately i think its a slow suicide.

Commy

LikeAnOcean wrote:

catefrances wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Tell that to everyone who is trying to solve world hunger.. If anyone read Ishmael, as long as there is agriculture, there will be hunger. We are always make just barely enough food, and the more food we make, the more mouths there will be to feed.

so do you reckon we should stop trying to 'solve' world hunger and let it sort itself out??

i have to admit im in 2 minds about this. i understand the problem and i can see the solution but...

I don't know what the solution is. We can't tell these third world countries to lay down and die, but I'm not sure the planet is designed to help them or us help them.

Us "helping" them has been the problem. The United States is the world's first truly global empire, and it has spread its influence primarily through economic means.

Its why Haiti was exporting grain while its people starved, why africa is paying its debts to the wb and imf before it takes care of its own citizens, why little kids are making shoes and hats and shit.

they call it aid. Our help is making them poorer, making htem hungrier, making them more reliant on the first world.


Ever wonder why no countries in south America are anywhere near being world powers? They sure as hell have the resources to be. The US's backyard, as they say. Their resources are benefiting prvate corporations, and that was no accident. its the same throughout the US empire, which is most of the world.

The merchants and landowners that decided policy when the US rebelled and became a nation are still calling the shots today. and the world is fucked because of it.

ElRoi

Drowned Out wrote:

This is just more global warming BS with no science behind it, from the lefties in academia.

It always amazes me when the right-wing contingency of the PJ fan base chime-in with their un- and mis-informed opinions. No global warming, huh? First of all over 90% or more of the fact-base Scientific community agree that Global Climate Change (the correct term) is occuring and that it isn't going to be a good thing for mankind. I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth there have been record setting temperatures all summer. You right-wing nuts just want except the inevitable until you are dieing from it and then you will all be crying, "What going on?!?" "Why is this happen?!?!?!" "Glen Beck told me this wasn't happening!!!" Wake-up and get a clue and stop letting the right-wing pundits think for you.

Flagg

What is his definition of "long term" though? Is he talking about surviving as a species for millions of years? Thousands? I don't think he means we need to colonize space next year or anything.