Abandon Earth or face extinction: Hawking

LikeAnOcean

Flagg wrote:

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.

I'd be surprised if we make 100 more years. It would be interesting to peak 100 years into the future and see what we are up to.

Drowned Out

ElRoi wrote:

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.

I figured the wink and saying anything from Hawking had no science behind it would be enough for people to catch the sarcasm in that statement...but i someimes forget how many newbs are lurkin around here...stick around amigo, lay off on the name calling tho...hearts n minds n all that

Hugh Freaking Dillon

where does he get his information that we 'should stay away from aliens as the effects could be devastating' from? what is he basing this on? all conjecture?

and I assumed that if it was possible to colonate another planet by now, it would have been done. how do you go about doing this? figure out a way to plant tomatoes in dry space dust? have volunteers who subsequently volunteer generations of their own offspring for long-term space travel, since we can't "warp speed Mr Sulu" quite yet? live in a giant bubble and hope everyone on the planet is smart enough not to burst it? maybe we could build a giant weapon that would jolt another planet into the same revolution distance as Earth from the Sun and then blow up Earth?

how can one possibly come to the conclusion that we'll all be gone within 100 years?

haffajappa

we're all going to be like wall.e

tvismyfriend

ElRoi wrote:

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that smiley intended for sarcasm?

catefrances

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Flagg wrote:

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.

I'd be surprised if we make 100 more years. It would be interesting to peak 100 years into the future and see what we are up to.

youve seen planet of the apes right??


i guess it all depends on whether you consider human beings as we are now, the end result of evolution. that we can develop no further. i, for one, do not. human as a species wont be around in a million years. it could be a case of its life jim, but not as we know it. but of course i never thought the earth is here for just us anyway.

JR8805

catefrances wrote:

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?

Hawking is visionary who thinks long-term. Remember back around 1492 when Europeans decided they would take the technology they then had a sail the ocean blue to colonize who knew what exactly? Hawking is just thinking a different ocean. I don't think he means we'll do it this Thursday. Just that at some point, we may find we have the means and need.

catefrances

JR8805 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

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?

Hawking is visionary who thinks long-term. Remember back around 1492 when Europeans decided they would take the technology they then had a sail the ocean blue to colonize who knew what exactly? Hawking is just thinking a different ocean. I don't think he means we'll do it this Thursday. Just that at some point, we may find we have the means and need.

i was a little young back in 1492 but i know what youre saying. and i never thought he meant wed do it by next thursday. perhaps christmas but not next thursday. personally id be looking a bit closer to home for our 'salvation'

i think mankind will realise just a little too late and all well be able to do is stand arm in arm and watch as our life as the dominant species on this planet is extinguished. and the earth will rejoice in an explosion of regeneration as the cycle begins again and another dominant species, or many, evolves and takes hold.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

catefrances wrote:

i think mankind will realise just a little too late and all well be able to do is stand arm in arm and watch as our life as the dominant species on this planet is extinguished. and the earth will rejoice in an explosion of regeneration as the cycle begins again and another dominant species, or many, evolves and takes hold.

agreed. the Earth will be a much better place without us.

ElRoi

Drowned Out wrote:

ElRoi wrote:

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.

I figured the wink and saying anything from Hawking had no science behind it would be enough for people to catch the sarcasm in that statement...but i someimes forget how many newbs are lurkin around here...stick around amigo, lay off on the name calling tho...hearts n minds n all that

My sincerest apology. Unfortunately, I have read posts of similar nature in this forum that were not intended as sarcasm. I am not familiar with your opinions on such matters and quite honestly did not notice the emoticon.

Drowned Out

ElRoi wrote:

My sincerest apology. Unfortunately, I have read posts of similar nature in this forum that were not intended as sarcasm. I am not familiar with your opinions on such matters and quite honestly did not notice the emoticon.

No worries at all....sarcastic or not, it was a form of trolling meant to take a jab at another pov... So I cant really get upset when it backfires
And its always nice to see new people contributing

ElRoi

Drowned Out wrote:

ElRoi wrote:

My sincerest apology. Unfortunately, I have read posts of similar nature in this forum that were not intended as sarcasm. I am not familiar with your opinions on such matters and quite honestly did not notice the emoticon.

No worries at all....sarcastic or not, it was a form of trolling meant to take a jab at another pov... So I cant really get upset when it backfires
And its always nice to see new people contributing

OK, so we're even. However, I'm not really a newbie. I have been a member since late 2005. I often read the posts, I just don't post a lot myself.

matabele

We came up with this answer in the forum long before Hawkins did, (our species ultimate goal), one day we are going to have to leave, there can be no doubt about that.

cajunkiwi

It also might help if we stopped telling people in overcrowded parts of the world that contraception is bad. That line of thinking isn't doing anything to curb overpopulation or the spread of potentially fatal STDs.

matabele

cajunkiwi wrote:

It also might help if we stopped telling people in overcrowded parts of the world that contraception is bad. That line of thinking isn't doing anything to curb overpopulation or the spread of potentially fatal STDs.

Who is telling people that, I thought the world had jumped on the contraception bandwagon?

cajunkiwi

matabele wrote:

cajunkiwi wrote:

It also might help if we stopped telling people in overcrowded parts of the world that contraception is bad. That line of thinking isn't doing anything to curb overpopulation or the spread of potentially fatal STDs.

Who is telling people that, I thought the world had jumped on the contraception bandwagon?

The Catholic Church considers contraception to be a sin

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence."

"Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law.""

"The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly."

Pope John Paul II gave a speech in Tanzania in 1990 where he said the use of condoms was a sin in any circumstance.

Since 1987 when he was plain old Cardinal Ratzinger, the current pope has said on a number of occasions that condom use was wrong, including once when, in response to an article saying condom use should be taught to help curb the spread of AIDS, he said it would "result in at least the facilitation of evil."
He's made similar statements over the years while specifically talking about AIDS in Africa too, saying as recently as five years ago that contraceptives were threatening the fabric of African life.