Stephen Hawking: mankind must move to outer space within a century

You think people are not destroying the planet? Wait...you don't believe in global warming do you?

chandu83

There's a big difference between "destroying the planet" and "making the planet hostile to human habitation."

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Again, look at the entire history of humanity as a series of peaks and troughs. We're on a peak now...

Palantas

Emphasis mine. How do you know that?

I don't.

But I've previously clarified that comment with words like "probably" or "as far as I can tell" multiple times.

After a while, it becomes pointless to keep saying "it's my opinion that..." when you've already stated that it's your opinion, and it's an opinionated statement anyway.

So yeah...we're at one of the peaks of civilization. I obviously don't KNOW this to be the case and have previously indicated as such. I'm not going to do that any more though, since there's no need to do so.

So yeah...we're at one of the peaks of civilization. I obviously don't KNOW this to be the case and have previously indicated as such.

MrGeezer

Okay then, what evidence has led you to believe in the probability of that statement? Looking through your comments on the last page, I saw two assertions:

1. The history of human civilization consists of peaks and valleys.
2. We're on a peak.

You draw a number of conclusions from these, but I didn't actually see where you present your case for either of these being true. Perhaps you did, and I just missed it.

I just found the perfect pic for this thread!

Stephen Hawking say the obvious to the masses and how does some people react? By calling him stupid and crazy :? I guess not many people know about our current geo-political situation and how this can very easily go wrong at any time and that colonizing other planets would help us to get the odds of our survival as a species higher. He isn't saying that we have the technology to do it right now or that we should all go into a giant ark and fly 50,000 years toward a star in the hope to find a planet populated by nice pink monkeys that would feed us some chocolate. All he's saying is that the future of mankind resides out there, you know in the rest of the world not our little rock which is more meaningless to the universe than the microbes which you kill by stepping on this morning when you woke up.

[QUOTE="chandu83"]

You think people are not destroying the planet? Wait...you don't believe in global warming do you?

Palantas

There's a big difference between "destroying the planet" and "making the planet hostile to human habitation."

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

So yeah...we're at one of the peaks of civilization. I obviously don't KNOW this to be the case and have previously indicated as such.

Palantas

Okay then, what evidence has led you to believe in the probability of that statement? Looking through your comments on the last page, I saw two assertions:

1. The history of human civilization consists of peaks and valleys.
2. We're on a peak.

You draw a number of conclusions from these, but I didn't actually see where you present your case for either of these being true. Perhaps you did, and I just missed it.

Capitalism.

Dependence on temporary sources of energy.

Growth beyond our ability to maintain it.

Most importantly, lack of a self-sufficient and PERMANENT sustainable model for rapid growth.

Question...on a WORLD based on the use of petroleum, what plan do we have in place to replace that on a WORLDWIDE SCALE, cheaply and efficiently? Oil is big ****ing business, and we DON'T have a replacement for it. Alternatives have been proposed, but we are not even close to addressing the fact that the world keeps growing and keeps getting more dependant on a resource that is NOT going to last much longer. Rapid growth without sustainability, and with no backup plan which can address just how ****ed up things are becoming. We're not at a crisis yet, but it's coming.

Question...on a WORLD based on the use of petroleum, what plan do we have in place to replace that on a WORLDWIDE SCALE, cheaply and efficiently? Oil is big ****ing business, and we DON'T have a replacement for it. Alternatives have been proposed, but we are not even close to addressing the fact that the world keeps growing and keeps getting more dependant on a resource that is NOT going to last much longer. Rapid growth without sustainability, and with no backup plan which can address just how ****ed up things are becoming. We're not at a crisis yet, but it's coming.

MrGeezer

The way I read your argument, I thought you were using your peaks/valleys theory as support for everything you're saying here, not vice-versa. I must have been mistaken.

I have nothing against him or anything but who cares and yeah I doubt that even in the future if we had the technology to move somewhere else in space easily we will able to have the same life on Earth. Let us right now fix the planet that we are in then worry what could happen in a century.

Kindly explain the difference to me, because I thought destroying the planet would make it hostile for human habitation.

chandu83

I really have to explain this? You can make the planet hostile to humans,while other organisms may continue to exist here, which is a far, far cry from destroying it.

I have nothing against him or anything but who cares and yeah I doubt that even in the future if we had the technology to move somewhere else in space easily we will able to have the same life on Earth. Let us right now fix the planet that we are in then worry what could happen in a century.

Warhawk_

its obvious Hawking thought about this.. And its just not working.. Human ciivlization will only change its way on the cusp of diseaster and by then it will be too late.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Question...on a WORLD based on the use of petroleum, what plan do we have in place to replace that on a WORLDWIDE SCALE, cheaply and efficiently? Oil is big ****ing business, and we DON'T have a replacement for it. Alternatives have been proposed, but we are not even close to addressing the fact that the world keeps growing and keeps getting more dependant on a resource that is NOT going to last much longer. Rapid growth without sustainability, and with no backup plan which can address just how ****ed up things are becoming. We're not at a crisis yet, but it's coming.

Palantas

The way I read your argument, I thought you were using your peaks/valleys theory as support for everything you're saying here, not vice-versa. I must have been mistaken.

I never made any theories. Don't put words into my mouth. I've made NO theories, I've stated NOTHING more than personal opinion. So don't you DARE try to place a "theory" over me as a way of debunking what I was saying. I never made a ****ing theory, and I never goddamn tried to pass my OPINION off as theory. Do not put words in my mouth.

I never made any theories. Don't put words into my mouth. I've made NO theories, I've stated NOTHING more than personal opinion. So don't you DARE try to place a "theory" over me as a way of debunking what I was saying. I never made a ****ing theory, and I never goddamn tried to pass my OPINION off as theory. Do not put words in my mouth.

MrGeezer

I'm not sure I understand the difference, other than your opinion being a theory or collection of theories you accept as being true or most likely. Why are you so agitated about the word "theory"?

[QUOTE="chandu83"]

Kindly explain the difference to me, because I thought destroying the planet would make it hostile for human habitation.

Palantas

I really have to explain this? You can make the planet hostile to humans,while other organisms may continue to exist here, which is a far, far cry from destroying it.

The 2 users before me have almost the same avatar.

Well, when I say destroying the planet, I mean destroying it for human habitation. I am not really worried about roaches and bugs when it comes to that. So I cannot take comfort knowing that even though we continue to be irresponsible and put the planet at risk for human habitation, other creatures might still be safe when human are wiped out. chandu83

Your feelings towards human irreponsibility seem reasonable, but you should still define your terms when expressing them publically. If you want "destroying the planet" to have a meaning other than scattering the Earth's mass, tell me.

The 2 users before me have almost the same avatar.

McainTehNub

Yeah, we're both the Deus Ex box art. Mine's had some editing done on it.

I basically said this a month ago and mrgeezer told me it was stupid and unrealistic.

WELL HAH! Stephen Hawking agrees with me!

That was one of the stupidest things I've read in a while.

Pirate700

What exactly was stupid? A world killer mass extinction event will occur again. Thats basically a fact. Several are past due, and the chances of one happening get statisticly closer every day. It will happen and our options are A. Figure out how to not be dependent on one planet B. Figure out how to stop space disasters and terresstrial disasters such as super volcanoes. Or C. Die.

I don't think disaster is the problem but rather overpopulation and depletion of resources >.>

Bollocks. We need to cancel space exploration to put more money into (your favorite social program here).

Palantas

How about we cancel military spending so we can have both space exploration AND social programs? I support that.

I don't think disaster is the problem but rather overpopulation and depletion of resources >.>

RobboElRobbo

Well when yellowstone erupts and takes out the majority of the population, I suppose that will solve that problem.

How about we cancel military spending so we can have both space exploration AND social programs? I support that.

Pixel-Pirate

That's a terrible idea. In any case, if you're spending money on anything but the starvin' children, you're selfish and uncaring, and your soul is full of doodoo.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

I never made any theories. Don't put words into my mouth. I've made NO theories, I've stated NOTHING more than personal opinion. So don't you DARE try to place a "theory" over me as a way of debunking what I was saying. I never made a ****ing theory, and I never goddamn tried to pass my OPINION off as theory. Do not put words in my mouth.

Palantas

I'm not sure I understand the difference, other than your opinion being a theory or collection of theories you accept as being true or most likely. Why are you so agitated about the word "theory"?

Because Steven Hawking wasn't making a damn "theory" either. He was stating his thoughts and giving his opinion, but that's not a THEORY.

Theories are serious stuff. They are a way of understanding the world. And as such, they are well researched and provide experimentally vewrifiable predictions.

I am agitated by you associating the word "theory" with me, because I care about science. I wasn't making any theories, I was giving my OPINION, as both I and you and Steven Hawking and random crackhead have the right to do. My opinion is my opinion. It is not well-researched, I'm likely wrong, and I have nothing to back it up. I admit that it's not the truth, and I don't present it as the truth. I'm not giving any illusions about the fact that I've got nothing to back up what I'm saying, I'm jhust calling things as I see them.

But do NOT say that I'm proposing a theory. I've never TRIED to propose a theory, and I've explicitly stated that that is NOT what I am doing. For this to be a "theory", I'd have to do rigorous reseach, provide an explanation for the rise and fall of human civilization, and provide testable predictions which would either support or invalidate my claims.

And I am NOT doing that. I've never pretended to be doing anything close to that, so do NOT associate the word "theory" with me. To label what I said as being a "theory" is far more insulting than just telling me that my OPINIONS are a load of crap. Call my opinions stupid, that's fine. But to criticize my "theory" (which I never made) is FAR more insulting. That's accusing me of having absolutely no respect for the scientific method.

No, I have absolutely NOT made any "theories". It was ALL "opinion", and I'm ****ing entitled to that. Talk crap about my "opinions" all you like, but do NOT make me out to be proposing a "theory" when I've done absolutely no such thing.

[QUOTE="RobboElRobbo"]

I don't think disaster is the problem but rather overpopulation and depletion of resources >.>

Pixel-Pirate

Well when yellowstone erupts and takes out the majority of the population, I suppose that will solve that problem.

Majority? It will take out all the population for sure.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

How about we cancel military spending so we can have both space exploration AND social programs? I support that.

Palantas

That's a terrible idea. In any case, if you're spending money on anything but the starvin' children, you're selfish and uncaring, and your soul is full of doodoo.

Nice generalization.

I like how cutting spending of something you don't seem to support (social programs) is great, but cutting spending of something I dislike is a terrible idea.

I'm all for a massively reduced military budget in exchange for social programs. And no, you arn't selfish if you don't spend money exclusively on starving children. You're selfish if you refuse to because you want to buy a big screen TV for yourself and your response to a dying child is "Ain't my problem". :|

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="RobboElRobbo"]

I don't think disaster is the problem but rather overpopulation and depletion of resources >.>

sSubZerOo

Well when yellowstone erupts and takes out the majority of the population, I suppose that will solve that problem.

Majority? It will take out all the population for sure.

I think some would survive.

Either way I didn't want to say all just to avoid arguements about how much damage it might do.

No, I have absolutely NOT made any "theories". It was ALL "opinion", and I'm ****ing entitled to that. Talk crap about my "opinions" all you like, but do NOT make me out to be proposing a "theory" when I've done absolutely no such thing.

MrGeezer

I was using "theory" in the general philosophical sense. I don't feel bound to using the scientific version of terms, when said terms have a broader use. Last week, I had someone upset with me because I wasn't using "theory" in a strict scientific sense; this was particularly ridiculous, as we were discussing a non-scientific topic.

Now that we've got that settled, can we talk about your peak/valleys theory?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="RobboElRobbo"]

I don't think disaster is the problem but rather overpopulation and depletion of resources >.>

sSubZerOo

Well when yellowstone erupts and takes out the majority of the population, I suppose that will solve that problem.

Majority? It will take out all the population for sure.

From my understanding, a hydrothermal eruption is the most likely to occur. Those are less severe.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

That was one of the stupidest things I've read in a while.

Pixel-Pirate

What exactly was stupid? A world killer mass extinction event will occur again. Thats basically a fact. Several are past due, and the chances of one happening get statisticly closer every day. It will happen and our options are A. Figure out how to not be dependent on one planet B. Figure out how to stop space disasters and terresstrial disasters such as super volcanoes. Or C. Die.

Did you not see his point about nuclear annhiliation?

Yes, in the LONG TERM, nature is the biggest threat to our survival. Hell, in the long term, nature WILL kill us. You know, what with "heat death" and the never-ending expansion of the cosmos. On a long enough time scale, ALL life in the universe is doomed.

But that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about making the most of human science and knowledge, before HUMAN tendencies close off that small window in which we can maximize our potential. He's talking SHORT-TERM here. And on that time scale, WE are a bigger threat to human survival than anything that the cosmos is likely to throw at us during that short period of time.

What he's talking about here is that in the SHORT TERM, WE are our biggest threat.

I like how cutting spending of something you don't seem to support (social programs) is great, but cutting spending of something I dislike is a terrible idea.

Pixel-Pirate

I'm going to stop being flippant with you, as you seem to be taking me very seriously.

Social programs are necessary in a modern society. However, the common argument against space exploration--something that has long-term benefits--is that there's some short-term issue that needs money spent on it. This is always the case, and if you're always giving all your money to someone who needs it, or thinks they need it, at any given moment, then you're never going to invest in anything. I think scientific advancement is important. We need a balance of things.

All I gotta say is this.

Sooner or later the Earth will become uninhabitable, and I don't think its out of line to call that a fact. You can argue all day long about how it will happen, but its really just a question of when. Personally, I don't think its such a bad idea to start thinking about the colonization of other planets. Then again, the other side of me thinks that maybe we should share the fate of the planet, as strange as that may sound. I could see colonization of other planets if Earth was pending destruction from some force of nature but if its of our own doing, I wouldn't particularly condone the human race planet-hopping until the end of time just because we can't learn to live in equilibrium with our environment.

Anyway, that's just my opinion..

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

No, I have absolutely NOT made any "theories". It was ALL "opinion", and I'm ****ing entitled to that. Talk crap about my "opinions" all you like, but do NOT make me out to be proposing a "theory" when I've done absolutely no such thing.

Palantas

I was using "theory" in the general philosophical sense. I don't feel bound to using the scientific version of terms, when said terms have a broader use. Last week, I had someone upset with me because I wasn't using "theory" in a strict scientific sense; this was particularly ridiculous, as we were discussing a non-scientific topic.

Now that we've got that settled, can we talk about your peak/valleys theory?

No, we can't.

Not while you mock me, and continue to claim that I was presenting a theory.

That was one of the stupidest things I've read in a while.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

That was one of the stupidest things I've read in a while.

MrGeezer

What exactly was stupid? A world killer mass extinction event will occur again. Thats basically a fact. Several are past due, and the chances of one happening get statisticly closer every day. It will happen and our options are A. Figure out how to not be dependent on one planet B. Figure out how to stop space disasters and terresstrial disasters such as super volcanoes. Or C. Die.

Did you not see his point about nuclear annhiliation?

Yes, in the LONG TERM, nature is the biggest threat to our survival. Hell, in the long term, nature WILL kill us. You know, what with "heat death" and the never-ending expansion of the cosmos. On a long enough time scale, ALL life in the universe is doomed.

But that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about making the most of human science and knowledge, before HUMAN tendencies close off that small window in which we can maximize our potential. He's talking SHORT-TERM here. And on that time scale, WE are a bigger threat to human survival than anything that the cosmos is likely to throw at us during that short period of time.

What he's talking about here is that in the SHORT TERM, WE are our biggest threat.

I'm afraid I have to disagree that we are our biggest threat.

Mankind gives itself too much credit. And underestimates natural disasters far too much untill it straight up bites us in the ass.

Humanity's future is pretty bleeding bleak. At the rate we're going, there's not a chance in hell we'll be able to get our asses onto another planet considering just how little we're spending on space technology. And considering the immense amount of resources you need to even start this off.......

I believe it. I've always thought to myself that overpopulation will be the down fall of humans.CongressManStan

It's spelled S-T-E-V-E-N Hawking. >_>SideSwipes

Well, I hope I live long enough to see it, **** will be so cash

[QUOTE="CongressManStan"]I believe it. I've always thought to myself that overpopulation will be the down fall of humans.Hexagon_777

Truth is that will never happen. We will die and suffer.

I'm afraid I have to disagree that we are our biggest threat.

Mankind gives itself too much credit. And underestimates natural disasters far too much untill it straight up bites us in the ass.

Pixel-Pirate

Again, you're talking about long-term, Hawking isn't.

The chances of a humanity-destroying natural disaster are all but certain in the long term, but shockingly small over the next few thousand years. In the next few thousand years, it's far more likely that global civilization will collapse due to human issues such as economics.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I'm afraid I have to disagree that we are our biggest threat.

Mankind gives itself too much credit. And underestimates natural disasters far too much untill it straight up bites us in the ass.

MrGeezer

Again, you're talking about long-term, Hawking isn't.

The chances of a humanity-destroying natural disaster are all but certain in the long term, but shockingly small over the next few thousand years. In the next few thousand years, it's far more likely that global civilization will collapse due to human issues such as economics.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"][QUOTE="CongressManStan"]I believe it. I've always thought to myself that overpopulation will be the down fall of humans.o0squishy0o

ITT: Smart guys says something that has to be true because he is so smart. People listen.

Even if space life eventually becomes a reality it will be so prohibitively expensive that we are talking the top .000001% of the top 1% ever getting to go.