Stephen Hawking warning that our extinction is on the horizon

AI Thread Summary
Stephen Hawking has reiterated his warning about the potential extinction of humanity if we do not find ways to live in space, citing the fragility of Earth under human impact. He emphasizes that humanity's survival hinges on exploring new planets, a sentiment he has expressed for years. The discussion includes skepticism about the feasibility of such endeavors and critiques of Hawking's dramatic claims, with some participants suggesting that population control might be a more practical solution. Others argue that environmental degradation, rather than overpopulation, is the core issue, pointing to poor agricultural practices and corporate malpractice as significant contributors to resource scarcity. The conversation reflects a divide between those who see space exploration as essential for survival and those who believe that improving current practices on Earth could suffice. Concerns about sustainability, resource management, and the role of population growth in environmental issues are central to the debate, with various perspectives on how to address these challenges effectively.
  • #51
Perhaps, that Trekian author, tainted our thoughts...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdsbuJfMpr0​

Isn't our birthday coming up?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Evo said:
Ok, so back to Hawking sending people off into space. Sorry for the sidetrack.

No more side discussions. Only about Hawking's proposal.

Sorry Evo, I got my last post in at the same second you called for a return to OP concerns. I think Hawking is absolutely right, talk about an "all eggs in one basket" absurdity. Of course we need to spread out. I think though, that it will take the form of our robotic creations rather than us humans per se, with the exception of perhaps underground communities on Venus and Mars, but I don't want to elaborate on that any more for fear of a "crackpottery" infraction (unless I get the go ahead:smile:).
 
  • #53
DiracPool said:
Sorry Evo, I got my last post in at the same second you called for a return to OP concerns. I think Hawking is absolutely right, talk about an "all eggs in one basket" absurdity. Of course we need to spread out. I think though, that it will take the form of our robotic creations rather than us humans per se, with the exception of perhaps underground communities on Venus and Mars, but I don't want to elaborate on that any more for fear of a "crackpottery" infraction (unless I get the go ahead:smile:).
You're fine, I started that post before you posted.

My problem with hawking's idea, even though he sets it one thousand years from now so it can avoid too much specific criticism, is that i don't think we have a planet suitable to jettison humans off to within that time period.

Let's pretend that we could use Mars. Water. Where is the water going to come from? We surely can't afford to send water. And it wouldn't stay there anyway.

January 31, 2001 -- If it were possible to magically transport a cup of water from Earth to the surface of Mars, the liquid would instantly vaporize. Mars's atmosphere is so vacuous (it's less than 1% as dense as Earth's) that liquid water simply can't exist for very long on the Red Planet.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast31jan_1/

Atmosphere. Mar's core has shut down, so there is no magnetic field to protect the planet and maintain it's atmosphere.

Mars has no active dynamo action at present,

The magnetic field may thus have decayed rather quickly from its typical strength within a few thousand years after the heat flux through the core-mantle boundary became too low to support dynamo action.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031920113000356

This reminds me of an old joke. Scientists realized that the Earth was no longer going to be able to sustain it's growing population, so they decided to build spaceships to save people by sending them off the planet. It was decided that the first ships should carry those of lesser abilities first, only fair they should be the first to be saved.

The day came, the rockets blasted off.

The scientists chuckled and went back to their regular lives.

Ok, that's not verbatim, but I can't find the original, close enough.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Evo said:
Let's pretend that we could use Mars. Water. Where is the water going to come from? We surely can't afford to send water. And it wouldn't stay there anyway.

That's precisely why I said underground communities in my previous post. Terraforming is going to be an enormous industrial effort that will take umpteenth years to accomplish if it even can be accomplished at all. However, we have already made water from moon-like regolith and that's encouraging as a prospect to do the same on the other 3 rocky planets closest to us our sun. See this link:



Soo, as far as humans creating more baskets for their eggs, underground communities on our sister planets may satisfy Hawking's concerns in the short run. Of course, again, the limiting factor is how to create the energy in these underground communities to forge this electrolosis. But that is why we study physics, right? That's our challenge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
Trying frantically to stay on topic but mind this. The average sociological, psychological condition of mankind is very well adapted for tribe survival on the paleo-earth of the Pleistocene, but not for a complex society like we have now. So how are we going to reform/evolve our species that we can cooperate to make the impossible happen?

For instance when NotLouisAmstrong talked about "one small step for a man but a giant leap ..etc..", who didn't think that Mars was a breeze, maybe another decennium or two?

But we're still fighting wars and we have no time and money to spend for such an ambitious project
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Andre said:
Trying frantically to stay on topic but mind this. The average sociological, psychological condition of mankind is very well adapted for tribe survival on the paleo-earth of the Pleistocene, but not for a complex society like we have now.

Yet the Pleistocene ended some 11,000 years / 500 generations ago and we're still here.

So how are we going to reform/evolve our species that we can cooperate to make the impossible happen?

Others have engaged this line before, rejecting the notion that the myriad interactions of modern society are wholly unnatural.

FA Hayek said:
...
This book argues that our civilisation depends, not only for its origin but also for its preservation, on what can be precisely described only as the extended order of human cooperation, ... To understand our civilisation, one must appreciate that the extended order resulted not from human design or intention but spontaneously: it arose from unintentionally conforming to certain traditional and largely moral practices, many of which men tend to dislike, whose significance they usually fail to understand, whose validity they cannot prove, and which have nonetheless fairly rapidly spread by means of an evolutionary selection - the comparative increase of population and wealth - of those groups that happened to follow them. The unwitting, reluctant, even painful adoption of these practices kept these groups together, increased their access to valuable information of all sorts, and enabled them to be `fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it' ( Genesis 1:28). This process is perhaps the least appreciated facet of human evolution.

...

One can hardly expect people either to like an extended order that runs counter to some of their strongest instincts, or readily to understand that it brings them the material comforts they also want. The order is even `unnatural' in the common meaning of not conforming to man's biological endowment. Much of the good that man does in the extended order is thus not due to his being naturally good; yet it is foolish to deprecate civilisation as artificial for this reason. It is artificial only in the sense in which most of our values, our language, our art and our very reason are artificial: they are not genetically embedded in our biological structures. In another sense, however, the extended order is perfectly natural: in the sense that it has itself, like similar biological phenomena, evolved naturally in the course of natural selection ...
 
  • #57
mheslep said:
Yet the Pleistocene ended some 11,000 years / 500 generations ago and we're still here.

One may also wonder how many ancient civilizations perished, also maybe partly because it's members could not cope being a civilisation rather than a tribe.

From Karl Popper

This civilization has not yet fully recovered from the shock of its birth — the transition from the tribal or "enclosed society," with its submission to magical forces, to the 'open society' which sets free the critical powers of man.
 
  • #58
Andre said:
One may also wonder how many ancient civilizations perished, also maybe partly because it's members could not cope being a civilisation rather than a tribe.

From Karl Popper

I think it likely that far, far more self-isolated tribes have perished than have trading civilizations.

I read Popper to be saying his "The Open Society ..." that the lingering problems with civilization lie in its inability to rid itself of tribal behavior: attachment to chiefs, submission to magical forces, etc.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
Astronuc said:
:rolleyes:

I wonder if he's pondered how much energy would be involved - and how much time.

There really isn't a practical alternative to the planet we currently inhabit.
Maybe not now, but in 300 or so years, who knows. Have some vision and faith.

Imo it's more likely that we start expanding into the universe, than defy our nature by achieving an environmentalist paradise.

Atmosphere. Mar's core has shut down, so there is no magnetic field to protect the planet and maintain it's atmosphere.
Don't worry, it took solar wind billions of years to erode the Martian atmosphere. In addition, a thick atmosphere should be able to protect against cosmic rays just fine. Trust me, I live in Norway (and thus am offered little protection from the magnetic field).

A Terraforming of Mars isn't as impossible as you may think.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
mheslep said:
I think it likely that far, far more self-isolated tribes have perished than have trading civilizations.

I read Popper to be saying his "The Open Society ..." that the lingering problems with civilization lie in its inability to rid itself of tribal behavior: attachment to chiefs, submission to magical forces, etc.

That's not a very effective society isn't it. But there are more sociological problems, our tendency to create enemies, as continuation of tribal wars. We see enemies everywhere, wait until election time again. Obviously wars have allowed technological advances that facilitate space exploration but with all those distractions which cost a lot of effort, will there be a point where war is simply no more affordable? So where will the assets come from to build battlestar Galactica and its space fleet.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
If we meet an Alien civilization, I'm sure we'll realize just how alike we are, and start warring against the outsiders instead :p
 
  • #62
Nikitin said:
If we meet an Alien civilization, I'm sure we'll realize just how alike we are, and start warring against the outsiders instead :p

Dad always said:
"That's why the Lord put habitable planets so far apart , so it'd be too difficult for us to have wars with each other."
 
  • #63
So, obviously, it appears that the urge to wage war is the absolute dominant thought for both humans and aliens.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
WannabeNewton said:
It would be bad news for Mother Nature if our species lasted even that long. The poor thing :[

awwww. This gave me the warm fuzzies :biggrin:
 
  • #65
This is the great lie... I get you thinking about going somewhere else while my sole purpose is to perpetuate and continue with my own greed. We live in a very arrogant society, each circle "believes" it has the answers. Everything else is trivialized. There was greater truth long ago than there is now. Greater balance. Is it a sign of intelligence for a species to understand the nature of balance and still destroy and consume all of it knowing it will be it's own demise?

The American Indian forefathers were smarter than all of us combined. Why? They knew without knowing what certain choices would lead to. I liked china also because it seemed that that society seemed to reach a level within the framework of science and understanding for thousands of years without destroying everything around them. China has since been infiltrated with western insanity and is now sick as we poison the rest of the world with our cursed ideas. You can have great truth without destroying everything, but when greed holds the reigns to science as it does, the endgame can only go bad for all of us.

Choose wisely...
 
  • #66
Some time ago he also said that we should try to avoid contact with extra-terrestrials because they might invade us.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top