gizmodo.com — Stephen Hawking, brilliant astrophysicist and nefarious alien doomsday prophet, is again atop his soapbox preaching the end of humanity should we not board spaceships and colonize the solar system and beyond.
Aug 8, 2010 View in Crawl 4
badqatAug 8, 2010
He's correct. We should be seeking to colonize not only our own solar system, but well beyond.
trollbaneAug 9, 2010
Give it some time, dude. Start small, maybe a permanent colony on the moon and a manned flight to Mars, and then begin to spread out. With today's technology, if we sent someone out of the solar system, they would be long dead before they reached another inhabitable planet.
mrsurfboardAug 9, 2010
Man isn't going anywhere, Obama saw to that. Get used to Earth, no one is leaving here anytime soon.
kmyeAug 9, 2010
"With today's technology"
I think that's kind of Hawking's point, though...we should be working on creating sustainable artificial environments, even if just to get a genetically viable cross-section of humanity and other seeds of life up on the moon, much harder than we are at the moment.
When we (or our cyborg or other descendants) are so close to truly expanding outwards from here, what a devastating (but very human) tragedy it would be if we were snuffed out with no plan B due to laziness/ignorance.
dabekAug 9, 2010
MrSurfBoard, I'd like to point out that America is not the only country with a successful space program. Not everyone is looking to America to colonize the stars. The Russians have been keeping up pretty well with America.
record200Aug 9, 2010
>Give it some time, dude.
Time is running out, instead of seeking surviving or if surviving is not possible and not an option instead of seeking pleasures , men are engaged in murdering themselves being at war with each other or doing similar BS.
ppl should sort out priorities while they still can.
The Earth is not eternal.
worldnickAug 9, 2010
We have so much technology that no one takes advantage of. One problem is the patent office. We don't really allow free research. The other problem is that much of our planet is distracted and has very different goals in life (like doing drugs or getting money[for drugs]). There is also the problem of hunger. Much of the planet is starving... etc.. If we could all get on the same page much progress could be made. Much progress could be made in the span of a single human life especially if the first problem we address is the short length of the current human life. That should be priority number one and then given the longer time each person has ... more will come
worldnickAug 9, 2010
I agree very much.
unitedoceanicAug 9, 2010
Not sure you are aware of the space faring technology of our time. Even if we put every money on this "pale blue dot" together. we could not build a colony anywhere let alone send some people to mars or any other planet. At least for the next 30 years.
don't use the oldest mistake of the human kind:
"wait and see" Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rapaxAug 9, 2010
> The Russians have been keeping up pretty well with America
Keeping up? The manned space program in the US currently consists of hitching a ride with the Russians.
fr0stbyte124Aug 9, 2010
"With today's technology, if we sent someone out of the solar system, they would be long dead before they reached another inhabitable planet."
Especially since we haven't found any other habitable planets.
mrsaundercookAug 9, 2010
long long long long long dead*
spazattack5000Aug 9, 2010
Get your ass to Mars
rolfAug 9, 2010
Only the guys. Women should go to Venus.
hazmatsuitAug 9, 2010
No no no.. it's: Ged yo ass do Maz!
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
No...men should got to Mars, women to Uranus.
breadfredAug 9, 2010
@ Niightwitch: You're doing it wrong..
foomojiveAug 9, 2010
There's enough s**t in here to f**k Cohagen for good.
locastusAug 9, 2010
See you at the party, Richter!
zalgoAug 9, 2010
M.
A.
R.
S.
Mars bitches.
torikanAug 9, 2010
@Niightwitch If I'm ever going to mars, you bet your ass that some women are coming with me.
jayzeusAug 9, 2010
MELINAA!!!!
diceauAug 9, 2010
Ah, I think you should research exactly what 'colonizing' other planets would entail before saying he's right.
darkwing81Aug 9, 2010
I think its pretty clear. Set up a stable, self sustaining population in places that would survive on if the earth were blowed-up.
diceauAug 9, 2010
Yeah, darkwing81 ... seriously, research it. It's the most complicated thing we'll ever do, IF we ever do it.
worldnickAug 9, 2010
I have. And he is still right.
-Get our priorities in line
-Lengthen the human life span
-Continue working on curing disease
-Feed the world by better distribution of resources
-Put all those well fed bodies to work building space ships
-Colonize the solar system
-Colonize the Universe
There are a few steps in between like creating a better system of education etc.. there is also getting rid of war and organized religion in politics
geauxtig3rsAug 9, 2010
Seriously, how many steps could there really be?
1. Build a rocket.
2. Shove people in rocket.
3. Aim rocket at mars.
4. Fire the rocket.
5. ???
6. Profit.
noreturnAug 9, 2010
Assuming you want the people in the rocket to be alive when it reaches Mars, there are a few more things you need to consider.
demenerAug 10, 2010
I think I've got it:
1: Send Ship to Mars
2: ???
3: Galactic Civilization
jayjaylolAug 9, 2010
Astronomers have already found earth-like planets, but millions of light years away. Even traveling at the fastest possible speed, it would take hundreds of years to get there.
Colonization of Mars and the Moon is possible in the next century or so. . . as long as we don't kill ourselves first.
rexofromeAug 9, 2010
No, traveling to a planet millions of light years away will take millions of years. Even the closest star would take 10s of thousands of years to reach at the fastest our technology can accomplish. We're light years away from Star Trek.
rand0mm0nkeyAug 9, 2010
85 years with nuclear pulse propulsion....
dijkstra22Aug 9, 2010
I think if biologists actually allow us to extend the human lifetime many years (to maybe 200 years, which is probably possible) then we'll have those 85 year missions.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Yes, they have found earth-like planets, but there's no indication that it can sustain human life.
We must, and I believe we will colonize space. I think that's where our destiny lies, but it would be won't be done quickly unless something amazing is invented unexpectedly.
Most likely our advances will be slow and steady and take time, but we'll get there....unless we destroy ourselves first.
breadfredAug 9, 2010
RexOf Rome - luckily, it will not take millions of years to reach planets that are that far removed. You are forgetting that if you approach the speed of light, YOUR time will go slower. So, You might make it alive, but everyone on earth will be long gone before you reach your destination.
volathAug 9, 2010
No...just no. We've found earth like planets, as in terrestrial(rocky with some kind of atmosphere). But they are all super terrestrial planets that are like 1 1/2 to 3 times more massive than the earth and most likely all of them have totally different atmospheres(we can barely check atmospheric comp. atm). And no they are not millions of light years away, that would be in a whole other galaxy.
galoreAug 21, 2010
Some Earth like planets like its sister Venus are a mere light minutes away. Too bad the atmosphere, temperature and pressure is nothing like Earth's...
douglasqAug 9, 2010
They should cure cancer too. Why isn't anybody on these things?
sil369Aug 9, 2010
it been cured over 9000 times on digg
starmanjonesAug 9, 2010
we can cure some cancers. we're getting close on others. as always i have to remind you that the technologies that and will cure other cancers had its beginning at nasa while developing space gear for apollo.
douglasqAug 9, 2010
whoosh...
worldnickAug 9, 2010
(Please excuse my run on sentence..)
Aside from your smug cynical comment, I would like to point out that if you count the number of scientists and resources devoted to cancer research and space exploration and compare those numbers to the amount of people working and devoting research to new ad campaigns, Armani suits, WWE Wrestling arguments, who's football team has the best color's, what is going to be the next big cheese burger, what kind of wood should be on your grandfather clock, and who's god has the biggest balls.. then you may find the actual scientific community that is barely tolerated by the mass primitives around it is quite small.
douglasqAug 9, 2010
You also totally missed the joke.
breadfredAug 9, 2010
I've got this homeopathetic water that treats everything except gullibility.
hivoltage815Aug 9, 2010
@worldnick
I am a marketer. I can come up with ad campaigns. I cannot develop a cure for cancer. I am a pretty smart guy, yeah, but I have always been far more creative than scientific. How do you expect me to just change occupations to oblige your sense of societal correctness?
worldnickAug 18, 2010
@hivoltage815 You could help those developing a cure by donating money to them or better yet working as a lab assistant. You might be surprised by how much you can help.
Yes there are snotty scientists who have defensively put off the rest of the world by being derogatory, but the truth is that we need each other.
Every person counts and every scientist and researcher relies on all the same people that we all rely on, farmers, architects, and even law makers. Maybe being the creative type you can help researchers create imagery to better communicate their ideas.
Marketing for the sake of marketing may empower people who would work against possible scientific breakthroughs at times. At the least you can be careful who you offer your service to. Make sure you agree with the idea or product you are trying to share with the world(nick)[that's me!].
Being a marketer is like being a soldier. You are wielding a weapon and better believe in what you are fighting for or that a war even needs to be fought. I'm a little preachy, but I believe this stuff is our future and we should take it seriously... sometimes.
spatialtimeAug 22, 2010
The world is already overpopulated...
zerocubedAug 9, 2010
Let's just hope we don't anger some giant humanoid cat aliens while we're colonizing
worldnickAug 9, 2010
Man-Kzin Wars lol... cool I haven't thought about those books in years. I even had to try in google a few times before I got the name right.
zerocubedAug 9, 2010
er...I was actually thinking of Avatar. Maybe I shoulda mentioned they were blue and had built in firewire cables
valiantheartAug 9, 2010
Its cool. We will just put Mark Hamil back in a space fighter with Iceman as his wing, and they will blow them out of the stars.
ubermannAug 9, 2010
Why have we stopped going to the moon? I mean, it took us 60 years from the Wright Brothers to the moon, but now 40 years later we have not touched that thing with a 10 ft pole. Why?
nzdudeAug 9, 2010
No oil.
worldnickAug 9, 2010
One theory is that we didn't go which could just be antagonistic. We can barely fly air planes and put satellites in orbit. If I wasn't told we had already been to the moon I wouldn't guess we had the technology. We still use huge 2,000 lbs vehicles to move individual people to work every day. It's also possible that we did go to the moon, but that is disappointing because it means that the most important reason in us getting to the moon was that there was a threat of war. We need to solve many problems so that our social climate is such to encourage space exploration in times of peace.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bdog2g2Aug 9, 2010
The only reason we went to the moon in the first place was politics. We only wanted to beat the Soviets in the Space Race.
Unless our country has what it perceives as an adversary to go up against, we generally don't try to make giant leaps and bounds.
Let the Russians or China attempt to set up the largest Solar Powered satellite or <insert GIANORMOUS green energy project> and then let them use it to sell clean cheap energy to their neighbors and see what our response would be to it.
hornyangelAug 9, 2010
Actually, there's something better than oil on the Moon. It is called He3, deposited by solar wind on the surface. He3 has an energy density thousands of times greater compared to any fossil fuel, or nuclear fuel currently in use. Its harvesting would allow mankind to develop economically viable controlled fusion reactors.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19296/
zerocubedAug 9, 2010
"We can barely fly air planes and put satellites in orbit."
Gee, I wonder who's flying all our planes then. And who put those thousands of satellites up in space? Maybe it's der damn Martians, tryin' to show us up.
trolleyfanAug 9, 2010
"Actually, there's something better than oil on the Moon. It is called He3"
And it would be really valuable...if we had fusion reactors that could use it...or any fusion reactors at all, for that matter.
tao52nycAug 10, 2010
Oh, yes...strip mining the moon for He3, for fusion reactors that DON'T EXIST. Sorry, that's up there with space solar power, the trillion-dollar asteroid, and $100/lb to LEO. More religion than serious economics.
StrutThatAssAug 9, 2010
We should blast off a gigantic rocket directly to Uranus.
paradigmxAug 9, 2010
thats a s**tty plan
nzdudeAug 9, 2010
that plan doesn't have a hole lot going for it
rand0mm0nkeyAug 9, 2010
Isn't it a little too gassy there?
douglasqAug 9, 2010
Holy crap. Uranus sounds like "Your anus."
You should patent this goldmine before comedians get their hands on it.
heliox2000Aug 9, 2010
There are hidden Klingons there
xyphanAug 9, 2010
On the whole, the plan smells funny...
meddelemAug 9, 2010
why.. is there better marijuana elsewhere?
meddelemAug 9, 2010
why.. is there better marijuana elsewhere?
seriously, woopti fuking doo.
i mean, what else are you going to do when you get there? start the whole thing from scratch.. fuk that!
seriously, you can go ahead and leave. bye have fun. oh & take your politicians with you.
bye, so long, thanks for all the Internets!
meddelemAug 9, 2010
why.. is there better marijuana elsewhere?
seriously, woopti fuking doo.
i mean, what else are you going to do when you get there? start the whole thing from scratch.. fuk that!
seriously, you can go ahead and leave; have fun. oh & take your politicians with you. we won't need em.
bye, so long, thanks for all the Internets!
stonebearAug 9, 2010
Or perhaps infinity and beyond.
huseliusAug 9, 2010
He may be right, but how'd he manage to get on top of that soap box to begin with?
wefarrellAug 9, 2010
It's a shame that we as a species will mobilize every man woman and child to destroy each other in war but we can't manage to get a colonization effort underway. We have the technology to colonize planets, if we devoted as much energy to colonizing other planets as we did to WW2 we could set up a self sustaining colony on another world in a matter of decades.
lamprey187Aug 9, 2010
ok, but this is our future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVx6lp5IC6o
azwethinkweizmAug 9, 2010
LOL moon colonization? That's gonna be f**king expensive when you consider that oxygen will have to be shipped to the moon on a constant basis. Plus those people who will live on the moon won't be able to go back on earth without going through extensive rehab or else they won't be able to use their legs.
toxicshokAug 9, 2010
allow me to introduce you to something call electrolysis.
arkansawAug 10, 2010
We destroyed Gaia, so why stop there?
wkrausmannAug 16, 2010
Colonize it? With what? Everything that we need to survive in a colony we'd have to bring with us. Food and water would have to be brought with us. Food could be grown there but not in quantities large enough to feed everyone. Water could be found but not exist in plentiful quantities for everyone to survive.
Most of what would be needed to survive would have to be brought with us. When we run out of those, finding additional materials or creating it ourselves would not be enough.
Let's face it, Earth is an oasis in the universe and our survival as a species is dependent on keeping our feet firmly planted right here. There are no planetary bodies close enough out there with conditions suitable for human habitation.
caramba421Aug 8, 2010
We should at least be going to venus. f**k Mars. At the place in the venusian atmosphere where the ambient pressure is equivalent to Earth's, the temperature is roughly the same. also. We could totally set up shop Lando Calrizzian-style on giant f**king blimps. Mars, on the other hand, means engineering everything to be vacuum proof, just like in outer space. Total waste of time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geogeerAug 8, 2010
/s? It is bloody hot on venus - a good 700 K (on a cool day).
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/GeorgeRyabov.shtml
caramba421Aug 8, 2010
That's on the SURFACE of Venus. High in the atmosphere that is not the case.
starmanjonesAug 9, 2010
actually venus turns out to be one of the better spots to set up shop. the atmosphere is dense so we could actually float balloons and live inside. at the altitude that seems right to for this sort of thing the temperature is 70 F give or take. the worst problem is that the sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. but we've got a lot of experience with acid resistant materials. weight isn't a problem if concrete resisted acid we could build them of that.
caramba421Aug 9, 2010
Plastic and glass can withstand sulphuric acid, no problem.
universaljointAug 9, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
caramba421Aug 9, 2010
Somebody call Pauly Shore!
toxicshokAug 9, 2010
You do know that not many materials can withstand the cold and low pressure of space, and the high temperatures and low pH of venus right? Furthermore plastics can resist acid, but only for finite periods of time.
trollbaneAug 9, 2010
I think with the technology we have today or in the near future, a colony on Mars or the moon is just more realistically feasible than one floating in the atmosphere of Venus. Perhaps one day, but I don't think any of us would live to see it, whereas we have a chance of seeing us go to Mars or living on the moon if we can get our s**t together.
starmanjonesAug 9, 2010
the moon for proximity sure. but if you look into it the technical challenges of a floating colony in venus's atmosphere are probably easier than mars. although both is the right answer.
w3berAug 9, 2010
We'll colonize Mars one day and 30% of Mars populace will suffer from extreme poverty
nyxerebosAug 9, 2010
Mars is a huge great gravity well, like earth. We have lots of trouble getting off our home planet, and then trap ourselves immediately on a giant frozen rock with no atmosphere or magnetic field (to speak of)? There's plenty of resources in the asteroid belt...
bdog2g2Aug 9, 2010
^^
"Mars is a huge great gravity well, like earth."
If by that you mean Mars' gravity is only 38% of that on Earth, then yes you're somewhat right.
illinestAug 9, 2010
Almost no water at all on Venus.
Also - Mars is not just like outer-space. It's not a vacuum. It's got an atmosphere of primarily CO2.
It's possible to create pressurized habs on Mars out of basically sheets of clear plastic.
areallygoodnameAug 9, 2010
You can do electrolysis on H2SO4 to get water. Venus has plenty of H2SO4.
universaljointAug 9, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
diggerlaterAug 9, 2010
Except for all that pesky deady radiation at the surface, a whole year's worth every five minutes I hear :/
areallygoodnameAug 9, 2010
@DiggerLater
What the hell planet are you thinking of? Mercury perhaps!?
Venus has less radiation on its surface than any other planet in the solar system!
propethicAug 9, 2010
Why does water matter? Stop thinking backwards, terraforming a planet is infeasible whether water was there or not. Check back in 100 years, oops?
trolleyfanAug 9, 2010
"Venus has less radiation on its surface than any other planet in the solar system."
Except, in this colonization scenario, the colonies would be no where near the surface ("At the place in the venusian atmosphere where the ambient pressure is equivalent to Earth's, the temperature is roughly the same. also. We could totally set up shop Lando Calrizzian-style on giant f**king blimps.").
Mind you, that means the sum total of raw materials available to the colonists are Venusian air, which is probably a problem.
ultimisAug 9, 2010
"It's got an atmosphere of primarily CO2."
Yeah but the atmospheric pressure is about 1/100th that of Earth. Essentially a vacuum to us. Venus on the other hand has a much higher atmospheric pressure than us on its surface. I guess if you were floating at the right altitude you would be fine. Though I'm not sure if the "right" altitude would be "right" for both temperature and pressure.
ivanmarshAug 9, 2010
What? The Venusian atmosphere contains high enough levels of sulfuric acid that the lifetime of the probes we sent there was measures in how long it would take them to dissolve.
You might as well argue that we should go land on the Sun because of the plentiful solar power.
darkwing81Aug 9, 2010
Plastic.
petebob796Aug 9, 2010
@darkwing81 melts.
fr0stbyte124Aug 9, 2010
That's not a bad idea. With all that solar power we could power really really big air conditioners!
bdog2g2Aug 9, 2010
The probes sent to the surface of Venus didn't succumb to the acid. It was the enormous pressure (about 92 times that of earth) and the 900 degree heat.
The acid in the atmosphere was never really figured into the equation since it only exists in the clouds, not on the surface. In fact the acid rain never falls to the surface it evaporates WELL above the surface because of the heat. So any probe sent, isn't really exposed that that a huge amount of acid since the heat of reentry would prevent it from touching the surface of that probe.
thufirrhawatAug 9, 2010
I don't think sulfuric acid melts plastic.
ivanmarshAug 10, 2010
@Bdog2g2 - okay, fair enough... the atmosphere is so fubar that the fact that there's sulphuric acid in the *air* doesn't matter... even less reason to go there.
arkansawAug 10, 2010
You betcha! A few years back the Chinese were seriously contemplating the possibility of mining the Sun once they have exhausted their coal reserves. Guess they were stumped by the logistics
thufirrhawatAug 12, 2010
Confirmed by the analytical scientists I work with. Sulfuric acid will not eat plastic. The only danger sulfuric acid poses to plastic is if water is added to it, the reaction causes a LOT of heat.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
"At this altitude, pressure and temperature conditions of Venus are similar to those of Earth, though the planet's winds moved at hurricane velocity and the carbon dioxide atmosphere is laced with sulfuric acid, along with smaller concentrations of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid."
matzahmanAug 9, 2010
It could be like cloud city in star wars.
worldnickAug 9, 2010
Read Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars for some inspiration. I read the first one, but Venus seems further from compatible conditions than Mars.
mikbunnAug 9, 2010
By the time I was halfway through Red Mars I was ready to pack up my s**t and go.
jaythewiseAug 9, 2010
God that series of books was terrible.
worldnickAug 11, 2010
I believe the author did a lot of research and they can read like text books, but until someone writes an actual text book on colonizing mars Red Mars is the next best thing.
jaythewiseAug 11, 2010
I thought some of the side plots were moronic...
Did you think that an actual movement would grow around the idea of keeping mars barren? And if I remember in the books the movement grew into a semi terrorist movement? I thought that idea was wacko.
I had to read the series in an English class.
worldnickAug 12, 2010
Wow you had to read them in English class? How old are you? That is awesome! Yes the terrorist thing was stupid. The first book was the best. I liked the stuff about the geography and the long treks through wilderness, the different kinds of domes and life support, plants, aging, martian children being really tall, and other fun details. All the little details like the length of time it takes to get there and how they coped with each other are ideas that older generations mostly don't think about and I think if politicians had read books like this when they were children then they would have a more clear picture of the "end game" rather than making mindless decisions. The end game in my mind is space colonization amongst other things and this book helps create a better picture of it for those lacking in imagination. Many politicians and activists today do not understand that our race is moving toward something. They don't "get it." I think it was great that you were forced to read it :)
wolfghostAug 9, 2010
Once you solve the issues of heat/pressure (find the right altitude), sulfuric acid (choose resistant materials), and high solar radiation, you are welcome to live floating in a 300km/h hurricane. I'll be on Mars.
caramba421Aug 8, 2010
"The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let's hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load,"
That's what she said.
dingedarmorAug 9, 2010
The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in.
--Robert A. Heinlein
drewkosAug 9, 2010
Starship f**king troopers.
trollbaneAug 9, 2010
But by the time we're scientifically advanced enough to have colonies spread out amongst the rocky planets, larger asteroids and moons of the gas giants we'd probably advanced enough that we'd be able to destroy the solar system if we broke out into a total war. So then we'll be saying that we shouldn't have all our eggs in the one solar system.
And then by the time we're advance enough to have spread out to nearby stars, we'd probably be advance enough to destroy all of them.
And by the time we've spread across the entire galaxy we'll be advance enough to f**k up all of that.
I think we'll just have to get used to the idea that we're only ever one massive war away from f**king ourselves up.
dijkstra22Aug 9, 2010
I like the idea, but I'm just thinking that we have the technology to fly to the moon now but that doesn't mean our wars entail manned spaceships in high orbit battling. It may take years before we can do that (decades probably). So it may take millions of years from when we extend into the solar system to when we can war in it.
worldnickAug 9, 2010
War? Gizmodo added that part about "without annihilating ourselves." I think Stephen Hawking was referring more to asteroids from above, solar flares, running out of resources. War is just dumb.
jamdoggAug 9, 2010
I don't think humans can build enough nukes to turn the planet into somewhere as inhospitable as Mars, let alone Venus. There have already been thousands of nukes tested around the world and most people would never even know.
We've got it so good here compared to other planets, maybe we should take better care of THIS place first?
hornyangelAug 9, 2010
Noah's Ark - survival submarine without all the crazy animals. Ocean's water effectively blocks all radiation, but air can be scrubbed and regenerated, just like in modern submarines. Sail away to an area unaffected by nuclear war, say away from US, Russia, China, Japan, Europe. Live off seafood. be fruitful and multiply.
naskinAug 9, 2010
"That's what she said" joke: Up here.
dingedarmor and Trollbane: Way down here.
haikufuAug 9, 2010
Usually I spread the basket first and then drop the load.
mtjohnsonAug 9, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
cooldude777Aug 9, 2010
Put the f**king lotion in the basket!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeH0w6GlIuA
mxm111Aug 9, 2010
That's what HE said.
azwethinkweizmAug 9, 2010
I've always wanted to have sex with a female astronaut with giant t**s.
stormwernAug 8, 2010
We'll be there within a deccade once we invent the space elevator/ion engine. Right now it's too expensive.
starmanjonesAug 9, 2010
its not too expensive. here is why.
-there are a lot of ideas how to end poverty and bring all humans up to 1st world living standards but they all involve social engineering and massive organized programs to support it on resources that become scarcer every year.
on top of that... none of the plans can be laid out completely, without show stopping unknowns along the way.
migrating into space all the problems are engineering problems. how can we move whatever amount of any resource to the people that need to use it. we don't need to engage in social engineering because the need for social engineering arises out of distributing finite resources. the challenge is to keep building and figuring out how to meet the growing demand. that is something humans do well given access to nearly free materials and energy in open space. it effectively reproduces the illusion of unlimited resources that colonial powers of yesteryear used. we know it works.
-at the very instant we realized that in the next instant we could be made extinct and never see it coming... it should have become the main occupation of all humans on earth. our indecision about this makes no sense what so ever. anyone trying to rationalize it is an idiot.
especially in light of the fact that it is the one way we can guarantee a higher standard of living of living for all humans and be able to put a plan in ink to do it.
especially when there its guaranteed that every year there are more people on earth and fewer resources per ca pita.
its the only course of action that isn't too expensive.
fr0stbyte124Aug 9, 2010
Us all dying because doesn't make it any less expensive. Also science takes time no matter how much money you blow on R&D.
pathoslogosAug 9, 2010
Might want to check on whether we've invented an ion engine yet...
paradigmxAug 9, 2010
"Might want to check on whether we've invented an ion engine yet..."
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ion_engine_interactive/index.html
Yes we have, it's not the most advanced thing, but we know the basics and that's most of the battle really.
bartledooAug 9, 2010
It's invented. I've seen some working prototypes at the Jet Propulsion Laboratories anyway.
smotpokerAug 9, 2010
@paradigm & BartleDoo
That's sorta his point. pathos isn't the one who said they hadn't been invented yet, he was telling the person who did say that to update his knowledge of the topic.
dijkstra22Aug 9, 2010
Starmanjones that's really interesting. The fact that mathematics yield general observable truths to us is such a hugely important and amazing thing. Because of it we can demonstrate that we no longer are dependent upon how evolved we are to solve a problem, because we can solve any problem that can be represented mathematically in certain ways.
hardwalkerAug 8, 2010
hey just because you can't play basketball and stuff now doesn't mean you get to ruin it for the rest of us
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
well, i wait what does octopus paul would suggest.....
theabsinthehareAug 9, 2010
...what?
worldnickAug 9, 2010
You'll be singing a different tune when you are very old.
alampintarAug 17, 2010
well.... he think really hard to come in to this statement. Don't be harsh on him...
brucealmightyAug 9, 2010
The two centuries number seems kinda arbitrary but I suppose it's mainly an extrapolation of the population growth to the point where we are running out of critical, non-renewable resources. Even so, a lot of things can change over 200 years so I don't think that's a particularly meaningful number. Eventually we gotta go if we want the species to survive of course but I don't think we're going anywhere that could sustain human life unless and until we find a technological breakthrough that lets us travel faster than lightspeed. Much faster, actually.
starmanjonesAug 9, 2010
he's not the first say 200 years. i think you're right that its about populations and resources. our technological society could collapse from lack of gas. we'd be around longer than 200 years but nobody would have the resources to mount the effort.
its not hard to see growing 3rd world population trying to beat down the doors of the 1st world to get their share... and the 1st world spending all its resources beating back the hordes at the gates. maybe thats starting as we speak...
iceman21Aug 9, 2010
The sea can actually be a natural barrier you know...
phikeAug 9, 2010
Aren't birth rates declining in a way that our peak population will in 20-30 years, but then start to fall?
russ3Aug 9, 2010
dont worry we are ripe for plague
davidnivenAug 9, 2010
Hawking doesn't seem to have much faith in mankind. Sometimes when your an atheist or agnostic (kind of hard to pin him down), everything tends to look really gloomy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vektuzAug 9, 2010
I don't think you have to be atheist or agnostic to take a real critical look at human history and extrapolate.
bassicallyAug 9, 2010
This guy again?
nard3456Aug 9, 2010
Yes, this guy again.
nard3456Aug 9, 2010
Everything looks pretty gloomy towards the end of the bible.
rolfAug 9, 2010
"Sometimes when your an atheist or agnostic (kind of hard to pin him down), everything tends to look really gloomy."
Orly? Read about cruelty in the skeptic's annotated Quran:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
or bible:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
It sounds like all doom and gloom.
davidnivenAug 9, 2010
Yeah, all that love, hope, charity, and Heaven stuff sounds so bad, doesn't it? /s
13point1Aug 9, 2010
Love for rapists who get to claim their victims as their wives.
Hope that if a bunch of children make fun of you, God will send bears to murder them just like he did for Elisha.
Charity... well... not a whole lot of that at all.
Why are you such a brazen liar, DN?
diggsmckenzieAug 9, 2010
Yeah, if only those atheist believed in something less gloomy, like horrible, fiery, eternal punishment if they don't follow a set of rules from a guy they can't see or hear.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
So constant claims of the end-times being near, the coming of the anti-christ , the battle of Armageddon, and delusions of persecution is what you consider to be keeping on the sunny side?
Goddamnit Niven, you're even worse than a troll, because you're f**king serious.
davidnivenAug 9, 2010
Those are the results of human beings turning away from God, not towards Him. In the end, those who turn to God are safe. Everyone else doing things THEIR way will reap what they sow. That's life. At least with the Christian there is hope and a future.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wassabiAug 9, 2010
I find it funny how you can be a philanthropist, do good in the world and still end up in hell because you don't believe in this so called God or his son Jesus... how egotistical is this guy, really... "believe in me or burn in hell"
"at least with the Christians, there is hope and a future" - with these catholic priests molesting our children and the Vatican defending said priests? count me out of that future please...
falconearAug 9, 2010
Please don't feed the Niven.
jakaldxAug 9, 2010
The downside of refusing to delude oneself.
darkwing81Aug 9, 2010
I really dislike this troll.
r0g3rAug 9, 2010
Why should he have faith in mankind? We learned to destroy ourselves before we ever learned to stop believing in fairy tales.
treehugger87Aug 9, 2010
DavidNiven, providing justification for Steven Hawking's lack of faith in humanity since January 4, 2009.
russ3Aug 9, 2010
have you read the book of revelatons davidniven?
davidnivenAug 10, 2010
You mean the Book of Revelation? :-)
Yes.
melikbilgeAug 9, 2010
I'd rather face the facts and be gloomy than trust bulls**t, happy fairy tales.
boigboigAug 12, 2010
Facts? You do realize that when atheists investigate the veracity of the Bible, they come up 'empty handed' or become Christians.
nitsujAug 12, 2010
Many people become atheists because they investigate the veracity of the Bible and decide it's hogwash.
phenolicAug 9, 2010
OK - This was a comment off Gizmodo - Not Mine.
"You'd think that after all these years they could've updated his voice to, oh I don't know, Chessmaster 2000? "
mike23wAug 9, 2010
lol
finalsightAug 9, 2010
That's dying to be remixed into an amazing song.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
I watched an interview once where someone asked him why he didn't update his voice and he said that he had grown so accustomed to it after decades of use that it became his voice. Makes sense to me.
jeemythomsAug 9, 2010
That's hilarious. This man deserves a prize.
oboshoeAug 9, 2010
He's actually spoke about that. The voice that is.
He says he knows he could update it, but its become familiar and comfortable to him and people associate that electronic voice to him.
Changing his voice now would be like someone drastically changing their appearance.
mo0manAug 9, 2010
Or possibly... their voice
falconearAug 9, 2010
It would be weird. That voice is forever ruined for anybody but Hawking. Have you heard the British voiceover they user for him on that show? It's weird.
thufirrhawatAug 9, 2010
I dunno man, it would be pretty badass if he sounded like Soundwave from the original Transformers cartoon.
xyphanAug 9, 2010
I think changing it to Krusty the Clown would be the most effective.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
It's so slow though, he should get a new one to be a little quicker and fluid.
catchpenAug 9, 2010
Stephen Hawking II: Electric Boogaloo
alampintarAug 17, 2010
This discussion makes me remember stephen hawking on Family Guy and his wife...
joeliarAug 9, 2010
Instead of planetary colonization, which will always be fraught, my favourite idea is to hollow out largish asteroids and live inside. You can attach a large fusion engine and head off to other solar systems, traveling over many generations.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrolife
mrsurfboardAug 9, 2010
"For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky"
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Read a book called "Eon"
joeliarAug 9, 2010
Star Trek original series, episode 63.
stuffradioAug 9, 2010
Wouldn't you get killed when it enters another planets atmosphere and breaks up or hits the ground of another planet? Am I being ignorant here or how would this work?
joeliarAug 9, 2010
You don't enter another gravity well. The converted asteroid becomes a new world.
We're talking about a hollow ball, about 20 or 30 km in diameter. Standing inside, you wouldn't be able to see the other side. The ball (maybe more like a football) is spun to provide gravity. It has a light collecting mirror that brings sunlight in and shines it down the axis of the football. The walls are 30 or 40m thick to protect the inhabitants from cosmic rays. Throw in a river down the middle, forests, fields, small villages, and you got a whole worldl. You can hang around a solar or Terran Lagrange point and soak up the sunlight for a while, then maybe shoot off to alpha centauri for a couple of millenia. When the ball becomes overpopulated, you grab a new asteroid and build a child.
Now imagine a collection of these asteroids hanging out at Terran L5. They could engage in trade, or war, whatever. But the point of the book was that these asteroids become a new life form.
I
nickmansfieldAug 9, 2010
You just described the Rama series
trollbaneAug 9, 2010
I'm a little cynical and I'm going to say that we're not going to spread out and form permanent interplanetary colonies until it's either:
- Somehow profitable, in the same way that Europeans had the technology to sail to America as far back as the Viking age (and possibly even before that) but because of the difficulty and danger they never really bothered until Columbus came back with stories of Aztec wealth. We already see that happening again because we've been able to go to the moon for over forty years now, but there's no money in it, so no one's interested. In my opinion, we won't form permanent colonies until someone finds a source of energy on Mars which is cost effective to bring back or something, and then there'll be a massive explosion of interest amongst several competing powers.
- We absolutely have to. This would involve us majorly f**king up Earth and those who can afford it getting out while they can. I hope for humanities sake it isn't this one, because even if we can repopulate Mars or something we'll be likely to f**k that up in a few centuries if we did the same to Earth.
paradigmxAug 9, 2010
But there is a profitable reason to go to the moon, it's called helium-3 and there's enough of it to supply humanity with power for centuries. I don't see this explosion of competing powers, I see us ignoring it for 40 years and going to war over oil instead.
slipperyottterAug 9, 2010
i think i saw a movie like that once...
fr0stbyte124Aug 9, 2010
Good movie. Too bad fusion doesn't work so there's still no point.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Moon was a fantastic movie.
tao52nycAug 10, 2010
Again...the fusion reactors DON'T EXIST. Nor will they for another 40 years, at least.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
We need the Russians. Without them, we have nothing to achieve.
cpmartinAug 9, 2010
You have the Chinese now.
mrsurfboardAug 9, 2010
Any chance of leaving this world in the next century ended when Obama cancelled Constellation. Any thing man achieved in manned space flight was set back 50 years. If we ever decide to go into space again, it will be like starting from scratch.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
paradigmxAug 9, 2010
My hope is being placed into private ventures, but they can't match the budget that NASA should have, or even has right now really.
cakecakecake2Aug 9, 2010
They may not have the budget, but its the private ventures that will be able to get the costs down. Space X is working on some really exciting stuff with their heavy launch vehicles they have planned.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/spacex-talks-falcon-x-heavy-for-125.html
trolleyfanAug 9, 2010
"but they can't match the budget that NASA should have, or even has right now really"
Which is good - because if space travel remains that expensive, then colonization will never happen.
countess666Aug 9, 2010
actually it will happen regardless of what NASA does as soon as asteroid mining becomes viable. the amount of resources available in the asteroid belt beyond Mars orbit is staggering. a single medium size asteroid can supply world wide gold demand for 5 years. while supplier word wide demand for most other metals at the same time.
fallout22Aug 9, 2010
Wait, what?
Do you have sources, besides EVE online?
hivoltage815Aug 9, 2010
Increasing the gold supply will just decrease the price. Why invest all the resources to that when you can keep supply restricted and have much higher profit margins.
Now if there is some unobtainium up there, then you might have something.
solkreAug 9, 2010
Fallout22
I just flipped yo can!
crossfox17Aug 9, 2010
Way to make this political.
gemlarinAug 9, 2010
The funds were redirected to NASA R&D in new technologies, instead of reviving the capsule idea of the 50's that was the centerpiece of the Constellation project. We have already been to the moon, and he wanted to push NASA's vision beyond that. Going back to the moon is not advancing space flight, especially when you are using the same method that got us there half a century ago.
"Under Obama's proposal, announced in February, NASA would cancel its plans to go back to the moon and instead focus on developing new technologies. The agency would design plans to fly humans to an asteroid around 2025 and Mars 10 years later, and rely on private industry to fly astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station. "
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/senate-bill-defies-obamas-nasa-plans-restores-constellation-and-adds-extra-shuttle-flight
Nice going trying to politicize something and not providing the facts behind your shortsighted statement.
delihoundAug 9, 2010
Exactly. And I thank you!
mrsurfboardAug 9, 2010
Yeah, redirected to Muslim outreach
mrsurfboardAug 9, 2010
Bulls**t, if you believe this then you are a complete moron.
trolleyfanAug 9, 2010
Oh please, the Constellation program used a crappy rocket built by taking all the parts of the Space Shuttle that had caused problems (of the explody kind), gluing them together, and calling it a man-rated rocket. Canceling it could only *advance* the space program.
bassicallyAug 9, 2010
This guy again?
illinestAug 9, 2010
Robert Zubrin thinks the price to transport a single human colonist to Mars can be reduced to 30,000 USD.
That's a very optimistic figure that assumes that a few near future technologies pan out as well as he expects them to, but it's attention-grabbing is it not? And might even be justifiable.
He also suggests another figure based on less optimistic metrics and already existing technology - 300,000 USD.
I consider that number pretty attention-grabbing as well.
mrsurfboardAug 9, 2010
Well considering we haven't left this planet in 40 years and have no ships or rockets even being planned to go there, I'm thinking not.
tao52nycAug 10, 2010
Bob is an engineer, not a businessman or economist. He only gets to that number by ignoring all the public investment in R&D and core infrastructure buildout. Tens to hundreds of billions over 2 decades. Someone has to pay for that. And it's too late. Goldman Sachs and AIG got it all.
I know Bob. He's bats**t crazy and his Mars Society is basically the Cult of Bob. But he gives a rousing speech.
indio007Aug 9, 2010
FInally he says something useful. Listen up people ! Earth is a single point of failure. We need to build in redundancy.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Dugg for "spread the load". Giggity.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
It doesn't matter because we'll need the machines to get to Mars and we all know it's going to be the machines that do us in. Doesn't Stephen watch any movies?
illestlyricsAug 9, 2010
I predict that the Tea Party is coming up with a solution for us to colonize mars by 2030.
hazmatsuitAug 9, 2010
I'd settle for them all just to relocate to the moon.
r0g3rAug 9, 2010
I'd rather them relocate to the Sun.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
They've actually been living on the moon for quite a while now.
kennykljAug 9, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mrsurfboardAug 9, 2010
You won't live long enough to see man leave earth orbit. Now that Obama has cancelled the moon, we won't be going anywhere for decades.
fallout22Aug 9, 2010
Lol, new ignorant quote of the day : "Now that Obama has cancelled the moon, we won't be going anywhere for decades"
Yo, bro, you cancelled the moon?
rossisdeadAug 9, 2010
I hate it when the moon gets cancelled.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
Lol, cancelled the moon.
Anyway, even though *we* aren't going anywhere for a while, our robot buddies are :P
And they'll still be research into propulsion technologies other space tech.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Why the f**k would you want to live long enough to experience the Reaper invasion? Does being taken into slavery and being purified in a big blender, only to be pumped into the nutsack of a giant robot sound like a good time to you?
solkreAug 9, 2010
Good time? s**t I do that every weekend.
aubieguy333Aug 9, 2010
No, but the intergalactic travel and multiple sentient species from different solar systems all interacting, trading, and co-existing together was pretty damn cool.
spazattack5000Aug 9, 2010
Barring some sort of alien genocide, interstellar colonization would pretty much guarantee human survival forever. Resources would never be an issue, contagious diseases could easily be isolated to one world and so could mass extinction events such as asteroids or gamma ray bursts. (Watch out for the Reapers though)
johnfluxAug 9, 2010
Actually a supernova could wipe out all life in a galaxy.
chak2007Aug 9, 2010
I take your supernova and raise you a gamma-ray burst.
paradigmxAug 9, 2010
I'll take your gamma-ray burst and raise you CROSSING THE STREAMS!
fr0stbyte124Aug 9, 2010
It's cool. We'll be safe on Mars.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
In which case we're all f**ked anyway, but at least we tried.
tntbassAug 9, 2010
A supernova wiping out all live in a galaxy? That would have to be one hell of a huge supernova, as there have been supernovas in the Milky Way galaxy that hasn't destroyed all life yet.
A solar system? Definitely. A galaxy? Pretty unlikely.
ivanmarshAug 9, 2010
I raise you the inevitable cold death of the universe.
seaofcheeseAug 9, 2010
Sweet we wouldnt have to send the gay people to an island anymore we could just have a plant set up for them! of course it wouldnt take long before everyone would be dead there. (gay people dont have babies)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tsharp1Aug 9, 2010
Best. Idea. Ever.
hornyangelAug 9, 2010
They may not need them. Cloning humans should be up to speed by then.
loki2029Aug 9, 2010
Hawking has stated that if aliens came to our planet they would almost certainly not come in peace. They would try to take us over and harvest all of our available resources a la Independence Day. So therefore by stating that humanity should set out to colonize the rest of the galaxy/universe he's proposing that we become those thieving alien bastards should we find a less advanced civilization with resources we desire. Stephen Hawking the war monger, weird.
manowarxAug 10, 2010
Not really warmongering in this hypothetical scenario, more like survival of the species. Who's side would you rather be on in Independence Day considering in reality humans probably won't be able to hack into the alien mother ship from their iPad?
puddgomezAug 11, 2010
Why would they come to Earth for resources when there are a trillion other worlds to harvest without having to deal with the natives? What does Earth have in terms of resources that you can't get in greater quantities somewhere else?
loki2029Aug 11, 2010
That's what a lot of scientists have said in response to his theory. I was just noting that his desire for us to get out there and colonize and his theory on extraterrestrial visitors could be two sides of the same coin. Here's an article about what he said a couple of months ago, I'm sure it showed up on Digg somewhere too.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/07/science/la-sci-hawking-aliens-20100508
jackmonAug 9, 2010
Reaper?
matrim2217Aug 9, 2010
I think he meant Reavers. A reference to the incredibly good, yet short-lived show Firefly.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
No, it's a Mass Effect reference. Giant space squids that want to harvest all life in the universe.
aetherflashAug 9, 2010
Anybody else think of the SC2 reaper?
I must have played that game too much already =\
manowarxAug 10, 2010
yeah SC2 came to mind.
powderedtoastyAug 9, 2010
Disease would still probably be a problem if travel became anything like international travel is today.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
2012
fullbackAug 9, 2010
I'm not sure that humans are worth all the effort it would take to colonize anywhere. We're a pathetic horde of disease carrying animals that kill each other over colored pieces of cloth and superstitions of magic gods.
Go look at the most popular videos on YouTube this week and tell me we're a civilization worth "saving."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
superherofiveAug 9, 2010
I hate that you're getting buried, but I agree with you. We as a species aren't worth saving the way we are now... not by a long shot.
iceman21Aug 9, 2010
The people burying you must feel insulted, awww
He is right, and you people know it, as someone who went through bullying in high school, and bullying beyond high school, witnessed and experienced violence for petty reasons like jealousy and pride, read daily about murders, rape, suicides and the such i can't help but think majority of the population are self important bastards, selfish to the f**king core and deeply stupid.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Bitter much?
celideeAug 9, 2010
All this things are instilled our genetic code just like Hawking said. Most people don't have the education nor inclination to think beyond their selfish self.
oboshoeAug 9, 2010
Not sure why people take the pessimistic view why we are way worse than that we which we haven't yet discovered.
Who knows. We might discover intelligent life out there and find out that we are really great compared to them.
rapaxAug 9, 2010
Show me a "better" species with a chance of colonizing the solar system within two centuries. Until you do, we're the best we have.
Unless of course, you're of the opinion that life itself isn't worth saving.
thegreat0neAug 9, 2010
Well, in the grand scheme of things...
nburgAug 9, 2010
YouTube is a very bad place to sample humanity... I highly doubt it is a good model for all humans world wide. More like a good sample of people who have too much time on their hands.
melikbilgeAug 9, 2010
Yet we're all human, including you. The survival of humans comes before anything else, as far as we're concerned.
acid_jazzAug 9, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfwY2TNehw
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
Boo hoo, we're selfish.
All known life is selfish. All any organism is designed to do is survive, whether it's at the expense of others or not.
madfusion15Aug 9, 2010
Who the f**k is Stephen Hawking?
mrsurfboardAug 9, 2010
Someone who is way smarter then you are
madfusion15Aug 9, 2010
haha i appreciate your comment, but you used the wrong form of 'then'. it's actually 'than'. thanks for playing though :)
kartman2001Aug 9, 2010
Hawking is still smarter.
fr0stbyte124Aug 9, 2010
He's the Bono of theoretical astrophysics.
indirectAug 9, 2010
I know it's not your comment but, it's interesting to know that he's been offered an upgrade many times. He's always refused because he knows that people associate that particular synthetic voice to him. It's his voice.
hipmanAug 9, 2010
Isn't it the one from MS narrator?.
alampintarAug 17, 2010
I don't think so hipman, I try using it and make it say some words, and I knew that my MS narrator sounds better than his electronic voice.
mmmpoweradeAug 9, 2010
He just watched season 1 of Futurama.
sil369Aug 9, 2010
solution: portals
bracomadarAug 9, 2010
The cake is a lie!
tsharp1Aug 9, 2010
Spectacular. You appear to understand how a portal affects forward momentum, or to be more precise, how it does not. Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman's terms, speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out.
a21sterikAug 9, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
disexAug 9, 2010
Wow you mean eventually colonizing other planet's is the key to Humanities survival? You don't say.....
mh262Aug 9, 2010
what is the point of colonizing the moon or mars. would you really want to live on the moon, especially if everyone back home on earth died? i would probably kill myself if i were one of the last few people living, and especially if i was on the moon.
unless i was with a hot chick.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
paradigmxAug 9, 2010
Yes, I would be more than happy to live on the moon or mars, and the line of people just like me would span hundreds of miles.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
GET TO DA OORT CLOUD!
dabekAug 9, 2010
You forgot the /Schwarzenegger
yaysterAug 9, 2010
Best post of the thread -- but I vote for Kuiper's belt.
They can support vastly larger number of people than a planet.
theabsinthehareAug 9, 2010
Oh man, it's hilarious to imagine Arnold saying "oort"
Just repeat it over and over in your head, with his voice and his wide eyed, yelling face.
nburgAug 9, 2010
Der's a bomb in der!
/s
austrologiAug 9, 2010
By all means, invent the faster than light drive that can get us there. Mars isn't going to cut it unless some 3 pronged hand aliens left a giant thermal reactor to melt ice under the surface to create an entire atmosphere in under 30 seconds. I think I am getting offpoint.
getoffmybridgeAug 9, 2010
Total Recall was actually a documentary
thecoolestguyAug 9, 2010
Humans can't sustain inter-planetery travel. For humans to expand from earth, off-world colonies will need to be self-sufficient enough to be able to serve as launch pads for further colonization. Today's level of technology is no where near the level necessary to do this.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
i respect and love stephen hawking and all, but he keeps spouting the same crap to get headlines when he feels people aren't paying enough attention to him.
find a real f**king solution to any of the numerous problems that are holding us back please.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
iceman21Aug 9, 2010
There are no quick solutions because everything involves money, you can bet that if the planet's days were literally numbered for certain we would throw cash aside and force out research into viable options.
bumfaceAug 9, 2010
Not necessarilly. What sort of a life would you have living out your days on a space station? How well connected would you have to be to get a place?
If you were wealthy, but living on a doomed planet, you might just settle for enjoying what time you had left.
chak2007Aug 9, 2010
Hey in the Halo universe, we colonized 100's of worlds, look how that turned out for us.../s
However I agree I wish we would focus more on space then pop culture. NASA and other space agencies have been putting the more ambitious ideas on the back burner time and time again. Which is why I am all for the privatization of space. The main things holding us to earth currently are radiation prevention. Which is why the mars journey is taking so long. Mars is a dead world, its core has stopped spinning and solidified meaning there is no magnetic field which in turn no protection from the sun. If we were to ever colonize mars, you would have to be able to generate and manipulate strong magnetic fields.
bumfaceAug 9, 2010
What do you mean by, "...the privatization of space..."?
machinemessiahAug 9, 2010
He's referring to outsourcing vehicle design to commercial companies. The PayPal guy is building his own low-earth orbit shuttle called the Dragon.
blunt7raumaAug 9, 2010
Any sci-fi shield generator will have real life counterpart that does exactly this. For a truly successful colony on Mars, we will need to make a magnetic field generator so an atmosphere can be established, allowing the planet to heat up and have a breathable atmosphere.
voodoodonutAug 9, 2010
Who does this guy think he is? Some kind of theoretical physicist or something?
The nerve.
I hope he gets amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
/s
factorof13Aug 9, 2010
Stephen Hawking playing poker with Isaac Newton, Einstein, and Data:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O31qRH3O6c
falconearAug 9, 2010
Not. the. apple. story. again.
catnipjunkie69Aug 9, 2010
How could anyone watch the the conservative tea party morons spill ignorance all over the political/cultural landscape for the last year and not come to the conclusion that humanity has NO SHOT at survival?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
oboshoeAug 9, 2010
Why is it that some people must inject politics into everything???
I have a family member like you and we can be talking about lawn mowing and he'll find a way to turn it into a left vs right BS argument.
newerakbAug 9, 2010
I agree, but it's still funny that while we're all in here talking about colonizing other planets, there's a good 40% of the United States that is afraid of science. You know the ones...the people who wouldn't move to Mars because there wouldn't be any bears to shoot.
hivoltage815Aug 9, 2010
You can't really blame people for their stupidity. The inherent nature of our "intelligent species" is there are a lot of morons. No, I am serious. With every other species of animal, the dumb ones usually die in their youth. We are different. We have civilization. We have technology. Everyone generally lives because their stupidity does not lead to their demise like it would in the wild.
To imply that humanity is not worth saving or that we are doomed because of a stupid class is wrong. Direct your anger at those in power who don't direct the masses in a positive direction.
FYI, there is stupidity on both sides: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
StrutThatAssAug 9, 2010
We should blast off a gigantic rocket directly to Uranus.
assassyn360Aug 9, 2010
Two centuries! LoL we have plenty time to procrastinate!
assassyn360Aug 9, 2010
We need to create artificial gravity that will work in space aboard a ship and on a planet. Otherwise we aren't going anywhere for very long unless we can get there and back fast.
mrsurfboardAug 9, 2010
They can do that now. Large rotating sections could provide the gravity needed.
assassyn360Aug 9, 2010
I know but that has absolutely no application on a planetary body. And how many ships have you seen with large rotating sections except in movies? To create such rotational forces for simulating earth gravity would require a significant in size structure with a powerful force to rotate it. And never mind those same rotational forces are trying to fly the structure apart.
countess666Aug 9, 2010
actually that might not be necessary to prevent bone lose
a couple of minutes of light vibration a day apparently force the body to create more bone instead of converting energy too fat.
its not been tested in space yet but it looks good.
Muscle can be prevented with exercise against belts already.
assassyn360Aug 9, 2010
I will go anywhere in space as long as weyland yutani corporation is not involved.
nraphaelAug 9, 2010
I read 'Brief History of Time" and "The God Delusion". He's a bit of a hero of mine.
inaktivistAug 9, 2010
You know Steven Hawking only wrote one of those books, right?
nraphaelAug 9, 2010
Wrong. Steven Hawking didn't write either of them. However, StePHen Hawking did. And by write, I mean twitch the words to his typist.
factorof13Aug 9, 2010
You might be making some kind of weird joke, but The God Delusion was written by Richard Dawkins.
heliox2000Aug 9, 2010
He's just stupid.
factorof13Aug 9, 2010
Ahh. Well I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt, because people often don't get my sense of humor either.
nraphaelAug 9, 2010
No way!!! You're right !!!! Different person entirely. I thought he's made a near total recovery. Poor soul is still in that wheelchair.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aegiscAug 9, 2010
How is it possible that nraphael can be so precise in reading comprehension that he's able to catch the misuse of a "v" in place of a "ph" (even I missed that), and then fail to catch the author's name on the cover of The God Delusion where it was printed in the largest font in the history of books?
groovydooAug 9, 2010
I think we are doing pretty and his "end is near" speeches are diminishing his credibility. Humanity, at least in both westernized and emerging economies, is living longer than it ever has, is experiencing the highest standard of living than any generation before, is experiencing far fewer global conflicts where tens-of-thousands would die in a single battle, and has seen diseases like AIDS which could have been this century's bubonic plague contained and finally immunizations from viruses that could cause cancer or even death. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
slipperyottterAug 9, 2010
the length of life isn't what he's talking about...
he's talking about the world kerploding or any event that would make life on this planet impossible... we'd go extinct if we dont have an off-earth colony to continue our species on.
groovydooAug 9, 2010
His whole idea is stupid Why not take the hundreds of trillions of dollars it would take if not more and just fix our problems here. I don't care if I am digged down. It's a stupid, "white flight" idea.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
evildeadashAug 9, 2010
I don't think it takes a genius to know that we need to leave the planet before our sun goes BOOM.
bumfaceAug 9, 2010
Is that going to happen anytime soon?
fr0stbyte124Aug 9, 2010
Oh yes. 5 billion years from now and we are all toast. That's why I don't worry about health insurance.
daggorathAug 9, 2010
See the sun going boom is probably one of our least concerns since it's so far off, mainly massive meteor strikes or massive over population or something we don't even expect. The more planets we can inhabit and the quicker the better our chances not to be wiped out.
tao52nycAug 10, 2010
Well that gives us about 5 billion years to sort out.
pdurodAug 9, 2010
Arthur C. Clarke: The Songs of Distant Earth. I feel like I'm on the verge of living in the chapter "Lords of the Last Days."
meddelemAug 9, 2010
I like the Carl Sagen's - Cosmos Soundtrack
freetalkliveAug 9, 2010
Everything in the universe is going to die. So what's the point of expanding?
Nothing escapes death.
evildeadashAug 9, 2010
Remember that the next time you get really sick or injured.
freetalkliveAug 9, 2010
Let's both remember this 500 years from now when were all Dead Ash.
rapaxAug 9, 2010
The point is: do we choose to die in the next few centuries...or in a million (or billion) years?
You're going to die sometime, so why bother about moving out of the path of that bus?
fr0stbyte124Aug 9, 2010
We can escape into another universe while this one resets.
newerakbAug 9, 2010
Here comes Deeeebbie Downer.
celideeAug 9, 2010
Transhumanism.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
You must be a hit at parties.
pacoxAug 9, 2010
Additional minerals required.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Somebody should unplug him
enantiodromiaAug 9, 2010
it will be fun when you get MS or ALS
meddelemAug 9, 2010
I just Wanna Dance.
joeliarAug 9, 2010
I'm surprised nobody has brought up the giant space goat as a reason for leaving the planet. We could build a B-Ark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Ark#Golgafrincham
dlan4327Aug 9, 2010
I heard it was giant bees?
atsguyAug 9, 2010
Give it up Stephen Hawking...Humans are here to stay!
r0g3rAug 9, 2010
Sadly we have the capacity to destroy ourselves many times over, and the world has teetered on the brink of destruction ever since we developed nuclear arsenals. And even if we don't blow ourselves out of existence, we still might irreparably damage our planet's ability to sustain us at the pace we're going.
Well, anyways, do you really think you have a better idea of these possibilities than Stephen f**king Hawking? Jeez.
argotmeisterAug 9, 2010
This world is coming to an end... Volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, Justin Bieber...