Stephen Hawking Wants Us to Leave Earth within the Next 100 Years

The climate changes on Earth are nothing compared to the climate on alien planets... cmon now.

If colonization starts slow, on say Mars, I'd say it's possible for humans to eventually adapt to the environment. And if Mars has climate events at the rate Earth has, then that will extend our species longevity that much more.
 
Flame suit on:

The overriding theme here seems to be a bunch of self-loathing humans talking about how terrible the human spirit is and advocating something that is totally not possible in any of our or our children's lifetimes. Are there despicable humans? You bet, and a lot of them. For the record, I do not like Steven Hawking one bit. I think he is a godless narcissist who has run out of valuable lessons to teach us mortals. I don't believe there is any other intelligent life out there (call me a narcissist all you like). Are we experiencing climate change? Yes, I believe so. Is there anything we can do about it? No, I don't think so. All of the predicted sea level rises haven't happened. I believe the sea is actually slightly lower. There is more ice at the South Pole than there has been for a long time. Sure, lots of other places have gotten warmer. But, the earth has been far warmer and far colder than it is now many times over. Has anyone taken a look at how they measure the average earth temperature? Have you noticed there are less and less actual temperature recording devices and more and more modeling to "determine" the temperature of lots of locations? Those despicable humans come in to mind here... Has CO2 gone up? Yes. However, all of the CO2 entering Earth's atmosphere from all the cars running in the world is the equivalent to taking a sealed 20 by 20 room with a 10 foot ceiling and burning one match per year.
 
If colonization starts slow, on say Mars, I'd say it's possible for humans to eventually adapt to the environment. And if Mars has climate events at the rate Earth has, then that will extend our species longevity that much more.
Mars has no climate. Scientists say that if we started massive terraforming project today (we won't), it would be a hundred thousand years before there was a semblance of an atmosphere, and that's assuming everything goes right. Everything could go wrong, and we could screw up and end up with a screwed ecosystem that produces a toxic atmosphere that we can't breath with undrinkable water full of heavy metals. And we probably couldn't fix that, and if we could, we'd have a perfect atmosphere on Earth already and be able to control global warming and everything precisely in the first place.
 
Mars has no climate. Scientists say that if we started massive terraforming project today (we won't), it would be a hundred thousand years before there was a semblance of an atmosphere, and that's assuming everything goes right. Everything could go wrong, and we could screw up and end up with a screwed ecosystem that produces a toxic atmosphere that we can't breath with undrinkable water full of heavy metals. And we probably couldn't fix that, and if we could, we'd have a perfect atmosphere on Earth already and be able to control global warming and everything precisely in the first place.

what about bio-dome?

could work. probably impossible.
 
what about bio-dome?

could work. probably impossible.
That's what I was saying earlier, you need a biodome, but we haven't figured out how to make one yet on Earth, so how could we possibly make one at the outer reaches of where we could even send a single astronaut.

The closest we ever came still failed because they didn't take into account the leaching effect of oxygen into the concrete floor IIRC, and can you imagine how even a small fire could throw off the ecosystem? Perfect equilibrium in a totally enclosed space long term is something we don't know how to do yet. That's step one, and should be done before you even think of trying it on another planet. And if anything, we should colonize the moon first and see if it works there.

If you have say a space mining operation that is viable on the moon, with a completely self-sufficient ecosystem on the moon for 50 years, then, fine, you can try it on Mars.
 
Mars has no climate. Scientists say that if we started massive terraforming project today (we won't), it would be a hundred thousand years before there was a semblance of an atmosphere, and that's assuming everything goes right. Everything could go wrong, and we could screw up and end up with a screwed ecosystem that produces a toxic atmosphere that we can't breath with undrinkable water full of heavy metals. And we probably couldn't fix that, and if we could, we'd have a perfect atmosphere on Earth already and be able to control global warming and everything precisely in the first place.
Depends on how you go about terraforming it.
Setting up gassification plants around the surface will definitely take a long time.

Figuring out how to restart it's dynamo and get a magnetic field around the planet would jump start the whole thing. Smash a few nitrogen/water comets into the surface would probably jump start it as well.

It all depends on how controlled or non-controlled you're willing to go.
 
Stevie.. here is the deal.. you go on ahead, taking all the climate change, overpopulation, asteroid strikes, and robots who want to kill us with you.. and whenever you got things all set up perfectly for me to follow, I'll fill out a USPS change-of-address form and book passage on the next Saturn rocket to this new paradise you are at!!

steven_hawking_galaxy.jpg
 
"Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague ..."
 
It's a lot easier to terraform a planet with no people on it (or a very limited number). It's a lot harder to do it when it's your sole source of population. The risks are too high and the lives of people shouldn't be toyed with in that way.
Terraforming "dead" planets to make them habitable is neat. There's a lot to learn that we don't know anything about really that would help us understand our own planet better.
You can't terraform mars anytime soon. The biggest obstacle is creating a sizable atmosphere.

In order to keep a sizable atmosphere, you have to have a magnetosphere (magnetic field) which acts as a shield to block out radiation and solar wind which will strip it away.

In order to have a natural magnetosphere, the planet you are on has to have a molten core that spins as a result of the heating/cooling and gravitational forces. Mars' core is solid and cold. How Mars' core cooled in the first place is still up for debate, but the 2 primary theories revolve around the planet not being massive enough in the first place to create the necessary gravitational forces to heat it up, or some sort of cataclysmic collision with another planetoid a few billion years ago. The latter possibility could have stripped most of the pre-existing atmosphere at the same time.

There are 3 ways around this that I know:

1. Borrow a magnetic field from somewhere else, e.g. a moon of a much larger planet like Jupiter or Saturn. Saturn's moon Titan has an extremely thick, albeit poisonous atmosphere. This is largely in part due to Saturn's magnetosphere keeping the solar wind at bay. This solution would not work for Mars for obvious reasons.

2. Create an artificial magnetic field or shield array. We are talking "Star Wars" level technology here, not happening anytime soon.

3. Restart the core somehow. This too is "Star Wars" level tech.
 
Last edited:
Is it wrong to want to launch Mr. Hawking into low orbit with a trebuchet?

Yea, lets leave a changing climate and go to a planet with no climate.

I'm going to stop now else I type the rest of what is on my mind. :shifty:
 
I saw a quote before (I can't remember where) that all our biggest problems today are sociological, not technological. I get exactly what you're saying, but I also think that our biggest enemy is currently ourselves. I mean you see people arguing about immigrants, terrorism, socialism, basic income, trade deals, etc., every issue should really harken back to "how does this harm or benefit us as a species for the long term?" If we're not even THINKING in those terms, I don't see how the hell we're ready for expanding. I agree trying is better than nothing at all, I just see us having the potential for a MUCH BETTER try once we've solved more core issues rather than "omg let's do it right now while we're really dysfunctional in the middle of all other problems."

Total agreed as a species we are still too juvenile and tribalistic. And it being holding us back for hundreds of years, we still fight over boarders and hoarding resources instead of doing whats best for everyone. We need to get to star trek levels where we are no longer lusting for money and other inconsequential bullshit. And until that happens we will continue with a snail pace into our own destruction.
 
So many of you have read far too many sci-fi books to be realistic about this.

The books on terraforming Mars are fiction. Mars will always be a dead and hostile planet. Humans will never thrive there.

If we cannot clean up our own planet and act responsibly on it then why should we have a right to move elsewhere? That's stupid in itself. If we die out as a species then that's fine. We deserved it. The planet will heal and adapt after we are gone.

Also if the sun burns up in 5 billion years we won't be around anyway. Humans will have ceased to exist 4.99 billions years before in evolutionary terms.
 
I say we start sending people to colonize the sun. When the first group fails try again and again. Keep trying using the cheapest one way shuttles we can build. After awhile we will fix our problems
 
I say we start sending people to colonize the sun. When the first group fails try again and again. Keep trying using the cheapest one way shuttles we can build. After awhile we will fix our problems

lol unless we are sending kyptonians don't see this happening :)
 
CAUTION (switching on levity mode): On a lighter and perhaps related side, depending on your POV, did you know that the typical fart is composed of about 59 percent nitrogen, 21 percent hydrogen, 9 percent carbon dioxide, 7 percent methane and 4 percent oxygen? Only about one percent of a fart contains hydrogen sulfide gas and mercaptans, which contain sulfur, and the sulfur is what makes farts stink.

RELATED: People pass gas about 14 times per day. The average person produces about half a liter of farts every single day, and even though many women won't admit it, women do fart just as often as men.

Source for both: Google knowledge graph

That's 3.25 billion liters of the gaseous substance daily, give or take, depending on the population of the planet. Left me wondering whether they should have included H20 in the mix, or actually did as its individual elements (H + O). Because I know for a fact that water sometimes inevitably eeks its way into the mix.

In any event, well under a cubic mile of combined gaseous excretion per day. The question is: can we live with that?

:::Levity mode off:::
 
So many of you have read far too many sci-fi books to be realistic about this.

The books on terraforming Mars are fiction. Mars will always be a dead and hostile planet. Humans will never thrive there.

If we cannot clean up our own planet and act responsibly on it then why should we have a right to move elsewhere? That's stupid in itself. If we die out as a species then that's fine. We deserved it. The planet will heal and adapt after we are gone.

Also if the sun burns up in 5 billion years we won't be around anyway. Humans will have ceased to exist 4.99 billions years before in evolutionary terms.

Man you are boring as shit, you wouldn't even try.
 
Man you are boring as shit, you wouldn't even try.

There are far more important things that need fixing here first. Once you've got that done then you can go and fuck up another pristine environment all you like.

Kids...no sense of priority or for that matter...reality.
 
So many of you have read far too many sci-fi books to be realistic about this.

The books on terraforming Mars are fiction. Mars will always be a dead and hostile planet. Humans will never thrive there...

And we'll never sail across the Atlantic, either. Nobody will ever get past the dragons and sea monsters. It's too hard. Waste of money, too... Why bother?

After the Mexican-American war (1846-48) people really thought it was going to take a thousand years for the United States to colonize the west. Nobody would have guessed that the last real 'wild' Indians would die out or be integrated before 1920.

I don't know how long it will take, but there will be humans on Mars eventually. Even if it turns out that it's not possible to live on the Moon or Mars or wherever, exploration will continue.
 
And we'll never sail across the Atlantic, either. Nobody will ever get past the dragons and sea monsters. It's too hard. Waste of money, too... Why bother?

After the Mexican-American war (1846-48) people really thought it was going to take a thousand years for the United States to colonize the west. Nobody would have guessed that the last real 'wild' Indians would die out or be integrated before 1920.

I don't know how long it will take, but there will be humans on Mars eventually. Even if it turns out that it's not possible to live on the Moon or Mars or wherever, exploration will continue.


Oh people will get there. But in no way will it be a series of Kim Stanley Robinson books or Total Recall. Just forget it. Mars will always be dead.
 
Oh people will get there. But in no way will it be a series of Kim Stanley Robinson books or Total Recall. Just forget it. Mars will always be dead.

Well no shit. Even KSR himself says the Mars series is just a fun fantasy of a hyper-aggressive Mars colonization effort with terraforming sped up so he could keep characters alive the whole way through.

Wasn't Ares I in the first book constructed from several rings of Shuttle and Buran fuel tanks? I need to go pick it up again. I didn't care for Green or Blue Mars but IIRC Red Mars was a fun hard-sci fi book other than the whiny psychologist character. He sounded a lot like daglesj and ducman.
 
Sorry to burst a few bubbles of fantasy around here. It's how the cards of the solar system were dealt billions of years ago.

We just need to clean up our act here on earth first over the next 100 years. By all means send as many probes to Mars, they will all tell you the same result over and over.

"It's dead Jim!"
 
Yay, we can ruin more worlds! Let the contagion spread!
Always the misanthropes appear in a discussion of this sort. Until we have evidence of a species more advanced than us, humans are the most awesome frickin' thing in the universe. If you think of yourself as a cancer or virus, but all means do the selfless thing for Mother Earth's health.
 
Helped China recover from starvation. Can you imagine if China was pumping out kids at the rate of many African nations? They'd be in mud huts and pooping in the streets like India and require constant loans and food relief sent there to feed the people.

Luckily though, they chilled out and recovered and are arguably one of the world's great superpowers.

You can't directly, but after sending billions of dollars in aid every year for the last hundred years, at some point we can say "take our advice, allow us to help you reduce your out of control population growth rate, or we will stop sending you money and food and quarantine you from sending your population overflow to our country."

Voila. Famine and disease will naturally balance the population growth somewhat, and encourage people to rethink their Krogan horde strategy of taking over the world through sheer numbers.

You have oversimplified the situation greatly. What happens when the hungry masses decide they can zerg us? Just one thought. Or what if that disease, brought on by that famine, spreads to the US? Containment strategies for global outbreaks of diseases is poor at best. Further complicated by travelers on legitimate business. Unless you suggest the US become totally isolationist and close our borders. Then I will remind you that we depend heavily upon other countries for manufacturing not just of consumer goods but also food and fuel.

Your plan is doomed to failure. Also I believe China no longer has that policy...and they are still in mud huts, which I presume is a derogatory way of saying rural living, in most of China (the last study I saw had ~80% of their populace in rural areas).

Flame suit on:

The overriding theme here seems to be a bunch of self-loathing humans talking about how terrible the human spirit is and advocating something that is totally not possible in any of our or our children's lifetimes. Are there despicable humans? You bet, and a lot of them. For the record, I do not like Steven Hawking one bit. I think he is a godless narcissist who has run out of valuable lessons to teach us mortals. I don't believe there is any other intelligent life out there (call me a narcissist all you like). Are we experiencing climate change? Yes, I believe so. Is there anything we can do about it? No, I don't think so. All of the predicted sea level rises haven't happened. I believe the sea is actually slightly lower. There is more ice at the South Pole than there has been for a long time. Sure, lots of other places have gotten warmer. But, the earth has been far warmer and far colder than it is now many times over. Has anyone taken a look at how they measure the average earth temperature? Have you noticed there are less and less actual temperature recording devices and more and more modeling to "determine" the temperature of lots of locations? Those despicable humans come in to mind here... Has CO2 gone up? Yes. However, all of the CO2 entering Earth's atmosphere from all the cars running in the world is the equivalent to taking a sealed 20 by 20 room with a 10 foot ceiling and burning one match per year.

Godless narcissist! /jokeoff Seriously what does "godless" have to do with any of this? Its a scientific problem.

We have no proof yet either way but the sheer volume of potential life sustaining planets suggests it would be the height of hubris to suggest we are the only ones out there. That is setting aside that we presume that life must be carbon based and it must fit into our narrow definition and that intelligence is only as we define it (just how smart do you think your dog is for example).

There are an estimated 1 billion trillion (thats 1 BILLION of these: 1,000,000,000,000) stars in the known universe. If only ONE of them had life that would be an infinitesimally small percentage. If you say only .00001% of these stars have planets then that is still 100 trillion solar systems with planets. If you then say that the same percentage (.00001%) of those planets are capable of life that is still 10,000,000. Thats ten million planets capable of sustaining life. And you're saying we are one in ten million of all inhabitable planets (assuming its 1/100,000 for each level down...which is an extremely small number and already proven wrong for number of stars containing planets...its much higher).

Sure its possible we are the only intelligent life in the universe but its also highly unlikely. I wont even begin to address your global warming comments. Go read the scientific studies that prove you wrong.

That's what I was saying earlier, you need a biodome, but we haven't figured out how to make one yet on Earth, so how could we possibly make one at the outer reaches of where we could even send a single astronaut.

The closest we ever came still failed because they didn't take into account the leaching effect of oxygen into the concrete floor IIRC, and can you imagine how even a small fire could throw off the ecosystem? Perfect equilibrium in a totally enclosed space long term is something we don't know how to do yet. That's step one, and should be done before you even think of trying it on another planet. And if anything, we should colonize the moon first and see if it works there.

If you have say a space mining operation that is viable on the moon, with a completely self-sufficient ecosystem on the moon for 50 years, then, fine, you can try it on Mars.

Why does it need to be a self sustaining biodome? Dont overcomplicate things. Nobody said we had to start with self sufficiency on there...no does each "dome" (and ill go with us using domes for simplicity here) need to be self sustaining. There will be waste products and we will need to figure out ways to replace lost items such as minerals, water, etc. However we do pretty good now at going long periods in orbit, its just a logistics problem to stretch that time out while we work out how to make things in our new homes.

Ultimately yes it should be able to survive without earth. But we dont need to start there and in fact starting without that gives us incentive to make that happen faster.

There are far more important things that need fixing here first. Once you've got that done then you can go and fuck up another pristine environment all you like.

Kids...no sense of priority or for that matter...reality.

The space program has a proven track record of improving/fixing things here. All of the things we learn doing this would be useful here.

Think of it this way: Sometimes you cant fix a problem directly for a variety of reasons (i.e. politics, lack of desire etc) but you can fix it indirectly. We cant get our carbon emissions under control? Np, this program invented a cleaner and cheaper method of transportation since it cant rely on fossil fuels...slowly the carbon problem starts to decline...etc

Sorry to burst a few bubbles of fantasy around here. It's how the cards of the solar system were dealt billions of years ago.

We just need to clean up our act here on earth first over the next 100 years. By all means send as many probes to Mars, they will all tell you the same result over and over.

"It's dead Jim!"

Its dead now. Lets not count out the fact that improvements in technology can change that over time. 100 years ago they wouldn't have dreamed of putting a golf course in the middle of a desert. Now three of them are there and are in the top 100 golf courses in the world. I only mention this to show how much of an impact humans can have when they put their minds to it. We may not have the tech today to make this happen easily but if we can survive and continue to improve ourselves and tech I am sure we will get there. It may still take 1,000 years to fix but we will find a way if we want to.

Or heck maybe we will find other planets and decide Mars isn't worth the cost. In that case it stays dead but not because we couldn't do it. Because we chose not to.
 
You have oversimplified the situation greatly. What happens when the hungry masses decide they can zerg us?
Numbers mean very little in modern combat when there is a large technological delta. Hard for a zerg of third world peasants to raft there way to destroying an aircraft carrier fleet or shoot at a dropped MOAB with an AK47 (which they only even have because at some point we stupidly gave it to them).
Just one thought. Or what if that disease, brought on by that famine, spreads to the US?
I think you're confused here. The idea is not to promote overpopulation, starvation, and breeding disease... they are already doing that, and we are contributing by dumping billions and billions every year for the last one hundred years. Why do you think they have all those signs up by park ranges not to feed the wildlife? Because they hate wildlife? Or because they know that feeding certain animals can lead to dependence and population explosions that aren't sustainable without continuous feeding in the future.

Besides, as you say most of the diseases ALREADY come from Africa and we haven't been able to stop its spread of AIDS, ebola, etc. But since my suggestion for non-compliance of getting their population under control is to stop sending massive amounts of food, aid, and money is that it would be self-regulating and also as I said combined with quarantining, and not allowing them to dump their huge surplus populations on the responsible countries that have their growth rates under control.
Your plan is doomed to failure. Also I believe China no longer has that policy...
Every country in the world, since antiquity, has seen cultural, technological, and economic rapid progress with a decreased population growth. You can write that off saying "well uhmm that doesn't uhhh mean that lower population growth CAUSED that and was just a side effect", but its a fact that advancement of a society with higher per capita GDP and more investment per child go hand and hand with lower population growth rates. And China was facing mass starvation before that policy, and today has no problem feeding their people and are experiencing a per capita GDP growth rate, adjusted for inflation, that is nothing but up, and up, and up every year. In the 1960s and 1970s, the average person made $100 a year. In 2017 the average person makes $7.9K a year and climbing. And please stop with your lying. China has NOT stopped its population control laws, they have only relaxed the taxes on the second child since they were having problems with compliance in the first place.

Facts are facts.

The only viable place for billions of people to live in the foreseeable future is Earth. Exponential population growth, as we are seeing, is not sustainable or desirable and negatively impacts quality of life. That means we need to be environmentally conscious, not shit where we eat, and stop promoting many places of the world having so many damn babies that they can't even properly care for. I can't afford seven kids on MY salary, and yet you want to convince me its OK for some African woman making $350 a year to have the time and resources to raise those children responsibly to advance their society? Its nonsense, and you know it.

Nor is it beneficial or desirable for responsible K-selection strategy societies to allow themselves to be overrun by r-selection ones with virtually no parental care and import poverty, crime, and ignorance.
 
Its dead now. Lets not count out the fact that improvements in technology can change that over time. 100 years ago they wouldn't have dreamed of putting a golf course in the middle of a desert. Now three of them are there and are in the top 100 golf courses in the world. I only mention this to show how much of an impact humans can have when they put their minds to it. We may not have the tech today to make this happen easily but if we can survive and continue to improve ourselves and tech I am sure we will get there. It may still take 1,000 years to fix but we will find a way if we want to.

Or heck maybe we will find other planets and decide Mars isn't worth the cost. In that case it stays dead but not because we couldn't do it. Because we chose not to.
I feel like your golf course in the desert is a perfect analogy. Those aren't sustainable without a tremendous amount of resources, they're luxury projects for the rich, they're impractical, and they're going on the same time we have real, actual fresh water crises that are being ignored. The US Southwest certainly is going to have "interesting times" in the future as we're depleting aquifers out there, there have already been mild water rationing measures at various times, and we haven't seen the worst of it yet. The Colorado River hasn't emptied into the sea for a long time now and it's still not enough. Sending people to Mars when we still don't have a handle on overpopulation, have a straining ecosystem, and socio-economic systems that leave half the world's population in poverty certainly feels like building a golf course in the desert to me while there's a water shortage back home.

It's not a matter of being short-sighted and against further exploration, it's a matter of having a clue of just how pressing our problems at home are getting before looking to the stars. Most explorers don't set off to go on a great journey while their house is on fire.
 
I can see a lot of folks have been living on another planet for quite some time already. :D
 
Lets send all the stupid people first, Hmm but then we would not need to leave...win win
 
Lets get our asses to Trappist-1...

Here's my idea and it will solve just about all of our current population problems. Euthanize EVERYONE that has an IQ below 140. That will take care of 95% of the population but will still leave enough humans for genetic diversity with the goal to diverse upwards in intelligence. Darwin is just not quick enough for me.

And... Colonizing Mars. If Matt Damon can do it, so can we. ;)
 
Last edited:
Numbers mean very little in modern combat when there is a large technological delta. Hard for a zerg of third world peasants to raft there way to destroying an aircraft carrier fleet or shoot at a dropped MOAB with an AK47 (which they only even have because at some point we stupidly gave it to them).

I think you're confused here. The idea is not to promote overpopulation, starvation, and breeding disease... they are already doing that, and we are contributing by dumping billions and billions every year for the last one hundred years. Why do you think they have all those signs up by park ranges not to feed the wildlife? Because they hate wildlife? Or because they know that feeding certain animals can lead to dependence and population explosions that aren't sustainable without continuous feeding in the future.

Besides, as you say most of the diseases ALREADY come from Africa and we haven't been able to stop its spread of AIDS, ebola, etc. But since my suggestion for non-compliance of getting their population under control is to stop sending massive amounts of food, aid, and money is that it would be self-regulating and also as I said combined with quarantining, and not allowing them to dump their huge surplus populations on the responsible countries that have their growth rates under control.

Every country in the world, since antiquity, has seen cultural, technological, and economic rapid progress with a decreased population growth. You can write that off saying "well uhmm that doesn't uhhh mean that lower population growth CAUSED that and was just a side effect", but its a fact that advancement of a society with higher per capita GDP and more investment per child go hand and hand with lower population growth rates. And China was facing mass starvation before that policy, and today has no problem feeding their people and are experiencing a per capita GDP growth rate, adjusted for inflation, that is nothing but up, and up, and up every year. In the 1960s and 1970s, the average person made $100 a year. In 2017 the average person makes $7.9K a year and climbing. And please stop with your lying. China has NOT stopped its population control laws, they have only relaxed the taxes on the second child since they were having problems with compliance in the first place.

Facts are facts.

The only viable place for billions of people to live in the foreseeable future is Earth. Exponential population growth, as we are seeing, is not sustainable or desirable and negatively impacts quality of life. That means we need to be environmentally conscious, not shit where we eat, and stop promoting many places of the world having so many damn babies that they can't even properly care for. I can't afford seven kids on MY salary, and yet you want to convince me its OK for some African woman making $350 a year to have the time and resources to raise those children responsibly to advance their society? Its nonsense, and you know it.

Nor is it beneficial or desirable for responsible K-selection strategy societies to allow themselves to be overrun by r-selection ones with virtually no parental care and import poverty, crime, and ignorance.

First off don't accuse me of lying when you failed to read the entire statement. I said I believe they no longer had that policy and that belief was based on real world knowledge and the word "believe" implies that while I have some evidence to the fact I am not certain that they do not as my sample size is fairly small. Plus you pointed out they actually dont have the same policy as you yourself stated it has been relaxed... If you cant understand that we cant have a conversation.

I am not trying to convince you of anything except for the fact that you think you cant reduce world population by cutting off US subsidies and becoming an isolationist state. What do you think will happen when we stop helping other nations and start closing our borders? I can tell you this it wont be as simple as you claim. The US is far too dependent on the rest of the world - and the problem is not just Africa. I also did not say most of the diseases came from Africa - stop putting words in my mouth.

I feel like your golf course in the desert is a perfect analogy. Those aren't sustainable without a tremendous amount of resources, they're luxury projects for the rich, they're impractical, and they're going on the same time we have real, actual fresh water crises that are being ignored. The US Southwest certainly is going to have "interesting times" in the future as we're depleting aquifers out there, there have already been mild water rationing measures at various times, and we haven't seen the worst of it yet. The Colorado River hasn't emptied into the sea for a long time now and it's still not enough. Sending people to Mars when we still don't have a handle on overpopulation, have a straining ecosystem, and socio-economic systems that leave half the world's population in poverty certainly feels like building a golf course in the desert to me while there's a water shortage back home.

It's not a matter of being short-sighted and against further exploration, it's a matter of having a clue of just how pressing our problems at home are getting before looking to the stars. Most explorers don't set off to go on a great journey while their house is on fire.

I agree they aren't. My point was that its possible and its something that if we want to do it we can. We can certainly establish a colony on the moon or mars and spend money to sustain it. That is what it will take to get to the point of self sustainment. No colony will be self sufficient from day one without a massive upfront investment. Requiring that is basically eliminating the possibility of a colony entirely.

There is always some pressure that spurs the exploration. For some its overpopulation in their home and a desire for new lands. For others (like Columbus) its a economic opportunity. The fact that our house is not "in order" to your liking is not a reason to not go. In fact, to me, its even more of a reason TO go. We are not a united planet, we may not be able to fix "our house" our only choice as a nation if we desire to continue to exist may be to leave at some point. I am not saying that's likely just that its a possibility. I would like for us, as a nation, to have made an investment NOW in our future while we continue to work on fixing the house up with the other tenants.

These types of investments have a proven history of paying off. It might not be for a very long time but we have to start somewhere. I am saying that somewhere is now while we still can before things get so bad that we cant even think of anything but the house being on fire.
 
I agree they aren't. My point was that its possible and its something that if we want to do it we can. We can certainly establish a colony on the moon or mars and spend money to sustain it. That is what it will take to get to the point of self sustainment. No colony will be self sufficient from day one without a massive upfront investment. Requiring that is basically eliminating the possibility of a colony entirely.

There is always some pressure that spurs the exploration. For some its overpopulation in their home and a desire for new lands. For others (like Columbus) its a economic opportunity. The fact that our house is not "in order" to your liking is not a reason to not go. In fact, to me, its even more of a reason TO go. We are not a united planet, we may not be able to fix "our house" our only choice as a nation if we desire to continue to exist may be to leave at some point. I am not saying that's likely just that its a possibility. I would like for us, as a nation, to have made an investment NOW in our future while we continue to work on fixing the house up with the other tenants.

These types of investments have a proven history of paying off. It might not be for a very long time but we have to start somewhere. I am saying that somewhere is now while we still can before things get so bad that we cant even think of anything but the house being on fire.
Again, I follow your reasoning, but I think this is a simplistic comparison. Pioneers in the past could either live off the land or had the possibility of returning home. That makes an ENORMOUS difference and makes the comparison between past explorers v. space almost nonsensical. The way I see it, there are only two possible options as far as space exploration as I see it: Mars or an generational ship.

With Mars, it's your perfect golf course in the desert analogy. Sure, we might be able to establish something there, but it wouldn't even come close to resembling something self-sufficient. Not now, not in 100 years. The most it could hope for is a few months buffer IF nothing goes wrong. It would be on a direct lifeline to Earth. If anything interrupts that, everyone dies. Here, if a government collapses, a company shuts down, we have war, there's a period of hardship, but then we recover, because we have things like air, and water. On Mars, if that happens on Earth OR Mars, everyone dies. It's not a protective measure against some disaster on Earth, it's simply one more dependency. If those golf courses in the desert stop getting water for whatever reason, that's it, they're done. So a Mars colony a non-sustainable luxury that would require a lot of resources that we're not even using properly NOW. Maybe in a few hundred years it could make more sense, but it's like sending someone to live the rest of their life in Anarctica, except more extreme. There's no value in it aside from saying we did it.

With a generation ship, this is something we likely should do eventually, but this would be one of the greatest undertakings of humanity and humanity is currently in no shape for global cooperation for the betterment of everyone. It would require a massive amount of resources that most oh humanity is NOT onboard with, especially while we have so much overpopulation and poverty. We can't even be convinced to stop killing our oceans. It's like asking people in the Dark Ages to build a spaceship. We're simply not ready at this point in time and have a long ways to go yet if we don't nuke ourselves first.

Finally, technology is only going to get better. The longer any sort of project like this is postponed, the better options we have to make it less of a potential suicide. Your whole attitude on this strikes me as very pie in the sky, not really considering how many enormous barriers there are to leaving earth. Giving a problem this serious a college try just gets everyone killed.

EDIT:

TLDR: I think your arguments are more heart than brain.
 
Last edited:
If we get by WWIII in oh, the next five years or so, I'd say have at it. OTOH, THEM may inherit what's left of the Earth

 
Last edited:
I am not trying to convince you of anything except for the fact that you think you cant reduce world population by cutting off US subsidies and becoming an isolationist state.
How do you define an "isolationist state"? Japan and China trade with the entire world, right? Do you consider them "isolationists" because of their strict immigration laws and enforcement? I don't, nor would I consider the US not accepting immigrants from countries that refuse to control their overpopulation zerg rushes on Western civilization.
What do you think will happen when we stop helping other nations and start closing our borders?
Why are you asking questions I answered already? I think that either:
A) These nations will realize it is in their best interest to start having protected sex and stop having seven kids.
or
B) When you artificially feed any rapidly breeding animal population, their number skyrocket out of control, to the detriment of their environment and the health and prosperity of their own population. Agreed? Why are humans, just another mammal, any different? Stop dumping billions and billions of dollars on these problem areas, and the problem will rectify itself, through natural mechanisms of non-interference and by promoting option A again as their areas become more and more overpopulated without being able to dump the problem on others via emigration.
There is always some pressure that spurs the exploration.
You talk about putting words in people's mouths... I am a staunch advocate for increasing our exploration budget... WITH UNMANNED SPACE EXPLORATION.

There is a huge difference between a nonsensical impractical goal of setting up colonies on Mars, which is a pipe dream and baby steps tells you we need to figure out how to make biodomes on Earth first, then maybe the moon, before even HOPING to invest in the resources to ship all of that to Mars, and the very reasonable and fruitful plans of sending more and better probes all over the universe, and to start an off-planet orbital mining operation such as on the moon.

You are NOT going to solve overpopulation crisis by sending them to another planet, especially when we're set to hit a population of 10 billion by 2050.

The Earth is a finite resources, so treat it as such. This is common sense. Protect the environment, reduce the population size, increase standard of living, explore space with "drones", and setup long term orbital and moon based operations before worrying about Mars. This is reality, not a sci-fi movie, and our resources are finite so we have to put them to best use to get maximum bang for buck, because every dollar we waste on nonsense is a dollar we can't put towards something useful.
 
Again, I follow your reasoning, but I think this is a simplistic comparison. Pioneers in the past could either live off the land or had the possibility of returning home. That makes an ENORMOUS difference and makes the comparison between past explorers v. space almost nonsensical. The way I see it, there are only two possible options as far as space exploration as I see it: Mars or an generational ship.

With Mars, it's your perfect golf course in the desert analogy. Sure, we might be able to establish something there, but it wouldn't even come close to resembling something self-sufficient. Not now, not in 100 years. The most it could hope for is a few months buffer IF nothing goes wrong. It would be on a direct lifeline to Earth. If anything interrupts that, everyone dies. Here, if a government collapses, a company shuts down, we have war, there's a period of hardship, but then we recover, because we have things like air, and water. On Mars, if that happens on Earth OR Mars, everyone dies. It's not a protective measure against some disaster on Earth, it's simply one more dependency. If those golf courses in the desert stop getting water for whatever reason, that's it, they're done. So a Mars colony a non-sustainable luxury that would require a lot of resources that we're not even using properly NOW. Maybe in a few hundred years it could make more sense, but it's like sending someone to live the rest of their life in Anarctica, except more extreme. There's no value in it aside from saying we did it.

With a generation ship, this is something we likely should do eventually, but this would be one of the greatest undertakings of humanity and humanity is currently in no shape for global cooperation for the betterment of everyone. It would require a massive amount of resources that most oh humanity is NOT onboard with, especially while we have so much overpopulation and poverty. We can't even be convinced to stop killing our oceans. It's like asking people in the Dark Ages to build a spaceship. We're simply not ready at this point in time and have a long ways to go yet if we don't nuke ourselves first.

Finally, technology is only going to get better. The longer any sort of project like this is postponed, the better options we have to make it less of a potential suicide. Your whole attitude on this strikes me as very pie in the sky, not really considering how many enormous barriers there are to leaving earth. Giving a problem this serious a college try just gets everyone killed.

EDIT:

TLDR: I think your arguments are more heart than brain.

TLDR: We should probably agree to disagree on this. Though I will point out that yes I am very passionate about this but it is not all heart and no brain. These are achievable things with sufficient effort (and yes it will be a *huge* effort). I do agree the most people do not want to expand that effort. Just like most wouldn't want Columbus to have expended the effort to travel to the Americas but we are probably both very glad he did. Hard things take a lot of time and effort and I think this is one that is deserving of a long term (100yr) investment.

Details:

We arent talking about doing it this year. Not even within the decade. Were talking about within 100 years reaching that end goal (per the article). There are many incremental steps along the way. I want to start now precisely because there are a lot of challenges just to getting things set up. It requires a lot of time to work these things out...and yes money. Remember we had none of the technology necessary to go to the moon and we were able to do that to the great benefit of humanity within a decade. Note I am not saying estabilishing a colony is "easy" it is in fact an order of magnitude harder than just a round trip. But our timeline is adjusted appropriately imo.

We dont know if we can grow crops on mars. Lets find out. We dont know if theres water there. Lets find out. Lets start answering the questions with the goal of a colony within 100 years. Even if its just a colony that needs regularly scheduled shipments and we need another 50 years to make it self sufficient. Its something. For the potential suicide part...why not let those of us who want to go worry about that. I know exactly how many barriers are in the way (food, radiation, lifting to orbit, breathing, medicine, etc etc) and I am saying its still worth the risk. I would volunteer to go without reservation.

Additionally as I said I view this as a good long term investment. One that will help fix problems along the way. This can help drive the improvements in technology.
 
Humans do need to colonize multiple planets to prevent a catastrophe from wiping our species out.

Additionally our sun is about half way through its lifecycle so we need to leave our solar system, granted in a significantly longer timeframe, ~5 billion years.
 
Back
Top