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

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Sounds like a pretty tall order, don’t you think? World renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has warned us that we need to get our asses to Mars or some other planet, as the one we’re on now is set to fail in the very near future. Potential disasters include climate change, overpopulation, possible asteroid strikes, and the rise of unpredictable technology like artificial intelligence.

Humans will need to colonize another planet within one hundred years to ensure our survival, according to Professor Stephen Hawking. The astrophysicist has made a new documentary, Expedition New Earth, as part of the BBC’s new science season Tomorrow’s World. In it he will claim that time is running out for Earth and if humanity is to survive climate change, asteroid strikes, epidemics and overpopulation we will need to leave our planet and venture further afield. In the landmark series, Prof Hawking and his former student Christophe Galfard will travel the world to find out how humans could live in outer space.
 
Some redundancy would be nice for our species. Yea one asteroid and our species is done. Unless aliens dig up our fossils and make a jurassic park out of us
 
how does one survive climate change? Move inland if rising waters in 50-100 years, move south if glaciation occurs.
Not too hard. There's lots of time.
We do need redundancy. We also need pioneers who want to make breakthroughs in recycling and self-sufficiency.
 
So we move from a planet that whilst not in tip top shape is a lot more hospitable than Mars...that is a DEAD planet.

Mars is dead and always will be. Now if they can work out how to remelt and get its core spinning again there might be a chance in a trillion.

Mars is not our future. Earth is our future and always will be.
 
I guess the "scientists" have finally figured out that when they predict stuff for the very near future and it fails to happen they will be called out on it.

If they predict stuff that will not happen until after they are long gone it doesn't matter one bit and yet it still gives them publicity.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
how does one survive climate change? Move inland if rising waters in 50-100 years, move south if glaciation occurs.
Not too hard. There's lots of time.
We do need redundancy. We also need pioneers who want to make breakthroughs in recycling and self-sufficiency.
Click to expand...

Cities aren't that easy to move and we have a lot of coastal cities. Abandoning them and building new should destroy a lot of economies.
 
otherweeb said:
Cities aren't that easy to move and we have a lot of coastal cities. Abandoning them and building new should destroy a lot of economies.
Click to expand...
Or create a whole lot of jobs in construction. It's inevitable to move people over the course of several years. Doing what they're doing in new orleans and engineering a city while below sea level is stupid.
 
daglesj said:
So we move from a planet that whilst not in tip top shape is a lot more hospitable than Mars...that is a DEAD planet.

Mars is dead and always will be. Now if they can work out how to remelt and get its core spinning again there might be a chance in a trillion.

Mars is not our future. Earth is our future and always will be.
Click to expand...

Then our future is extinction.

Its not just one thing, it many things that can cause us to go extinct. Global warming (really, it is real and not a myth), asteroid, solar storm, nuclear war, the unforseen. Biodiversity on this planet is already reaching critically low levels, ocean stocks are at desperate levels.

Yes, we might survive these shit storms, but as long as we are bound to one planet, we are doomed to extinction.
 
daglesj said:
So we move from a planet that whilst not in tip top shape is a lot more hospitable than Mars...that is a DEAD planet.
Mars is dead and always will be.
Click to expand...

Mars may be dead, but it's the 2nd best planet in the solar system. My take a few 100 years, but it's possible to change Mars more hospitable.
Read the Red/Green/Blue Mars books.

Megalith said:
Humans will need to colonize another planet within one hundred years to ensure our survival, according to Professor Stephen Hawking ... he will claim that time is running out for Earth and if humanity is to survive climate change, asteroid strikes, epidemics and overpopulation we will need to leave our planet and venture further afield.
Click to expand...

Asteroids, yes as a large one could wipe out most life on the planet.
The rest are mainly political problems or nonsense.
Climate always has, and always will change. Epidemics happen (but some will always survive), and people are a valuable resource, not a burden (unless you have too much socialism)
 
While I agree we need to become an interstellar species, I disagree with the whole "terraforming" idea. If we can terraform another planet, why can't we fix our own? Ours is far from a lost cause right now. We just need to take it seriously, quit pandering to deniers and quit voting in dipshits who don't give a damn about the longevity of our species.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
While I agree we need to become an interstellar species, I disagree with the whole "terraforming" idea. If we can terraform another planet, why can't we fix our own? Ours is far from a lost cause right now. We just need to take it seriously, quit pandering to deniers and quit voting in dipshits who don't give a damn about the longevity of our species.
Click to expand...
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.
 
daglesj said:
So we move from a planet that whilst not in tip top shape is a lot more hospitable than Mars...that is a DEAD planet.

Mars is dead and always will be. Now if they can work out how to remelt and get its core spinning again there might be a chance in a trillion.

Mars is not our future. Earth is our future and always will be.
Click to expand...
Earth won't always be our home if we want to survive, the sun will give out eventually, but that leaves us 5 billion years to figure out something else. In other words, we really need to focus on solving our problems at home first. Mars is NOT our future barring some miracle technology. The gravity is too low to hold a breathable atmosphere, terraforming it for humans is still fantasy.


Aireoth said:
Then our future is extinction.

Its not just one thing, it many things that can cause us to go extinct. Global warming (really, it is real and not a myth), asteroid, solar storm, nuclear war, the unforseen. Biodiversity on this planet is already reaching critically low levels, ocean stocks are at desperate levels.

Yes, we might survive these shit storms, but as long as we are bound to one planet, we are doomed to extinction.
Click to expand...
Well out of your list:

Global warming - will definitely devastate us, but I don't think it's necessarily an extinction level event. By all means point me to information indicating otherwise
asteroid - not an issue as long as we take space monitoring seriously. This is a preventable disaster, but it DOES require us to invest more resources into it
solar storm - could knock out all electronics on earth, so it would be a disaster but we should be able to survive as a species
nuclear war - really fucking bad, could kill all of us. We need to change what values we prioritize in society in order to prevent this one
low bio diversity - a serious risk, probably not extinction level though. Another case of us really needing to change what values we prioritize

It makes far more sense to me to solve our biggest problems BEFORE trying to spread to other areas so we don't run into the same old bullshit somewhere else, except with more extreme consequences.
 
daglesj said:
Mars is not our future. Earth is our future and always will be.
Click to expand...

Except that we can't live on Earth forever.

Without making this at all political, historically speaking, the Earth has undergone multiple massive changes in it's climate that, if anything similar happens again, will kill us off. Our species has long living generations and we cannot adapt quick enough to even small wide scale changes in the environment. As George Carlin puts it: the planet is fine, we are fucked.
 
Send half of Earth's population to Venus, problem solved.

daglesj said:
So we move from a planet that whilst not in tip top shape is a lot more hospitable than Mars...that is a DEAD planet.

Mars is dead and always will be. Now if they can work out how to remelt and get its core spinning again there might be a chance in a trillion.

Mars is not our future. Earth is our future and always will be.
Click to expand...

That is a very sad opinion. Mars is *currently* dead, but they've proven that Cyanobacteria could live on the planet.

It really is a damn shame that Venus doesn't spin at a 'normal' speed and wasn't formed a bit further out....
 
Last edited:
daglesj said:
So we move from a planet that whilst not in tip top shape is a lot more hospitable than Mars...that is a DEAD planet.

Mars is dead and always will be. Now if they can work out how to remelt and get its core spinning again there might be a chance in a trillion.

Mars is not our future. Earth is our future and always will be.
Click to expand...


We need to bombard Mars with a few comets. That might introduce enough material for an atmosphere. The low gravity is a problem thou....
 
Hmm, not sure I want to live in an asteroid mining colony ala The Expanse. Ah who am I kidding, sign me up. But Mars doesn't seem like a great idea unless we're going to build giant domes or something.
 
tetris42 said:
Well out of your list:

Global warming - will definitely devastate us, but I don't think it's necessarily an extinction level event. By all means point me to information indicating otherwise
asteroid - not an issue as long as we take space monitoring seriously. This is a preventable disaster, but it DOES require us to invest more resources into it
solar storm - could knock out all electronics on earth, so it would be a disaster but we should be able to survive as a species
nuclear war - really fucking bad, could kill all of us. We need to change what values we prioritize in society in order to prevent this one
low bio diversity - a serious risk, probably not extinction level though. Another case of us really needing to change what values we prioritize

It makes far more sense to me to solve our biggest problems BEFORE trying to spread to other areas so we don't run into the same old bullshit somewhere else, except with more extreme consequences.
Click to expand...

I agree that we need to also work to make earth survive, but we need to tackle the hard tasks, be bolder than our ancestors, Mars is part of that, it could be terraforming (I don't believe in the impossible, just the difficult), habitats, or more likely some combination there in. Also several of the Jovian moons have promise.

I'll compile some information for you.

Edit: A few thoughts while I do that, any events that devastate us make it all the more likely we will go extinct, other than an asteroid it is unlikely one thing will kill us (I do not think anyone is crazy enough to start nuclear war at this time). As an example, global warming kicks off a massive die off of species, already stretched thin by over consumption, leaving massive famines across the world, as people get desperate, war starts (always, 100% of the time) and this time it may very well be nuclear as people and nations will be desperate.

The point is, we won't really know unless we try and we have to try, accepting that there will be both success and failure, but at the very least we tried.
 
Last edited:
Kepler-186f is only around 500 light years from our beloved Sol, so it's just a hop, skip, and a jump away...We can get there lickety-split.
 
Aireoth said:
I agree that we need to also work to make earth survive, but we need to tackle the hard tasks, be bolder than our ancestors, Mars is part of that, it could be terraforming (I don't believe in the impossible, just the difficult), habitats, or more likely some combination there in. Also several of the Jovian moons have promise.

I'll compile some information for you.

Edit: A few thoughts while I do that, any events that devastate us make it all the more likely we will go extinct, other than an asteroid it is unlikely one thing will kill us (I do not think anyone is crazy enough to start nuclear war at this time). As an example, global warming kicks off a massive die off of species, already stretched thin by over consumption, leaving massive famines across the world, as people get desperate, war starts (always, 100% of the time) and this time it may very well be nuclear as people and nations will be desperate.

The point is, we won't really know unless we try and we have to try, accepting that there will be both success and failure, but at the very least we tried.
Click to expand...
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."
 
I want to leave earth today, yesterday in fact. Jk.

Always, well, used to piss me of knowing i will never be able too. However, i have given it enough thought in my life to realize the novelty of it would wear off real quick.

Sit in a box for 24 hours. see how exciting it is. Let alone days, weeks, years. Or, plop yourself in the middle of a desert, or anartica, or whatever, see how fun that is. Well, i guess there are some that do find that kind of thing fun.

But the romanticism of Star Trek or the like aside it would be, uncomfortable at best and likely boring as hell staring out a black window for however long on a one way trip. Build a holodeck first, then we'll talk. "
 
Shadohh said:
We need to bombard Mars with a few comets. That might introduce enough material for an atmosphere. The low gravity is a problem thou....
Click to expand...
Why is low gravity a problem? Hell, pluto can be terraformed to hold an atmosphere that's breathable.
Mars has enough gravity to hold a atmosphere. The problem is that with it not having a atmosphere to speak of, and most importantly no magnetosphere most gases will probably be lost via solar winds. In order to counter that, you just need to produce more gases at a higher rate than is lost naturally.
If we knew more about the core of mars and how to affect it, restarting it's core would fix the magnetosphere issue and make it a lot more suitable for habitation.
 
I have been saying this for years. And I have also said I would be wiling to be the first to go.

Since NASA isnt likely to send me I will be doing it myself. Dont care if I need to build the friggen rocket myself. I just have to come up with the money...
 
Could make both Stephen and Donald happy by shooting illegal-aliens into space.

Joking aside, this is stupid. To date we STILL have not made a sealed habitat that is 100% self-sufficient long term with all the resources of Earth at our disposal, so how the hell do they plan to make that happen on Mars? If you can't make it happen in Nevada, you won't be able to make it happen on another planet, get real.

And teraforming planets doesn't take hundreds of years, but hundreds of thousands. Its also hugely irresponsible considering that we might be introducing hostile alien species that could hurt the native alien life that we may not realize is perhaps 100 feet underground. Look what happened when we brought frogs and rats and rabbits and shit to Australia...

Just stop subsidizing women to poop out so many children, and work on slowing the breeding rate in Africa, the middle-east, India, and some parts of Latin America. The world can easily support a high quality of life for people with a population of about 2 billion, which we can achieve in a few hundreds years if people just restrict themselves to having one child... and that one child can have FAR more invested in them to advance civilization.
 
Ducman69 said:
Could make both Stephen and Donald happy by shooting illegal-aliens into space.

Joking aside, this is stupid. To date we STILL have not made a sealed habitat that is 100% self-sufficient long term with all the resources of Earth at our disposal, so how the hell do they plan to make that happen on Mars? If you can't make it happen in Nevada, you won't be able to make it happen on another planet, get real.

And teraforming planets doesn't take hundreds of years, but hundreds of thousands. Its also hugely irresponsible considering that we might be introducing hostile alien species that could hurt the native alien life that we may not realize is perhaps 100 feet underground. Look what happened when we brought frogs and rats and rabbits and shit to Australia...

Just stop subsidizing women to poop out so many children, and work on slowing the breeding rate in Africa, the middle-east, India, and some parts of Latin America. The world can easily support a high quality of life for people with a population of about 2 billion, which we can achieve in a few hundreds years if people just restrict themselves to having one child... and that one child can have FAR more invested in them to advance civilization.
Click to expand...

it's not like a one child policy has ever went wrong before... And 2bill is WAY less then the earth can comfortably support.
 
Ducman69 said:
Could make both Stephen and Donald happy by shooting illegal-aliens into space.

Joking aside, this is stupid. To date we STILL have not made a sealed habitat that is 100% self-sufficient long term with all the resources of Earth at our disposal, so how the hell do they plan to make that happen on Mars? If you can't make it happen in Nevada, you won't be able to make it happen on another planet, get real.

And teraforming planets doesn't take hundreds of years, but hundreds of thousands. Its also hugely irresponsible considering that we might be introducing hostile alien species that could hurt the native alien life that we may not realize is perhaps 100 feet underground. Look what happened when we brought frogs and rats and rabbits and shit to Australia...

Just stop subsidizing women to poop out so many children, and work on slowing the breeding rate in Africa, the middle-east, India, and some parts of Latin America. The world can easily support a high quality of life for people with a population of about 2 billion, which we can achieve in a few hundreds years if people just restrict themselves to having one child... and that one child can have FAR more invested in them to advance civilization.
Click to expand...

Remind me again how we are supposed to force this on other sovereign nations?
 
I'm a realist but even I don't think the earth will be worse to live on than mars within 100 years.

Regardless multiple footholds would be a good thing. I just don't see it as a good idea until at least the planet is united.
 
cdabc123 said:
it's not like a one child policy has ever went wrong before... And 2bill is WAY less then the earth can comfortably support.
Click to expand...
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.
kju1 said:
Remind me again how we are supposed to force this on other sovereign nations?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Honestly who cares if we go extinct? We and all our children's children will be dead. We really are a shitty species that honestly doesn't deserve to exist. We do nothing but destroy everything for our own greed. I know I'm very pessimistic about the human race but truly in the end our existence doesn't matter.
 
cdabc123 said:
it's not like a one child policy has ever went wrong before... And 2bill is WAY less then the earth can comfortably support.
Click to expand...
Too many Americans, but at European levels of pollution and recycling (which is possible), that standard of living can support 2 billion per various studies. A bit moot though, since we are set to hit 10 billion soon.
 
Sonicks said:
Except that we can't live on Earth forever.

Without making this at all political, historically speaking, the Earth has undergone multiple massive changes in it's climate that, if anything similar happens again, will kill us off. Our species has long living generations and we cannot adapt quick enough to even small wide scale changes in the environment. As George Carlin puts it: the planet is fine, we are fucked.
Click to expand...
The climate changes on Earth are nothing compared to the climate on alien planets... cmon now.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Why is low gravity a problem? Hell, pluto can be terraformed to hold an atmosphere that's breathable.
Mars has enough gravity to hold a atmosphere. The problem is that with it not having a atmosphere to speak of, and most importantly no magnetosphere most gases will probably be lost via solar winds. In order to counter that, you just need to produce more gases at a higher rate than is lost naturally.
If we knew more about the core of mars and how to affect it, restarting it's core would fix the magnetosphere issue and make it a lot more suitable for habitation.
Click to expand...

Just to add depth I've heard the atmosphere loss take thousands of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top