‘Colonize planets to save the human race’ – Professor Stephen Hawking

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
How? Rocket propulsion is a severely limited means for getting to other planets, if it wasn't wed be there already!

We have yet to build most rocket designs capable of faster travel.

originally posted by: NthOther
We really haven't learned our lessons, have we? Instead of trying to live in harmony and balance with our planet, we continue to consume and consume and consume. When faced with the reality that we can't sustain ourselves this way, the answer is... to consume more! Find another planet to pillage in the pursuit of vanity!

Let's pray there's no one living where you people want to colonize, because if they're less technologically advanced than us (or just simply pacifists), they're f#d. Let's not have any delusions about the state of humanity's moral development. Let's not have any Trails of Tears on other planets.

The difference here is that 1) Most planets will be uninhabited. 2) Our Earth has finite resources and an expanding population.

Even with 100 percent efficiency, draconian birth control measure which would make China look like the bastion of freedom, and perfect distribution of all resources, our population would likely exceed our Earth's ability to support it within the next 150-250 years

So you are faced with two choices: Expand outward, or turn inward and have a holocaust which "resets the clock".

Which do you prefer?

originally posted by: 2012newstart
a reply to: Kandinsky

Yes Hawking talked about that before.

However, now there are several warnings of him in few months. CERN godparticle possibility to create unstable particles, AI danger of human civilization, and finally what is being discussed in this thread. Bil Gates and other scientists joined chorus about AI.

Hawking warned of hypothetical evil aliens in Discovery serials not that long ago.

I think he and the others are not doing all that by chance or coincidence.

Stephen Hawking likes to see his name in print, so he speaks on a number of subjects he is not necessarily an expert in. And because he happened to be a very good theoretical physicist the world listens, but probably shouldn't.

If he talks about physics you should listen. Anything else and his thoughts are no better informed than anyone elses and in some cases they're actually less informed than the experts in the field he comments on. Case in point his whole statement warning us not to send signals into space for fear of who or what might be out there.

He was unaware that 1) Our planet has been broadcasting the fact that life is here in a very detectable way for 2.5 billion years and 2) Our military and planetary radars have been broadcasting signals detectable many, many light years away for the last 60 years.

We're still here.

Independence Day is great sci fi but probably unlikely given what we know about the prevalence of Earthlike planets in our galaxy.

a reply to: 2012newstart

Genius that he is, he's still a human.

His warnings about CERN destabilising the universe were satirical - he was joking.

His fears about AI are as credible as yours or mine if we accept the fact that prophets have a patchy success rate. None of us can predict what the future of technology will bring without generalising. Yeah, we can infer from current trends that we'll all carry increasingly intelligent phone technology and that our every move and posted thought will be stored in various databases.

It's all speculation after that point.

'Evil aliens' seems to be a Rorschach interpretation or 'god in the gaps' thinking. We can't quantify, categorise or moralise about speculative life-forms (AI or otherwise) we haven't met.

a reply to: JadeStar

Why do you think we need breed modified humans for colonization of the solar system?

To over come the hazards of course - Radiation/low pressure /low gravity/lack of oxegen/food/prolonged isolation and associated psychological issues.

But at such a relative close proximity as our own system un-adapted but filtered humans may stand a chance.

I have no idea of how feasible the gene crossing possibilities are, just strikes me as they way to go currently.
Maybe everything is possible to mutate but sterile. If not it will come down to what is acceptable in terms of propagating hybrids. Humans having a cockroach carapace and an interest in Wittgenstein might work..specially if they retain our interest and curiosity in exploration..and if not and our hybrid scouts decide to go awol we have accomplished our particular purpose any ways just as the next generation picks up the baton from the previous.

I for one would cheer.

a reply to: JadeStar

We have yet to build most rocket designs capable of faster travel.

if it was practically possible it would of been done by now. Rocket technology is like combustion engine technology it hit its peak years ago and every thing there after was minor gains.

originally posted by: Borisbanger
a reply to: JadeStar

Why do you think we need breed modified humans for colonization of the solar system?

To over come the hazards of course - Radiation/low pressure

We know how to build spacecraft shielded against radiation and of course such spacecraft would be pressurized to Earth nominal levels.

low gravity/lack of oxygen/food

I suggest you read Gerard O'Neil

This stuff was figured out back in the 1960s-1970s.

If you want to simulate gravity all you have to do is build your vehicle big enough that you can rotate it. Oxygen can be created from water (and there is plenty of of water in ice form in space), and food can be grown on board the ship. They've grown plants on the ISS.

prolonged isolation and associated psychological issues.

That's a crew selection issue. There are plenty of people who work well and are balanced in isolation. In fact there are some people who actually work better and are happier in isolation.

There are plenty of examples on Earth in places like Antarctica, the submarine forces, etc.

All of these things are much easier done that genetically engineering some sort of new human species which would be immune to radiation, not need oxygen or food (a ridiculous idea to be honest) and whose body is able to both live in zero-g and adapt to various gravity on planetary surfaces...


It sounds more like what you want are advanced robots, not humans.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: JadeStar

We have yet to build most rocket designs capable of faster travel.

if it was practically possible it would of been done by now.

It's been practically possible to have bases on the Moon, Mars and in the asteroid belt since the 1970s. It hasn't been done because there's not been a push to do it. No bucks, no buck rogers.

Rocket technology is like combustion engine technology it hit its peak years ago and every thing there after was minor gains.

Do you know what VASMIR is? How about a fusion pulse engine?

There are other types of rockets than chemical rockets you know...

Check out some of the research NASA's Advanced Propulsion labs have done.

All it takes is money.

a reply to: JadeStar

It's been practically possible to have bases on the Moon, Mars and in the asteroid belt since the 1970s. It hasn't been done because there's not been a push to do it. No bucks, no buck rogers.

Its not practice to do if there is no economic solution to support it. I see no evidence that rocket technology is going to get humans to colonise other planets.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: JadeStar

It's been practically possible to have bases on the Moon, Mars and in the asteroid belt since the 1970s. It hasn't been done because there's not been a push to do it. No bucks, no buck rogers.

Its not practice to do if there is no economic solution to support it. I see no evidence that rocket technology is going to get humans to colonise other planets.

You're confusing economics with national and international will and priorities.

You see no evidence because you refuse to not because it doesn't exist. There have been plenty of technologies developed since the 1960s which would help us colonize the solar system.

Google "Aldrin Cycler" for example.

The fact that we haven't done it is not due to some technological hurdle, it's just an issue of priorities. We have all the money in the world to spend fighting each other. Less than a 20% of that spent on space and we'd already have a permanent human presence on the moon, Mars and beyond.

If there were a compelling reason to settle the moon, Mars, etc then we'd start doing so tomorrow.

We'll still do it of course but humanity tends to take bold steps forward when faced with a crisis or with an astounding breakthrough, or discovery of a new valuable resource.

All of which could happen...

a reply to: TrueMessiah It started LONG before that. We lost the first go round when we tried to make a deal in 1954. It backfired, and the Treaty is an open invitation to manipulate humans however "THEY" please. In a nutshell, we FXed up!

a reply to: JadeStar We already have technology to take us to other planets, and, as a matter of fact, we have already started colonizing the dark side of the moon. Started a long time ago. Unfortunately, you don't get to enjoy the sunshine and oceans like we do here, but, it's a life when this planet is used up. Sad but true.

a reply to: JadeStar

If there were a compelling reason to settle the moon, Mars, etc then we'd start doing so tomorrow.

Im far from convinced. The issue with rockets is the fuel, they run out so unless you can manufacture more fuel in transit your not going to get far. There is also the issue with cosmic radiation and 0 G, people cant live that long out there without crumbling in health. Rockets are essentially an extension of gun powered rockets, its old technology compared to any other race which has developed a real means of moving from x to y.

a reply to: 2012newstart

Hey 2012newstart...I thought the OP was supposed to make a comment, ask questions, offer a viewpoint when making a new thread. I see I may have to revert to Hawkings caveman days and attack you with my keyboard. Ok just joking.

I vaguely remember a thread saying the human race may face exctinction within 500 years due to declining birth rates.
As to Hawking idea that it provides life insurance for an intelligent person he certainly doesnt know what insurance means...

en.wikipedia.org...

Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.

He should have stated for the perpetuation of the species

I think the timeline of 500 years before extinction may be optimistic. Without needing the idea of any future nuclear conflict, the big elephant in the room is Fukushima that is continuing to make the planet sterile. Since 2011 there is no clear plan for dealing with it, all quitely being swept under the carpet. What of the unforeseen genetic mutations through the spill, the cleanup, its in our air in our soil in the water in our food.

The idea of colonization of other worlds is a noble pursuit anyway. First they would have to perfect cryogenics if possible. Or ensure that what becomes the first interplanetary explorer is a machine/human hybrid to ensure continuity of the long voyage. That is unless they succeed in "wormhole?" travel if possible at all.

The cynical side of me after reading about bunkers for the elite would ask, hasn't Hawking secured a place for him and his family in one of these bunkers? Maybe theoretical science doesn't pay well.

2012newstart:

Stephen Hawking says humankind should colonize other planets to ensure the future of the species...

You don't have to be Stephen Hawking to cognise this, it is a statement of the bleeding obvious. I wrote a small science essay back in school during the early seventies, I'd be around 11 years old then, and I and three others (in their own separate essays) all stated the same thing, that our species would have to leave planet Earth in order to continue its existence. At the time I used the death throes of our own star, the sun as the reason why, that was after assuming we didn't drive ourselves into extinction by our own hand? In the essay, I stated we still had a long time to be able to do this, billions of years, but the fact is we don't have billions of years, we don't even have a million years, we have a far shorter time for some of us to leave the planet than we imagine. I would say no more than a century or two. Along with natural dangers, we can factor in growing man-made dangers, and the reduction in resources, and population growth.

If we can see all the imperilments we are facing right now, and if we care about our species' continued existence, then it is probable we should be making plans today. Here's another issue...some races of mankind will not survive. many cultures will die out, because those differences cannot be taken into space with the hope of colonising some other planet elsewhere in the universe.

Personally, I don't see mankind summoning the will to do it, we are not sufficiently mature enough, or technologically proficient enough. The obstacles that are needed to be overcome are pretty formidable. Take a look around the world and at the most developed nations and you see a future of utter societal chaos, or one that is utterly controlled in very draconian ways, limiting freedoms and liberties out of perceived necessities. The various races of our species want the same thing, but differently, flavoured by their own culture, and sadly, such indulgences cannot be allowed. We either sing from the same song sheet, or drown in a cacophony of differences and argument and race self-preservation. Individuality will have to be made subordinate to species triumph. Ninety-nine point nine percent of our species will ultimately die on or with the planet...again, assuming we don't make ourselves extinct before we can send a small group of our species off into space in a number of craft capable of interstellar travel.

We can decide the issue now and plan for it. Go into space, or die with the planet eventually.

originally posted by: Foderalover
and why exactly would we want to ensure the existence of the human race? us violent destructive and insane humans.

Yes, yes, we're all nasty and bad and don't deserve to exist. Not this old saw again.

I'm not saying human beings don't deserve to exist because we're "destructive and insane." As it turns out, in spite of our animal natures and limitations, we've done some good work. I think a population of over 7 billion and growing indicates we're more interested in loving than fighting. And if there are aliens out there, just to survive they're likely to be more calculatingly brutal than we could ever hope to be.

However, in the grand scheme of nature, with all kinds of species constantly rising up and then disappearing, what makes us so special? It's not that we're vicious and insane that qualifies us for extinction. It's that we're actually mundane and ordinary.

Blue Shift:

I think a population of over 7 billion and growing indicates we're more interested in loving than fighting.

Your statement sounds quite clever, but it is wrong. The seven billion population figure isn't about loving, it is about sex, or if you want, loving the act of sex. I doubt 'love' itself, comes into the equation of most sex acts, it's just animalistic passion that we have made a plaything of.

...if there are aliens out there, just to survive they're likely to be more calculatingly brutal than we could ever hope to be.

Perhaps? Their actions might be perceived so? A race of intelligent beings flying around the universe in hope of colonising planets will most certainly be functioning at their highest level of utility and necessity. No sentiment will cloud their judgement, they will do whatever they have to do to fulfil their agenda...as we will have to.

If it becomes infeasible or unworkable for us to send a smattering of our species out into space, then the only other option is a mass cull of our species.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

you and others did that already instead of me I don't want to write walls of words that no one reads. Project Avalon has such walls and quite good btw (I am not there).

a reply to: elysiumfire

you know I know much of the Sci-fi literature of 20th century. There are remarkable pieces, much higher as ideas, scenarios, wording, than the hollywood mega productions of star wars. Apparently those sci-fi authors were enlightened more than the average man. Not only Americans or West Europeans but also Russians and American-Russian immigrants (Isaac Asimov). The Strugatsky brothers develop the story of Avatar so close to the movie, even some names matched.

There is no logical explanation of that knowledge to be existing on earth, in the "technological" 20th century that made it hard thru primitive semiconductors, a tech revolution at that time.

Every ET scenario discussed in forums (good vs evil aliens, invasion vs salvation, what shall w e do over there if we are so evil) has already been discussed in length and detail. If there is ET reality soon to be encountered by humans, it would be much closer to the scifi best literature than to any horror movie or insider speaking on youtube.

BTW we are about to encounter a new dwarf planet on March 6 the former asteroid Ceres to be reached by unmanned craft. I hope if there are artifacts they will be shown this time, unlike Mars and Moon.

Because frankly there isn't much time left, it is overdue. It should have happened in 2000. We risked too much with a number of wars the latest in Georgia with almost direct encounter between US ships and Russian missiles. We might not be here now to discuss it.

The hyperdrive engines or the entire crafts are not a problem. That is a stumbling block for many people who rarely try to touch upon Einstein and never go beyond. The theory based on Einstein equations, there are several solutions that allow travel thru space, one of them being the wormhole.

Also we must assume a civilization developed not for 5000 years as ours (of which only some 250y industrial development, most of them based on steam engines). Advanced civilizations developed for 50,000 or 500,000 years would have surpassed long ago the level of Einstein physics and even the "modern quantum physics". We think we discover everything for a first time. Isn't it in fact a granted knowledge from above, if it happens in so short time periods compared to long pre-industrial eras?

Apparently, what we have been taught for the last 5000 years is a very limited, very skewed view of the wider world. Only the open minded (regardless of religion and race) will accept the wider picture that has always been the truth.

What I see now is a trend towards that wider picture, in a number of media who took upon Hawking and not only, who speak of the Mars program. How should we call Paul Hellyer's interviews, he is not a contactee but respected politician? How should we call the many astronauts who say virtually the same? Or Medvedev's "joke"? Or pope's words of "baptizing Martians"?

All of that is the story of yesterday, that many preferred not to listen to. Tomorrow will be very different. Because it must happen before WW3 get a green light from above. That process have been postponed so long, no matter attempts were made even by the late John 23 now saint. It cannot be endless. The new generation is totally possessed by the AI, it is not critically thinking anymore, it takes the world for granted. With the die off of the old generation the human civilization will become something else. Even without the theory of "the last generation" of end times contemporary expectations. Will the powers above permit it, after so hard made way thru human history? I believe they won't.

a reply to: 2012newstart

I used to think we needed to learn to live on this planet before moving to another. But my motives have changed, as long as we move with the right intentions. It has become clear that we as a species will NEVER change the way we live without witnessing some sort of event or sense of realization that will alter our way of thinking.

Should we move to other planets, properly structured, fair and un-corruptive systems should be discussed and well thought out. Over the thousands of years we've been here, our rules and laws have evolved to such a state that it makes no sense anymore. We've become prisoners on our own planet. You cannot hunt for food, you have to pay. Money has become more valued than the life of a single Human being which is sad.

I for one believe us Humans need guidance in leadership, TRUE leadership that cannot be corrupted. But I agree that in order for our race to survive we should move to other planets that only harbor simple life. We should not become a conquering species like those we fear in movies. It is our responsibility to bring no harm to those already situated on those planets. Should there be complex life living on them, it is their choice whether we stay or go and we should respect that.

Before that however, we must learn compassion for one another and put anger and hate in the furnace.