Stephen Hawking says mankind has 100 years left on Earth. Thanks, Steve.

[Fogdog]

An easier option would be to reduce the population of Earth by 90%...or higher.

Best way to deal with overpopulation without having the rich eat the young of the poor (as if that's not happening figuratively already) is to educate women and improve economies worldwide.

 

[fdd2blk]

Nuclear war would fix things quick.

 

[Fogdog]

So you advocate for the murder or involuntary sterilization of billions of people- and then turn around and question the ethics of childbirth on another world?

You are one seriously fucked up individual, you know that?

Stephen Hawking and I are both working different parts of the same problem; the long term, planet independent survival of humanity.

You're at best flinging poo, and at worst an apologist for mass murder. Fuck you AND those things you call 'ethics' but in fact are anything but ethical.

He's just another variant of loser survivalist. They think that they will survive catastrophe and thrive later on. But really they want the catastrophe because they are already living on the edge and failing to make it in the world at large. As with the problems with us living in space, If you have problems dealing with life when things are easy, how can one expect it will be better when survival is hard?

In the case of jawjaw, Once a loser, always a loser.

 

[esh dov ets]

I'm trolling.

 

[esh dov ets]

That's great, you made enough to buy a Pepsi!

thats enough for a revolution.

 

[thenotsoesoteric]

I'm afraid your information is a bit out of date, mate.

We have proven that we can live underground, underwater, at the poles AND in outer space on the ISS.

And we either colonise space or our species perishes here on Earth, and soon.

We won't be around to see it, unless some madman starts a nuclear war, but the only difference between today's global civilization and all those who have come before it's that we possess the ability to use up all the planet's resources instead of only an island or region.

I'm fully aware of our ability to terraform artificial environments but what I am getting at is how likely is it that humans would ruin a whole planet but somehow manage to travel indefinitely in space while maintaining stasis?

 

[thenotsoesoteric]

ideally we treat earth right explore space and go be care takers else where in the future. we will run out of time on something so sooner than later is better. plus you like your cell phone camera right.? what about the Clean Energy Technology we have on earth.? or Affordable solid state electronics. or maybe you enjoy
Scratch-Resistant Lenses
CAT Scans
Firefighter breathing apparatus
emergency blankets\ Mylar
Safer runways
The potential to preserve priceless art/polyamides
improved Car crash technology
Plane wing-tips
Freeze-dried meals
Baby food nutriant additive
Battery-powered thermal boots
Hang gliders
’Anti-gravity’ treadmill
Heat-absorbing sportswear
lasers
Life support
Detection of forest fires
Chromosome analysis
The self-righting life raft
NASA has contributed quite a lot to the development of water purification technology
all this and more came from space exploration and space programs

I'm all for space travel and scientific advancements but I have my doubts about humans saving themselves from ourselves. When the Earth is uninhabitable then humans will be no more. Just my two cents but then again I'm a dreamer.

 

[ttystikk]

I'm fully aware of our ability to terraform artificial environments but what I am getting at is how likely is it that humans would ruin a whole planet but somehow manage to travel indefinitely in space while maintaining stasis?

Why do we need to be in stasis?

The solar system alone could sustain us for thousands of years, plenty of time to develop the technology necessary for interstellar travel.

The wonders of relativity mean that when traveling at speeds near that of light we don't experience time at the same speed. The travelers could in theory travel to other start systems in the subjective time of a few years, or even months. Meanwhile back home, people would grow old and raise their grandchildren exactly as we would expect.

The main issue in my mind is that no matter where we go, humans gotta eat. That means that we must become the masters of our own ecosystems, miniaturized to fit in whatever vessels we build to take us there.

Frankly, that's why I'm still posting on this website; because much of what we are doing here is foundational work on solving that very basic and critical problem.

 

[thenotsoesoteric]

Humans have a god complex. Perhaps it is written in our DNA but either way it's there. We think for some reason the laws of reality don't apply to us. That somehow we can cheat the wrath of our own destruction. I mean wouldn't it be great if humans could fuck up this planet, kill off millions of animal species and then conveniently just leave off to another planet to fuck up.

But let's say we do send a small group, and let's make that small number actually a huge number for what we would really be capable of achieving, let's say 100,000 of the smartest most physically able bodies off into space aboard a ship capable of sustaining them indefinitely, then what? Where would they go? Humans will go insane if left on a ship floating through space, plus we would devolve into something none human like anyway. I mean people that go up into space lose a lot of muscle really quickly, within weeks.

Until we can travel the bubble or create wormholes or figure out anti gravitational propelled locomotion then I'd venture to guess humans will never go Star Trekking.

 

[thenotsoesoteric]

Why do we need to be in stasis?

The solar system alone could sustain us for thousands of years, plenty of time to develop the technology necessary for interstellar travel.

The wonders of relativity mean that when traveling at speeds near that of light we don't experience time at the same speed. The travelers could in theory travel to other start systems in the subjective time of a few years, or even months. Meanwhile back home, people would grow old and raise their grandchildren exactly as we would expect.

The main issue in my mind is that no matter where we go, humans gotta eat. That means that we must become the masters of our own ecosystems, miniaturized to fit in whatever vessels we build to take us there.

Frankly, that's why I'm still posting on this website; because much of what we are doing here is foundational work on solving that very basic and critical problem.

When do you theorize humans achieving the ability to travel anyway near the speed of light? I'm guessing we are thousands of years from that, if it is even achievable by us.

 

[ttystikk]

Humans have a god complex. Perhaps it is written in our DNA but either way it's there. We think for some reason the laws of reality don't apply to us. That somehow we can cheat the wrath of our own destruction. I mean wouldn't it be great if humans could fuck up this planet, kill off millions of animal species and then conveniently just leave off to another planet to fuck up.

But let's say we do send a small group, and let's make that small number actually a huge number for what we would really be capable of achieving, let's say 100,000 of the smartest most physically able bodies off into space aboard a ship capable of sustaining them indefinitely, then what? Where would they go? Humans will go insane if left on a ship floating through space, plus we would devolve into something none human like anyway. I mean people that go up into space lose a lot of muscle really quickly, within weeks.

Until we can travel the bubble or create wormholes or figure out anti gravitational propelled locomotion then I'd venture to guess humans will never go Star Trekking.

I think you're too full of assumptions about the limits of human endeavor.

 

[fdd2blk]

View attachment 3939003 View attachment 3939004

So why even reply?

 

[fdd2blk]

Why do we need to be in stasis?

The solar system alone could sustain us for thousands of years, plenty of time to develop the technology necessary for interstellar travel.

The wonders of relativity mean that when traveling at speeds near that of light we don't experience time at the same speed. The travelers could in theory travel to other start systems in the subjective time of a few years, or even months. Meanwhile back home, people would grow old and raise their grandchildren exactly as we would expect.

The main issue in my mind is that no matter where we go, humans gotta eat. That means that we must become the masters of our own ecosystems, miniaturized to fit in whatever vessels we build to take us there.

Frankly, that's why I'm still posting on this website; because much of what we are doing here is foundational work on solving that very basic and critical problem.

So we fuck up our current planet so bad that we need to find another one and it's all going to be better, why?

Humans suck. The sooner you accept this the sooner you will find happiness.

 

[Fogdog]

Humans have a god complex. Perhaps it is written in our DNA but either way it's there. We think for some reason the laws of reality don't apply to us. That somehow we can cheat the wrath of our own destruction. I mean wouldn't it be great if humans could fuck up this planet, kill off millions of animal species and then conveniently just leave off to another planet to fuck up.

But let's say we do send a small group, and let's make that small number actually a huge number for what we would really be capable of achieving, let's say 100,000 of the smartest most physically able bodies off into space aboard a ship capable of sustaining them indefinitely, then what? Where would they go? Humans will go insane if left on a ship floating through space, plus we would devolve into something none human like anyway. I mean people that go up into space lose a lot of muscle really quickly, within weeks.

Until we can travel the bubble or create wormholes or figure out anti gravitational propelled locomotion then I'd venture to guess humans will never go Star Trekking.

I think you're too full of assumptions about the limits of human endeavor.

How bout we figure out how to live in the solar system before we start building star ships.

 

[esh dov ets]

So why even reply?

 

[ttystikk]

How bout we figure out how to live in the solar system before we start building star ships.

This would indeed be the logical progression. The good news is that there are plenty of raw materials here to support our space dwelling progeny.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Actually, sustaining health in an artificial environment is not trivial. We're just now learning about health and well being as a system. A failure of technology and many technologists is they are completely devoted to solving individual problems and not thinking of the system. You want to put people in cans in space and wing it. You should listen to scientists more closely. The ones closest to the issues say we aren't ready.

A base on the moon? the perfect lab for learning how to survive in space. Yet still close enough to react to those dang gotchas.

The moon would actually be considerably more hostile to colonize.

Martian soil even has most of the minerals required for plant life, it has an atmosphere, it has an adequate magnetosphere to keep out most cosmic radiation (relative to the moon)...

Literally the only thing missing is oxygen in the air.

You seem to forget Mars is actually in the Goldilocks zone but just on the periphery.

 

[Fogdog]

This would indeed be the logical progression. The good news is that there are plenty of raw materials here to support our space dwelling progeny.

There are plenty of raw materials and energy in space. Water, metals, methane, no need to haul that stuff out of this gravity well. It's the biologicals on Earth that are so valuable. Good sci fi author runs with this idea in several novels. C J Cherryj, union alliance series. Finity's End is one book and another is Hellburner. Good reads, both.

 

[ttystikk]

There are plenty of raw materials and energy in space. Water, metals, methane, no need to haul that stuff out of this gravity well. It's the biologicals on Earth that are so valuable. Good sci fi author runs with this idea in several novels. C J Cherryj, union alliance series. Finity's End is one book and another is Hellburner. Good reads, both.

I'll have to check those out! I've read CJ Cherryh's Downbelow Station. Great stuff!

 

[Fogdog]

The moon would actually be considerably more hostile to colonize.

Martian soil even has most of the minerals required for plant life, it has an atmosphere, it has an adequate magnetosphere to keep out most cosmic radiation (relative to the moon)...

Literally the only thing missing is oxygen in the air.

You seem to forget Mars is actually in the Goldilocks zone but just on the periphery.

Better get it right the first time if we send a party to Mars. Where do you think this kind of knowledge comes from? A base, not a colony on the moon would be necessary, it would seem to me.

Once we learn how to live in space, why deal with the cost of hauling stuff in and out of a gravity well? All the energy, oxygen, metals, water are available in one form or another outside of big planetary gravity wells.

Are we still in the Politics forum?