Question about Stephen Hawkin's observations

[hagar]

Stephen Hawkins believes the human race will only survive approximately another 1000 years. I have some questions for others who may or may not think the same.

He believes if we migrate to other places in the universe the human race will continue. Some of the reasons for leaving that he mentions are “the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster”. Disasters are not limited only to earth. Virus whither engineered or not will always be a problem for humans and we seem to have the proclivity to take these things with us. The same can be said for some of the other possibilities he mentions.

He says that setting up colonies elsewhere in our solar system could advert this. At this time

to the best of my knowledge Mars is the only possibility for migration but even this would require many decades to be realized and even then it would not support the population of earth. So at this point we are presented with the problem, who goes and who does not.

Other things he mentions is the advancement of AI. Again this is something we would naturally take with us, knowledge will not be left behind.

At this point in time the main problem we face is the engineering of power limitation. Until we

develop better sources of transportation power we will be severely limited with our access to the universe in general.

 

[Evo]

Until we

develop better sources of transportation power we will be severely limited with our access to the universe in general.

We currently have no place to go and no way to get there. This is outside of the scope of this forum, we focus on known science and general discussion is not an exception to that rule. General Discussion is for discussions of hobbies and entertainment and sharing those interests, it is not meant as a place to discuss what is not allowed elsewhere in the forum.

Also Hawking doesn't know, 1,000 years seems an awfully short time frame for the human race to be wiped out. There are currently ~7.4 billion humans on this planet and increasing every minute, I find his projections a bit hard to believe. There would need to be a worldwide catastrophe such as a huge meteor collision that made human life impossible. Humans don't own this planet, we haven't been around that long and there is no reason why we need to be here for the planet to be fine. A documentary I saw a few years ago said Earth would be better off without humans.

Even if we found another planet that we could "colonize", it would be for an elite few, the other billions of humans would remain on earth. So, why would we waste our money, time and effort to save a few people that may or may not survive? Are we that incredible? Honestly, I don't think so.

I will allow this thread to remain open for a short while to discuss why humans need to exist, but it really does not meet our guidelines and if it gets too "out there" it will be closed.

This is the source the OP left out http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/health/hawking-humanity-trnd/index.html

 

[hagar]

I believe all education is based on discussion and to me it is interesting and entertaining. Without postulation and discussion of future possibilities there would be no science. I am somewhat disappointed by some of the attitudes shown on this forum. I fully realize that a rigorous position should be taken with respect to a particular discipline but it would seem that sometimes it crosses the line to become a bit narrow minded. That may be one of the reasons not mentioned by Hawkins for the eventual downfall of the human race.
The future is built on dreams !

"This is the source the OP left out http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/health/hawking-humanity-trnd/index.html"
This was not the source but it is similar.

Respectfully,
Pat Hagar

 

[Evo]

I believe all education is based on discussion and to me it is interesting and entertaining. Without postulation and discussion of future possibilities there would be no science. I am somewhat disappointed by some of the attitudes shown on this forum. I fully realize that a rigorous position should be taken with respect to a particular discipline but it would seem that sometimes it crosses the line to become a bit narrow minded. That may be one of the reasons not mentioned by Hawkins
for the eventual downfall of the human race.

"This is the source the OP left out http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/health/hawking-humanity-trnd/index.html"
This was not the source but it is similar.

Respectfully,
Pat Hagar

We have a niche where we only discuss known, mainstream science, we are not a forum that deals with personal theories and speculation. You have been here long enough to have read our guidelines and know our mission. There is nothing wrong in teaching known science. That is what we do.

Would you go into a vegetarian restaurant and demand roast beef? That's basically what you are saying is our problem, we should not not stick to teaching and discussing known science. There are places where speculative science discussions are welcome. That is not what we do.

I am, however open to allowing a discussion on why we should expend a huge amount of money, time and effort to "maybe" save a few people, when those resources might best be spent on life on this planet.

 

[hagar]

We have a niche where we only discuss known, mainstream science, we are not a forum that deals with personal theories and speculation. You have been here long enough to have read our guidelines and know our mission. There is nothing wrong in teaching known science. That is what we do.

Would you go into a vegetarian restaurant and demand roast beef? That's basically what you are saying is our problem, we should not not stick to teaching and discussing known science. There are places where speculative science discussions are welcome. That is not what we do.

You have just proved my point without any more input from me.

 

[Evo]

You have just proved my point without any more input from me.

Ok, I guess I could have just copied and pasted the guidelines.

• We wish to discuss mainstream science.That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.

Mission Statement:

Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community

 

[jackwhirl]

He says that setting up colonies elsewhere in our solar system could advert this. At this timeto the best of my knowledge Mars is the only possibility for migration but even this would require many decades to be realized and even then it would not support the population of earth. So at this point we are presented with the problem, who goes and who does not.

This is the closest thing to a question I could find in your text above, but it leaves me thinking you misunderstood Mr. Hawking. If the entire population of Earth moved to Mars, nevermind how infeasible, it would do nothing to address the problem as Hawking sees it, that all of human life is dependent upon, and located on, one planet.

Humans don't own this planet, we haven't been around that long and there is no reason why we need to be here for the planet to be fine. A documentary I saw a few years ago said Earth would be better off without humans.

I believe humans do own this planet, in most senses of the word. There is no other party to dispute it.
There is no measure of a planet being better or worse off. Other species would be better or worse off without humanity, Earth would just be Earth.

I will allow this thread to remain open for a short while to discuss why humans need to exist...

In a sense, we don't need to exist. The universe wouldn't care if we went extinct tomorrow, and we couldn't. (If we were extinct, that is.) However, we care, now, for our own existence, and that is reason enough to do what we must to ensure our preservation. Whether that means finding basic sustenance today, or colonizing the universe tomorrow.

 

[Evo]

In a sense, we don't need to exist. The universe wouldn't care if we went extinct tomorrow, and we couldn't. (If we were extinct, that is.) However, we care, now, for our own existence, and that is reason enough to do what we must to ensure our preservation. Whether that means finding basic sustenance today, or colonizing the universe tomorrow.

Yes, and that's my question, are we better off sending a handful of people off to maybe have some slim chance of surviving on another planet leaving billions to die on earth, or should we instead invest our resources in making a safer and better life for humans on earth? Deflecting meteors, population control, responsible stewardship of the planet's resources?

 

[Student100]

Yes, and that's my question, are we better off sending a handful of people off to maybe have some slim chance of surviving on another planet leaving billions to die on earth, or should we instead invest our resources in making a safer and better life for humans on earth? Deflecting meteors, population control, responsible stewardship of the planet's resources?

Both? It's inevitable that life on this planet will end.

I suppose the same argument could be made for the universe as a whole. Even if humanity escaped Earth, we still die as a species - possibly just at a later date. Maybe we should just fold and find a new game to play. This ones rigged against us!

Stephen Hawkins believes the human race will only survive approximately another 1000 years. I have some questions for others who may or may not think the same.

Hawking, like other prominent minds, is given credit even when he speaks about things he has no idea about. I predict the human race has exactly, one thousand years, 36 sidereal days, 14 minutes, and 36 nano seconds from now left as a species. You wouldn't give this any weight (I would certainty hope not anyway!), likewise I don't give Hawking any weight here.

The Human race faces challenges to it's survival, as it has always, and basically will always. Such is life.

 

[256bits]

one thousand years, 36 sidereal days, 14 minutes, and 36 nano seconds from now

What! An assumed plus/minus nano!

 

[aheight]

Stephen Hawkins believes the human race will only survive approximately another 1000 years.

What about the butterfly effect?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Stephen Hawkins

Who?

 

[hagar]

Hawking's , sorry about the typeO.