He is such a buzzkill...

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

While we are about alarmist apocalyptic predictions, let me mention Stephen Hawking. The older he gets, the more pessimistic he seems to be. Now he is saying that humankind should colonise another planet within the next 100 years if it wants to prevent its own extinction. In a new documentary that he is making for BBC, he will make his argument in favour of space colonisation for the sake of self-preservation, and explores the relevant possibilities to teraform another planet:

http://www.firstpost.com/world/humans-must-leave-earth-in-100-years-colonise-another-planet-to-survive-stephen-hawking-3422880.html

His reasoning is that there are just too many threats for humankind on Earth, including a global nuclear war, genetically modified viruses gone rogue, and of course climate change. Over-population and threats from space (like asteroid impact) are among the dangers of secondary likelihood, according to Hawking.

There was a time when Hawking used to believe humankind would not be able to establish space colonies that could sustain themselves without help from Earth. But now his opinion has changed: we should find a way to do it. His main concern is that people would not take the problem seriously enough to start working on it until it is too late.

Hawking will make the documentary together with his former student Christophe Galfard. They have toured various spots in the world in search of technologies and ideas for creating a real, long-term, self-sustainable colony on another planet.

This is not the first time Hawking has issued such stern warnings. He is among the most vocal advocates about the risks from developing AI. He believes that if we are not careful enough, technology could bring the end of humankind.

...Probably way before plastic-eating worms do.

Comments

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

While we're about grim predictions, NdGT has something to say (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/neil-degrasse-tyson-america-fading_us_590a8627e4b05c3976862241) about America's future as well.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

They'll have to keep it a secret, or the inevitable debate will be - who gets to go? Space colonization may be possible, but it ain't possible for 8 billion people. When the time comes, it's likely that many who are left out of the man-made rapture won't be too happy about it.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Something like last night's development in The 100. Hard choices, brother.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that if we can develop the technology to colonize Mars (the most likely choice in our neighborhood) we will be able to deal with our problems here on Earth. The challenges we need to overcome to establish a self sustaining Martian colony are orders of magnitude greater than adapting to climate change, rebuilding after a major war, or surviving a new plague, plastic eating worms or whatever.

I agree with him about AI, though. And I think that we should shut SETI right the fuck down and take our whole planet off the cosmic grid, as much as we can. The last thing I want to do is advertise our existence to a species capable of interstellar travel.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

How do you propose that we stop broadcasting into space?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Well, we can't stop the ambient radio waves, at least not with our current technology. But we can stop actively broadcasting "here we are, come and visit!" messages hoping the ET who visits will be benevolent.

Basically, I would prefer we not advertise our existence as much as possible.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

We've already done it. We've been doing it ever since the radiowaves got used for communication.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Yes, but radio waves dissipate and the strength of our radio signals have been, until now, fairly weak. Chances are,our interstellar profile, at least in the radio spectrum, is still very small.

I am more against deliberately beaming high powered messages out into deep space as was done a few time in the 70's.

https://briankoberlein.com/2015/02/19/e-t-phone-home/

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I read something fascinating about our radio signals: "the most distant human-made object is Voyager I, which has a transmission power of about 23 Watts, and is still detectable by radio telescopes 125 AU away. (18,699,733,837.5 Kilometers)" Surprised that small of wattage is still picked up.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

It is pretty remarkable, even more so to me because I clearly remember when V'ger Voyager was launched.

However, at least according to the article I cited, in order to be detectable by a radio telescope based on Proxima Centauri it would have to be transmitting at 110,000,000 watts.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yep. I remember the launch of Voyager too, with its golden record.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

If another civilization were advanced enough, perhaps they would have bothered to come by now, or at least respond.

If they weren't, then perhaps there's not much to worry about anyway.

Besides, space is so vast, that even if they're advanced, they wouldn't bother to make the expense to just come visit. And these messages tend to take millennia to reach the other side, so a lot could happen between the time they hear us and the time they decide to drop by.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Could be that every other civilization out there ends up being just as warlike as us humans, which means that after contact is made, it's only a matter of time before planet-busting bombs are launched. They might figure it's just better to do away with the get-to-know-each-other phase and go straight to a pre-emptive strike. Maybe I'm wrong, but the downside seems to outweigh the upside.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I'm actually pretty well persuaded that if there are intelligent species out there they are either too far away, become extinct before they can get to us, or posses an intelligence that isn't interested in interstellar travel. Fermi is pretty convincing.

On the other hand. Any species that has mastered interstellar travel would pose such an existential threat to us that I'd much rather err on the side of caution, especially when it costs us nothing to do so.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

What makes anyone think that colonizing another planet would just make all our problems go away, as opposed to transferring them to other places and expanding them (the problems) beyond Earth?

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Exactly. My bet is that within a few hundred years, our colonies would have an array of planet busting MAD type weapons aimed at the Earth and vice versa... or at least the AIs that wiped us Earthlings out would.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of The Expanse. :-)

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

"Let’s see if I have this right: we have trashed the earth – with the help of science, I might add, given that he asserts technology-gone-wrong is part of our current mess – so now what? Earth be damned, we must save our own hides, and quickly? Ah, yes. So many more planets to ruin, so little time."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/08/why-stephen-hawkings-dire-warning-is-all-wrong-about-humans-and-earth.html

Very good point.