Physicist Stephen Hawking says that humanity must find a new home to live on within a century, or else face possible extinction - hopefully he's not just trying to upstage Bill Maher:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/05/05/stephen-hawking-just-moved-up-humanitys-deadline-for-escaping-earth/Does that sound about right? Or is it like a Doomsday Clock thing, where the deadline gets moved forward or backward depending on what's going on in the world today?Hawking is supposed to be signed up for a suborbital trip to space on Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo - so at least he's putting his money where his mouth is.Is this deadline a realistically achievable goal? I'm assuming that Mars and the Moon would be the earliest targets, and maybe also some choice asteroids.Can it be achieved with room to spare? (ie. we still get to keep Earth in good shape and have these off-world living spaces - or are we destined to keep overloading things down here until we're literally forced to go off-world?)
On the show Cosmos, Neil deGrasse Tyson (NdT) presented the concept that the Earth has survived five apocalyptic events. So if one ascribes a completely impossible chance of surviving just one event, surviving five should begin to illustrate that there really is nothing to worry about. The system sustains life where it should not exist and may be actively managed thru these disasters. The system is perfectly designed to give you the results you are now seeing....
That is similar to Musk's motivation for a Mars colony. Sounds like they believe we're we might be at the height of our technological civilization and this will may be our only opportunity to expand into space.
Once you put an apocalypse mongerer into a spaceship for a 100 year voyage to the planet Utopia, they're probably going to start bemoaning the design (a lot). At some point along the journey, they'll turn the craft around for Earth because the trip is so unpleasant that they'd rather risk going extinct on Earth.
Quote from: RonM on 05/06/2017 01:57 pmThat is similar to Musk's motivation for a Mars colony. Sounds like they believe we're we might be at the height of our technological civilization and this will may be our only opportunity to expand into space.Now that's a valid argument, isn't it?As long as we have fear of death, poverty and religious persecution and before they materialize...
To me it is just a no-brainer. It is not that big an investment compared to things like the war industry, which are worse than useless anyway. 1% should be enough, if spent effectively instead of on boondoggles, and the spinoffs would be very useful for mastering self sufficient cities on earth.
Species visiting Earth seeking refuge from their own apocalypse: 0
No extinction event could render Earth less habitable than Mars or other places in the solar system.So even if one believes the doomsday cultists (which I don't, I think they're all bonkers), it's no argument for colonizing the solar system.
Actually Siberia is better than Mars because it is warmer and ACTUALLY HAS OXYGEN. I read some of the comments in the WP article. Best comment was (paraphrased): why attempt to create a whole new world so very far away... just clean up what you've got. Can't take this article any further than just trying to sell a newspaper for a day.
why attempt to create a whole new world so very far away... just clean up what you've got.
a reasonably common Sci-Fi theme
Less habitable is irrelevant as long they are self-sufficient. This isn't about the ability to host microbial life or having an atmosphere, it's about maintaining knowledge and capability.
Quote from: mme on 05/08/2017 04:56 pmLess habitable is irrelevant as long they are self-sufficient. This isn't about the ability to host microbial life or having an atmosphere, it's about maintaining knowledge and capability.That makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to maintain "knowledge and capability", build bunkers and data vaults here on Earth, it's infinitely cheaper.
but it would still leave Earth infinitely more habitable than Mars.
@QuantumG: you have to see the movie "They Live". Best line in the entire history of Hollywood.... "I've come here to chew bubblegum, and kick buttocks. And I'm all out of bubblegum". People could see aliens with the right pair of glasses.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to maintain "knowledge and capability", build bunkers and data vaults here on Earth, it's infinitely cheaper.
The official score is: Earth surviving an apocalypse: 5 Species visiting Earth seeking refuge from their own apocalypse: 0
Quote from: Oli on 05/08/2017 06:21 pmThat makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to maintain "knowledge and capability", build bunkers and data vaults here on Earth, it's infinitely cheaper.We're not doing that either.
Large scale manufacturing in space is pure fantasy. There are red herrings such as the supercollider and bridges to nowhere. Total buttered unicorn fantasy. The funding to do this is better spent on Earth. Think about it from an economic perspective. A venture capitalist puts their largess down on a facility with an expectation of a return on inestment near 7x the original investment. Net present value is buried below zero. It's a no go.For taxpayers to fund this is immoral. The worlds economy is standardized off of oil, not precious metals such as gold/silver.
Where'd you get that idea?
Quote from: tdperk on 05/10/2017 12:17 amWhere'd you get that idea?It's not the 1950's anymore?
I believe the leading contender for explaining the Fermi Paradox is that something/someones are very quiet, careful, deadly, and jealous--and they go around stomping on emerging civilizations prophylactically.
I believe the leading contender for explaining the Fermi Paradox is that something/someones are very quiet, careful, deadly, and jealous--and they go around stomping on emerging civilizations prophylactically.The next leading contender is that in our ability to observe space, we happen locally to be first.Next leading explanation is that the fraction of a technological civilization's lifespan that is spent caring about such things and being observable to us is so short, that many have "ascended" and watch us no more interestedly than most people do fungi.I do kind of hope it's that second one.Anyone else feel impressed by "The Toolmaker Koan" by McLoughlin or "Star Child" by Hogan?
Yes, those five global extinction events haven't been much of a drag for the single cell organisms, bacteria and other really small creatures, but it kinda sucks if you weigh more than a rat. At the end of the Permian period, over 90% of all species died, yay. And that was a pretty rubbish time in Siberia, too...We have used up all the easily accessible ore and fossil energy reserves on the planet. If our current civilisation comes crashing down and we regress to a low technology, post industrial society, it will be extremely hard to bootstrap out of that again.No more oil in Texas at a depth of 20 feet, no easily accessible copper or iron, apart from the ruins of the cities. We have chewed this planet up pretty good so far, and are not leaving much on the plate. If we miss this window of opportunity, which could close any day now, if somebody starts a nuclear war or the global economy really tanks, we will not get of this rock. And developing the technology won't cost more than the average little dirty war that we are starting every few years.War, disease, rapid climate change, economical collapse, totalitarian regimes, AI, oh yes, meteor coming our way while we are to busy staring at our cellphones.My 2 cents worth as geologist and environmental scientist...
What is probably driving Stephen Hawking’s thinking is the Drake equation and Fermi’s Paradox. Although the Drake equation was not intended to give absolute numbers for the number of technologically advanced intelligent life it can get you close enough to suggest some very real possible outcomes. We don’t have enough information, at this time, to truthfully fill in the Drake equation but we are making very good progress toward filling in all but the last variable. It is this last variable where Fermi’s Paradox comes in. With the limited information, we have to fill in the Drake equation it is becoming quite obvious that the last parameter is the most critical. This last parameter is the average life expectancy of a technologically advanced society. With the limited information we have for the Drake equation if this last parameter is over 10,000 years not only should technologically advanced intelligent life be readily observable but most likely should have visited us multiple times by now. And this is the Fermi’s Paradox. Where are all of these technologically advanced intelligent societies? In fact, it has been estimated that if this last parameter is 1000 years with our ongoing SETI surveys we should have seen something by now. As we fill in more of the Drake equation it is been suggested that this last parameter needs to be in the hundreds of years. If that is the case then we have used up almost half of this number already.Nobody really knows what the answer to Fermi’s Paradox is. There are many suggested possible theories to this paradox. The most worrisome ones in this particular case are not the knowns but the unknown possibilities.
Quote from: Oli on 05/08/2017 08:10 amNo extinction event could render Earth less habitable than Mars or other places in the solar system.So even if one believes the doomsday cultists (which I don't, I think they're all bonkers), it's no argument for colonizing the solar system.Sun turning into a red giant certainly will. In the long term (more than a billion years), Earth is doomed and space is the only way for humanity (and life in general) to survive. And in order to colonize space, we need to have an advanced technological society. Merely surviving on Earth is not enough, or it will be our tomb. Now, can you guarantee that current advanced technological society on Earth will be a norm, and not just a temporary exception? You cannot. Therefore we should seize the opportunity while it lasts and attempt to expand into space now, since we may not get another chance.
Quote from: DAZ on 05/07/2017 06:33 pmWhat is probably driving Stephen Hawking’s thinking is the Drake equation and Fermi’s Paradox. Although the Drake equation was not intended to give absolute numbers for the number of technologically advanced intelligent life it can get you close enough to suggest some very real possible outcomes. We don’t have enough information, at this time, to truthfully fill in the Drake equation but we are making very good progress toward filling in all but the last variable. It is this last variable where Fermi’s Paradox comes in. With the limited information, we have to fill in the Drake equation it is becoming quite obvious that the last parameter is the most critical. This last parameter is the average life expectancy of a technologically advanced society. With the limited information we have for the Drake equation if this last parameter is over 10,000 years not only should technologically advanced intelligent life be readily observable but most likely should have visited us multiple times by now. And this is the Fermi’s Paradox. Where are all of these technologically advanced intelligent societies? In fact, it has been estimated that if this last parameter is 1000 years with our ongoing SETI surveys we should have seen something by now. As we fill in more of the Drake equation it is been suggested that this last parameter needs to be in the hundreds of years. If that is the case then we have used up almost half of this number already.Nobody really knows what the answer to Fermi’s Paradox is. There are many suggested possible theories to this paradox. The most worrisome ones in this particular case are not the knowns but the unknown possibilities. In the book, alone in the Universe, John Gribbin argues that we are alone in the galaxy and perhaps in the Universe. If we are the only ones in the galaxy that would explain why nobody has visited us. I wasn't crazy about his book but I tend to agree with him that there may only be one advanced civilization per galaxy.
The thing is, even if other civilizations aren't actively out there exploring/ colonizing/ mining/ whatever, we should have seen at least their signature. Sure, we as a planet radiate less and less energy away from our planet as we mature our technology - terrestrial high energy transmitters have given way to cable and focused beams to satellites- but our past still is out there radiating away from earth. So would be true for other intelligent species. And odds have it this would have been happening for billions of years - so where are those signatures? Where are all those countless "pasts"?
The great filter concept certainly still holds some probability, and when you look at our own little planet with that in mind, it's a bit chilling.
The official score is: Earth surviving an apocalypse: 5 Species visiting Earth seeking refuge from their own apocalypse: 0Let's say the next apocalypse sterilizes the Earth into an iron oxide dust bowl. There is never a static unchanging condition with any object in the universe. Eventually life will continue.If someone is so easily able to foresee an imminent apocalypse, why are they not understanding the implications of attempting a journey into a certain demise by a 1000'year journey into space (micrometeorites, radiation, lack of any resources, etc)? If aliens had visited here, it's likely their home world is in worse shape. I fear that somebody is just trying to sell their doomsday books on other worlds. unfortunately, somebody should explain to the doomsday authors that aliens won't want to read this type of literature.You cannot equate a concept of going nowhere fast with the idea that you are doing something meritorious. In other words, transporting the world's population to Siberia would not be a noble cause. Actually Siberia is better than Mars because it is warmer and ACTUALLY HAS OXYGEN.
We have already discovered many extrasolar planets. Advanced civilizations doing such observations for millions of years probably have long ago catalogued every potentialy habitable planet in the galaxy. They very likely know about Earth being a planet with life. It is not a thing that can be hidden or overlooked, IMHO.
I think to really find a new home we need to find a home which is similar to earth and that's going to mean interstellar travel in a Noah's arc type ship which can haul 10s of thousands plus all our technology.
In the book, alone in the Universe, John Gribbin argues that we are alone in the galaxy and perhaps in the Universe. If we are the only ones in the galaxy that would explain why nobody has visited us. I wasn't crazy about his book but I tend to agree with him that there may only be one advanced civilization per galaxy.
I think humanity expanding into the solar system has the major benefit of putting humans further away from each other than 10 minutes by ICBM. Even if we did end up recreating a mutually assured destruction scenario across the entire solar system, it would give decision timescales on the order of months, not minutes.