Hawking: We must colonize Space...or Die.

[Lorizael]

No way, man, I don't want no stinkin' robots running around with heavy mining equipment! What if they rebel? Think of the children!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Geronimo

The oceans have an enormous and diverse and very poorly understood ecosystem. Your proposal to exploit ocean resources as an alternative to space resource exploitation completely misses the point that exploiting space resources has effectively no environmental footprint associated with it.....

You have got to be kidding! We have to construct a complete environment for every individual and lift it into orbit. The energy cost alone is going to be gigantic, even if we mine the moon and asteroids and construct some of what we need in orbit eventually.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sikander


You have got to be kidding! We have to construct a complete environment for every individual and lift it into orbit. The energy cost alone is going to be gigantic, even if we mine the moon and asteroids and construct some of what we need in orbit eventually.

why lift the environment into orbit?? isn't the point to preserve the earth's environment?? I can't see how I could have made that point more clear. Let me re-iterate,

we lift the individuals into orbit, not the environment!

In the long run, the environment they live in needs to be built almost entirely from space sourced materials.

The energy cost of lifting the people into orbit will be trivial using a space elevator. Certainly it will involve a hell of a lot less energy produced and consumed on Earth than leaving the population earth bound over the long term would involve. Especially if we suggest massive terraforming efforts of the Earth as a solution to environmental damage on Earth.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
If 80% of the population of the earth was killed, the rest would probably descend into chaos and our tech would probably sink back towards dark ages levels or worse.

Probably not. Even after losing 80% there are still way more people on earth than during the Dark Age.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by WotanAnubis
If so, read El Goonish Shive and be enlightened! Or possibly disturbed.

Is that a Vonnegut book?

[Ecthy]

Lancer speaks truth, but he forgot an important point: what do we do if we encounter locust aliens in outer space?

[Lancer]

We get our brains sucked out, duh.

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by Geronimo


But there's more resources outside of the Earth in this solar system than can be found on the Earth. We just need more infrastructure upfront to exploit resources at those other locations. On Earth more infrastructure means a larger environmental footprint. Elsewhere in the solar system the absence of an existing ecosystem means the concept of environmental footprint doesn't really apply.

So if limited resources is being used as an argument against expanding into space it should probably be considered as a reason for expanding into space so long as you care about preserving long term biodiversity here on Earth.

Please note that I am only talking about traveling to other stars. I am all for exploring the Solar system and using its resources. In fact we might need some of them if we are to stop some of the potential dangers to Earth.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Geronimo

why lift the environment into orbit?? isn't the point to preserve the earth's environment?? I can't see how I could have made that point more clear. Let me re-iterate,

we lift the individuals into orbit, not the environment!

In the long run, the environment they live in needs to be built almost entirely from space sourced materials.

The energy cost of lifting the people into orbit will be trivial using a space elevator. Certainly it will involve a hell of a lot less energy produced and consumed on Earth than leaving the population earth bound over the long term would involve. Especially if we suggest massive terraforming efforts of the Earth as a solution to environmental damage on Earth.

Read my post again. Here, I'll help you:

You have got to be kidding! We have to construct a complete environment for every individual and lift it into orbit. The energy cost alone is going to be gigantic, even if we mine the moon and asteroids and construct some of what we need in orbit eventually.

Note the use of the indefinite article "a" attached to the noun environment in my post. Now note that in your response you use the definite article "the" in response. It seems blindingly obvious that I'm not suggesting that we take the entire environment of the earth with us into space. I'm talking about all the oxygen, water, food, heat and shelter necessary to sustain a human life in space, multiplied by however many astronauts / colonists we decide to eventually send up.

Sure, positing the mastery of miraculous new technologies this becomes potentially feasible. But while we wait for fusion power and the space elevator etc. to be developed we'd better take better care of our only viable home for the foreseeable future. Self-perpetuating human colonies on planets other than earth is centuries in the future. Until then we are only as viable as the earth is.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MRT144
hawking was quoted as saying "beep boop beep beep boop"

Which translates roughly as, "Battery Running Low!"

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sikander

Sure, positing the mastery of miraculous new technologies this becomes potentially feasible. But while we wait for fusion power and the space elevator etc. to be developed we'd better take better care of our only viable home for the foreseeable future. Self-perpetuating human colonies on planets other than earth is centuries in the future. Until then we are only as viable as the earth is.

I started to respond to the rest of your post but seeing as how I almost completely agree with this portion of your post I'm not sure there is anything more that needs to be said.

Just because in the long term removing the human population from the earth will be necessary doesn't mean we neglect pursuing any immediate mitigating actions while we wait for such an exodus to be feasible.

I do disagree about the feasibility definately being centuries off. The future is too murky to do more than say it's definately several decades but 20 decades or more seems really pessimistic. Remember there is nothing here on earth that we require that couldn't be sourced from space. All the elements are up there too.

[Blaupanzer]

All Hawking was saying was "Get to it!" We need to stop postulating and go forth. We needn't plan to abandon earth for millions of years, but we do need to create a wider range for human population than concentrated on one planet. His message seems reasonable to me.

[General Ludd]

It's really quite silly to see the faith people put into science fiction becoming a reality. Things change, but everything remains the same.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by General Ludd
It's really quite silly to see the faith people put into science fiction becoming a reality. Things change, but everything remains the same.

In the past science fiction became reality so why would that stop now?

This isn't time travel or faster than light travel we're talking about.


People walked on the moon in the friggin 60's ludd.

[Lorizael]

The internet was once science fiction. Cellphones were once science fiction. Rockets were once science fiction. Submarines were once science fiction.

This list could become much, much longer. How can you possible say that?