No, to all of it.
LOL, troll fail of epic proportions
No, to all of it.
its a logical conclusion..when is the question, if we ever get it together as a species (not just more laws) we can eliminate certain conditions that would lead to such..this doomsday lament is just a repackaging of armageddon crap
i on the other hand envision a beautifully terraformed utopia here on earth
Mine, no, we could live there, we just can't do it in flesh.
No I mean its dirty, oxygen, covered with contaminates, space if far cleaner. Asteroids lack the gravity well and provide all the raw feedstock (including water) that a planet could.
The link below has a nice picture of a asteroid and it's less appealing than the moon.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/18jul_dawn4/
What makes it less appealing then the moon?
its a logical conclusion..
.....if we ever get it together as a species (not just more laws)
Very few will ever have an indigenous intelligent population
and those that don't when we discover them are fair game for anything we want to do with them.
Smaller, less gravity, plus I hear the view is better on the moon.
less gravity is a good thing, less fuel to expend, as for a view how does aesthetics count?
You just cannot know that. If aliens arrived on Earth and saw Dinosaurs, they might think the Earth was unlikely to produce intelligent life,... but it did, once the dinosaurs were swept aside. This is your problem, you fail to see that if Humans were swept away, that the next step could be even better!
The original premise of this thread is that our future hope of survival lies in space and that if we can survive the next 200 years, our species should be past the tipping point.
Hawking also admits to being an optimist.
I likewise am an optimistic person and perhaps lacking in imagination, as I tend toward the pragmatic and seeking solutions for small problems err they become larger.
With our present technology, the investment in energy and resources to advance the space exodus or Moon/Mars biosphere seems impractical and then there is the matter of maintenance and self-sufficiency.
If we cannot address these concerns on a planet with all of the amenities, I find it difficult to contemplate succeeding in space for a considerable length of time yet. It seems far more practical to turn our attention toward maintaining the ability of this planet to maintain itself and sustain biodiversity through conservation measures across the board, including taking responsibility for our population growth.
Like any species which expands beyond the carrying capacity of it's habitat, we shall be contained by disease, starvation and the violence of our own kind. In the north, when the rabbit population suffers it's cyclic die-off, the many predators who depend on the rabbit either disperse into other areas, fighting for a toe-hold, starve or are killed by other hungry predators.
When the rabbits are gone, the wolf will eat wolf.
I'm not suggesting that we won't colonize space at some point in the future, merely that our timing is not very good for such contemplation. Time to put the Star Trek books aside for a while and deal with the reality that is now.
The Roman Empire, once the mightiest on the planet collapsed. Any chance that the current empire might do likewise? Would it matter? There's always another waiting to step up to the plate.
As getting into space, and staying there, will require global co-operation, IMO, these rumblings on the surface are going to have an effect on Hawkings projection that space is where the future lies.
We're not talking about a weekend hike here. Hey, you can't hardly get a plumber on this planet, just think about the problems finding one 'off-side'.
That will surely be when the proverbial hits the rotational.
A little practical pessimism, I like that. The need to get out there and expand our resources might actually be what helps unite this world. But more likely it will be international crime that forces the world into more cooperation.
I don't see why we can't do all of these things at the same time. Some resources for space and some for fixing at home problems making progress in all areas but in smaller increments over more time.
Not true. What is most important, is leaving evolution alone to do what it does, and not interfering.
Not on it's own planet it isn't. (single celled life)
All things the indigenous intelligent population should be free to pursue should one evolve.
global population mainly..(yes, i blame the bible..Ie.. 'go forth and multiply')pardon
what were your premises again? our demise is predicated on...?
an act of God? an alien invasion? maybe colonization of space..and what roughly would that entail?
I thought it was obvious.I'm with you on the one government idea, but I would argue about what you consider high sacrifices. In any event just being able to focus resources to get us past the energy predicament we find ourselves in would be a big first step. We need all the energy we need to be renewable and non polluting to our world. Everything we produce to consume that we currently throw away as trash needs to be recyclable with the appropriate laws to make it happen.
Have you ever considered maybe humans came about because some aliens tinkered with our world in the past? Good thing those aliens didn't have your attitude or we might not be here now.
I have a strong feeling that if you (or someone in your family) were sick you would go to a doctor, rather than "leaving evolution alone to do what it does, and not interfering."
Depends on the kind of life. We're capable of coexisting with a great many forms of life, especially if they are so alien that there is no potential competition for food, energy etc.
Rats are fairly intelligent. But again, I have a feeling if they were running around your house, you wouldn't have much problem killing them.