Originally Posted by chator
Playing Devil's advocate, humanity has survived pole reversals, ice ages, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, all manner of man-made, and natural disasters. I believe humans would survive a nuclear war.
Inspite of Hawking's genius, going into space because human life is in danger on the Earth is such a weak argument. Human life is 1000X more in danger in space or on another planet. Even if humans colonized another world, humans there would not be self-sufficient, they would still depend on the resources from Earth. So if humans on Earth were completely wiped out, the extra-terrestrial humans would be *****ed as well.
Nevertheless, I think Hawking makes a good point about the money, more should go into space exploration and research.
I don't think you understood.
Many individuals like him have crunched thee numbers and humans might well be living on borrowed time. If Apophis strikes the "key hole" on this pass it would turn theory into reality and destroy us in 2029. Did you not read the recent thread about Earth's Trojan asteroids? These Asteroids are int he SAME orbit as Earth. One on modification with their orbit and they can easilyl be sent toward us.
Have you not seen how many impact craters there are on Earth? 25 Identifiable craters at 20 KM or more that we've been able to find... 14 of them are earlier than the Dinosaur killing asteroid. All but the BIG TOP 3 were under 100 KM. This is a very common event.
And Frankly if life is as rare as Mr. Hawking belives it to be at this intelligence level they we're really playing Russian Roulette here because it says there are a lot of life killing events our there and we've been Lucky.
Further, Hawking is not talking about just Mars, but planets ELSEWHERE in the universe or our galactic neighbor hood. Any Ex-solar Colony would have to be self sufficient...Period. That's the whole purpose in find EARTH like planets to colonize.
Originally Posted by Roysten
I would like to see more action to tackle climate change. Not that he's an expert by any means but Patrick Stewart said he's prefer to see our efforts and energies put into helping our own planet rather then reaching out to other ones.
I personally would like to do both!
As for Kim Stanley Robinson... I've read his Mars Trilogy of books and really enjoyed them (though they are very heavy going), they come across very realistic and you can actually imagine his stories happening. So I'd certainly recommend him to people, just to warn though, he's not an action writer and events don't happen quickly. He's more into the details, the kind of books you'd love to see turned into films but you just know they wouldn't be anything like the books.
I watched another video with Hawking in it last night.
He said, If we were capable of making good decisions about survival over territorial problems then there would be no conflicts on Earths. But that's why we're our own worse enemy.
Biological and Nuclear War are still THE likely ways the world will end according to him because we have the technology but not the temperment. It noted that Russia and the US still have thousands of nukes in their arsenal and haven't stood down from the Cold War even today.
THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN MANY OCCASIONS...
Where we've comes seconds to full nuclear exchange.
Would you like to SEE. How many nuclear detonations there have been on Earth since Hiroshima and Nagasaki?