GameBanshee Forums

2 possible topics for discussion here.

As I'm sure many of you will be aware, World renowned physicist Stephen Hawking experienced weightlessness recently. While it's not quite outer space (which I for one hope he'll get to visit one day), seeing someone with virtually no physical mobility executing mid-air barrel rolls still struck me as pretty incredible. So firstly, any thoughts on Stephen Hawking eventually going into space?

2nd thought
Of more particular interest to me, however, is this statement.

“Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers. I think the human race has no future if it doesn’t go into space,” he said.

Does anyone agree/disagree with the good Professor on this one? Does humankind have no future unless we relocate somewhere else, say somewhere like here?

Response to the second part, I very much doubt humanity is ever going to be completely wiped out. Society as we know it could be wiped out by WW III, deadly virus, etc true. Consider how diverse and spread out we are though. WW III and any massive viral outbreaks aren't likely to affect us all as both of these would hinder our infrastructure and ability to move around the planet greatly.

damn I want to live in that planet. Year is 13 earth days

Mr Spanky wrote:
Does anyone agree/disagree with the good Professor on this one? Does humankind have no future unless we relocate somewhere else, say somewhere like here?

IMHO mankind has gone from stargazing to navelgazing way too quickly. It's like we lost our ability to dream and our sense of curiosity and exploration when the space race ended. My thought is that a common goal and something we could all wish for would go a long way in uniting us despite our petty differences. It's a source of constant bewilderment to me why our racial need for exploration has reached such a low point that our goals now is only to develop new mobile phones and larger flat screen TVs. We've even stopped trying to figure out our own planet. Most of the world's oceans are completely unexplored, with no initiative to do so. Sure, sooner or later a nation will say "Okay, we're sending some people to Mars" and the race will begin again. The knowhow is already there, it's just a matter of that swift kick in the butt to get them started.

I agree with Hawking on this one. It's becoming painfully obvious every day that we're killing ourselves as a species down here, along with all the other species, and if we're going to survive, we must look elsewhere for our future. Maybe leaving this mudball is the only way of saving it? On a personal note I'm not sure we deserve to survive, but that's another debate entirely.

On question one, unfortunately I doubt his frail body could withstand the G-forces involved.

As to question two, if you take the really long term view, then of course he's right. Our sun will go nova one day in the far distant future, so if we haven't developed inter-stellar travel by then it's curtains for humanity; if we survive that long which is debatable.

Very happy for Hawking, I greatly admire the man.

I saw the footage on TV just a bit earlier, I had no idea the guy is in his sixties.

A good book on this topic (and largely set in my beloved Fremantle under the pseudonym 'Carlton' no less) is Stark, by Ben Elton.

...nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers...

It's interesting that simply by moving people to Some Other Place, they evidently lose the ability to create nuclear bombs or genetically engineer viral disasters. Or create chemical arms, etc. Wow. Outer space must be a wonderful place to cause the human race to forget so much that is caused by its own hatred and fear.

fable wrote:It's interesting that simply by moving people to Some Other Place, they evidently lose the ability to create nuclear bombs or genetically engineer viral disasters. Or create chemical arms, etc. Wow. Outer space must be a wonderful place to cause the human race to forget so much that is caused by its own hatred and fear.

Don't you think it's more a case of putting eggs in different baskets rather than believing humanity will suddenly change? You can certainly argue about the ethical issues with such an approach, but at least it makes some kind of sense.

Personally I would prefer a navelgazing solution though.

fable wrote:It's interesting that simply by moving people to Some Other Place, they evidently lose the ability to create nuclear bombs or genetically engineer viral disasters. Or create chemical arms, etc. Wow. Outer space must be a wonderful place to cause the human race to forget so much that is caused by its own hatred and fear.

There is more room in space (whoa ), so the need to fight over land and resources should be smaller..........until "we've" used up all the resources on our colonies and want to get their colonies. :laugh: :laugh:

As much as you can learn from fiction, then it does seem from multiple of sci-fi movies and books and games and so on that mankind will not live peaceful and in harmony even in space. We'll attack each other there as well, and we'll try to exterminated what ever other life-form we find - lest the world bands together in a sort of Star Trek "utopia".

So far we've only just found 1 planet that may support life in the whole universe. Now let's say we can reach and populate it. Who is going to get which parts, who is going to run it? You've got your WW III right there.

That's where "terraforming" comes into play
We'll just remake Mars to fit our needs.

fable wrote:It's interesting that simply by moving people to Some Other Place, they evidently lose the ability to create nuclear bombs or genetically engineer viral disasters. Or create chemical arms, etc. Wow. Outer space must be a wonderful place to cause the human race to forget so much that is caused by its own hatred and fear.

Of course not. But if we do manage to blow up the Earth, we'll still have another planet left. It's spreading the risk - the chances of destroying two civilizations is less than destroying one.

Mr Spanky wrote: Does anyone agree/disagree with the good Professor on this one? Does humankind have no future unless we relocate somewhere else, say somewhere like here?

I don't think we'll ever settle another planet for the simple reason that building a habitat in space is much easier (terraforming will take millennia) and carries vasts benefits like easy access to microgravity, the possibility of commerce with Earth, constant access to solar energy/asteroids and adjustable gravity.

edit: I feel like such a nerd for typing this.

Vicsun wrote:Of course not. But if we do manage to blow up the Earth, we'll still have another planet left. It's spreading the risk - the chances of destroying two civilizations is less than destroying one.

Capital. Another loonie bin.

edit: I feel like such a nerd for typing this.

That's okay, you have a sexy avatar.

Vicsun wrote:Of course not. But if we do manage to blow up the Earth, we'll still have another planet left. It's spreading the risk - the chances of destroying two civilizations is less than destroying one.

Yeah, dont't keep all your eggs in one... um... basket? So, if one egg is blown up, another is still functioning. I quess it is called pragmatism. But that makes Earth expendable, doesn't it.
The egg-blower's mentality: I can afford to destroy this rotten, overpopulated egg if need be. I have another one stashed.

AvatarOfLight

So far we've only just found 1 planet that may support life in the whole universe. Now let's say we can reach and populate it. Who is going to get which parts, who is going to run it? You've got your WW III right there.

This planet is 20 ly away.
1 light-year = 9,460,730,472,580.8 km

Fasten your belts, guys, here we come.

Xandax

As much as you can learn from fiction, then it does seem from multiple of sci-fi movies and books and games and so on that mankind will not live peaceful and in harmony even in space. We'll attack each other there as well, and we'll try to exterminated what ever other life-form we find - lest the world bands together in a sort of Star Trek "utopia".

And they will create various robots, cylons and clones which will turn against the creators.

Gliese 851 c

I saw that editorial in the Economist. Great, Gliese 851 c, a rocky planet that is also a red dwarf so will last longer than earth and is in a 'habitable zone'. Sounds good enough.
On the subject of Prof. Hawking and his view that we have to look around for other planets to inhabit if the human race is to survive; well, yes, on one hand can see his point, because we've more or less torn this planet apart. But we are getting it together, maybe, hopefully, fingers-crossed. Admitting failure is the fist step towards sorting out your mistakes. So my vote goes to: first fix this mess before we go running off to start a new one. Know it is not that simple [Gliese not proven potential, and how do we get there, so hypothetical in the extreme]. Also earth is just half way through its natural 'lifespan' [according to the extended Economist edit] and will eventually 'crash and burn' but we still have a lot of time [millions of years] to get this recovery plan underway.
Looked like Prof H. was having a great time in 'weightlessness', anyone deserves a little respite from gravity, must be him.

Science & Technology
Exoplanetary science

Sister Earth
Apr 26th 2007
From The Economist print edition

Astronomers detect the first Earth-like planet outside the solar system


IF EXTRATERRESTRIAL life were to exist, it would need a planet on which to evolve. All but one of 200-or-so planets outside the solar system that have so far been discovered by astronomers would be quite unsuitable. That is because they are composed of gas. Yet the one whose discovery was announced this week is different. Astronomers think it is rocky, like the Earth, and that it may harbour liquid water. This makes it the best candidate yet for supporting life.

The new planet orbits a star, called Gliese 581, that lies a mere 20 light years away in the constellation Libra. The temperature of the sun is such that it supports a nuclear-fusion reaction that generates bright sunlight. By contrast, Gliese 581 is a red dwarf, so-called because the star is small and the fusion reaction proceeds slowly, creating a dim glow. Nevertheless, because the new planet is much closer to its star than the Earth is to the sun, it lies in what astronomers call the “habitable zone”—the space surrounding a star where water would be in its liquid form.

While I am happy that Dr. Hawking got to have some fun. Here's some thing you need to be know about him:

The 'discovery' that he is held in most regard for, and bares his name, Hawking radiation, has never been observed and is (to my mind) part of the more conclusive evidence that Black Holes do not actually exist.

The definition of habitable, considering the nature of a red dwarf, may need to be seriously reviewed. All energy is disapated by the inverse square law and closer proximity to a source of X-rays (or other) may have unforeseen consequences. Until mankind has actually landed on such a planet and experienced 'living' conditions I would say it may be as inhabitable as Mars or indeed Titan.

Further to this terraforming need not take Millenia. There are schemes involving the terraforming of the Martian atmosphere that may start to have significant outcomes (breathable air) in as little as a few hundred years. If you can believe that we can make our own planet unihabitable by our actions in a little over one hundred years, then this shouldn't be too hard to accept.

The critical item here is an ethical/moral one. We should not contemplate spreading ourselves until we have shown that we can look after one planet. It is simply a matter of demonstrating responsibility as a species. The 'trash it and move on' attitude is fine except for all of the other species that we exterminate in the process. I declare Earth to be quarantine zone! - Curdis !

Curdis wrote:The critical item here is an ethical/moral one. We should not contemplate spreading ourselves until we have shown that we can look after one planet. It is simply a matter of demonstrating responsibility as a species. The 'trash it and move on' attitude is fine except for all of the other species that we exterminate in the process. I declare Earth to be quarantine zone! - Curdis !

I cannot help but agree with this sentiment. While I fancy that spreading amongst the stars might be in store for humanity, we should focus our efforts here, on this planet, in an attempt to put a halt to our destruction of it. I am all for studying and examining extra-terrestrial bodies and events, but our Moon is the farthest we should worry about traveling in the forseeable future.

Vicsun wrote: I don't think we'll ever settle another planet for the simple reason that building a habitat in space is much easier (terraforming will take millennia) and carries vasts benefits like easy access to microgravity, the possibility of commerce with Earth, constant access to solar energy/asteroids and adjustable gravity.

Sorry, you lost me. You don't think we will because it has so many benefits?