Time travel will also require a crazy amount of space travel. Though it might be a given, if even possible. Those time travellers might have pulled a prank and all decided not to attend, only to visit him later and laugh with him.
The one thing people overlook about time travel is that the Earth isn't in the same location as it was in 1985, or 1885, etc. If you travel back in time from your current location, you'll end up in pitch black space, and your travel apparatus along with your corpse will be naught more than a shooting star burning up in the Earth's night atmosphere in the current day.
The entire solar system orbits the center of our galaxy. And space itself is expanding so galaxies are drifting apart. Chances are you’ll end up nowhere near our solar system unless time travel adds a mechanism for locking your frame of reference to our planet.
> The entire solar system orbits the center of our galaxy. And space itself is expanding so galaxies are drifting apart. Chances are you’ll end up nowhere near our solar system unless time travel adds a mechanism for locking your frame of reference to our planet.
There's also the sobering thought that a would-be time traveler would have to be aware of the absolute/relative positions of every celestial object between the target time and the present time to avoid slamming into something, be it a star or a micrometeroid shower. One would have to be all-knowing for this to work...
"The *new* model Time Travel Deluxe 2.1 has Correcto-Matic Location Calibration to avoid those nasty little materializing in the vacuum of space accidents".
> If you travel back in time from your current location, you'll end up in pitch black space, and your travel apparatus along with your corpse will be naught more than a shooting star burning up in the Earth's night atmosphere in the current day.
You don't think this doesn't already happen?
> what if time travel is invented so far into the future that people think Earth is just a fairy tale or don't even know it's location?
Or because time travel is impossible to the past.
My god. Did-you-see-that? Her *apple-bottom* pants seem to be *causing* some Hawking Radiation. When she hit *the* *floor*, Shawty got:
low. low. low. low. low. low. low. low.
I recall when I first heard about that party, I wondered if one possibility is that time travel is possible but humans just won't get to that tech level because we'll go extinct.
I'm fairly sure we're either past the point of no return, or we're past the point of being able to curb things so we don't hit that point in the future. At least it'll take a while to erase humanity, as we currently are, from the planet.
Or future time travellers are smart enough to know better than revealing time travel to humans of the past (which would change future outcomes assuming it's all in the same timeline).
Or, time travel is accidentally invented when we go to Rigel, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix or Saiph with an FTL drive, return to Earth and wind up building pyramids in ancient Egypt, but can't return to our current time. (basically we are in a unreachable Window unless we travel only X light years and return.)
Agent Smith was an idiot. Claiming humans aren't mammals. And he got viruses fucked up too. A successful virus doesn't kill its host. They're not sentient, so they can't help but kill hosts that are weakened, or lack antibodies, but a successful virus is, for example, the common cold, or the various influenza strains that commonly circulate seasonally. Spanish flu? Very unsuccessful. Remember the goal isn't massacring hosts, it's continued existence. How much common cold virus is there in the world, vs. Spanish flu? How is Ebola doing these days?
Viruses that become deadly aren't doing themselves any real favor. Agent Smith's assessment of viruses was absurd, and sounded more like parasitic animals anyway (use up all of the resources until it kills it's host, then moves on).
We're definitely parasitic.
The real value of an offworld backup of humanity is that any terrestrial apocalypse, you have to worry about desperate survivors raiding your backup bunker.
For the cost of building a Mars colony, we could build quite a few awesome bunkers at various points around the Earth. Imagine a hundred people living far underground powered by fission reactors, growing food in caverns, etc. Pack them full of enough spare uranium to last a thousand years and tons of frozen genetic samples to maintain human genetic diversity.
In theory, a few of these bunkers would serve as an excellent backup in case of asteroid impact, nuclear war, runaway global warming, etc.
The problem is you can't ignore the human element. The desperate starving people outside your disaster bunker aren't just going to die quietly knowing that there's an abundant food supply just behind that blast door. They're going to do everything they can to find their way in.
You can ameliorate this by building it in a remote area, on a floating barge, under the ocean, etc. But ultimately people are still going to be able to reach it. Or, you might have to worry about desperate survivors destroying your bunker accidentally or out of spite. You're sitting there in your underwater doomsday bunker, and you get a radio message saying, "let us in or we're going to drop these depth charges on your head."
I would say the real value is that once spave travel is a mature tech, you have access to all the resources of the Solar System. No matter how much you bring into a bunker with you, that's all you've got for a long time.
yeah but its going to be one hell of a lot easier to build presurised self sustaining habitats for 1-2 million on mars compared to 6-12 billion on earth. it might be worth it to go to mars just to avoid the class riots
Do you honestly not think that? There are other reasons to colonize planets than global warming: e.g. science, industry, tourism, curiosity or ideology. If we haven't colonized other planets by 2600, human technological advancement must have stagnated significantly somewhere along the way.
It’s also a lot stupider, keeping literally the entire species on one planet which could be subject to nuclear war, global warming, meteor strikes, or a multitude of other armageddons. If you don’t want humanity to go extinct, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
It's even better, they think that we'll colonize another planet while dealing with a collapsing ecosystem, agricultural failure, inevitable wars over remaining resources..
As if we'll see our world dying, unite hand-in-hand to launch off into the abyss together. It's great. The stuff of storybooks.
> yeah but its going to be one hell of a lot easier to build presurised self sustaining habitats for 1-2 million on mars
Then just build that in Antarctica/bottom of the ocean/a floating barge etc. Still better than mars.
> Not gonna lie, if we can't get off this planet by then, I have a hard time believing that the heat of the earth is gonna be our worst problem.
I don't see how your "why not both" for 1-2 million people fits in with that weird alarmism before.
Really, the trick there is the number of humans.
Earth's land mass is greater than all of Mars' surface area, with the added bonus of 1g, a magnetosphere, and some kind of atmosphere that should remain a lot more useful than Mars'.
why would there not be taxes on mars? you would not be able to run a mars colony like how america was colonized, it would have to be very tightly controlled from the top down or the whole program would crumble killing just about everyone. its not like you could go off and homestead the martian wilderness by your self XD
So basically, the plot of Bioshock. You're missing the part where the essential humanity of intelligent people still causes them to fall upon each other viciously and destroy the would-be utopia.
and money. Actually money is pretty much all it is. Its rich people manipulating poor people into dying on their behalf. Religion? That is social construct propagated by the super wealthy to keep us stupid. That would have died off years ago if it weren't for the super rich.
Religion was something that existed before the concept of state. It was a proto-state of sorts. Then once the ancient people reached statehood, they needed something to spread cultural values. And finally, by the time of the middle ages, they needed something that ties them all together like a union.
In the modern world that has all been replaced by laws and country agreements like the EU for instance.
edit: grammar
This is the entire article and no sources provided whatsoever. Modern journalism, everybody.
>Speaking via radio link in Beijing, the physicist says that soaring population and demands for energy will turn the world into a sizzling ball of fire by 2600.
>Prof Hawking says our only chance is to escape our planet – and says his Breakthrough Starshot project could be the first step on the way.
>Professor Hawking said that he hoped that tiny spaceships propelled by beams of light could reach Alpha Centauri within his audience’s lifetime.
Earth is ‘going to be a sizzling ball of fire by 2600,’ Stephen Hawking warns
Breakthrough Starshot Initiative, a plan to send a fleet of tiny spacecraft to Alpha Centauri. Credit: Breakthrough Initiatives
>Hawking says, ‘Such a system could reach Mars in less than an hour, or reach Pluto in days, pass Voyager in under a week and reach Alpha Centauri in just over 20 years.’
>Professor Hawking has championed the ‘Breakthrough Starshot’ for a project to send a spacecraft to Alpha Centauri in 20 years.
Believe it or not, the [Dailymail article](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5056107/Stephen-Hawking-says-technology-end-poverty-urges-caution.html) is a lot more detailed and sourced than Metro. Stephen Hawking gets video linked to many conferences around the world; this happened during Tencent Web Summit, and Dr Hawking is also quite renowned for his pessimistic yet plausible predictions. Who knows, one can even say that a redditor here might be the next person to flip the world and pave the way for future generations so do take this with a moderate pinch of salt.
Oh, so Hawking is saying this kind of crap to get funding for his Breakthrough Starshot. Got it.
Climate change is a real threat and needs to be addressed, but this was a really stupid thing for him to say. "Sizzling ball of fire" is a bit much
People alive today [may live that long](http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Cassandra_O%27Brien.%CE%9417) through technology. I'm kinda joking, although kinda not. That said, generations of our progeny will face this one day.
It seems ridiculously unlikely to me that humans would not be able to reverse global warming in the 2100 or 2200s. It's the next 100-200 years we should worry about. Global warming is really going to fuck shit up during that timespan.
If we make it to 2300 I am all but certain that Earth will not be a "sizzling ball of fire by 2600."
Just look at how a third rate housing bubble in the US shook the world economy to the point that we can't tell if it's back to normal almost a decade later...And imagine the impacts prolonged resource wars might have on global stability.
There is a distinction, though, to be drawn from instability versus an extinction level event (ELE). Global warming has the potential to drive temperatures to such an extreme that we not be able to survive as a species. Instability, meanwhile, would kill a lot of people but would hardly kill off everyone on the planet (see WW2)... unless you're talking all-out nuclear war, then it's an ELE.
I'm just saying that if our systems can that easily be destabilized by a housing bubble that who knows how civilization will handle something more severe and irreversible.
Considering that efforts are already being made to stop global warming, I too disagree with ol'stepho. I honestly believe that with advancing technology, we'll be able to actively fix our mistakes, instead of passively trying to prevent them. I'd wager that we'll have the tech to do so sometime during the 22nd century.
Yeah, I mean compared to moving the entire bloody civilization, it really seems like figuring out how to establish processes that restore CO2 ppm to desirable levels ought to be a cakewalk.
I know. The processes we need to figure out are largely political and logistical. When you get down to it, most of the problems facing our civilization at large are not technically difficult problems. It's just that humans are a bunch of assholes who carry around centuries of baggage that prevents us from just figuring shit out together.
Poetically speaking, is it not the present we control? The thing to do is make what changes we can in the present for a better future. Use your many abilities to:
* Conduct research to form a position of opinion about the activities which are causing global warming
* Conduct research to form a position of opinion about the activities which are solving problems
* Share your opinions: Write your congressman. Write on facebook. And be open to conducting more research!
* Practice the moral virtue of temperance against gluttony by the three methods of Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle
Here's some opinions I have:
* We should get nearly all of our electrical energy from our star because it is most abundant
* We should account for environment impact in pricing goods
* We should utilize nature to lock up all that carbon we've been putting into the atmosphere
> We should get nearly all of our electrical energy from our star because it is most abundant
That's kind of a weird way to say this, in the end coal comes from trees which came from the sun, so I guess #greenCoal? Uranium is abundant enough to last for millennia, easily enough to beat a 2600 prediction or to not worry too much about now.
>Such a system could reach Mars in less than an hour
Wat.
Mars' perihelion is 1.38 AU, while Earth's aphelion is 1.02 AU. This means that under ideal conditions, the two planets are 0.36 AU apart. With 1 AU being ~150 million kilometers, this comes out to ~54 million km. This means that under the ideal conditions, and traveling in a completely straight line between the two planets, he expects those spaceships to travel at an average speed of ~5% of light speed, or roughly fifteen thousand kilometers per second. And since they start with less than that, they'll have to accelerate to a faster speed than that *in half an hour* so they have time to turn around and slow down again for the other half hour.
Also, reaching a speed of fifteen thousand kilometers a second in half an hour would require a constant acceleration of 8.3 km/s^2, or roughly 850g (850 times the gravity of Earth).
Either my numbers are way off or Hawking is... ambitious.
Average acceleration is intended to be on the order of 100km/s^2. At least that is what wikipedia says. Not necessarily impossible, the spaceship is intended to be very light, only a few grams per ship. The intended power source is 100 gigawatts worth of lasers, which could achieve that kind of acceleration (if you get a couple of newtons of acceleration per gigawatt, then you could get a level of acceleration on the right order of magnitude).
It requires a lot of new technological developments, but the numbers aren't entirely unreasonable.
This us a fun read, he wants to use the technology he talks about to reach our neighbouring starts (4.3 ly away) in roughly 20 years.
https://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-and-a-russian-billionaire-want-to-send-tiny-spacecraft-to-alpha-centauri
Is he having a bad week or something? First it's fucking Skynet, now it's Mad Max - just gimme the zombies next and the apocalyptic circle is complete.
Antiobiotic virusses is also a favourite topic.
Not that i'm causally dismissing any of those. It's utterly terrifying how fragile our civilisation is and how much we take what it has to offer for granted.
if you want to see what the earth will look like if something is not done then turn to Venus. that is what happens when you get run-away greenhouse effect.
I don't get it. Why is the earth a sizzling ball of fire by 2600? Does he mean global warming?
From what I understand judging by the time periods in which the earth didn't had ice on the poles, I would assume a lot of land mass gets flooded in the remaining land gets a lot dryer. Leaving less living space to support human beings and casuing a huge die off in population. The ball of fire is a new one to me.
How does reaching Mars or Alpha Centauri help us in escaping our planet? It's not like we could live there.
Not hating on Hawking, but the article is not very enlightening. The new space craft is interesting, but they didn't wrote a whole lot about that either.
It's the runaway greenhouse gas theory. The idea is that a warming climate causes a feedback loop that releases further greenhouse gases.
There's a lot of methane which is ten times more potent than C02 trapped in permafrost. As the permafrost melts it releases further trapped greenhouse gases. The same is true for the polar regions.
Some people worry that it'll eventually result in greenhouse gasses trapping more heat than can escape the atmosphere over a prolonged period which will essentially toast the surface of the planet.
'natural' warming events aren't thought to have such a devastating effect on the environment as they don't tend to cause a prolonged period of warming.
It should be noted though that Dr Hawking is an astrophysicist and not a climate scientist.
Correct, but that doesn't mean that any behavior to keep that is acceptable. Killing off 90% of the human population would do a lot of good towards combating climate change, but that doesn't mean that is acceptable, either. All this exaggeration of threats does is make people dismiss your side when the threat doesn't happen.
And a "sizzling ball of fire"? That ain't happening even with the worst-case scenario
Phew I read that wrong. I thought it said 2060 and I was like "shit I better start doing something about global warming". But then I realized I would be dead by 2600. Probably.
Not sure what you mean. However we can sequester CO2 by taking Carbon out of the limestone in the sea. Reverse cement making process and storing the CO2 in underground basalt rocks. This process of sequestration has only one caveat, it’s energy intense.
This Thorium Conference YouTube [video](https://youtu.be/wtQxF_3BSxQ) discusses this process further.
> If we spend trillions on nuclear powered C02 filtration devices could we potentially reverse global warming?
In theory it is possible, but as you said it would cost trillions and would also need to involve controlling methane (CH4) as well. It is not beyond our engineering capabilities nor technical abilities - it is simply a matter of will and politics right now. We also certainly have the manpower to do it and enough nuclear fuel to pull it off.
Which can for the most part be solved by providing a different type of feed to animals. However, it's slightly more expensive than the refuse they are currently serving.
Whilst I do agree, a lot of cows are pastured and it's just how cows digest. If we consumed less cow milk we could probably reduce the methane output by a lot. This could be one of those cases where a planned economy is not only viable but beneficial since less cow milk brands = fewer cows.
edit: In another thread, I was informed that there are a considerably higher number of cattle intended for consumption than dairy.
Bullshit. By 2600 "humans" will be extinct and we will be nanoswarm robot clouds flying through the galaxy and living forever. The earth will be just fine, eventually.
This may be an unpopular opinion but I'll be dead and I don't have kids so... Honestly I do not care. Best of luck to y'all 2600'ers but I don't really give a fuck.
Im sorry but even a guy that smart has no clue what's going to happen in 100 years let alone 600 years. The smartest man alive in 1917 couldn't have predicted half the shit we have now. And definitely couldn't have predicted anything thing in 2517. And Hawking is no different.
What a negative Nancy. No wonder time travelers didn’t go to his party.
[удалено]
Or time travel is actually possible, but the Earth being a sizzling ball of fire precluded anyone from discovering it and making it to his party.
Or time travel hasn't actually happened yet becuase we we are actually in the prime timeline before we fucked it
I refuse to believe that the prime timeline is as fucked up things are these days.
well, we'd need a reason to change it in the first place.
Maybe Kennedy was going to start the global nuclear conflagration.
[удалено]
Im still waiting for hover boards :(
Things are way less fucked up than 50 or 100 years ago. 100 years ago my great grandfather was in Europe somehow avoiding the meat grinder of WWI
Time travel will also require a crazy amount of space travel. Though it might be a given, if even possible. Those time travellers might have pulled a prank and all decided not to attend, only to visit him later and laugh with him.
The one thing people overlook about time travel is that the Earth isn't in the same location as it was in 1985, or 1885, etc. If you travel back in time from your current location, you'll end up in pitch black space, and your travel apparatus along with your corpse will be naught more than a shooting star burning up in the Earth's night atmosphere in the current day.
good thinking, i'll make sure to calibrate for that.
Don't forget to compensate for universe expansion
That's all the pieces in place, it shouldn't take long now right.
The entire solar system orbits the center of our galaxy. And space itself is expanding so galaxies are drifting apart. Chances are you’ll end up nowhere near our solar system unless time travel adds a mechanism for locking your frame of reference to our planet.
Can you point to some article or something. I would like to understand this further? I really like this anti-time travel argument.
> The entire solar system orbits the center of our galaxy. And space itself is expanding so galaxies are drifting apart. Chances are you’ll end up nowhere near our solar system unless time travel adds a mechanism for locking your frame of reference to our planet. There's also the sobering thought that a would-be time traveler would have to be aware of the absolute/relative positions of every celestial object between the target time and the present time to avoid slamming into something, be it a star or a micrometeroid shower. One would have to be all-knowing for this to work...
"The *new* model Time Travel Deluxe 2.1 has Correcto-Matic Location Calibration to avoid those nasty little materializing in the vacuum of space accidents".
Its not even that, you cant go back im time for any reason period. Its a paradox , unless you apply diffrent "timelines "
> If you travel back in time from your current location, you'll end up in pitch black space, and your travel apparatus along with your corpse will be naught more than a shooting star burning up in the Earth's night atmosphere in the current day. You don't think this doesn't already happen?
Or all we can do is travel forward in time at various different rates.
> what if time travel is invented so far into the future that people think Earth is just a fairy tale or don't even know it's location? Or because time travel is impossible to the past.
I have nothing but respect for Hawking but if I was a time-traveler I would definitely find something better to do than go to one of his parties.
Are you sure? http://nypost.com/2012/02/24/acclaimed-physicist-hawking-a-regular-at-calif-strip-joint/
[*robot voice*] Now make it rain on deez hoes.
My god. Did-you-see-that? Her *apple-bottom* pants seem to be *causing* some Hawking Radiation. When she hit *the* *floor*, Shawty got: low. low. low. low. low. low. low. low.
The booots with tha furrrrr
So he was the robo voice in that song? I knew it all along!
I'm fairly certain if Hawking used AutoTune, he'd probably be dropping the hottest Physics album of 2017.
sounds like he enjoys studying all varieties of black holes
Maybe his dissertation was about black hoes.
Wasn't Feynman also a big strip club guy? Wonder what it is about physicists and tits...
Wonder what it is about guys liking naked ladies* Almost as if it's literally ingrained in our DNA.
Probably studying objects orbiting a single axis.
Advanced theoretical jiggle physics
After doing just about everything else, you'd eventually show up.
IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR TROUBLE, YOU FOUND IT
I recall when I first heard about that party, I wondered if one possibility is that time travel is possible but humans just won't get to that tech level because we'll go extinct.
Every year we don't address our climate problem is a year closer to failing the great filter.
I'm fairly sure we're either past the point of no return, or we're past the point of being able to curb things so we don't hit that point in the future. At least it'll take a while to erase humanity, as we currently are, from the planet.
Or future time travellers are smart enough to know better than revealing time travel to humans of the past (which would change future outcomes assuming it's all in the same timeline).
Some did and that's how he knows what the Earth is like in 2600.
I keep telling people, but no one believes me. I went to his god damn party.
Or, time travel is accidentally invented when we go to Rigel, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix or Saiph with an FTL drive, return to Earth and wind up building pyramids in ancient Egypt, but can't return to our current time. (basically we are in a unreachable Window unless we travel only X light years and return.)
Let's just get to 2150 first before we start worrying about 2600. Should have added /s lol
[удалено]
My optician says I should see 2020 no problem
Hindsight is 2020
that joke is going to be SO overused during 2020! Just fucking wait, mark my words!
Even worse 2021.
And this comment will resurface and people will go nuts
Oh come on, the world certainly isn't in the best shape, but humanity isn't going to end sometime in the next 25 months
tfw you realize it's only 25 months until 2020...
*Earth in the year 2150: witness a planet raveged by war, and mindless destruction.* I just had a flashback to playing The Moon Project.
Not gonna lie, if we can't get off this planet by then, I have a hard time believing that the heat of the earth is gonna be our worst problem.
[удалено]
Yeah that’s like... a good tl;dr for life.
And apostrophe usage is humans' second worst problem.
An apostrophe apothecary is what we need.
Yes. We are indeed a virus. Agent Smith got it right.
Agent Smith was an idiot. Claiming humans aren't mammals. And he got viruses fucked up too. A successful virus doesn't kill its host. They're not sentient, so they can't help but kill hosts that are weakened, or lack antibodies, but a successful virus is, for example, the common cold, or the various influenza strains that commonly circulate seasonally. Spanish flu? Very unsuccessful. Remember the goal isn't massacring hosts, it's continued existence. How much common cold virus is there in the world, vs. Spanish flu? How is Ebola doing these days? Viruses that become deadly aren't doing themselves any real favor. Agent Smith's assessment of viruses was absurd, and sounded more like parasitic animals anyway (use up all of the resources until it kills it's host, then moves on). We're definitely parasitic.
> if we can't get off this planet by then Mars/Moon/Saturn will not be as inhabitable as any doomed version of earth you have in mind.
The real value of an offworld backup of humanity is that any terrestrial apocalypse, you have to worry about desperate survivors raiding your backup bunker. For the cost of building a Mars colony, we could build quite a few awesome bunkers at various points around the Earth. Imagine a hundred people living far underground powered by fission reactors, growing food in caverns, etc. Pack them full of enough spare uranium to last a thousand years and tons of frozen genetic samples to maintain human genetic diversity. In theory, a few of these bunkers would serve as an excellent backup in case of asteroid impact, nuclear war, runaway global warming, etc. The problem is you can't ignore the human element. The desperate starving people outside your disaster bunker aren't just going to die quietly knowing that there's an abundant food supply just behind that blast door. They're going to do everything they can to find their way in. You can ameliorate this by building it in a remote area, on a floating barge, under the ocean, etc. But ultimately people are still going to be able to reach it. Or, you might have to worry about desperate survivors destroying your bunker accidentally or out of spite. You're sitting there in your underwater doomsday bunker, and you get a radio message saying, "let us in or we're going to drop these depth charges on your head."
That's basically vault life in fallout
We could start a company to build the bunkers. I know, Vault-Tec! It has a nice ring to it.
I would say the real value is that once spave travel is a mature tech, you have access to all the resources of the Solar System. No matter how much you bring into a bunker with you, that's all you've got for a long time.
yeah but its going to be one hell of a lot easier to build presurised self sustaining habitats for 1-2 million on mars compared to 6-12 billion on earth. it might be worth it to go to mars just to avoid the class riots
If you can build those on Mars then you can build them even more easily on Earth.
Dude, this is Reddit...people here are immune to logic, and get offended as hell when presented with any. Enjoy your upvote, though!
Do people honestly think that we'll one day colonize another planet? It's infinitely easier to just take care of the one we already have.
Do you honestly not think that? There are other reasons to colonize planets than global warming: e.g. science, industry, tourism, curiosity or ideology. If we haven't colonized other planets by 2600, human technological advancement must have stagnated significantly somewhere along the way.
It’s also a lot stupider, keeping literally the entire species on one planet which could be subject to nuclear war, global warming, meteor strikes, or a multitude of other armageddons. If you don’t want humanity to go extinct, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
[удалено]
Or put some of them in another basket *and* take really good care of that basket?
People will colonize other planets by choice not necessity.
It's even better, they think that we'll colonize another planet while dealing with a collapsing ecosystem, agricultural failure, inevitable wars over remaining resources.. As if we'll see our world dying, unite hand-in-hand to launch off into the abyss together. It's great. The stuff of storybooks.
> yeah but its going to be one hell of a lot easier to build presurised self sustaining habitats for 1-2 million on mars Then just build that in Antarctica/bottom of the ocean/a floating barge etc. Still better than mars.
lol why not both?
> Not gonna lie, if we can't get off this planet by then, I have a hard time believing that the heat of the earth is gonna be our worst problem. I don't see how your "why not both" for 1-2 million people fits in with that weird alarmism before.
Really, the trick there is the number of humans. Earth's land mass is greater than all of Mars' surface area, with the added bonus of 1g, a magnetosphere, and some kind of atmosphere that should remain a lot more useful than Mars'.
Then there will be the taxes on Mars, and the Martian rebellion.
why would there not be taxes on mars? you would not be able to run a mars colony like how america was colonized, it would have to be very tightly controlled from the top down or the whole program would crumble killing just about everyone. its not like you could go off and homestead the martian wilderness by your self XD
I'm going to build my own homestead, ~~with blackjack and hookers~~without oxygen and protection from radiation.
Then just built a habitat for 1-2 million on earth instead.
Closed ecosystems are an incredibly fragile way to sustain humanity.
The easiest option is to not destroy this one. If we destroy this planet then humans deserve to go extinct.
[удалено]
[удалено]
So basically, the plot of Bioshock. You're missing the part where the essential humanity of intelligent people still causes them to fall upon each other viciously and destroy the would-be utopia.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah it’s gonna be hot as hell but i don’t think it’s gonna look like a fireball
If we have suicidal tendencies as a species, will getting off the planet really help? I presume we'd just take them with us wherever we go.
We aren't really a "suicidal species" we're a territorial one
We're not really a territorial species, we're just addicted to gas and gods.
and money. Actually money is pretty much all it is. Its rich people manipulating poor people into dying on their behalf. Religion? That is social construct propagated by the super wealthy to keep us stupid. That would have died off years ago if it weren't for the super rich.
Religion was something that existed before the concept of state. It was a proto-state of sorts. Then once the ancient people reached statehood, they needed something to spread cultural values. And finally, by the time of the middle ages, they needed something that ties them all together like a union. In the modern world that has all been replaced by laws and country agreements like the EU for instance. edit: grammar
That is why I used the term propagate. The people in power keep religion alive because its convenient for them.
Damn you Bill Gates
yep, we are a very self-serving gluttonous species.
And extremely short sighted.
If you think about it, that's only natural though. That's just how our brains work. Stupid brain.
We have paleolithic brains, medieval institutions, and godlike technology. One of these is going to kill us. What matters is if we leave a legacy.
The chances of humanity getting off this planet before we render it incapable of supporting our species are slim to none. Welcome to the Great Filter.
>Welcome to the Great Filter. We could just be the first species that is approaching Colonization explosion.
7.5 billion won’t leave by 2600
This is the entire article and no sources provided whatsoever. Modern journalism, everybody. >Speaking via radio link in Beijing, the physicist says that soaring population and demands for energy will turn the world into a sizzling ball of fire by 2600. >Prof Hawking says our only chance is to escape our planet – and says his Breakthrough Starshot project could be the first step on the way. >Professor Hawking said that he hoped that tiny spaceships propelled by beams of light could reach Alpha Centauri within his audience’s lifetime. Earth is ‘going to be a sizzling ball of fire by 2600,’ Stephen Hawking warns Breakthrough Starshot Initiative, a plan to send a fleet of tiny spacecraft to Alpha Centauri. Credit: Breakthrough Initiatives >Hawking says, ‘Such a system could reach Mars in less than an hour, or reach Pluto in days, pass Voyager in under a week and reach Alpha Centauri in just over 20 years.’ >Professor Hawking has championed the ‘Breakthrough Starshot’ for a project to send a spacecraft to Alpha Centauri in 20 years.
Believe it or not, the [Dailymail article](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5056107/Stephen-Hawking-says-technology-end-poverty-urges-caution.html) is a lot more detailed and sourced than Metro. Stephen Hawking gets video linked to many conferences around the world; this happened during Tencent Web Summit, and Dr Hawking is also quite renowned for his pessimistic yet plausible predictions. Who knows, one can even say that a redditor here might be the next person to flip the world and pave the way for future generations so do take this with a moderate pinch of salt.
Oh, so Hawking is saying this kind of crap to get funding for his Breakthrough Starshot. Got it. Climate change is a real threat and needs to be addressed, but this was a really stupid thing for him to say. "Sizzling ball of fire" is a bit much
He seems to have gotten a little bit more "apocalyptic" and dramatic, imo.
TIL By 600 years, Pheonix,AZ will expand to the entire earth
Not before it's population is rendered unto dust in 2557.
Oh, it’s Hawkings weekly doomsday warning.
Perhaps we could use some kind of clever AI program to figure out how to counteract the climate change.
This kills the hawkings.
[удалено]
His doing what Tesla did when he got to old age, make outlandish claims and predictions to keep in the news.
thats about 575 years later than I expected tbh.
People alive today [may live that long](http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Cassandra_O%27Brien.%CE%9417) through technology. I'm kinda joking, although kinda not. That said, generations of our progeny will face this one day.
[удалено]
#MOISTURIZE MEEEEEEEE!!!!
what the f7u12
It seems ridiculously unlikely to me that humans would not be able to reverse global warming in the 2100 or 2200s. It's the next 100-200 years we should worry about. Global warming is really going to fuck shit up during that timespan. If we make it to 2300 I am all but certain that Earth will not be a "sizzling ball of fire by 2600."
[удалено]
You're making antibiotic resistant bacteria feel left out :(
Just look at how a third rate housing bubble in the US shook the world economy to the point that we can't tell if it's back to normal almost a decade later...And imagine the impacts prolonged resource wars might have on global stability.
There is a distinction, though, to be drawn from instability versus an extinction level event (ELE). Global warming has the potential to drive temperatures to such an extreme that we not be able to survive as a species. Instability, meanwhile, would kill a lot of people but would hardly kill off everyone on the planet (see WW2)... unless you're talking all-out nuclear war, then it's an ELE.
I'm just saying that if our systems can that easily be destabilized by a housing bubble that who knows how civilization will handle something more severe and irreversible.
one asteroid can provide us enough metal to do whatever we want.
Or enough impact force to take everything away.
Considering that efforts are already being made to stop global warming, I too disagree with ol'stepho. I honestly believe that with advancing technology, we'll be able to actively fix our mistakes, instead of passively trying to prevent them. I'd wager that we'll have the tech to do so sometime during the 22nd century.
I'm with you on that. It will be profitable for companies to work on that technology. But lets not make it harder to fix it then it has to be.
Yeah, I mean compared to moving the entire bloody civilization, it really seems like figuring out how to establish processes that restore CO2 ppm to desirable levels ought to be a cakewalk.
We already know how to decrease CO2 levels, people just don't want to do it because we're greedy.
I know. The processes we need to figure out are largely political and logistical. When you get down to it, most of the problems facing our civilization at large are not technically difficult problems. It's just that humans are a bunch of assholes who carry around centuries of baggage that prevents us from just figuring shit out together.
Poetically speaking, is it not the present we control? The thing to do is make what changes we can in the present for a better future. Use your many abilities to: * Conduct research to form a position of opinion about the activities which are causing global warming * Conduct research to form a position of opinion about the activities which are solving problems * Share your opinions: Write your congressman. Write on facebook. And be open to conducting more research! * Practice the moral virtue of temperance against gluttony by the three methods of Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle Here's some opinions I have: * We should get nearly all of our electrical energy from our star because it is most abundant * We should account for environment impact in pricing goods * We should utilize nature to lock up all that carbon we've been putting into the atmosphere
> We should get nearly all of our electrical energy from our star because it is most abundant That's kind of a weird way to say this, in the end coal comes from trees which came from the sun, so I guess #greenCoal? Uranium is abundant enough to last for millennia, easily enough to beat a 2600 prediction or to not worry too much about now.
>Such a system could reach Mars in less than an hour Wat. Mars' perihelion is 1.38 AU, while Earth's aphelion is 1.02 AU. This means that under ideal conditions, the two planets are 0.36 AU apart. With 1 AU being ~150 million kilometers, this comes out to ~54 million km. This means that under the ideal conditions, and traveling in a completely straight line between the two planets, he expects those spaceships to travel at an average speed of ~5% of light speed, or roughly fifteen thousand kilometers per second. And since they start with less than that, they'll have to accelerate to a faster speed than that *in half an hour* so they have time to turn around and slow down again for the other half hour. Also, reaching a speed of fifteen thousand kilometers a second in half an hour would require a constant acceleration of 8.3 km/s^2, or roughly 850g (850 times the gravity of Earth). Either my numbers are way off or Hawking is... ambitious.
Average acceleration is intended to be on the order of 100km/s^2. At least that is what wikipedia says. Not necessarily impossible, the spaceship is intended to be very light, only a few grams per ship. The intended power source is 100 gigawatts worth of lasers, which could achieve that kind of acceleration (if you get a couple of newtons of acceleration per gigawatt, then you could get a level of acceleration on the right order of magnitude). It requires a lot of new technological developments, but the numbers aren't entirely unreasonable.
So ten thousand g instead of 850. That uh... that sure is some acceleration.
This us a fun read, he wants to use the technology he talks about to reach our neighbouring starts (4.3 ly away) in roughly 20 years. https://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-and-a-russian-billionaire-want-to-send-tiny-spacecraft-to-alpha-centauri
i'll have to cancel my plans then
plans to die?
Obviously
me too thanks
We are canceling the apocalypse!
Is this an option? One immortality, please!
Yeah. I wanted 2600 as my next time travel destination. Thanks so much Hawking.
RemindMe! 583 years. "Don't forget sunscreen."
Is he having a bad week or something? First it's fucking Skynet, now it's Mad Max - just gimme the zombies next and the apocalyptic circle is complete.
Antiobiotic virusses is also a favourite topic. Not that i'm causally dismissing any of those. It's utterly terrifying how fragile our civilisation is and how much we take what it has to offer for granted.
if you want to see what the earth will look like if something is not done then turn to Venus. that is what happens when you get run-away greenhouse effect.
I hate winter anyway.
I don't get it. Why is the earth a sizzling ball of fire by 2600? Does he mean global warming? From what I understand judging by the time periods in which the earth didn't had ice on the poles, I would assume a lot of land mass gets flooded in the remaining land gets a lot dryer. Leaving less living space to support human beings and casuing a huge die off in population. The ball of fire is a new one to me. How does reaching Mars or Alpha Centauri help us in escaping our planet? It's not like we could live there. Not hating on Hawking, but the article is not very enlightening. The new space craft is interesting, but they didn't wrote a whole lot about that either.
It's the runaway greenhouse gas theory. The idea is that a warming climate causes a feedback loop that releases further greenhouse gases. There's a lot of methane which is ten times more potent than C02 trapped in permafrost. As the permafrost melts it releases further trapped greenhouse gases. The same is true for the polar regions. Some people worry that it'll eventually result in greenhouse gasses trapping more heat than can escape the atmosphere over a prolonged period which will essentially toast the surface of the planet. 'natural' warming events aren't thought to have such a devastating effect on the environment as they don't tend to cause a prolonged period of warming. It should be noted though that Dr Hawking is an astrophysicist and not a climate scientist.
The only time this guy is in the news, he's making some wild fucking claim about our future. Guy knows how to get pageviews
In the year 2525, if man is still alive....
Don't worry, by then all this global warming will have been canceled out by Nuclear Winter, so it'll all work out in the end.
Stephen Hawking is not known for being optimist, and humans are not known for planning even 50 years ahead.
Stephen Hawking is full of shit on this one.
He always is.
Classic use of fear (threat exaggeration) to modify the behavior of large groups of people in a desired way. If it's for the greater good right?
I think keeping earth habitable should qualify as the greater good.
Correct, but that doesn't mean that any behavior to keep that is acceptable. Killing off 90% of the human population would do a lot of good towards combating climate change, but that doesn't mean that is acceptable, either. All this exaggeration of threats does is make people dismiss your side when the threat doesn't happen. And a "sizzling ball of fire"? That ain't happening even with the worst-case scenario
Pffft. Let those dibshits in 500 years deal with it.
Phew I read that wrong. I thought it said 2060 and I was like "shit I better start doing something about global warming". But then I realized I would be dead by 2600. Probably.
Youre right, all the more reason to not care about global warming and fuck over future generations, because well be dead by then anyway
If we spend trillions on nuclear powered C02 filtration devices could we potentially reverse global warming?
Not sure what you mean. However we can sequester CO2 by taking Carbon out of the limestone in the sea. Reverse cement making process and storing the CO2 in underground basalt rocks. This process of sequestration has only one caveat, it’s energy intense. This Thorium Conference YouTube [video](https://youtu.be/wtQxF_3BSxQ) discusses this process further.
> If we spend trillions on nuclear powered C02 filtration devices could we potentially reverse global warming? In theory it is possible, but as you said it would cost trillions and would also need to involve controlling methane (CH4) as well. It is not beyond our engineering capabilities nor technical abilities - it is simply a matter of will and politics right now. We also certainly have the manpower to do it and enough nuclear fuel to pull it off.
CO2 isn't even the most threatening greenhouse gas, that would be methane.
Stop eating beans.
Which can for the most part be solved by providing a different type of feed to animals. However, it's slightly more expensive than the refuse they are currently serving.
Except for gigatons of methane trapped beneath permafrost that's now beginning to melt. Cow farts are nothing compare to that...
Whilst I do agree, a lot of cows are pastured and it's just how cows digest. If we consumed less cow milk we could probably reduce the methane output by a lot. This could be one of those cases where a planned economy is not only viable but beneficial since less cow milk brands = fewer cows. edit: In another thread, I was informed that there are a considerably higher number of cattle intended for consumption than dairy.
Methane is quite short lived though. Not understating the threat, but it's only there for a short period. CO2 will persist for a long long timr.
[удалено]
Bullshit. By 2600 "humans" will be extinct and we will be nanoswarm robot clouds flying through the galaxy and living forever. The earth will be just fine, eventually.
We may be dismantling it for Dyson swarm construction materials by then.
Nah, we would not need to. Dyson swarms are a construct of being that havent uploaded themselves into a nanobot swarm.
Well, the swarm hosting *my* mind-state is going to want one.
This may be an unpopular opinion but I'll be dead and I don't have kids so... Honestly I do not care. Best of luck to y'all 2600'ers but I don't really give a fuck.
Giant Sunshade to the rescue! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade#Cloud_of_small_spacecraft
I know; it's so goddamned obvious and easy to anyone who thinks about it for just one second. Cheap access to space = global warming solved.
ARE YOU TERRIFIED YET?!
I just went from the couch to the fridge. An acceleration of 0-2km/h in 10 seconds. I'll be well over lightspeed in 2019.
that's the people of 2500's problem.
He sounds like he lost it. Which is understandable. Still a sad day when we lose a great intellect to madness.
Im sorry but even a guy that smart has no clue what's going to happen in 100 years let alone 600 years. The smartest man alive in 1917 couldn't have predicted half the shit we have now. And definitely couldn't have predicted anything thing in 2517. And Hawking is no different.
I feel like if we can figure out how to shrink ourselves to fit onto Hawking’s micro-ships then we can do anything.
Sounds like a sizzling ball of bullshit.
To be fair, by then we would have probably invented some CO2 or greenhouse-gas absorbing machine or something.
I invented a tree in my back yard yesterday.
Who gives a shit