Hawking Says Humans Must Go Into Space

Hawking Says Humans Must Go Into Space
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...C-RSSFeeds0312
Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking Says Humans Must Spread Out in Space to
Survive

By SYLVIA HUI

HONG KONG Jun 13, 2006 (AP)- The survival of the human race depends on its
ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an
increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned
scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:29:34 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jim
Oberg" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Hawking Says Humans Must Go Into Space
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...C-RSSFeeds0312
Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking Says Humans Must Spread Out in Space to
Survive

By SYLVIA HUI

HONG KONG Jun 13, 2006 (AP)- The survival of the human race depends on its
ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an
increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned
scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.

He's been saying that for a while, I believe.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:39:21 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:03:38 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
To assume we're likely to destroy ourselves or our biosphere
to the point of extinction shows a fundamental ignorance
of the properties of life.

And to dismiss the possiility shows a fundamental ignorance of the
power of future weaponry (particularly biological and
nanotechnological).

So you don't think there are enough nuclear weapons in existence to
destroy all human life?


Nobody with any sense thinks that. Well, I wouldn't completely rule
out the possibility that all the nuclear weapons in existence, bent
to one will and one plan for total genocide, *might* suffice for that
purpose, but I'd tend to bet against even that and it would take a
fairly substantial ammount of pointless analysis to indicate otherwise.
I haven't bothered, and I don't know of anyone who has.

The nuclear weapons actually in existence, are divided amongst half
a dozen or so competing powers with competing plans and interests,
none of them involving total genocide.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

Jim Oberg wrote:
Hawking Says Humans Must Go Into Space
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...C-RSSFeeds0312
Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking Says Humans Must Spread Out in Space to
Survive

By SYLVIA HUI

HONG KONG Jun 13, 2006 (AP)- The survival of the human race depends on its
ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an
increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned
scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.


I've been saying it for years and I agree with him. We are moving
altogether too damn slow for my liking. Let these ignorant religious
fools parish with the next extinction. They are a total waste anyway.
War mongering superstitious morons that they are.

--
Two ways to improve your life.
1. Turn off the TV.
2. Throw it out the window.

Vlad the Impaler

Hawking is about as intelligent as a dead snail.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:30:35 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote, in part:

He's been saying that for a while, I believe.

Stephen Hawking said it. I believe it. That settles it.

Might make a good bumper sticker.

The opposing sentiment is something I have seen expressed often as well.
Before going to other planets, we should learn how to take care of this
one properly.

The Earth certainly is far more suited to human life than any other
planet in the Solar System. And space travel is difficult and expensive.

Thus, the _possibility_ of travel to other planets in the Solar System
does not detract from the importance of preventing a disaster from
overtaking the Earth.

So why should anyone feel *threatened* by an attempt to colonize Mars?

When stated in one set of terms, the case for establishing a permanent
human settlement on Mars, or on an O'Neill colony, or of some other
suitable type, seems obvious.

Despite all our efforts to avoid ecological devastation, to prevent war,
and deal with other threats such as asteroid impacts or new epidemics,
some possibility of the annihilation of the human species on Earth
exists. Ensuring that the human race itself survives has value in
itself, and, so, this is a worthwhile activity.

But there is certainly another perspective from which some people might
look at this.

They might remember how the towns they lived in were blighted by smoke
from coal-burning factories, whose owners lived on estates in the
countryside.

So they might see a human settlement on Mars not as a *frontier* but as
a *suburb*.

While the discovery of the Americas let people who would have been
condemned to wretched existences in the crowded slums of Europe become
land-owning farmers across the sea... space travel isn't for the
below-average pocket.

They may envisage a world where large companies ignore the environment
to make more money... for absentee owners on Mars, who can ignore even
threats to the *global* ecosystem.

Of course that's a paranoid fantasy. But that is still probably what
subconsciously frightens many people about space settlement. They know
that *they* and *their descendants* will be stuck on Earth, and thus
they fear that a human settlement on Mars will end up including not just
highly qualified astronauts, but the wealthy and powerful - who will
then have an opportunity to forget about them, and their, and Earth's,
problems.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"John Savard" wrote in message
...

Of course that's a paranoid fantasy. But that is still probably what
subconsciously frightens many people about space settlement. They know
that *they* and *their descendants* will be stuck on Earth, and thus
they fear that a human settlement on Mars will end up including not just
highly qualified astronauts, but the wealthy and powerful - who will
then have an opportunity to forget about them, and their, and Earth's,
problems.

That's a popular way of viewing it, but this fellow views it much the
opposite:

Dumb Wannabe Colonists
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/wannabe.htm


--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
Hawking Says Humans Must Go Into Space
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...C-RSSFeeds0312
Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking Says Humans Must Spread Out in Space to
Survive

By SYLVIA HUI

HONG KONG Jun 13, 2006 (AP)- The survival of the human race depends on its
ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an
increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned
scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.



What does Hawking know about biology?

If we can't move SIX BILLION people off the earth
then colonies are not about survival of the species.

They're about the survival of a few elite examples
of the species.

All of us know the properties of Darwinian evolution.
The adaptability, resilience and self-tuning. That what
life does first, best and every chance it gets is to find
the optimum solution all by itself.

To assume we're likely to destroy ourselves or our biosphere
to the point of extinction shows a fundamental ignorance
of the properties of life.

And if Nature should happen to take our little slice of heaven
from us, then those in colonies will be literally
left alone in hell.


What's the point?


Jonathan

s

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:03:38 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
.. .
Hawking Says Humans Must Go Into Space
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...C-RSSFeeds0312
Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking Says Humans Must Spread Out in Space to
Survive

By SYLVIA HUI

HONG KONG Jun 13, 2006 (AP)- The survival of the human race depends on its
ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an
increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned
scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.



What does Hawking know about biology?

If we can't move SIX BILLION people off the earth
then colonies are not about survival of the species.

Who said we can't? Not that we need to.

They're about the survival of a few elite examples
of the species.

That's how species survive. And improve.

All of us know the properties of Darwinian evolution.
The adaptability, resilience and self-tuning. That what
life does first, best and every chance it gets is to find
the optimum solution all by itself.

To assume we're likely to destroy ourselves or our biosphere
to the point of extinction shows a fundamental ignorance
of the properties of life.

And to dismiss the possiility shows a fundamental ignorance of the
power of future weaponry (particularly biological and
nanotechnological).

And if Nature should happen to take our little slice of heaven
from us, then those in colonies will be literally
left alone in hell.

Why "in hell"?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:03:38 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
To assume we're likely to destroy ourselves or our biosphere
to the point of extinction shows a fundamental ignorance
of the properties of life.

And to dismiss the possiility shows a fundamental ignorance of the
power of future weaponry (particularly biological and
nanotechnological).

So you don't think there are enough nuclear weapons in existence to destroy
all human life?

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)