Hacker News Reader

Comment by x5n1 | Hacker News Reader

Yet we have no idea how to build a self-sustaining colony of human beings anywhere other than planet earth. And even here it does not seem to be the case that we are self-sustaining, hence the need to leave the planet in the first place.

A much better statement should be we need to create a self-sustaining civilization here on Earth at any cost. Don't take it easy, it's no longer business as usual.

View on HN

I don't think Hawking's primary concern was in the self-sustaining sense, rather with the more immediate threats as in the 'asteroid/epidemic/natural disaster' sense.

Hawking believes humanity needs to figure out space colonization ASAP.

I don't think non-human-created disasters are that much of a threat to civilization in the 100/1000 year time scales, so I don't think that's what is meant.

Well then what would be the point? Any thing that can cut off the life support mechanism of the Earth to the Astronauts or the colony, would mean their survival was no longer guaranteed.

I assume in his quote when he means "Getting a portion of the human race permanently...", he means resource independence from Earth, which would be the point.

I don't think so, simply because of the way he phrases it and the timeline. There's no way Hawking would predict such a huge natural disaster in the next 1000 years, let alone in the next 100 years with such certainty. I think it's clear he's talking about man-made disasters which have already been set in play (like global warming, overpopulation, war, etc.).

I'm not convinced at all that we can turn things around. Most likely scenario is that we will just keep growing, there will be a massive die-off at some point, and then the remaining humans will ensure survival of the species.

The Deutsche Bank is already predicting peak population [0] by 2055 so maybe a mass grow isn't as likely as it seems as industrializing nations lower birth rates.

Although the UN is predicting continued growth until 2100. It would be pretty amazing if we stopped expanding in 2025.

[0] - http://www.cnbc.com/id/101018722

We can grow ten times the food inside that we currently do outside. We can grow it faster, with far greater quality, and with a fraction of the water we use now. And that's before we get into really advanced crop engineering, which is inevitable in the next few decades.

Nuclear power can easily solve our energy problems as desired. If it comes down to it, and there are no other options, they'll turn back to nuclear power. Most likely the radical acceleration of solar will solve half of our energy problem all by itself.

I see no reason why a die-off would occur due to population growth.

I don't believe the population will stop growing, ever. I also don't believe that we will forever be able to break through resource walls with our technology. Maybe it takes 10000 years and a population of 500 billion, I just think that's the most likely scenario.

> I don't believe the population will stop growing, ever.

'Peak child' has already been reached so I struggle to understand what you don't think peak population will follow.

We're not going to find out by not continuing to invest in manned missions though

We're much less likely to develop that technology if we don't try. Automobiles in 1900 weren't terribly capable to what we have today, but because they were made use of then we've had over a century of improvements on them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com