Stephen Hawking: Earth will turn into fireball in less than 600 years

Hawking is exceedingly optimistic as it in all statistical probability won't even matter in the very near future following in SCOTUS previous interpretation of under God where immaculate drug conceptions were above the US Constitution for the Bicentennial & Arab terrorists were also above America for 9/11 as World Scientists' Second Notice Warning to those of that better never than late national religion pseudo science.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229

 

`
`
Hawkings is a theoretical mathematician and his work has always been speculative.
`

 

He calculates it will only take 20 years to reach Alpha Centauri to further earth's human race, only problem is the megalomaniacal survival of the fittest fascists super egos crusade won't last 600 years before becoming a fireball as in speculation maybe a theoretical math of just 20 years.

 

this, exactly.

ignoring this stuff is easy, if you're 40+. not so much if you're born tomorrow.

meantime, what to do? stop using so much damned energy.

 

If it didn't consume so much energy running suicidal homicidal sociopsychopathic human farming techniques in some centuries old pyramid scheme, wouldn't have ignore it.

 

There appears to be no solution to constant population growth...and increased population places more and more demand on our systems...it's a runaway train that 'must' end in a big boom...there is no other feasible outcome...it's just a matter of when do we start feeling horrendous failures...

 

Well, one can't ignore the fact that he's made some major contributions to physics.

On the other hand, the idea of traveling to a distant star seems like something that is a LONG LONG way off.

At the rate of our fastest satellites it would take 50,000 years to get to the closest star - ten times man's recorded history!

And, if we figure out how to speed up by a factor of 5,000X (or whatever - lol!) it would mean that even an undetectable spec of dust would pass through modern shielding and penetrate the spacecraft.

Also, we'd have to figure out how to slow down!

 

So...what are the options for mankind? World-wide and ASAP deep reduction in greenhouse gases? Reconfigure how we live on Earth in order to co-habitate with toxic atmosphere and climate that can become questionable for producing food? Relocate a few humans to another planet/solar system in order to preserve the human species? Ride it out and hope all the hubbub is just a crazy hoax? What am I missing...other options? Which of these options are going to work? Between population growth, the exhaustion of Earth's resources, and an atmosphere in a runaway warming cycle, we'll be lucky to preserve a few humans. It seems surreal and most will say crazy, but fact is we're on the path today to achieve some menacing challenges in the very near future. And we can't simply halt population growth because this too leads humans to extinction! I suppose we can hope for a mysterious plague to waft over Earth and kill half of the current humans but even this only postpones the inevitable.

Just because we can't see it...or sense it...or understand it...or politically and ignorantly deny it...this does not mean it's not going to happen...

 

Well, we know climate change is not a crazy hoax. We've known that for a few decades now. And, we know the impact of billions more earthlings.

The 600 years thing is an optimistic prediction for developing a way for humans to go anywhere outside of our solar system. The distances are just plain crazy big. Building space ships where multiple generations of humans live and die on the spaceship before arrival hits me as hugely problematic, as does going fast enough to cut down on the numbers of generations - and then slowing down for arrival somewhere. This is no more than a low odds method of seeding human life somewhere - not an option for earthlings.

And, I don't believe we're going to be moving earth populations to other places in the solar system.

We're here. We better do a good job of it, because this is what we've got.

And, that means being serious and conservative about evaluating risk.

As Newt Gingrich stated, we make public policy when the odds of an event times the cost of the event go high.

We are NOT looking for proof. And, we have enough understanding of the odds and costs of some of our various problems that inaction is totally irresponsible.

 

In my opinion the most viable and logical option going forward would be one not dependent on advances that may or may not happen, the stakes are just too high to gamble. We should build a space station with a rotating hub to create an artificial gravity environment and begin asteroid mining for materials to expand as required. By creating a lunar manufacturing base we would not only have an endless materials supply, we would also have a back up to the back up.
As time went by the station would expand and technology improve possibly leading to interstellar capability in a far off future. But in this way there will be people here in the future to do so. The Earth would become a vacation spot with interesting "Natives" who live like savages.

 

Nope. All it ever does is grow. By design, I believe.

 

Sound more like mumbo jumbo, biblical prophesy to me.

Or AGW science. The people who cannot even predict the weather. The people who have to fudge their predictive models. And use misdirection like a magician to keep the true believers believing they know what they are talking about.

I think these climatologists and their predictions is about the same as an early american pioneer who knows how to build a log cabin, but claims he has the knowledge to build the twin towers. Like an early aviator in his biplane claiming he will fly at 40 thousand feet tomorrow(literally) at mach 5. For it is what either one does not know that will get them into trouble. There is still much not known about climate change, but these people have no problem not thinking about what they do not know. The limitation of pertinent knowledge is hardly ever recognized till it bites them in the arse. But today, they tend to just fudge to cover up. Yeah, real science at work here.

 

Wow - all those big numbers? I'm impressed!! Hawking is winding you all up - can't you see that??

 

For 2,000+ years the elite of see the light are on pace to light earth up as a fireball as a byproduct of E Pluribus Unum using lynching enforcement to keep their status quo of ethnic cleansing thru homicidal sociopsychopathic human farming to control what under God is, while one nation under God with equal justice under law went the way of thieving US Constitution arsonists employing crosses for burning in the '60's & continued population control thru pseudo science to fly rock pyramids to the stars based on immaculate drug trafficking supreme swastika up Uranus court super egos which has become the second coming crusade as a more perfect union of Christianity & Islam created from 9/11; where master race human farming can proceed until they've over farmed all the energy & peoples they keep biblically prophesizing to save as theatrical patriot act hawks.

 

Yes, however,
2052
An accident will occur, a mutated organism will escape a laboratory of A.D.M. supermarket to the World.
ala Andromeda strain, passing through every layer of protection as a mutated airborne pathogen.

2/3 of the World's population is wiped out before another mutation causes the pathogen to revert to it's original form, genetically engineered to eliminate World hunger.

With only 1/3 of the World's population remaining and virtually unlimited food supply, the remaining people unite and form a united World Government Federation.

By concentrating Earth resources, and scientific community, Intergalactic space travel becomes a reality, 20 years before the great fireball destroys the Earth.

 

I doubt that part.

But, it doesn't really matter.

At this point, we need to refrain from ruining this planet.

And, if we can't do that, why the heck would we guess that we could make things peachy on some other planet?

For now, I don't even see a justification for flying humans around in space.

I know the idea right now is to build a base on the moon for flying to Mars. But, why do we need a base on the moon for that?

NASA and privates are working on lifters that can put 1/4 to 1/2 million pounds into orbit. How much more weight does a Mars mission really require?

And, if some assembly is required I don't know why we would land the stuff on the moon and then re-launch to get off the moon rather than just do the assembly in orbit.. Isn't fuel one of the largest issues?

The Apollo moon lander weighed 11,000 pounds. A mars lander would need more fuel to take off and return to earth. But, the craft had to be designed to keep two human beings alive.

I'm in favor of going to Mars, but I don't know why we should spend the kind of dollars required to keep a human alive for the ride.

We're cutting science in favor of spacemen! Why?

 

There is little mainstream dialogue today, and certainly no consensus, about climate change potential or population growth...both absolutely critical issues facing Earth and humans. Fact is the president and his groupies of the most powerful nation on Earth, the US, flat out deny they are issues. Any idea that a majority of world leaders are going to suddenly fall in line with consensus on these issues is a pipe-dream. So for the moment, and perhaps the near future, this basically leaves us doing nothing...like a deer in the headlights...while Earth's forces greater than all mankind continue down their path possibly rendering Earth uninhabitable. And yes even if we can manage to transport humans to another planet or solar system, it will just be a handful compared to the billions who will suffer and die off here on Earth. Earthlings today can be reckless since we won't experience the worst impacts but somewhere down the time line the **** hits the fan...

 

Yes, the USA is making a big mistake on this one.

I would point out, though, that the majority of world leaders has come together.

On November 7 of this year, Syria signed on to the Paris agreement - making the USA the only nation in the ENTIRE WORLD that did not do so!

Plus, US state governments aren't ignoring this issue, nor are cities.

Fourteen states have signed onto the US Climate Alliance, led by three governors and committed to following Paris.

Nine other states have committed to doing so independent of this alliance.

And, cities (including Houston, Dallas and San Antonio) have also committed themselves even though their own state isn't doing so.

A number of states are still in the "undecided" column.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...nd_territories_supporting_the_Paris_Agreement

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-uphold-paris-agreement-2017-6

This last one has a map of states, but things have progress since it was printed in early June.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/...imate-change-agreement-donald-trump-nicaragua

 

Did Hawkins figure in Ai, yet? Could be less than 600.

 

Yes, getting our act together isn't going to become easier.

 

For some reason, people talk about "crises" 100-600 years in the future as if we will only have today's technology to deal with them. First, clean energy has been growing fast and will undoubtedly be huge in future centuries. Also, that far down the road we will probably run out of fossil fuels anyway. But the big deal is that we will have absolutely fantastic technology a century from now, and in six centuries, I'm going to be very disappointed if we don't have teleporters yet. But more to the point of AGW, there is already a promising technology to scrub the atmosphere of carbon, while producing valuable carbon nanofibers to make the whole thing profitable. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/

And that's just the stuff they're working on now.

 

I agree there is some glimmer of hope with a few people and states/cities, however, not a single government agency or employee or Congress or President, has uttered a single word and communicated to me information on the topic with suggestions of how I can be a better steward of Earth. Nor is there anything from this group indicating changes they are making on how we manage the nation in preparation for this potential? IMO while few are giving lip-service, and few are taking some small actions, by the time we can effect significant changes it will be too late. In fact it might already be too late since no matter what man does today we've already set in motion atmospheric changes that might be irreversible? Fact is we don't know how or when the cards will fall...

 

We're dealing with a massive system of atmosphere and oceans, etc. and to date we have decades of abuse of our environment, so massive in scale that the average person cannot personally sense any changes. This is one reason why most people could care less about this topic since they can't see or feel it happening. The same will apply to any technologies which can portend to solve all of man's problems it will take decades to implement. Meanwhile, including today, we might already be at or beyond the point of no return...we simply do not know. Regarding sequestering all of the excess fossil fuel emissions from our atmosphere, and reversing damaging changes already in motion, like warming oceans, there's not enough money to make it happen.

I actually do believe not only are we too far down the path to stop the problems, but also that until our asses are on fire we simply do not have the interest to be proactive. Therefore, it will be required that we take steps to deal with all the stuff that will hit the fan. Don't know how we will do this but if we can't we will feel the pain big time...

 

Obama had us making progress on climate change. He promoted an action plan from the White House - a plan you can still find on the internet. He was acting on that plan, involving cutting carbon, Preparing for the coming warming that we can't stop, and international leadership. We helped create the Paris accord. We were putting pressure on winding up our use of coal. We were promoting clean energy to some extent. We were limiting the expansion of oil. etc.

I wish he had been stronger about it, of course. But, there is a gigantic partisan divide on climate change, with Republicans showing a deep distrust in science in general, let alone climate change. In general, they don't even believe science should be one of the sources of information when making public policy decisions!!

Today you see Trump sifting through his administration, eliminating the people who have worked to prepare for climate change, the people who accept or promote science, and the regulations that have promoted climate related initiatives. He's working to bring back coal, to drill and transport more oil, to give more breaks to fossil fuel while eliminating help to clean energy, end environmental protections of air and water, etc. In fact, it appears likely that the capability to study climate will be limited - for example, at NASA.

And, he's the only leader of a nation in the entire world who has abandoned and opposed the Paris climate accord!!

We're seeing the same from congress, as it is controlled by Republicans.

Change has to happen at the ballot box. The federal government isn't going to do anything about climate unless we tell them to do so.

 

Well I think that attitude is alarmist and pessimistic. As for your assertion that there's "not enough money" to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, maybe you missed the part where it would produce a valuable product in the process, thus funding itself and possibly ushering in a new age of carbon fiber materials. And if this current tech doesn't pan out, there's always the next big thing. People will continue to innovate. These doom and gloom predictions talking about things a century or more away are inherently ignorant of the innovations of the future.

Also, "point of no return" talk assumes no scrubbing technology is active. That is, it is based on how fast nature scrubs itself when unassisted. But we could potentially boost that level by a lot, especially if we can find a way to make it profitable.