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

That condescending arrogance of "serve the Pope or die" churchstate totalitarianism LOL; as there's forever that Christian Nation business as usual national religion lynching enforcement homicidal sociopsychopathic super ego Islam Christiananality pedophile mentality suicidal ChristHitler still passing "man is God" off as under God waiting to see how pseudo science in running the pyramid scheme plays out like "the one who dies with the most toys wins" regardless of space being the place for the human race, cinnamon fireball fried & freeze dried all over the 'outer' place.

 

I think you are starting to repeat yourself.

 

The technology is new, although it has been demonstrated to work. It will take time for more R&D and more importantly to ramp it up. Fortunately we do have time.

 

Hear the same Dalek exterminate, exterminate, exterminate as a product of my environment from this Christian one nation under God schizoid tautology utilizing every form of tyranny over the mind of man; which as a variable of probability in the plausibility of nano particles with laser drive propulsion ever being harnessed for any exodus to populate the universe.

 

And I do not believe we should waste our time and efforts worrying about the unknowable (but almost certainly way more advanced than us) future. The people from Star Trek time can look after themselves just fine and will probably consider our concern for them to be "cute".

 

IMO government should be setting an example on converting to alternative energy which also means while the general public is at 10% government should be higher. Can't remember but it's either the federal government or our military who is the single largest contributor of fossil fuel emissions in the world? We can do better but the will to do better in this area does not exist yet.

I think the US government preferred low fuel taxes in order to help the US economy. Of course this comes at a huge cost down the road because of a lack of new technologies/policy and lack of funding for our infrastructure. I can't imagine increasing the fuel tax by $.10/gallon will greatly effect a single person but will greatly effect the US to provide funding...it's all politics!

In my area it was mandated that 30% of our energy come from alternative energy sources so today we have this in place. And it's not because we are creating our own clean energy but more about the utility procuring clean energy from other sources outside the area. As a property owner our electric rates have remained about the same.

Too many large utility companies are funding our politicians so progress is quite slow...

 

Our society today does lots of things at the expense of our future. Don't know why so many are so self-serving? I understand politicians promising everything today at the expense of tomorrow but I don't understand why more people don't question this? Perhaps it's because no one wants to sacrifice anything today giving little to no thought about tomorrow and our kids. Worse yet, our ill-informed actions today will effect more than just our kids...it will effect several generations...

 

Star Trek is 100% fiction...

 

How many of YOUR eggs are you willing to place in this single basket?

 

You haven't given any significant info to back your idea that the government should be getting its electricity from better sources.

Consider what is happening here (and in your area, I'd bet):
We insist on our local power company providing power that includes a percentage of clean energy.

So, ALL government (local, state and federal, military or civilian) gets that mix in their facilities here. The federal government doesn't have some source specific to their facilities.

This decision on energy source for our portion of the federal government was made by us here locally - NOT the federal government.

If you are adding in the military, that's NOT comparable. Maybe they can do better. But, they are operating particular types of equipment and have requirements beyond civilian requirements.

Anyway, I'd be interested if you have specifics backing up your issue. But, as it is right now I don't believe we have anything to complain about with federal energy sources.

 

Absolutely.

Beyond that, it isn't even reaching the stage of understanding what the supposed "sacrifice" amounts to.

Today, we're employing more people in clean energy than coal. So, why would we accept a pivot to coal as a jobs issue?

People get scared about taxing fuel, but moving taxes from income to fuel can be done without increasing tax revenue. That is, income tax can be cut while fuel tax increases.

ALL other nations do that. And, they are competing with us just fine.

And, taxes on energy give people (as well as corporations) the opportunity to cut their taxes - by conserving on energy. Beyond that, this would spur a wide range of industry related to conservation.

 

So are any other scientific speculations about the future.

 

Oh, a few. But I anticipate new baskets will be built. This is undoubtedly not the only possible technology that can sequester carbon, it's just one for which we already have a working proof of concept and a reasonable expectation of profitability.

 

Having pseudo science of a supreme swastika up Uranus court as propulsion for humanity conquering the universe is about as plausible as nano particles propelled by laser drive, but as Nero fiddled while Rome burned would be about as significant as the burning bush's 9/11 in turning the earth into a cinnamon fireball.

 

Star Trek is fiction. Scientific speculations are theory. There is a big difference...

 

Then what are people waiting for? Look...I'm one to believe that humans will not slow/stop stuff that exacerbates global climate change. Therefore, humans have a couple of options; One is to relocate a few humans away from Earth as Hawking states. The other is to do whatever is necessary on Earth to protect and sustain billions of humans...the options for this will require monumental efforts from our society and I don't see this happening unless there is a way to eliminate nations and politics and coalesce all humans into these narrow efforts. Sucking some carbon from our atmosphere is not a short term answer to anything. So how can we protect/sustain humans until and assuming Earth's atmosphere and climate can find balance again?

 

Well, you are still leaving us with the difficult terminology problem - the difference between the kind of theory you are talking about and the kind of theory that is the most concrete, tested and accepted truth that scientific method can possibly offer.

 

All I'm saying is on a science forum thread quoting Star Trek does not help much...

 

Science gets all these guys with creative minds.

And, it can be helpful to communication to point to specific pieces of good sci fi that explore similar ideas.

 

That is some expert level word salad right there.

 

Sure, there's pure fiction in Star Trek, but there's also a lot of scientific foundation. The point is that many of the things in Star Trek are known to be with the bounds of real possible future engineering. The functionality of the smartphone, for instance, already far outshines the ST communicators from which they were conceived. So of course things are going to be different in real life, but that doesn't mean less advanced; with the rate at which technology is increasing, by the 23rd century, I fully expect the reality to be something on that level.

 

Having a supreme swastika up Uranus court drive instead of laser drive ought to fuel that Islam Christiananality pedophile mentality flying rock pyramids to the stars scheme better than going with full scale nano particles substitutes pseudo science.

 

I have no problem with creativity in a movie...just don't expect science discoveries to be the same. Most of it, sans the sensationalism, is pretty logical anyway to it's no surprise to me that science might seem to follow SciFi...

 

Some authors make a serious effort to base their stories on real science.

I really like "The Martian", for example. It had a couple real loopers (like the storm on mars), but ...

His next book is about a colony on the moon It shows use of some lunar features that most people haven't heard of - a possible serious indication of what a lunar colony might really be like.

For example, the lunar surface is more than 40% OXYGEN! All you have to do is figure out how to mine the surface for it!

It could actually be that we'll have so much oxygen on the moon (from mining aluminum, etc.) that we'll run out of uses for it.

 

In those fictional stories in which an author sticks close to known science, with today's audiences, probably doesn't make much difference regarding how the movie/story is perceived. After all, wonder what percentage of Americans have little use for science?

I suppose given enough time and technology and money we can colonize humans on the Moon or Mars but I'm guessing it will be small-scale stuff, just a few humans, since there is a serious money issue. And once everyone gets bored with the project then what? Kind of like the ISS...