This is all good fun and it is stating the obvious. However, we have plenty of good options. As developed in this blog, simply terraforming Earth will make it full habitable for a population base well over fifty billion while sustaining a bio-rich ecology. Our biggest stretch will be to deploy the Eden machine.
Then there is the little matter of Venus, nicely prepositioned for been terraformed by our selves. It is merely a matter of diverting plenty of comets into the planet. Once we have the MEV (magnetic exclusion vessel) available for space travel this will be straight forward engineering and may well have been fully underway for the past ten millennia.
After that we get to build space habitats that are a good mile across and are spun up to provide artificial gravity. Any one perhaps can be designed to hold and support a 100 million in population in complete comfort. Ten thousand of those in the asteroid belt would still be lost and invisible to our scopes with minimum effort.
The point I am making is that we can place fifty billion on Earth, fifty billion of Venus and a hundred times that out in the Asteroid Belt long before we have to think about other stars.
The only thing technically needed yet is the MEV. We have the know how to do it all now. The MEV will take perhaps another twenty years or less. I have already described the tech and the key benchmarks in earlier articles and posts.
Stephen Hawking's Warning: Abandon Earth—Or Face Extinction
Andrew Dermont on August 6, 2010, 12:00 AM
Let's face it: The planet is heating up, Earth's population is expanding at an exponential rate, and the the natural resources vital to our survival are running out faster than we can replace them with sustainable alternatives. Even if the human race manages not to push itself to the brink of nuclear extinction, it is still a foregone conclusion that our aging sun will expand and swallow the Earth in roughly 7.6 billion years.
So, according to famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, it's time to free ourselves from Mother Earth. "I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be in space," Hawking tells Big Think. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let's hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load."
Hawking says he is an optimist, but his outlook for the future of man's existence is fairly bleak. In the recent past, humankind's survival has been nothing short of "a question of touch and go" he says, citing the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1963 as just one example of how man has narrowly escaped extinction. According to the Federation of American Scientiststhere are still about 22,600 stockpiled nuclear weapons scattered around the planet, 7,770 of which are still operational. In light of the inability of nuclear states to commit to a global nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the threat of a nuclear holocaust has not subsided.
In fact, "the frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future," says Hawking, "We shall need great care and judgment to negotiate them all successfully."
Even if humans manage to avoid a nuclear stand-off over the next thousand years, our fate on this planet is still pretty much certain.
"Life on Earth will have disappeared long before 7.6 billion years," says Smith, "Scientists have shown that the Sun's slow expansion will cause the temperature at the surface of the Earth to rise. Oceans will evaporate, and the atmosphere will become laden with water vapor, which (like carbon dioxide) is a very effective greenhouse gas. Eventually, the oceans will boil dry and the water vapor will escape into space. In a billion years from now the Earth will be a very hot, dry and uninhabitable ball."
Finally, between the next thousand years or so that Hawking says it will take man to make the planet uninhabitable and the billion years it will take for the sun to turn our planet into an arid wasteland, there is always the chance that a nearby supernova, an asteroid, or aquick and painless black hole could do us in.
Takeaway One way or another, the life on Earth will likely become uninhabitable for mankind in the future. We need to start seriously thinking about how we will free ourselves from the constraints of this dying planet. |
Why We Should Reject This Idea
Despite what Hawking describes as humankind's "selfish and aggressive instinct," there may be some biological impediments to finding another planet to inhabit.
"The nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away," saysUniversity of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese, "That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there."
Unfortunately, at the moment we can only travel at about ten thousandth of light speed, which means if man were to use chemical fuel rockets similar to the those used during the Apollo mission to the moon, the journey would take about 50,000 years. Without the use of a science-fiction-like warp drive or cryogenic freezing technology, no human would live long enough to survive the journey. In addition, "the radiation you would encounter alone would kill you, even if you could get a rocket to go anywhere near that fast," says Freese.
On the upside, if man ever develops the technology to travel at the speed of light while remaining shielded from cosmic radiation, he could effectively travel into the future. "A five year trip at light speed could push an astronaut forward by 1000 earth years," says Freese, "If he wanted to see if any humans were still around by then."
"The nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away," saysUniversity of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese, "That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there."
Unfortunately, at the moment we can only travel at about ten thousandth of light speed, which means if man were to use chemical fuel rockets similar to the those used during the Apollo mission to the moon, the journey would take about 50,000 years. Without the use of a science-fiction-like warp drive or cryogenic freezing technology, no human would live long enough to survive the journey. In addition, "the radiation you would encounter alone would kill you, even if you could get a rocket to go anywhere near that fast," says Freese.
On the upside, if man ever develops the technology to travel at the speed of light while remaining shielded from cosmic radiation, he could effectively travel into the future. "A five year trip at light speed could push an astronaut forward by 1000 earth years," says Freese, "If he wanted to see if any humans were still around by then."
Kat's objection did not make sense. She discussed the difficulty of intergalactic travel, not the danger to our existence on earth. Stephen did not even talk about travel to another star. He made the case for colonizing our system. I makes perfect sense. Our species has always progressed by colonizing (expansion).
ReplyDelete