The Speculist

I think your re-model comment misses Hawking's point entirely, Kathy. The overwhelming majority of the disasters he posits are a result of overcrowding within the neighborhood (mostly as a result of trying to do too many things within a limited environ, not that there are necessarily too many of us, per se), not a statement on the nature of the neighborhood itself.

I took his message to be that we, as a species, need to begin a deliberate program of technology development to overcome the awesome distances/time spans required to move into a new neighborhood. Such an equally awesome economic expense requires a compelling justification and objective, something Hawking is hardly the first to note.

A "remodel" won't address that concern, though I agree that "the neighborhood" is quite pleasant even given it's limitations.

Interesting perspective, Will. Maybe I didn't make my point very well. Unless the Singularity makes it a moot one, it's not going to be feasible for us to move to a new planet for a long time. We could invest our resources in a deliberate program of technology with the goal of moving, but it seems more likely to me that we'll figure out ways to solve our problems here. A remodel of social and environmental models is what I was alluding to. :)

Here's a snippet from a news story about Hawking's visit to China:

Asked about the environment, Hawking, who suffers from a degenerative disease and speaks through a computerized voice synthesizer, said he was "very worried about global warming." He said he was afraid that Earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid."

Of course, this is out of context. But if he's got Earth-goes-the-way-of-Venus on his list of stuff to be seriously worried about, then I have to wonder how seriously we should take his ideas about moving humanity out to the stars?

Viruses, nuclear war, etc. are a potential threat, no question about it. (The jury is out on whether global warming represents an actual threat to human survival. Or maybe I'm just behind the times.) But we can effectively counter those by settling elsewhere in this solar system; interstellar travel is not required. The threat from a comet or meteor is also countered -- if not by finding a way to repel it, which makes the most sense -- by moving out into the solar system.

What local settlement will not protect us from is a blast of radiation from an exploding star. We would need to be spread out far across the galaxy to avoid that danger. Or find a way to shield ourselves from it. Kathy, you're correct when you say there might be an answer to that Post-Singularity. But advanced materials technologies / nanotechnology might also get us there.

The trouble with scientists painting doomsday scenarios is that those who paint those scenarios know nothing about history, human behavior, economics and climatology.

I have known many scientists, and outside their narrow field of specialization they are generally incompetent in other facets of life.

Oh goody, I love speculative threads like this! Thanks Kathy.

Without bothering to dig around for specific references, I suggest that existing technology is sufficient to build and transport a stable human population of 30k (with all desired amenities)to a different solar system over a period of a couple centuries, or approx. 3 generations. It would be horrendously expensive, but do-able for all of that. No singularity or nano required either.

As for Hawking's "global warming" concerns, one sufficiently large solar flare of 20+ hours duration that also intersects the Earth's orbital cycle would be more than ample to satisfy the scenario he cites.

I suspect that much of the reaction against Hawking's fears arises from our anticipation of technologic expectations. Because we can almost see what nanotech or AI or the singularity might be like, that is what we expect to confront the demands of the future with. Gamblers call this "betting on the come" and it's a suckers play. These and other technologies may well arrive just as we anticipate, but until they do the more sound strategy is to advance the mission (expand stable human existence off of this one planet) with the technology that we unarguably have. We can always upgrade later as the opportunity permits, after all.

It isn't technology that holds us here on Earth, it's the lack of willingness to commit to getting us on our way.

Will,I think the operative word you've introduced is strategy. We need several to confront the demands of the future. Hawking's fears are not all unfounded.

I wonder what timeframe you and Phil have in mind when you talk about moving within our solar system or beyond?

Earth has a lot of life left in it and I'm wondering if we might develop unforeseen technologies to preserve it and protect ourselves as we continue to make advancements.

As romantic as a space odyssey might be, I hope we don't throw our whole lot into exchanging life here for a planet that is less suitable for humans.

What really scares me about the future is the possibility that society will become increasingly paralyzed by the politics of the status quo/ elite. There is a nasty climate building in science and politics in which people who dare to challenge the established positions are ostracized, denied tenure, denigrated and persecuted.

We don't have time for infighting. Our survival depends on, like you hinted, Will, having a strategy that moves us forward.

The trouble with scientists painting doomsday scenarios is that those who paint those scenarios know nothing about history, human behavior, economics and climatology.

I have known many scientists, and outside their narrow field of specialization they are generally incompetent in other facets of life.

This is a problem in general. Someone who is very competent in one area often believes incorrectly that that competence extends everywhere. However, it's equally incorrect to assuming that Hawkings is ignorant in these other areas, or that even if he is, that somehow is relevant to his warnings.

As romantic as a space odyssey might be, I hope we don't throw our whole lot into exchanging life here for a planet that is less suitable for humans.

No offense, but is a planet with an extensive ecosystem really suitable for humans. Sure, we don't have to work so hard to survive, but the presence of that ecosystem does inhibit much of our development.

When Kathy spoke about "remodeling" what I thought of was terraforming. Seems like our best bet for the short run is to carefully manage the earth's ecosystem (once we have the technology and theoretical understanding of how to), and to begin an extensive exploration of Mars. This exploration could then give way to a gradual process of terraform and colonization using advanced post-singularity technology. Once we accomplish this we can then begin to look at moving to other star systems.

Thing is, there's no need for a well-designed generation 'ship' -- or, FTM, more than one -- to actually GO anywhere, simply in order to function as an 'Ark'. If it can survive, isolatedly, in space for any meaningful period of time, why exactly should it need a planet to complete its fundamental mission?

It can simply sit there in a Lagrange Point and just, to paraphrase the RHCP, keep on turning, till it reaches the higher ground, for as long as necessary.

Fact is, there's a lot more space than there is planets, and if we really want to multiply our egg-baskets in targeted response to the threat of cosmological disaster, we need to be able to inhabit space at will -- not other planets.

Going by my etymological taxonomy, I would call this blinkered attitude planetism, and I believe Sun Tzu would be very critical of such a degree of strategic un-professionalism.

Sorry all, that "work" thing intruded again.

I don't know about Phil, but my thought as to when is basicly "as quickly as we can get it done right" since an orbital habitat/ship of the size I was referring to isn't something that anyone has experience building. Think 1 mile long, 1/2 mile wide and 1/3 mile thick, propulsion drives at both ends and various cargo bays midships. And that's a deliberate "we can build it with what we know now, best of both worlds (ship and habitat) design" that doesn't benefit from more than an hour's thought.

The thing that trips many people up about strategy is that once you've determined an objective (in this case, get humans permanently established off Earth), you are left with opportunities that only advance you toward that goal in a slightly incremental fashion and often at a severe tangent. The trick is to sieze the opportunity without losing track of the goal.

Micah's specific idea of terraforming is one of those opportunities that is actually a different goal, but looks like an advancement to the off earth goal instead. The principal difficulty is that planetary environment is a chaotic system that defies predictable control (absent some tech advance comparable to the singularity - which by definition we cannot predict beyond). Much of the study that goes into making such an effort would be applicable to a hab/ship, but the necessary capability just to catagorise all the contributing components of such a chaotic system (we're talking the weather, plate tectonics, oceanography, etc) would in all likelihood suck up the resources available for our other goal. And the reality is that a hab/ship is more akin to a greenhouse then a planetary environment anyway.

I suspect that a more viable series of strategic goals would be:

1.a) A planet-based arcology to develop a viable closed system and learn the necessary levels of external supply.

1.b) Construct the frame of the hab/ship as a means of developing that process and the necessary support technology.

2) Transport 1.a into 1.b as enclosed space becomes available.

Upon completion repeat the process as desired.

At some point along the way a reasonably certain second planet candidate(s) should be actively searched for and, if found, it seems likely that at least one hab crew will self-select to become a ship crew and go check it out (and No, it won't be that simple or casual :)).

In other words, steps 1.a and 1.b should be started as a deliberate strategy as soon as possible with the understanding that the process will almost certainly require a couple decades of small, steady advancement to ever greater expansion of effort.

And just for the record, Sun Tzu would recognise that a planetary objective was precisely that, a subsequent objective to the intermediary one of establishing a permanent off-Earth presence. No position is ever permanent; which is sort of the point of this whole thread, humans need to develop a new position from our existing one as no position can be successfully defended forever.