Some recent words from Stephen Hawking may be found reported upon here.
I’m all for exploring space and the like…. And settling in new places? Sure…. But only when the time is right, and for the right reasons. If Stephen actually said what was reported (I can imagine that a lot was left out by the reporters, resulting in significant distortion), I’d have to disagree on his suggested motivations (largely fear, it seems), and the timing is just way out.
Further, we’ve got stuff to do here, fixing up our messes here on earth…. we’ve no business spreading out more until we’ve grown up as a species, learning how to be less destructive and less prone to war. Right now we’re a willful adolescent, at best. Probably a toddler.
GrrlScientist has more to say, which is spot on.
But what do you think?
-cvj
June 15th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Hi Clifford,
(My final is given, the paper I have been working on for two years is done, so I will waste, I mean spend, some of my excess time this way).
Some dangers (climate change, nuclear weapon use) would still leave the earth more inhabitable than any place else we might reach.
One that really worries me is a genetically engineered virus, as communicable as the common cold, deadly, and slow enough not to kill its host to soon but fast enough to make a cure impossible, something that could potentially be done by a single lunatic. But even in this case I think an Antarctic/underground base is much more viable than an off-earth one. (By the way, have you ever read Level 7? )
Also Berzerkers, but they are probably programmed to chase down any would-be offshoots so it is moot. Also impossible to protect against (the QFT final exam problem that I did not use): `Find an extension of the Standard Model that is consistent with all known physics, such that the LHC would induce vacuum decay.’
June 15th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
As much as I am an admirer of the Hawkman (and that classic hard book he wrote with GFR Ellis) these remarks are totally detached from reality. (Of course the press often distorts what he says.) It currently takes all our technology, and great expense, to put 6 people in low earth orbit for a few days; and if they are lucky they might actually get back to Earth. It took a massive technological effort and expense to put 2 men on the moon for a few days and there has been no real progress in the 30+ years since then. None is even gauranteed in the next 100 years, and there will be more immediate priorities. Therefore, how exactly do you get the human race off the earth in order to ’save them’?
If humans leave the earth–if ever–it would probably be in hundreds or thousands of years from now, and as a mature species and not the ‘toddlers’ we currently are (as you put it). And even if we can someday leave, what exactly is out there apart from spheres of molten or frozen rock and poison gas? As the saying goes,’interesting place to visit but you would’nt want to live there’. The harshest environment on earth is a veritable Garden of Eden compared to anywhere on Mars. (Am I allowed to say “Garden of Eden” on this blog:)) And how exactly do you reach even the nearest stars, and what planets are orbiting them anyway apart from even more dead and barran worlds? When Scott reached the South Pole he is supposed to have said something like “my God but this is a hellish place” and future space explorers might very well feel the same way. The planet we are on is the best one we will ever find and so it is best we look after it. We have more chance for survival here than anywhere else.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Steinn had some interesting thoughts in the other direction:
http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2006/06/in_defence_of_space_cadets.php
June 15th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Your assessment is correct, but GrrlScientist is a little too extreme to me.
I been think along these lines for sometime now, albeit with a more utilitarian thinking. There is no incentives for going into space (in a big way) right now. No one with the resources required to invest in space settlement is going to invest. No one has found a problem that would solved with space settlement, or could be solved without the expense of colonies in space.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Joe, I’m guessing that there is no answer to your unasked QFT final problem. Unlike with RHIC smashing heavy ions together, there’s nothing the LHC will do (smashing protons together) that wasn’t done in the early universe countless times over.
One possible loophole: if there were a phase transition after the universe had cooled below a TeV, which somehow lowered the barrier to yet another phase transition that the LHC could set off. But it would have to happen before 1 MeV so as not to mess with nucleosynthesis. Even then, cosmic rays would certainly do it much more recently.
(This can be converted into a post if it goes off-topic.)
June 15th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
It’s inherent in man’s nature to grow and explore. Our technological/scientific tools can be used for good and useful activities too. I’m puzzled by your title. Do you think it is not possible or desirable to improve our enviroment and ourselves at the same time of expanding our species to live on other planets?
June 15th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
PZ Myers also has some good points…. and more links to other good points:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/start_a_new_life_in_the_offwor.php
-cvj
June 15th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Hi Joe,
I agree about those dangers….but I do think that we need to learn how to live with managing a lot of those dangers rather than devising ways of escaping them, and thus never learning from our mistakes (nuclear devices and the like). There are some terrible accidents that can happen, sure, but there may be cheaper ways of ensuring the survival of the species than trying to set up space colonies so soon. Maybe storing the appropriate genetic material in multiple secure locations, for later access if needed? (And if we’re all dead, our computers/robots can grow some new young ‘uns in vitro in those secure labs hidden in the safe locations…. ok…I’m geting carried away here.)
Hi Amara,
They are both huge projects using a great deal of our resources that need to be done in order. Not at the same time. Doing the one first will help us do the other better. We have urges to do things, sure, but we also evolved brains which allow us to overcome the urges and look at the big picture to make sure that we channel our resources in the most useful or timely ways….
-cvj
June 15th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Martin Rees wrote on similar issues a few years back in “Our Final Hour”…
Underlying this discussion is the assumption that humanity is “worth saving”. We should humbly consider the possibility that the earth and the cosmos would be better off without us.
I am not advocating that position but it seems a bit arrogant to me to blindly assume that we are invaluable.
Elliot
June 15th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
I think that technical progress in both areas (learning and improving our environment at the same time of learning what is necessary for humans to live elsewhere) are coupled. Running diifferent approaches to solve a complex problem are usually useful. If one way is truly better than another, then it will be clear in time. I don’t see why one would want to restrict approaches at the very beginning. There are private businesses already interested and working on getting humans into space, for example, so the resources for getting humans out there are not completely limited to governments.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
He’s terse, yes, but he’s right.
It amazes me that so many scientists and science-types are taking offense with Hawking’s view. We know our chances of exploring the universe are greatly improved if we expand offworld. We know it’s impossible for us to predict every threat we face as a species. We know not every threat against us can be addressed by modern technology and knowledge. Yet here we are saying, “No, don’t move forward. Don’t expand. Don’t try to protect our species from unknown threats. And, most importantly, don’t try to expand our scientific understanding of the universe. And we say ‘No!’ to all of these ideas because there’s other stuff to do around here.”
OK, let’s stop research into all diseases except cancer. Once we fix that one, we can move on to other things. Let’s stop all scientific progress that requires us to divert attention away from partisan priorities. Let’s assume we are not worth saving and just sit here until something unexpected wipes us out.
Honestly, I just don’t get it. Why are so many misinterpreting and misrepresenting Hawking’s work? Why are so many advocating stagnation? Why do so many want to argue against advancement, increases in knowledge, and attempts to secure our future?
Do you leave the house to go to work when you still have unfinished laundry and other chores to tend to? Do you sit down for dinner even when there is homework to be done? That “there’s still stuff to do here” argument is moot and laughable. I’m shocked you’d further that cause of ignorance by promoting it here.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Clifford where does one begin on this one, without starting an enciclopedia, and how to ignore the in between the lines thread on LHC.
Amara you are the heart & soul of ‘humanity’ why think of the need to escape a decaying planet. You can have your cake and eat it, ie: not destroy this planet, and travel space. The issue is whether simply to other planets, with no progress in the last 30 years; or think bigger “go for the stars” - though I’m thinking some here would like to prove a theory that even beyond the known stars is possible.
Joe, it’s not only Israel and the US have nuclear bunkers, in case someone “shoots his bolt”
But what happened after WWII well Germany & Japan became the driving force of innovation and technology, because they devoted all their resources to science & progress, unable to develop weapons. They swapped steel production from tanks to Mercedes, BMWs, Audi TTs, Porsches, and where shall we start with Jap cars.
Whereas the superpowers invested in a race in warfare, intercontinental ballistics almost to the point of bankruptcy where they had to start dismantling their excess missiles. End of cold war & Peace.
And we know about the race for space, culminating in a combited effort or joint operation, the Space Station.
So with what we ‘know’ and what we have that is where the Spirit of Man should be heading. No need for weapons, space itself is a pretty hostile frontier. As Joe points out anywhere you might try and build is pretty hostile.
Ironically having seen some of the possible scenarios of Earth 55 million years ago, Greenland is looking like prime land. And not wanting to dampen, no dampen not quite the right word here. Not wanting to dry-up the Global warming brigade (to which I subscribe) once the ice melts and the waves recede, like New Orleans and south east asia, you clean up the mess and damage, and colonise Greenland.
But this really is ‘only’ speculation. And I really should not speculate or fantasise. But how else does 1 theorise. Star Trek itself the series and movies are all about a time in a ‘time line’ which to all intent and purposes remains well beyond the lifetime of present humans. As to when shuttle rides or tours will become as common or affordable (to those who could afford them) like Concorde flights over the pyramids and back, were before concorde was grounded, well …
Nah, I think we’ll have to settle for world cruises by sea in our old age, like current ‘pensioners’
Unless the pharmaceutical industry can offer the magic bullet to make us live forever or longer than four score years. One thing I sure do not subscribe to is cryogenics, not even if they pay me thanks.
That does not mean we should not dream, but soul migration still looks like ‘our’ best bet, so best to ensure our soul is worthy of traveling on, no? laters … Q
June 15th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
I wrote about this topic from a different perspective, see here.
I don’t agree that we should first ”fix” the problems on earth first. We don’t really have a shortage of resources that forces us to choose what to do, like exploring space or doing something else. Most problems we have today are actually the result of being too wealthy. Bush could choose to go to war against Iraq and spend 9 billion dollars per month without too much problems…
I also disagree with Hawking that by colonizing space we would save ourselves from disasters. We will be replaced by machines not long after we start to explore space. When we go there and start to build bases on the moon this will be a boost for the artificial intelligence industry.
Sending humans to Mars is so costly that it will make economic sense to spend tens of billions of dollars to build robots with the intelligence of, say, a mouse. That robot would be of no use here on earth, because you can hire more intelligent humans to do the work that needs to be done. On Mars, however, such robots could save a lot of work that would otherwise have to be done by humans.
It won’t take a long time from that point before robots will have human level intelligence. Once that happens, there would be no need for humans to go to Mars at all. Note that once colonies on Mars have been established you could build robot factories on Mars. A robot on Earth can then travel to Mars simply by uploading the data in his head to a machine on Mars. That’s much faster and cheaper than sending humans to Mars.
Humans will then have become ”handicapt” robots. I don’t think that many people will choose to have children because they won’t have much of a future anymore. Instead they will adopt robots as their children. Perhaps it will be possible to upload our brain contents to machines.
Humans won’t completely die out, some will have children, but they won’t participate anymore in the new machine society. They won’t have anything to say. Their position will be similar to today’s Chimpanzees.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
It’s an interesting idea because it is romantic: Perhaps it can reinvigorate our decadent society.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Further, we’ve got stuff to do here, fixing up our messes here on earth…>
Well your not wrong there! The history of the world is all wrong. A plane carrying a doomsday virus should have passed through the centre of too tall buildings and crashed into the ground. Soon after, people started getting ill, this virus became nicknamed pearls desease( this is because of the pearls it forms that run down the lymphatic system). There seems to be a extra day that has been added to history, so yesterday most of us are dead.
This is simply because the moon has yet to be created, thats right created! Just because it’s there, does not mean it’s been made yet. The extra day will be removed, this will mean a natural time travel event. A piece of dark matter, will hit the earth in the future, travel through the earth and exit out of the other side in the past, creating the moon and all life on earth. It’s holographic projection will wipe out the dinosours, it’s singularity will add the extra day(which we will have already lived through). Then we can all be safely erased, when we hit the event horizon, just after the impact. we will then, all wake on the day history was altered and watch the real events happen and not be any the wiser for it. Then the people who survive pearls desease will come up with a way to time travel, and alter the history of the world. Well so they think!
With a Quantum computer you can actualy think that you have done all this your self, wow!
You can’t take away from history, the very thing that created it in order to gain a better future.
There is only one direction to go that is off this planet, before you waste time trying to make things better.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Dear Clifford,
I am much closer to Joe Polchinski and Stephen Hawking, even in their identification of the primary threat - an artificially created virus. My guess is that Joe realizes that Stephen Hawking has described exactly this threat as the major one in his Brief History of Time. When we heard from Eric Pianka a few months ago, such threats took a rather realistic form.
When you say, Clifford, that we’re adolescents, it may be OK. It is just a word that does not mean anything in the context of our civilization, so it is hard to falsify such an analogy. But when you say that we must become less destructive or prone to war, then you are denying not only the human nature but also the mechanisms that have been behind the progress in the past and that will be behind the progress in the future.
Moreover, even if you think that our destructive character has something to do with the decision to go or not to go to other planets, I completely agree with Hawking or Joe - and disagree with you - that it is exactly *because* we are destructive, we should be looking for additional insurance. This insurance effectively makes us less destructive at the scales where it matters.
Are we more destructive than we used to be centuries ago? I think that it is clear that individuals are more sissy and less violent today. We no longer eat each other, and lethal fencing was replaced by innocent arguments on the internet. On the other hand, we have more powerful tools that can simplify destruction of anything that one of us does not like. Overall, we are probably safer with respect to the overall survival than what we were thousands of years ago. Healthcare, governments, technologies assure so. The same tools also increase the threats - those created by humans themselves - and the total calculation could be a bit subtle.
The proposal to occupy other places in the Cosmos is just another step in the same direction of making our survival more likely.
Best wishes
Lubos
June 15th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
It is beyond common reasoning to derive any feasibility from Professor Hawking’s notion of complex-life being able to survive outside the protective womb of planet Earth. Both the Moon and Mars are confirmed to be geologically dead. Unless Hawking can find some means to turn-on plate tectonics as well as set atmospheres in circulatory motion, then the concept of generating and sustaining complex-life on the Moon and Mars are purely a produce of magical thinking, Moreover, as long as human life-forms are carbon-based composed of fragile and intricate sets of protein and amino acids, this idea proposed by Hawking is a complete work of fantasy.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Sean —
It would not be the first time I have given a final exam problem with no answer. One is allowed to assume a phase transition right at an MeV, to make the worst case, but I guess that 10^20 eV cosmic ray protons on protons at rest happens all the time and gives 10^5.5 GeV in the c.m., so the LHC is nothing new. Even putting heavy ions doesn’t seem to accomplish much more. I gather that there was some systematic study of this for RHIC, I have not been able to locate the info though.
So I guess the bio final exam is easier: `Design a virus such that … ‘
as well as the computer science exam: `Design a self-replicating AI … ‘
June 15th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
A bit off-topic…
Kip Thorne is working with Steven Spielberg on a film? Apparently so; see http://news.com.com/Spielberg+mulls+heavy+science+for+new+venture/2100-1026_3-6084331.html?tag=nefd.top on CNet.
[NOTE: The first attempt to post this with a hyperlink was rejected as comment spam: Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it immediately.
You may want to contact the blog admin via e-mail to notify him.]
June 15th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Again I think the issue needs to be framed slightly differently. Should we look to move humanity beyond the bounds of this planet as a means of survival? If we do what threats are present that drive us to that conclusion? Can those threats be removed? How many of those threats are created by humanity itself? When I am intellectually honest with myself I find myself flip flopping between Clifford and Lubos’ position. (a frightening concept in and of itself
I cannot completely discount the fact that hedging our bets by colonizing space would not improve the chances that the species will survive long term even if we deal with other more pressing issues here on earth.
This discussion will inevitably lead to what the future of humanity or its evolutionary successors may look like. Will it still be carbon based? Will it be silicon/carbon hybrids? Will it be silicon based with software only remnants of human information processing?
The question almost needs to be asked in the context of the variety of possible evolutionary pathways available to humanity. What does appear to be unique is that at this point in history we as a species are on the verge of making choices about our evolution.
Elliot
June 15th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Chris W.
I believe it is true. I spoke with Kip about a similar-sounding project not too long ago, so that must be it. Fingers crossed that it goes well.
-cvj
June 15th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Elliot, Thanks. You’re a pretty careful and thoughtful person, I’ve come to learn. Always good to see what you have to say…..
However, could I ask you (and others) to please read my post carefully -and Hawking’s comments- and note what I said about the timescales he was talking about. It is the timescales that are just all wrong, not the whole idea of exploring space. And it would be nice if we did the exploration primarily out of curiosity and wonder, and not out of fear for our future.
That’s all. Pretty simple really.
-cvj
June 15th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
People may enjoy comparing Stephen Hawking’s views with those of Martin Rees. Like Hawking, Rees believes that spreading life from our planet into space would safeguard life’s long-term future:
(From his book Our Final Century).
This seems hard to deny, unless there are better-adapted beings out there already, and the spread of life from Earth screws things up. But the Fermi paradox suggests that if there are intelligent beings out there, they’re fairly far away, or at least well-insulated from anything we can do.
Of course, regardless of whether life spreads across the Universe, almost all of us here now will never leave Earth - so it’s up to us to learn how to deal with the problems we create down here.
Personally I think that spreading life from Earth across the Universe is a good thing, but that this life is unlikely to be traditional humans, who don’t do well in vacuo.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Aside from practical matters like feasibility, timescales, and the game of deciding where to commit resouces, GrrlScientist makes an intriguing moral argument:
This line of thinking begs several questions:
* Are rats ugly to themselves?
* Are rats “unsustainable?”
* If there is not intelligent life besides us, can we leave a “legacy?”
* Is active planning worse than haphazard hitchhiking?
The point of course is ugly, unsustainable, a poor legacy, or worse for whom. Even if you are an atheist of a spiritual bent, it’s a leap to say that the universe has some intrinsic worth beyond our human sense of beauty.
The proper course is to explore avenues because it makes life better for us. Obviously this means eliminating self-destructive behaviors and instituting the proper management of shared resources, but to deny growth and exploration, even in the abstract, is inhuman.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:47 am
As a layman, I sometimes think the landscape of thinking here could probably pass as being just as foreign(alien) comparatively, as if, speaking against the simple background of the everyday life?
That we have “to do,” in order to live.
Clifford:And it would be nice if we did the exploration primarily out of curiosity and wonder, and not out of fear for our future.
So we have a percentage of the population that is geared towards “expanding the frontiers” of thinking? That “is” funded by the “other percentage” of the population, who will be looking in and are just tryng to live?
Lubos:I think that it is clear that individuals are more sissy and less violent today.
They carry the “same compacities to do evil” as existed during the ideological thinking that eliminated vast portions of our populations. Serbian ethnic cleansing, perhaps?
The “same brain matter” that evolved, still contains the seeds of our early forbearers, body home?
In the expansion of human thinking, we may think, “oh how nice we all are?” Look at how we have progressed?
So I would say, indeed, it is “quite a mess” still at home.
Yet, there are those who still dream, and those, who have sent their minds into the furthest unknowns.
What experimentally has been “justfied” for our ways of thinking?
Kip never got to his position without there being others who served to educate. Wheeler, Taylor and his kind
Set up the world for “dynamical integrative quantum thinking?”
These are “tools” ingeniusly devised, as wonderful implements, to the extensions of human thought?
Possibly a “transcendant of spiritually wanting” to be able to offer a better life and equality, for all?
June 16th, 2006 at 2:10 am
In another life, I wrote a book about how humankind managed to save itself from extinction by beaming its DNA information into deep space.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:14 am
(hmmm, my next bit is eaten up by gremlins)
Sadly though, I woke up and found myself in this life lamenting the lack of time to pursue such wonderful ideas.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:38 am
Joe, here is a link to a review of the potential risks with RHIC
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v72/i4/p1125_1
“Review of speculative “disaster scenarios” at RHIC”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 1125—1140 (2000).
June 16th, 2006 at 7:29 am
The space program has nothing to do with the environment.
Saying, “let manned space exploration wait until man has learned to stop polluting,” is like saying, “let’s cancel high-energy theory, cosmology, etc., and spend that money on feeding the poor instead.”
The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I could argue the opposite, that manned space exploration helps teach us the value of the Earth, and thus encourages an end to pollution.
The space program has long been a scapegoat. It was effectively canceled after man first landed on the moon. I doubt that money went anywhere useful, probably to the military, or into the public’s pockets, so they could buy more cars, to cause more pollution. People aren’t against the manned space program because of world poverty, or the environment, or any of those lame excuses. They’re against it because they aren’t interested.
So if you’re really for manned space exploration, and the environment, campaign for both. If you time things right, maybe you can solve both problems at the same time.
P.S. If we could get a man on the moon in 1969, I find it hard to believe we couldn’t get a man on Mars in the near future. What kind of computer were you using in 1969? Were you even born then? Are we in the Middle Ages now, or what?
June 16th, 2006 at 7:31 am
It’s almost worth following the trail of “Risk Assessment” here. Some might remember James Blodgett?
Of course, refering to “cosmic particle collisions”,then to have the “issues of strangelets” explained away as well.
Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration
We report results of the first strangelet search at RHIC. The measurement was done using a triggered data-set that sampled 61 million top 4% most central (head-on) Au+Au collisions at $\sNN= 200 $GeV in the very forward rapidity region at the STAR detector. Upper limits at a level of a few $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-7}$ per central Au+Au collision are set for strangelets with mass ${}^{>}_{\sim}30$ GeV/$c^{2}$.
So where do we stand with the fate of our planet?
June 16th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Eugene- Hate to Burst your Bubble… But I must comment that the chromosomes for carbon based life-forms are not likely to survive within the confines of outer-space nor upon a geologically extinct planet. Therefore, I will conjecture that the survivability of our genetic material hinges upon the ecosystem(the incubator) of planet Earth. In summary: DNA/RNA probably cannot exist in a simple vacuum.
June 16th, 2006 at 8:17 am
I guess then, like anything, it is the fear of the unknown that causes these feelings of trepidation? Like moving from “one phase” into the great unknown(Krauss directing star trek theme here :).
Proposed, “experimental processes” that “could(?)” unleash the fate of the planet?
June 16th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Whether we decide to confine life to stay on earth or to let it spread, neither evolution or technology seems to stop. Colonising will mean spreading life, the initial human cultures and species will adjust and evolve. It will also spread risks. It should be considered valuable. Time frame and other details are less interesting.
From what we know now, any fixing of messes or world culture stability seems not to happen, but we have learned how to visit space and how to use some resources (sunlight heating and power). Also, there is no obvious connection between these activities, except that increased knowledge means faster development. Colonies may have smaller footprint, at least initially, but they will also be open and use resources.
So we should not pretend we have to restrict one activity for another, and especially we should not wait for uncertain ideas such as “growing up” or “cultural stability”. (Yes, conflicts and powerty are decreasing. It is correlated with democracy and free markets. But we already know that. We don’t know if our world culture will stabilise - history says “no”.)
June 16th, 2006 at 8:52 am
“But I must comment that the chromosomes for carbon based life-forms are not likely to survive within the confines of outer-space nor upon a geologically extinct planet.”
Even if that would be the case, which is not apparent, there are lots of geologically active moons and planets in our system. Even plate tectonics, but the processes on Venus and Ganymede are different from Earth. We can also possibly reestablish plate tectonics on Mars by hitting it with other masses, but it would mean making it inhabitable for a while.
June 16th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Warren, you may find it hard to believe that we can’t get a man on Mars, but have you considered radiation? With current technology a trip to Mars takes a long time, and any visit outside our protectiva atmosphere and the van Allen Belts exposes you to a lot of radiation, and a good solar flare may fry you instantly. We may get the man on Mars, but it may also be a suicide mission.
Exploring space is nice for the knowledge we gain, but let’s not pretend it has anything to do with colonization at this time. It is also better done with unmanned vehicles. At the moment USA is doing exectly the opposite: cancelling good science missions in favor of returning to the moon for little obvious advantage.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Cynthia, There are many experiments underway that test the viability of bacteria/spore surviving in space. You can find some of these reports in NASA ADS for authors Mark Burchell (University of Kent at Canterbury) and Gerda Horneck (DLR Berlin). Horneck’s group web page lists their publications, as well. Mark told me at a meeting four years ago that bacteria can survive hypervelocity impacts in a particular velocity range: greater than 7 km/sec: nothing lives, at 5 km/sec some live, and at 1 k/sec, all bacteria live.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:32 am
The cosmic-ray proton collisions reach all the way up to 10^11 GeV in the center-of-mass frame, since (if you wait long enough) two protons moving in opposite directions will smack right into each other. Remember that we don’t have to directly observe it, it just has to happen somewhere in our past light cone, to trigger vacuum decay. No danger from particle accelerators in the foreseeable future.
RHIC is a little different, but not because it’s higher energy per nucleon; just because it’s heavy-nucleus on heavy-nucleus, which is something that has plausibly never happened in our past light cone.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Amara, I could very well be missing something in this biological picture. But the last time I checked human beings still fall under the Eukaryote branch of life-forms not the Bacteria or the Archaea branches of life-forms. Therefore, human beings are generally defined as complex life-forms while Bacteria and Extremophiles are generally defined as simple life-forms.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:41 am
The “we must fix our mess” argument makes more sense to me than the “flee our planet” via Steven Hawkins.
Yes, things are bad on Earth, but lest we forget, we can grow food without the aid of massive technology on our planet (despite the war and chaos) although doing the same thing on Mars, Ganymede or even Saturns moons may be a bit tricky.
(I think lunar soil is fertile to some plants, but I’m not sure if our ecosystem could survive on it for long).
Despite being a theist, I agree with my atheist “friend” here. We must resolve our issues on planet Earth…otherwise we will end up creating a chaotic system like Babylon 5 rather than the Star Trek Generation that we hope for.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Clifford,
Agreed on the timescales but…couldn’t the same argument be made by others re: the “critical” need to do something about global warming right now? (devils advocate here) I agree wholeheartedly agree we’ve got lots to do here on earth but as Warren points out these are not mutually exclusive. Fear is a powerful force and doesn’t always lead to rational conclusions.
John Baez seconded my reference to Rees’ book. Its along the same lines but a little less hysterical.
On the Thorne/Speilberg project interesting….. (I am on the second draft of my screenplay right now.) I’ve discovered its much harder to edit with an objective critical eye than write the original material but I guess thats what its all about.
Cheers,
Elliot.
June 16th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
What Jason said.
Should the early settlers of America stopped to fix all the problems in Asia before crossing the land bridge? Maybe early humans should have stayed in Africa.
Foo on everyone who advocates stagnation, or thinks humans might not be worth saving.
June 16th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
“Exploring space is nice for the knowledge we gain, but let’s not pretend it has anything to do with colonization at this time. It is also better done with unmanned vehicles.”
Increased knowledge of space increase the chance of colonisation. The manned/unmanned exploration is another unnecessary choice. The public is much more interested in manned exploration, so it pays itself and perhaps helps fund unmanned exploration.
“But the last time I checked human beings still fall under the Eukaryote branch of life-forms not the Bacteria or the Archaea branches of life-forms. Therefore, human beings are generally defined as complex life-forms while Bacteria and Extremophiles are generally defined as simple life-forms.”
I’m not sure why cells surviving space is relevant here. But I don’t think biologists call Bacteria or Archaea simple. Archaea are much as the Eukaryota excepting the various organelles.
If you are looking for a though Eukaryota you have Tardigrades. They can stop their metabolism and survives in this state for decades, during conditions of 0 to 424 K, high vacuum to high pressure, and radiation 1000 times human lethal dosage ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade , http://polaris.nipr.ac.jp/~penguin/polarbiosci/issues/pdf/1995-Utsugi.pdf ).
June 17th, 2006 at 9:05 am
RHIC is a little different, but not because it’s higher energy per nucleon; just because it’s heavy-nucleus on heavy-nucleus, which is something that has plausibly never happened in our past light cone.
Just when it had discovered and it had having been explained away, “strangelets” with current research information, now my sleep is again restless.
Should you choose to accept this mission Sean…this harddrive server your using shall self destruct in….
June 17th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Torbjörn, you claim that manned exploration attracts more public attention, and this was true back in the days of Apollo. Today pictures from the Hubble telescope, the different probes to Mars, even the relatively obscure COBE has attracted more public attention than ISS, and for good reason. If you look at what Bush did with his speech to the nation it was to promise that man would return to the moon and go to mars, but he didn’t promise new money, which has led to cutting down the real, useful projects.
June 17th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Torbjorn,
As a general rule, the Bio-Tree of Life starts from less complex organisms - such as members of the Archaea/Bacterium Branches of the Tree - and evolve towards the more complex organisms - such as members of the Eukaryote Branch of the Tree. Phrased differently, bio-evolution generally evolves from the “bottom-up”; bio-evolution generally does not evolve from the the “top-down.” Furthermore, in comparison to Archaea/Bacterium, I will postulate that humans as Eukaryotic organisms would have greater difficulty existing outside the Biosphere/Geosphere of Earth-type planets.
For these above reasons, I will argue the following point: the only viable way for humans to become colonized on other planets is by following the evolutionary process from the “bottom of life’s tree” and evolve towards the “top of life’s tree.” Therefore, I will further argue that an unrealistic assumption lies within Hawking’s proposal: the unrealistic assumption that humans can be transplanted to other Earth-type planets and magically survive/propagate on these planets without having to follow this evolutionary process of evolving from “the bottom of the tree” to “the top of the tree.”
In summary: I have little doubt that Archaea/Bacterium can survive on planets which have a meager ability to sustain life-forms. However, I am more doubtful that humans have the biological ability to survive and propagate on planets which have a meager ability to sustain life-forms, especially to sustain complex life-forms.
June 18th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Thomas,
Perhaps we will have to come up with a measure of “attention”. My, also unsupported, claim is based on observations of discussion within the Planetary Society. Many aren’t as interested in the probes and their support goes mainly to manned exploration.
You are looking at short term budgetary concerns. NASA would probably be much smaller without the manned part.
June 18th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Cynthia,
I don’t see the connection between your argument on evolution and the viability of space colonies.
The evolution argument is also wrong. It is a common misconception. Evolution has no inherent direction. Selection for fitness can mean simplifying both genotype and phenotype. ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB932.html ).
June 18th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Torbjorn,
According to your link, a species will delete specific traits in order to improve its overall survivability to a particular environment in question. However, if a species has to drastically reduce its traits in order to survive in a highly sub-optimum, hostile environment, this species - in the process of “trait-downsizing” - is at extreme risk for significantly losing key features to its quality of life. Let me pose a question: What collection of traits would you be willing to sacrifice in order to enhance your survivability outside the Biosphere/Geosphere of planet Earth? Moreover, how far would you be willing to delete your traits - at the same time - sacrificing quality of life before deciding that life is no longer worth living?
June 20th, 2006 at 4:34 am
Moot question, because it will never happen. Our biological shells are too fragile and our technology will never be powerful enough to protect them; artificial intelligence will fail to reach anywhere near human levels; interstellar travel will remain nothing more than a dream for devotees of sci-fi trash; human psychology and culture will always remain at virtually the same level, far below what is needed to undertake something as spatio-temporally vast as interstellar colonisation. We are heading towards a technological plateau (rather than a singularity) which will not be a barren desert — after all, we are a creative species — but a rich and nasty world that constantly invents and destroys, refines and reduces, a sort of a technological jogging-on-the-spot. The bootstrapping process by which we have advanced much of our science and technology will fail due to a combination of inherent human limitations and the fundamental limits of physical reality. You can only stack so many turtles on top of each other.
June 20th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Cynthia,
“However, if a species has to drastically reduce its traits in order to survive in a highly sub-optimum, hostile environment, this species - in the process of “trait-downsizing” - is at extreme risk for significantly losing key features to its quality of life.”
That is partly another question, since we were loking at survivability. However, I think organisms may easily loose some tools in the tool box. Not many though. Look at the Hox box - those genes that decides the body structure have been kept after their inception.
“Let me pose a question: What collection of traits would you be willing to sacrifice in order to enhance your survivability outside the Biosphere/Geosphere of planet Earth? Moreover, how far would you be willing to delete your traits - at the same time - sacrificing quality of life before deciding that life is no longer worth living?”
This is your idea, not mine. I observed that evolution doesn’t stop, so we will change both on Earth and in any colonies. Our descendants will be adapted (or die) to live harmoniously with whatever “nature” surrounds them. If that will be a much poorer life they will compare with history and think they were shortchanged. They will however find life worth living - all living creatures do.
Seriously, I find this line of comments as a flailing with unprobable outcomes.
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:41 am
Let’s start with the indisputable: As of right now all it would take is one rock of sufficient mass, impacting on the earth, to wipe out our entire species (and probably a good many other species along with us). As long as we have just this one home that statement will always be true. Just one rock, and as anyone who has come afoul of them before can tell you, rocks have no mercy. The idea of extraplanetary colonization is to make that statement untrue. To be sure there are other biological and artificial threats to humankind as well which Mr. Hawking listed.
Why is the human species worth preserving? Well as of right now we are the only known sentient technological species that we are aware of. For better or worse only we would stand a ghost of a chance to both detect and to redirect the rock.
In order to colonize another world one of two things would have to be done. Either we would have to change the world so that it would support our current form of life or we would have to change our form of life so that the new world could support it. (I’ve always been a big fan of terraforming Venus personally, but that may just be me.) With advances in genetics perhaps changing our current form of life might be the easier of those two options.
On optimistic days I would say that humans working together can do anything that it is possible to do. Including colonizing other worlds.
On pessimistic days I picture the last two men, waist deep in an ocean of raw sewage, locked in a life or death struggle over the last bit of edible food.
Whichever of these visions is closer to the truth it’s likely that I won’t be there for the finale. Unless we get hit by the rock of course. That could happen anytime.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:33 am
I’ve not much to argue with but there is one concept missing from those who are dispraging of Hawking’s comments. Life boat. We put them and require them on vehicles and the Earth can be viewed as just that.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Seems to me that a lot of Stephen Hawking’s statements have gotten a bit misinterpreted. All he’s saying is that it would be provident to get the human race out onto other planets as a bit of an insurance policy. He knows there’s no reason there has to be life on earth - it’s just one speck amongst lifeless specks, and there are lots of things that could go wrong and make it just as lifeless as all the others. We’ve become “science fictioned” into thinking that the universe around us isn’t real somehow, or it’s “manageable” - but it’s as real as rock and super hostile. A large solar flare, a gamma ray burster, a nearby supernova, the proverbial errant comet - it goes on and on - all real - any could wipe us out instantly - no amount of F15s or cool technology would do a movie rescue on us. Spread the risk, get out somewhere else, and he’s not saying migration - he knows the numbers - 1 space shuttle launch = 5 astronauts to 125 miles up, 1/2 of 1% of the USA to Mars, 1.5 million people hmm that’s about 300,000 shuttle launches.
Seems the home-grown risks are more under our control but insurance still not a bad idea. I see that a lot of Florida home owners can no longer get hurricane insurance. The possibility of tipping the greenhouse effect into irreversible runaway seems the most probable of disasters and Stephen’s right to alert us - the scientists who are actually doing research in the climate area are freaked, but have to be calm and reasonable and not overplay the worst case scenarios. I expect to be made seriously uncomfortable by global warming - won’t be a nice disaster I can watch on TV - I, and most of us are going to be directly affected - scarey!
June 27th, 2006 at 2:53 am
Reminds me of this
June 27th, 2006 at 2:55 am
Somehow the image worked in the preview but not in the final post, so I’m posting the link to the Calvin & Hobbes comic strip.