Mankind has 200 years left...

[Centurion40]

The future of Extraterrestrial colonization is simple:

Survivor Mars

The ratings will be out of this world.

A job as a CBS Exec is waiting for you!

[LongBlade]

Every time I look around the office, I figure the zombies have won and it's just a matter of time before they notice me.

Ha!

[Barthheart]

[Nefaro]

That doesn't mean we should be satisfied with the way things are going, but I'm not worried about our fate in two centuries.

indeed i concentrate on the next two month, two years, two maybe three decades ...if they find a way to store my mind in an android and or 'refresh' the human body then i start worrying for longer times ;) O0

Hawking left out of the equitation that humans are maybe just an evolutionary step to intelligent bio-mechanical life forms who can draw energy and survive much easier in the harsh and wide environment of the universe

;D

[Boggit]

I'm of the same belief as my friend W8.  If it's going to work, this shit needs to be getting started, NOW!

I have just the game for you - Fate of the World, by Red Redemption. Actually it's a pretty good game - if a little depressing at times. Space programs aiming to provide solutions to resource issues and overpopulation is a feature of it.

http://www.gamesforchange.org/play/fate-of-the-world/

[JasonPratt]

As someone who has recently watched around 98% of the Gundam series (also I spent a night in a Holiday Inn Express once ;) ), let me be the first person in this thread to remind everyone:

SPACE IS UTTERLY DEADLY!

A point often forgotten to make the plots work even in the Gundam series. But not a point that can be plausibly forgotten in real life. There was NEVER going to be a moon base, much less a Mars base (or a Venus base or a base on some asteroid past Mars or a base out at Jupiter); because even working independently sustainable satellite populations in near Earth orbit are not viable and for all practical purposes never will be without what amounts to magic.

Could any of a handful of things happen to shatter the planet or otherwise wipe out humanity? Sure. Could any of a larger set of things whack human civilization back down to the point where the survivors have to start over from scratch? Sure.

The fact is still that this planet is a biome where independent populations of animal and plant species (much moreso rational species) can survive and thrive; and even then the parameters of operation are fairly thin.

Research for relatively protracted survival in space conditions, is good for pretty much one thing: learning new ways to operate more efficiently in an actual biome. That was, in actual fact, what the various space programs provided as a benefit to various human societies, and is a significant reason why we're living in the world we live in today. (Personal computers being perhaps the most prevalent contribution to come from those projects but far from the only one.)

Living in our oceans would be only slightly less of an ongoing risk of fatal catastrophe, but would have three enormous advantages of (a) not having to deal with the vast distances and speeds involved in living in even sub-lunary space; (b) being workable biospheres for other many forms of life somewhat similar to ours (so at least we have some conversion potential to work with); and (c) providing access to all kinds of resources that have some hope of being feasibly capitalized.

And yet, we aren't going there either. Because, as submariners know, it's freaking deadly to human life. Whereas, even sub-lunary and near-orbit space is freaking deadly to ALL LIFE by comparison and contrast.


This is like hoping for flying cars some day in the future. We have flying cars already. We've had them since the 50s. They aren't even all that expensive to buy, if you want one (though you'd either have to put it together or pay somewhat more for someone else to do so.) We've had decades of experience operating and refining them. They're called helicopters. Why doesn't everyone have a helicopter now? Because the energy consumption to get it to do what it does is inefficient compared to automobiles (and ships), and because they're freaking deadly. But not anywhere near as deadly as surviving in space is, or will be.

I know many people here are either directly or indirectly involved with a navy, or an air force, civilian or military or both. We've had naval craft for thousands of years, and submarines for a little more than a hundred. Why aren't we living on floating cities, whether air or sea, or in cities under the waves yet? Is it because we lack the drive and dedication to deal with the challenges provided by such environments hostile to human life? No, obviously not. The rational art and innovation we've shown so far in doing what we've been able to do is literally beyond speech, beyond human capacity to even adequately summarize in writing. And, not incidentally, the benefits provided by learning to efficiently operate in those conditions (and in somewhat less hostile terran conditions like near polar regions), have also greatly enhanced human societies.

But there is no good reason to expect to be able to create an independently functioning human biome off planet when we can't even do so in our atmosphere or oceans (or even upon the oceans) yet.

And precisely in studying what we can do in regard to living on and in the oceans and atmosphere of Earth, indicates there are exponentially difficult limits to break through, maybe strongly impossible limits, to how much farther we can go with that.

[GDS_Starfury]

Captain Buzzkill....

[JasonPratt]

Space: the final buzzkill.  >:D

[JasonPratt]

Being realistic about it does have the advantage of providing clear channels of habitation research necessary to have even the slightest chance of beginning to survive in space. We can work on those channels, too, at vastly much less cost, and with greater direct efficiency of re-investing technology results (and capital gain, for that matter, where applicable.)

10.) When we're able to create self-sustaining county-sized human populations on various moons of Saturn, we might be close to being ready to send out one way county-sized ships on a generational project to the next nearest star.

9.) When we're able to create self-sustaining county-sized human populations on various moons of Jupiter, we might be close to being ready to do so on various moons of Saturn (with preparatory orbital stations).

8.) When we're able to create self-sustaining county-sized human populations in orbital stations near Jupiter, we might be close to being ready to do so on various moons of Jupiter.

7.) When we're able to create self-sustaining county-sized human populations in the asteroid belt, we might be close to being ready to do so in orbital stations near Jupiter.

6.) When we're able to create self-sustaining county-sized human populations on Mars, we might be close to being ready to do so in the asteroid belt.

5.) When we're able to create self-sustaining county-sized human populations on the Moon, we might be close to being ready to do so on Mars.

4.) When we're able to create self-sustaining county-sized human populations at safe sub-lunary distances, we might be close to being ready to do so on the Moon.

3.) When we're able to create self-sustaining county-sized human populations under the oceans, we might be close to being ready to do so in near-Earth orbit. But more likely for safety regions (to keep a near-Earth county-sized mass from falling at orbital speeds), it would be at a trailing sub-lunary distance.

2.) When we're able to create self-sustaining county-sized human populations in the worst surface deserts, including high mountain regions, we might be close to being ready to do so under the oceans.

1.) When we're able to create self-sustaining county-sized human populations on the oceans (maybe including polar regions, certainly including weird weather regions like at the equator), we might be close to being ready to do so in the worst surface deserts.

[JasonPratt]

Obviously, step 1 is step 1.

I'm not overly optimistic about step 2 being achievable in 200 years. But step 1 might be. Maybe.

[endfire79]

Captain Buzzkill....

a thorough Buzzkill at that!  8)

[Jarhead0331]

A 10 year old could come to the same conclusion as Hawking in that video...you don't need to be a genius. This is common sense.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Fine.  All of you killjoys can get off my planet.  More soylent green for the rest of us...

[Staggerwing]

[mirth]

A 10 year old could come to the same conclusion as Hawking in that video...you don't need to be a genius. This is common sense.

Pretty much the key to being recognized as a super genius. Saying things that 10 year olds know, but most 30 year olds don't.