So Stephen Hawking spoke in defence of off-planet colonization
and got pounced by, among others, a trio of tough sciencebloggers.
Shelley, grrlscientist, and PZ.
Also Chris Clarke...
This is an interesting situation - Stephen is at the best of times terse.
He is unlikely to expound in detail on his rationalisation or start commenting in blogs.
People who listen to him, and who are on the same page to begin with, tend to fill in the gap, under the assumption that he has made the full reasoned argument without expounding it - when I gave a talk to his group at DAMTP a few years ago, he asked a three word question that took me about 10 minutes to answer. I could have blown the question off as trivial, except I was pretty sure I knew exactly what he was getting at, and answered it as such (the question was "what about electrons" - the answer was a discussion in the time variability in mean free electron density in the solar wind, AND, a discussion of spontaneous charge fluctuations on the sensor).
So... No, Hawking is not being ridicilous. At worst he is being pessimistic about the time scale for major potential catastrophes, and optimistic on feasible time scales.
Independent of the details, there clearly exist extinction threats to humanity, and global extinction threats. Some are self-inflicted, some are external.
On a long enough a time scale, a permanent off-planet presence is prudent.
On a longer time scale, progressively and in stages, this presence should be self-sustaining.
It is arguable that a modest economic effort to expedite this now is worthwhile.
Doing so is mostly orthogonal to both minimizing self-inflicted damage, and external threats on Earth.
Is there a sense of urgency about doing it on decadal time scale, I don't know, it is the time scale of peoples' lives, so one that is natural to contemplate; one can make a case for on-planet threats developing on that time scale that would make off-planet presence prudent; the off-planet threats are basically random in timing so the probability of something Really Bad happening in the next 40 years are the same as in any random 40 year interval. A side effect of a permanent off-planet presence is a substantially enhanced ability to detect and mitigate some off-planet threats (mostly impacts), another potential side effect is to increase the self-inflicted threat scenarios (like deliberate impacts).
Habitats in space, and permanent off-planet ecosystems are exercises in engineering, to be done through external inputs, iteration and tweaking. No one seriously thinks it ought to be done by a miracle of single creation working perfectly from the beginning. The problems of Biosphere II or any one given exercise in self-containment are learning experiences in how to do it right, not illustrations of the inevitability of failure.
Oh, and Hawking is a Star Trek fan - he famously appeared in an episode, as himself.
And, the chair is neat - my daughter got to play with the buttons on her first birthday. If there were a phaser, I'm certain she would have found it, and since the Astronomer Royal was in the line of fire, it is well there isn't.
- Log in to post comments
In relation to space colonization I have one question: how small could you make a self sustaining culture using technology of today here on Earth? You'd need everything from farmers and miners to workers in the semiconductor industry and makers and designers of the most exotic devices that are nevertheless needed to keep our industry running. My guess it would be in the millions.
In order to colonize space what we primarily need isn't going into space, it is designing technology that lets us shrink that minimum population, i.e better automation and technology that let us use resources more efficiently, live in closed habitats here on Earth. Until we are close to reaching that goal it seems to me more sensible to explore space mainly by non-manned expeditions that give a lot more results for the money spent.
We could also invest in technology to deflect an asteroid or comet if we feel really paranoid. The risk is small, but it is real, and it is both cheaper and better to save Earth that way than to save a few thousand people on Mars while all the other billions on Earth die. As for human caused disasters war would top the list, and any global war large enough to wipe out humanity would almost certainly divert a missile or two to wipe out a base on Mars as well.
Thank you, Steinn. I was dismayed by the apparent lack of comprehension and forward thinking demonstrated by those who immediately criticized Hawking by using arguments that seemed empty, unscientifically emotional, and demonstrably wrong. I'm glad to see someone else understands what he meant, is able to read with context and comprehension, and agrees that his call to action is both sound and timely.
I wish this kind of thinking could lead to a true, international space program rather than several, at best loosely-related efforts. It's as absurd for the US to go it alone as it is for China to land a man on the moon by itself.
Mark: diversity is strength. We don't complain that more than one company makes steel, or computers, or any of myriad of goods. If space is worth doing, it's worth doing by multiple groups exploring more or less different approaches.
Thomas: that's a very good point, and it also points out that if a goal is sufficiently far in the future, naive linear planning can be the wrong approach. You don't get to the South Pole by turning south and starting to walk, and it's not clear to me that the goal of moving a self-sustaining human society into space should involve near-term human spaceflight.
Speaking of reactions elsewhere in the net, I used to respect Amanda at Pandagon.net -- not any more. She called Hawking's statement 'racist classist elitist' etc. (paraphrase -- I won't be going back to her site even to check -- she can f*** off)
Basically, shorter Pandagon is: rockets are cocks, human colonists are sperm, and Sister Space is a black woman who was slipped some roofies on a drunken date with a frat boy.
Horrors! One of her commenters even expressed the hope that an alien race show up and wipe us out before we spread ... Lovely.
well, we sure as hell should make sure that marcotte should be left off the life boat! she'd drive everyone insane with her nagging.
and thanks steinn, it needed to said.
Paul, I understand what you're saying, but space exploration of the sort I mean is too expensive for any one country to undertake by itself. It's naive to think of a truly international approach any time soon, but that's mainly because of national pride and the desire to direct large sums of money to one's own aerospace giants.
For better or worse we will be tied to "mother earth" for the forseeable future. We cannot duplicate the services provided by this biosphere, let alone create one on a planet with unfamiliar geochemical properties. To focus energy on "escaping" at this point in our history will only end with failure. Think Jamestown colony. Think Biosphere. Perhaps we should try L5 colonies as a first step, just so we get used to murphy's law in space.
but space exploration of the sort I mean is too expensive for any one country to undertake by itself.
I would retort that any project that's too expensive to be done by one (not too small) country is not worth doing at all. Gigantic efforts with no growth headroom are likely to be dead ends.
"In relation to space colonization I have one question: how small could you make a self sustaining culture using technology of today here on Earth?"
That's a misguided goal, I think (although it turns up a lot in discussion of space colonization). Creating an extension of the terrestrial economy seems like it should be easier than creating an entirely new economy on another planet.
James: easier, yeah. OTOH if the claimed goal is to have a backup civilization then its self-sustainability would be a legitimate concern.
Otherwise you get an ScF story where Earth is wiped out and the small colony gets to count time until the supply of essential microchips runs out.
I love it when Aspergers lay out plans for normals. It all sounds so rational. Too bad normals aren't. If we can't get together for space flight, we'll likely wipe each other out. MAD, as they used to say before nucular bunker busters.
It ain't a war on terra, it's a vendetta.
"I would retort that any project that's too expensive to be done by one (not too small) country is not worth doing at all. Gigantic efforts with no growth headroom are likely to be dead ends."
See Darien, which could be said to have killed independent Scotland in the late 1600s.
Your comment appears to argue that we may want to wait until the planetary economy matures some, in as much as a trillion dollar program may be unthinable for a 50 trillion dollar PNP but affordable in the context of a quadrilion dollar PNP.
How does one get italics for quotations?
See Darien, which could be said to have killed independent Scotland in the late 1600s.
That's an interesting example I didn't know about, supporting the point. Thanks.
Your comment appears to argue that we may want to wait until the planetary economy matures some
Yes. I note there's this curious mental quirk that seems to afflict many space fans, wherein they believe that a decision to not do something now means it will never be done by anyone, ever, and therefore that advocating not doing something now is equivalent to advocating it never be done.
How does one get italics for quotations?
Use HTML (the 'i' tag).