Hawking warns Aliens will colonize earth

[Thorvir]

41 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

IF we last, and that may be a big IF, then we have no choice but to leave the planet eventually, and with how vast space is, getting started sooner rather than later might not be all that bad an idea, we will have many failures amongst the few successes. The Sun will swallow the earth in 5 billion years, but it will be uninhabitable quite some time before that. 

• Increased temperatures cause increased atmospheric water vapour – a greenhouse gas, the presence of which further increases surface temperatures.
• For the next billion years or so this might increase cloud cover, cooling temperatures modestly.
• Eventually more energy from the Sun will win out, and higher temperatures lead to increased weathering of silicate rocks, drawing down more carbon from the atmosphere.
• Carbon is normally recycled though plate tectonics; however, increasing water loss eventually halts plate tectonics.
• Once carbon dioxide levels drop below this value, higher plants will begin to die off.
• This in turn decreases oxygen production, which, with continued consumption by biota and by oxidation of organic carbon in sedimentary rocks, leads to a steady decline in atmospheric oxygen to zero over a few million years.
• The end of animal life would occur a few million years after the end of plant life.
• Large endotherms (mammals, birds) would likely be the first group to become extinct due to their higher oxygen requirements.
• Fish, amphibians, reptiles would be able to survive for longer, but eventually the oceans will evaporate.
• The last life on Earth, in about 2.8 billion years, will be single-celled, heat-loving organisms in isolated pools of hot, salty water. - Essentially back to square one. And it keeps going.............

 

LINK

Okay, thanks for that, but I already know all of that.  I'm not quite sure why you had to post it in response to my post, though.

[seeder]

1 minute ago, StarMountainKid said:

I'm not convinced people 500 or 1000 years in the future will be any smarter than we've ever been. Not any smarter in the sense that they'll still be flawed human beings in the same ways as we've always been. Advanced knowledge, greater technology does not mean future humans will be any better at managing their societies. Human psychology will remain the same. 

I don't see any utopia or paradise in our future, just more of the same with better tools.   

 

Theres an old saying..... "you dont miss the water.....till your well runs dry".  In a good deal of human survival scenarios, AND theres been quite a few....humans tend to pull together when the crap hits the fan...

[StarMountainKid]

5 minutes ago, seeder said:

Theres an old saying..... "you dont miss the water.....till your well runs dry".  In a good deal of human survival scenarios, AND theres been quite a few....humans tend to pull together when the crap hits the fan...

Possibly, but after we've pulled it all together, what then? Same old, same old? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? Nice to hear from an optimist, though.

[seeder]

11 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

Possibly, but after we've pulled it all together, what then? Same old, same old? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? Nice to hear from an optimist, though.

 

we are talking of future humans, perhaps with the sole wish of survival on their minds... who despise our previous consumer culture....which ruined the world to start with.. who may be so different in their thinking....that bosses dont exist,  money is not needed...a whole new way of thought...

In the history of the UK.....we once beheaded people, and put their heads on spikes for all to see.. just like ISIS...

but we left that way of life and thinking long ago....

 

[psyche101]

57 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I'm all for voyaging to other habitable planets, but the survival timeline on them will be much the same as on the Earth. No star lasts forever. If we say the Earth will be habitable for another million years, that's a very long time. I'm not convinced humans will survive for a million years on any planet.

We may think our technological civilization we have now will continue to advance and continue into some bright future. Probably the Romans thought so, and citizens of all the other civilizations that have perished throughout history thought so, too.

What human civilization will be like in just one hundred years in the future is difficult to predict, let alone five hundred years, a thousand years. We may think we have the game finally beat, but I'm not convinced.  

Yes, but Hawkins is not suggest "a star" but populating the galaxy. More a nomadic situation until we run out of stars. And surviving that long? Anyones guess. 

The future is both difficult and easy to predict, I cannot tell you how the earth will look in 500 years because of technology, but I can tell you what Universe will look like in 10¹⁰⁰ years

[psyche101]

34 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Okay, thanks for that, but I already know all of that.  I'm not quite sure why you had to post it in response to my post, though.

Just that it is a good idea to start to think about moving about and colonising. I did not mean to be condescending if I was, and I apologise if I was, many people know the sun will expand in 5 billion years, but many do not realise that in half that time, the planet will be uninhabitable, not a problem for us, but I do not think Hawkins is referring to current generations. He is just speaking about getting that ball rolling, as it might be hard to shift. 

[Habitat]

40 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I'm not convinced people 500 or 1000 years in the future will be any smarter than we've ever been. Not any smarter in the sense that they'll still be flawed human beings in the same ways as we've always been. Advanced knowledge, greater technology does not mean future humans will be any better at managing their societies. Human psychology will remain the same. 

I don't see any utopia or paradise in our future, just more of the same with better tools.   

It is very clear to me that whilst technological progress is inexorable, social progress is flat at best. Some would say there is no such thing as social progress, it can all unravel into a "Lord of the Flies" situation, very quickly.

[seeder]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

It is very clear to me that whilst technological progress is inexorable, social progress is flat at best. Some would say there is no such thing as social progress, it can all unravel into a "Lord of the Flies" situation, very quickly.

 

fair enough...with our PRESENT way of thinking maybe....but how can anyone know.....what future humans....who have the benefit of hindsight...re: OUR current ways... will think?

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, seeder said:

 

fair enough...with our PRESENT way of thinking maybe....but how can anyone know.....what future humans....who have the benefit of hindsight...re: OUR current ways... will think?

We already have plenty to reflect on, but really little changes. I saw a doco about British General Claude Auchinleck, where he recorded in his journal, reflecting on the savagery of the North African desert war, that the difference between modern humans and cannibals was we no longer actually eat the victim, but the rest is much the same.

[Mark56]

"Hawking had previously indicated that if an extraterrestrial civilization did pick up our signal, they would probably be so far in advance of us that we may be of no interest to them whatsoever. "

-Stephen Hawking

He has a point. This should be considered.

They (super-advanced aliens)  may look at us the way we look at bacteria. What human, no matter how compassionate, would have any qualms about destroying bacteria.

[Myles]

On 10/2/2016 at 1:05 AM, Mark56 said:

"Hawking had previously indicated that if an extraterrestrial civilization did pick up our signal, they would probably be so far in advance of us that we may be of no interest to them whatsoever. "

-Stephen Hawking

He has a point. This should be considered.

They (super-advanced aliens)  may look at us the way we look at bacteria. What human, no matter how compassionate, would have any qualms about destroying bacteria.

I think it is more likely that they would be excited just like us.  

[StarMountainKid]

I'm not convinced there is any advanced technology that would enable quick travel between the stars. I think intelligent species are isolated on their home planets, as we are. I also think there are not many of these civilizations in the galaxy, given the required specialized geology and ecology of a planet (the rare earth hypothesis), plus the arbitrary evolutionary sequence that produces an intelligent species.

Add to this the timeline of such a species that must coincide with ours, perhaps we will never discover ET and they will never discover us. Given this scenario, any planet with an intelligent species living on it right now would necessarily be very far away from Earth, due to its rarity in the galaxy.. 

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by StarMountainKid

[xYlvax]

They already have.

[Darkenpath25]

I've never put much faith in what Hawkins has ever said. First there isnt a God then maybe there is then isnt . Only an hour ago I seen a movie 

about Hawkins I wasn't very much impressed . 

Edited October 4, 2016 by Darkenpath25

[XenoFish]

I sometimes wonder that there will be a time when we are the alien life. Not only colonizing potential worlds. But obscure projects for seeding life throughout the universe. That we might one day build these autonomous arks that can recreate a habitable world from the ground up. Sort of a last ditch effort for human/earth life survival. 

[badeskov]

54 minutes ago, Darkenpath25 said:

I've never put much faith in what Hawkins has ever said. First there isnt a God then maybe there is then isnt . Only an hour ago I seen a movie 

about Hawkins I wasn't very much impressed . 

Why not? He is allowed to philosophize about god (and other subjects) once in a while, is he not? But from what you state, you do not put "much faith" in his scientific accomplishments either, which for by far the most part, are no where near philosophical? Do you even comprehend his accomplishments and contributions to science?

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Darkenpath25]

16 hours ago, badeskov said:

Why not? He is allowed to philosophize about god (and other subjects) once in a while, is he not? But from what you state, you do not put "much faith" in his scientific accomplishments either, which for by far the most part, are no where near philosophical? Do you even comprehend his accomplishments and contributions to science?

Cheers,
Badeskov

I comprehend just fine . Do you want to cram it down my throat ? I don't call you out in astonishment on what you believe and say on post so respect my opinion please. 

Edited October 4, 2016 by Darkenpath25

[psyche101]

On 10/4/2016 at 2:59 AM, StarMountainKid said:

I'm not convinced there is any advanced technology that would enable quick travel between the stars. I think intelligent species are isolated on their home planets, as we are. I also think there are not many of these civilizations in the galaxy, given the required specialized geology and ecology of a planet (the rare earth hypothesis), plus the arbitrary evolutionary sequence that produces an intelligent species.

Add to this the timeline of such a species that must coincide with ours, perhaps we will never discover ET and they will never discover us. Given this scenario, any planet with an intelligent species living on it right now would necessarily be very far away from Earth, due to its rarity in the galaxy.. 

 

 

I mostly agree, but think we can travel to the stars through communications. Even a 100 light year sphere would be worthy of pursuing, and might be the only chance we have to see anything at all other than our world. 

And that is just the immediate part of the Galaxy - other Galaxies, like you say, not happening. They may as well not exist for the information we are capable of gathering. 

[psyche101]

On 10/4/2016 at 10:07 AM, Darkenpath25 said:

I've never put much faith in what Hawkins has ever said. First there isnt a God then maybe there is then isnt . Only an hour ago I seen a movie 

about Hawkins I wasn't very much impressed . 

It's just you. 

There is not a God according to evidence, and there are no absolutes in science, so his comment makes perfect sense. 

You were not impressed with his life? Not sure why that matters, the movies appeals to different people no doubt, but his accomplishments have nothing to do with a movie about his life. 

Or did you mean to say "documentary"? And what did you find so mundane about it? 

[Darkenpath25]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It's just you. 

There is not a God according to evidence, and there are no absolutes in science, so his comment makes perfect sense. 

You were not impressed with his life? Not sure why that matters, the movies appeals to different people no doubt, but his accomplishments have nothing to do with a movie about his life. 

Or did you mean to say "documentary"? And what did you find so mundane about it? 

I'm not getting into any awkward contretemps like I see on these threads , I am an even tempered person and will not get into any disagreements . There are plenty 

others that will take you up on whatever youre trying to do . I am here to enjoy this site and participate , I have my beliefs everyone else has theirs . You will 

never see me argue or have a dispute with any member on the website . Move on to someone else . And yes it was a Documentary !

Let me add just because Steven Hawking's doesn't believe there is a God doesn't mean there isn't . I am not going to say if there is a God or 

not a God but because Steven Hawking says it doesn't make it true. 

Edited October 5, 2016 by Darkenpath25
adding another line

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, Darkenpath25 said:

I'm not getting into any awkward contretemps like I see on these threads , I am an even tempered person and will not get into any disagreements . There are plenty 

others that will take you up on whatever youre trying to do . I am here to enjoy this site and participate , I have my beliefs everyone else has theirs . You will 

never see me argue or have a dispute with any member on the website . Move on to someone else . And yes it was a Documentary !

Let me add just because Steven Hawking's doesn't believe there is a God doesn't mean there isn't . I am not going to say if there is a God or 

not a God but because Steven Hawking says it doesn't make it true. 

 

You said a comment Hawkins made did not make sense, it does, I illustrated that for you, as to "how it does"

That is what a discussion forum is for - discussion. The belief you had concocted about the statement there was in error due to your own interpretation. You can "believe" that is the case, but I can also show how and why it is wrong too.  And I do not have to respect that belief when I know it is in error. 

Which documentary? I have seen most of them, and found some a little boring, but for the large part, they seem pretty good. 

Sure, Stephen Hawking does not believe in God that has nothing to do with the announcements you are hanging him on. That statement is not based on "his opinion" they are the results of gathered data from many experiments. He is not even saying "there is no God" at all, in fact he never said that, he said "God is not required for the universe to exist - we can explain it naturally" because that is what the evidence is telling him - that the Universe is natural, not designed. If you have a problem with that, then your real disagreement is with Science, not the messenger. Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene or Sean Carroll will tell you the same thing as they have access to the same evidence, which is the latests developments from impressive experiments like the LHC. So sure, you are right, just because Stephen Hawking says "there is no God" does not make that statement true, how we come to that conclusion is by eliminating the claims attributed to God and take the effort to find the real story and illustrate that to others as gathered knowledge. The only reason science will not say "there is no God" is because if someone asks who checked the Andromeda Galaxy for God? We cannot say "he did" and point a finger at someone. It is beyond our reach. And just maybe, some creature that resembles one of the thousand plus Gods man has invented in our historical record might exist meet the description, offering some abstract way to insist that a "god" exists, even if just by aesthetics, as such the question must remain open to remain true. What we do not have is a reason to believe the creator God exists, everything he is supposed to have done can be explained naturally. 

You have misinterpreted the data and shot the messenger. But as I say, the worst part is he has been saying this for over half a decade and it was never the "Warning!!" that the media makes it out to be. It is one possibility that few consider that Hawking said, OI - what if this happens and it is not all rosy? Has anyone even considered that? It seems plausible. How media sources see this as some sort of new announcement is bewildering, It is just a rehash of an old wildly exaggerated comment that got people talking, and mostly because it was badly presented and then misinterpreted due to that bad presentation.

I repeat, Journalists are stupid. 

[TripGun]

I find myself astonished that people will willingly chain themselves to an interpretation of information that best suits the self of today. Are we to allow others to define our capacities? Like it or not most of science is our best guess based on the information at hand. So wondering and speculation of all things should be invited, life is a curious journey.

[Derek Willis]

This is a great example of why scientists shouldn't stray too far from their specialities. I am sure Profs Hawking and Cox pretty much agree on everything to do with relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology. However, Prof Hawking says aliens will colonize Earth, whereas Prof Cox says advanced civilizations will wipe themselves out before travelling to other star systems. They can't both be right!  

[badeskov]

On 10/4/2016 at 10:55 AM, Darkenpath25 said:

I comprehend just fine . Do you want to cram it down my throat ? I don't call you out in astonishment on what you believe and say on post so respect my opinion please. 

Cram what down your throat, exactly? I was plainly asking if you did not understand his accomplishments. Now I am very rudely state that you obviously do not - at all.

Cheers,
Badeskov 

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, TripGun said:

I find myself astonished that people will willingly chain themselves to an interpretation of information that best suits the self of today. Are we to allow others to define our capacities? Like it or not most of science is our best guess based on the information at hand. So wondering and speculation of all things should be invited, life is a curious journey.

We also "know" a lot of stuff too. Wandering aimlessly convincing ourselves that everything is an illusion does not sound very progressive either. 

Science is "The Most Likely Conclusion" Based up the evidences we have. Imaging up crap is not a better method. Speculation is fine, but there is also nothing wrong with maintaining real world parameters.