Mankind must abandon earth or face extinction: Hawking

August 9, 2010

Mankind's only chance of long-term survival lies in colonising space, as humans drain Earth of resources and face a terrifying array of new threats, warned British scientist Stephen Hawking on Monday.

"The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," the renowned astrophysicist told the website Big Think, a forum which airs ideas on many subjects from experts.

"Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space," he added.

He warned that the human race was likely to face an increased number of events that threaten its very existence, as the Cuban missile crisis did in 1962.

The Cold War showdown saw the United States and Soviet Union in a confrontation over Soviet missiles deployed in Cuba, near US shores, and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

"We are entering an increasingly dangerous period of our history," said Hawking.

"Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill."

If we want to survive beyond the next century, "our future is in space," added the scientist.

"That is why I'm in favour of manned, or should I say 'personed', flight."

His comments came after he warned in a recent television series that mankind should avoid contact with at all costs, as the consequences could be devastating.

Explore further: Russian space memorabilia goes to auction

Related Stories

Russian space memorabilia goes to auction

March 2, 2010

A spacesuit worn by cosmonaut Anatoli Artsebarsky, pieces of Soyuz shuttles that rocketed into space and a Mir Space Station control panel are among dozens of Soviet space program items for sale this month in Canada.

Scientists describe 'human world'

September 21, 2005

The internationally syndicated Earth & Sky Radio Series today announced the launch of a special report on its web site on what it calls "the Human World." In the report, 50 leading scientists describe the Human World from ...

Space Image: A Beehive of Satellites

February 12, 2009

The launch of the first artificial satellite by the then Soviet Union in 1957 marked the beginning of the utilization of space for science and commercial activity. During the Cold War, space was a prime area of competition ...

Expert: Atomic bombings still part of political diplomacy

July 28, 2005

The next few weeks will be filled with differing opinions on how the United States should commemorate the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Japan, and a Purdue University political communication expert can talk about ...

Recommended for you

Active galactic nuclei and star formation

October 15, 2018

Most galaxies host a supermassive black hole (SMBH) at their nucleus. (A supermassive black hole is one whose mass exceeds a million solar-masses.) A key unresolved issue in galaxy formation and evolution is the role these ...

259 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

chrisrosa
2.6 / 5 (14) Aug 09, 2010
Are you serious about that headline? I love Hawking, but your interpretation his statement that we should "spread out into space" is definitely alarmist and seems specifically built to generate clicks, which is definitely disappointing for a science news source like yourselves. I'll be removing you from my Google Reader feed. Good luck.
Pratyeka
4.1 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2010
Sure, I'm all for colonizing other planets, as soon as he design the transportation technology that will take us there.
Skultch
4 / 5 (13) Aug 09, 2010
Are you serious about that headline? I love Hawking, but your interpretation his statement that we should "spread out into space" is definitely alarmist and seems specifically built to generate clicks, which is definitely disappointing for a science news source like yourselves. I'll be removing you from my Google Reader feed. Good luck.


What do you expect? PO is first and foremost an aggregator. It worked on you, you read the whole article, so in the end you weren't deceived. If you merely want headlines spoon fed to you verbatim, just go to all these journals individually.
zslewis91
Aug 09, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skultch
4.8 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2010
I've just seen 3 even more alarming headlines on other sites.
"# Stephen Hawking: Abandon the Earth FOX Springfield - 8 hours ago
# Stephen Hawking Predicts the End of Humanity, Again [Stephen Hawking] Gizmodo - Aug 08 01:09pm
# Hawking: It's outer space or die for humans - ZDnet

Sorry, I love PO. :)
ormondotvos
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2010
And what sort of New Humans are going out to space? The answers are not in the stars, but in our selves.

Hawking should call for more cognitive science, and psychological engineering.
Skultch
4.1 / 5 (16) Aug 09, 2010
IMO, he's not that far off. I tend to believe the predictions of Ray Kurzweil when he says we are close to the acceleration of the advancement of technology eclipsing our ability to control it. There really is no way of knowing where we will be in 100 years.

Now, that alien stuff is pretty out there.
Alex_Findlater
4.5 / 5 (17) Aug 09, 2010
Are you serious about that headline? I love Hawking, but your interpretation his statement that we should "spread out into space" is definitely alarmist and seems specifically built to generate clicks, which is definitely disappointing for a science news source like yourselves. I'll be removing you from my Google Reader feed. Good luck.


Spreading out into space is exactly what would need to happen for humanity to survive in the long term. I don't see anything alarmist about it. Statistically it just makes sense.

I don't get why people complain about Physorg so much. It is what it is. If you don't like it, grow up and read journal articles!

Skultch
3.6 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2010

Spreading out into space is exactly what would need to happen for humanity to survive in the long term. I don't see anything alarmist about it. Statistically it just makes sense.


Yep. Essentially, it's no different than European colonialism.
xanderjones
3.3 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2010
Yeah Ray Kurzweil does have some pretty interesting theories. I've read all his books except for the health ones haha.

I think if we spread into space it's only a matter of time before the colony will want to fight with the home planet, and then we would have interplanetary war, possibly capable of destroying both worlds.

We need to work on ourselves, because no matter where we are, we will fight and kill each other.

That's a shame.
NatLawson
2.4 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2010
Correct does no justice to the answer. We must evolve. It's not just the solar system we must leave. We have the means but not the will to travel to the stars. We need to hitch a ride to the Otr cloud via comet and use a ion engine and gravity assist to travel intergenerationally to our closet neighborhood. It must be done for survival. We must engineer our space faring environment, but it must be done. We do not know how human tissue and reproduction will survive but we must go. It is the only way to survival. No more war!
Sanescience
3.7 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2010
On Kursweil: the "singularity" isn't as close as I would like. It will come when we are able to develop significantly enhanced intelligence, either through mechanical or biological means.

On space colonization: Humans currently cannot survive a trip to Mars with current technology. The levels of radiation they would be exposed to would be very unhealthy to deadly.

We can get to the Moon though. If we can place large centrifuge habitats under the ground where inhabitants would be protected from radiation and live in an artificial gravity field so their organs don't shut down, they would have a chance.

The real problem then would be economics of self sufficiency, which I doubt we could achieve any time soon.
Jigga
1.8 / 5 (24) Aug 09, 2010
I'm just missing elementary logic in Mr. Hawking's recommendation: if it's so promising and prospective to make planets in space habitable - why not just to start with Earth?
NatLawson
3 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2010
It is not alarming it is our destiny. Intelligence spreading through the existence (not that we are intelligent, but our progenators will be.)

We need everyone on this planet. WE need each individual. We must supply each other. Then we need to evevate from this existence to space. We need to engineer the multitude of astroids and even asmall moons in our preview, to sustailable communities and launch to the stars.
Space is a ultimately hostile environment but we can't stay here.
Magus
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2010
I thought that without gravity our bones would deteriorate. Shouldn't we first fix that issue before we think about leaving the planet. If we do eventually make it to a habitual planet we probably need to have working bone structure. I am certain there are other major issues. Like food maintenance, oxygen and other things we need to survive a long journey.
Bog_Mire
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2010
lets live in avatars which can operate in outer space, and just have a brain repository here on earth...
Raygunner
1.7 / 5 (19) Aug 09, 2010
Personally I think the universe would be much better off without humanity. There isn't much that is redeeming about our species anymore. We have turned inward and against each other. What we need is a big, giant asteroid to put us out of our selfish misery.
TehDog
4.1 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2010
Hmm, a lot of folks here seem to be assuming we need to colonise planets. Orbital habitats would be a much better start, the asteroid belt contains plenty of suitable construction materials. Hollow a smallish rock/iron asteroid (say 5 Km on the long axis), build a sustainable environment, slap some thrusters on, et voila, colony ship.
That's not even mentioning the Moon, Mars, or the Jovian and Saturnian moons.
On SH's main points as quoted in this article, I agree totally. Diversify or die.
I'm an optimist, I think we'll survive :)
msavoy
3 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2010
Are you serious about that headline? I love Hawking, but your interpretation his statement that we should "spread out into space" is definitely alarmist and seems specifically built to generate clicks, which is definitely disappointing for a science news source like yourselves. I'll be removing you from my Google Reader feed. Good luck.

LOL. One of the greatest comments ever posted!

stubabyq
1.7 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2010
Mr. Hawking's tremendous analytic thinking ability has somehow become intertwined with his imagination--the part of everyone's brain that is normally used for faith. The above statements are the result of the train wreck we have just witnessed.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2010
This article sure has brought out the never and rare posters.

Two of which joined up just to complain. The reasoning behind that sort of behavior is severely deficient.

Ethelred
Aliensarethere
4.9 / 5 (15) Aug 10, 2010
Personally I think the universe would be much better off without humanity. There isn't much that is redeeming about our species anymore. We have turned inward and against each other. What we need is a big, giant asteroid to put us out of our selfish misery.


That's very negative :-)

In reality, the Universe doesn't care if there are humans or not. If we disappeared tomorrow, the Universe will carry on its business as usual.
DamienS
4.9 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2010
When I read the headline, I thought - duh! We all know the sun is half way through its life and when it's gone so too will we be if we're still around and confined to Earth. In fact, it's much worse than that as the Earth has maybe 1 billion years or less left before the oceans boil off and the surface becomes unlivable. So it's rather obvious that if we're not off the planet before it becomes unlivable, we will become extinct. Of course, getting off the planet en masse and living sustainably in an alien habitat isn't exactly easy, either technologically, politically or economically.
Caliban
3.1 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2010
I think it's likely that we could expect that the "Best and Brightest" would be picked for the initial stages of the project, and for the operational aspects, but, ultimately, any endeavor along these lines is fated to devolve into the same sick dynamics that play out here on Earth.

Humanity is deeply flawed as a species, and the same will to power that drives the inequity and abuse that has brought us to the brink on our home planet will follow us into space, as well.

As far as Kurzweil's singularity- if it does indeed occur, then our days as a species will be numbered, as any machine intelligence would necessarily view us as just as much of a plague as we view smallpox, and therefor just as much a target for immediate eradication.

I believe I've said it before, but it bears repeating- we need to evolve into a species equal to the task of living sustainably on this planet before we've got a prayer of surviving in space, or colonising other worlds.
jsa09
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
whether we go to space or stay here humans are destined to die off. We continue to evolve and in another 100,000 years baring any serious extinction event then humans may well be so different from us that we would hesitate to call them the same species.

Give them another 100,000 years after that and we probably would not even hesitate.
kasen
3.6 / 5 (13) Aug 10, 2010
2100: "Mankind must abandon the solar system or face extinction: Hawking"
2500: "Mankind must abandon the Milky Way or face extinction: Hawking"
2800: "Mankind must abandon the Universe or face extinction: Hawking"
2801: "All of mankind will go into a black hole. Brave scientist to stay behind and study the human-singularity interaction."
2802: The Roach Motel theory of spacetime singularities is postulated: black holes act as traps, attracting and killing narcissistic, expansionist, all-consuming organic species, thus keeping the Universe clean and safe. The paper doesn't get peer-reviewed, as there is only one scientist left. Guess who.
Semmster
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
If you examine the facts of our human existence, both in regards to aliens and our chances for long-term survival in a straightforward cause and effect senario, Stephen Hawkin's conclusions are inescapable. Outside of that, nothing short of a miracle will save us. I used the 'M' word deliberately. As a species, I'm not sure we're worth it.
Kedas
2 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
We should send Hawking in the next rocket. :-)
Problem solved

AABB
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
Everyone here is so preoccupied w/ posturing and inanely attempting erudition that they miss a big point: We will have to adapt (evolve) to "alien" worlds/conditions if we are to survive outside our biosphere...and just what is "alien"? It's all relative...
lvvop
3 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
I love Hawking. I'm sure of what he said, but I'd like to know. My guess is he knows like most of us know traveling to other planets is at best a dream, certainly one we should strive for, but it's not going to save us in the short term. Maybe we could just get our own house in order before we contemplate exporting our, how shall I put it, less than optimal human condition. Really, I mean, look around, are we really ready to colonise the stars! Such a grand and poetic dream and we can't convince ourselves of the truth of the most basic scientific facts.
Let's stay home.
Skultch
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
As far as Kurzweil's singularity- if it does indeed occur, then our days as a species will be numbered, as any machine intelligence would necessarily view us as just as much of a plague as we view smallpox, and therefor just as much a target for immediate eradication.


Yeah, most of us have seen The Terminator, too. You must not have read any recent Kurzweil. WE will be the machine intelligence. We are going to start augmenting our biology well before autonomous, fully synthetic machines.

I'm not worried about our ability to adapt on alien worlds, whatever they may be. Technology will have to solve that problem. IMO, the bigger question is will war over earthly resources destroy our ability to keep technological advancement going at its current ever accelerating rate before it's too late? We're clearly not ready yet.
rvlife
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
The other day i was watching the movie, 'The Day The Earth Stood Still'. The Alien tells the earthly woman; "There are very few planets in the cosmos that can support life. Earth is one of them. And humans are killing it"
In another scene an earthling tells the alien "Humans change only on the brink of extinction."
Just a couple of points to ponder.
rvlife
2.2 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2010
Technology saving us is absurd.
40 years on and we still don't have a clue about a cure for HIV with all our technology.
With population explosion, climate change, shortage of resources, oil water land and food, govt's will have a handful to deal, and spending on technology will take a backseat, ultimately slowing the progress of technology. As I said earlier Humans change only on the brink of extinction, but that may be too late this time around.
DozerIAm
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2010
Its a fine thing to say we should spread out to satellites, moons, planets and other solar systems to reduce our risk of being wiped out by a single event. However, we don't have the technology to make that happen.

We already know that extended exposure to microgravity results in bone density loss and strength loss, and early studies suggest that normal fetal growth requires gravity. Without some sort of artificial gravity (centerfugal or otherwise) long term or generational space travel is a bad idea.

Cosmic radiation is a serious threat not only in the single lifespan range but more significantly intergenerationally. And the faster the travel, the greater the exposure. Until we develop some sort of effective shielding, we aren't safe out there is space for more than brief trips.

Long term self sufficiency is also an issue. We can only pack so much "stuff".

Its easy to say "we gotta go". The genius is in the making it possible.
rvlife
1.7 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
If we live in harmony, without war and with judicial use of resources and keep our numbers under control, we might hang on long enough for the technology to advance enough to enable us space travel.
mondoblu
1 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
I don't see any problem in the extincion of mankind: the planet Earth will re-flourish without us.
Human beings are the problem for this planet.
danman5000
4.8 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
We already know that extended exposure to microgravity results in bone density loss and strength loss, and early studies suggest that normal fetal growth requires gravity. Without some sort of artificial gravity (centerfugal or otherwise) long term or generational space travel is a bad idea.

I don't understand why this argument keeps coming up. Sure it's an issue, but artificial gravity is extremely easy to produce. Just make your spaceship a ring or cylinder and spin it. If you make it big enough, you don't even have to spin it all that fast to get 1g worth of acceleration. Look up the 'Rendezvous with Rama' by Arthur C. Clarke for a good presentation.
rbrtwjohnson
4.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
Mankind's future will depend upon innovative propulsion engines and energy sources to take us there.
http://www.youtub...AHXN_kAY
Ravenrant
2.8 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2010
There is no Planck length for how short our sightedness can be. Too bad, our species has a couple of redeeming features (maybe).
Faisal_Haji
2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
The earth won't be able to support more than 1 billion people when oil runs out. All this surge in population is due to excess of energy. Once the extra 6 or seven billion perish, things will go back to normal and there won't be a need to jump ship.
Ralph
4.5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2010
Hawking is right in this sense: the probability per unit time of an extinction event may be small, but it is certainly nonzero. Therefore, human extinction will eventually occur. Since by definition an extinction event is irreversible, as things stand now humanity is doomed to go out of existence permanently.

Having at least one other repository of living humans, then, is critical. As soon as one of our planets runs out of human beings, we must rapidly re-colonize it, using human stock from the other planet(s) we control.

Assuming that we have at least one other human-occupied planet, and that the restocking can be done arbitrarily quickly, in this way we can reduce the probability of simultaneous extinction on both worlds to as small a level as desired.

So goes the theory.

The practical implications? Unclear. We can and should create multiple human repositories (physically independent colonies) right here on Earth. The logic then works the same as for two different planets.
Ralph
3.5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
One More Thing: if you accept the logic of my previous comment, you should conclude that actually ABANDONING Earth would defeat the whole purpose of having another human colony. Fortunately, only the headline writer knows where that idiotic thought came from. I'm sure Hawking never suggested it.
sr71pyro
4.3 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2010
I would think that the most logical thing to do would be to colonize space in general...keeping planets for use of resources, and getting away from space for fresh air. It offers mobility, freedom to explore, and reduces the risk of extinction that not only effects Earth, but potentially other planets as well; ie: asteroid collisions, climate and other planetary shifts and so on.
yyz
4.6 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
"One More Thing: if you accept the logic of my previous comment, you should conclude that actually ABANDONING Earth would defeat the whole purpose of having another human colony. Fortunately, only the headline writer knows where that idiotic thought came from. I'm sure Hawking never suggested it."

Well, technically one day we will need to abandon the Earth. You know, sun expands into red giant, fusion reactions wind down, white dwarf stage ensues, that sort of thing. That's ~5 Gyr down the road, but the Earth will be incinerated at some point, unless we move it or dig deep(and that might not suffice).
GDM
2 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
Fact: An extinction Level Event is a 100% certainty, but maybe not in our lifetime as a species (but then, who really knows?)

For those who wish to stay, and live in a totalitarian society that controls every aspect of life to ensure that humans don't exceed the resources left on Earth, please STAY. For those who wish to go out and take their chances in the universe, count me in! The pioneer spirit is in the blood of many, if not most humans, and we will find a way to thrive. This will happen sooner than many think.
DamienS
2.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
Mankind's future will depend upon innovative propulsion engines and energy sources to take us there.
http://www.youtub...AHXN_kAY

That 'innovative propulsion' method (Electrodynamic Space Thruster) looks like voodoo to me. Is there any real info on this?
rvlife
1.6 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2010
It will take another 100 years or so for us to develop a technology capable of overcoming the basic hurdles and enable mass movement of people to other planets.
The question is;
will we last that long enough?
kevinrtrs
Aug 11, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Au-Pu
2.3 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2010
We are already overpopulated and our distribution is grossly inefficient.
By the end of this century we could reach plague proportions. That could put our prospects of species survival at risk due to the environmental damage it will cause.
We as a species are of no consequence to the universe but our survival is important to us.
We must either reduce our population and learn to live more harmoniously with our environment or we must seek alternate residences among the stars and hope that affords us sufficient time to become civilised and intelligent.
We are not a truly intelligent species we are a technological species with developing intelligence.
If we continue as we are then Hawkings suggestion will be our only hope of survival and we will need to do it quickly.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2010
This:
There's only one solution - Jesus must return to establish his everlasting kingdom. Whether all the unbelieving "scientific" types like it or not.
is why
the whole universe cannot change the basic fact that mankind is consistently evil.


Lose the superstitions and see if that's still the case afterwards.
Blicker
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2010
Replace headline with "Over the next few hundred years we must spread out to colonize other planets in case disaster strikes Earth" - Hawking
mabarker
1.5 / 5 (12) Aug 11, 2010
Otto1923 talks about "vasimr engines" like democrats talk about a balanced budget.
He also says, "A breathtaking evolutionary leap awaits us." Since there's not 1 thing we know about macroevolution that's true - don't hold your breath (pun intended)
Finally, "Space colonization offers an unprecedented evolutionary bottleneck. 'Something wonderful'." Let's see - a drastic reduction in genetic variabilty is 'something wonderful' yeah - right.
krundoloss
2 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2010
A few points:
- Humans, unfortunately to not advance and evolve at the same rate, so hoping for us to evolve together is a faint dream. Look at natives in Africa, Thousands of years behind the rest of the world.
- Ofcourse we need to colonize space. What the heck else are we gonna do? People crave adventure and discovery, so this WILL happen.
- Stephen Hawking is very logical and intelligent, but he's not saying anything new, but Im glad that he is respected and he focuses on things that will help mankind.
- Please dont bring religion into anything on this site. It is IRRELEVANT and POINTLESS.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2010
A few points:
- Humans, unfortunately to not advance and evolve at the same rate, so hoping for us to evolve together is a faint dream. Look at natives in Africa, Thousands of years behind the rest of the world.
According to who? You're not talking about evolution, you're talking about technological and social competance in regard to how YOU feel life should be. That's entirely ridiculous.
He also says, "A breathtaking evolutionary leap awaits us." Since there's not 1 thing we know about macroevolution that's true - don't hold your breath (pun intended)
So you're not only a moron but you're a liar as well, mabarker.
I think this is a threat.
The word "must" obviously means that you want force (murder, destruction) to be used against those that don't "like it".

Frajo, remember when I told you American Christians were vile and frightening? Prime example right there.
Ravenrant
4.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2010
Many of the comments here prove Hawking's point. We are too stupid to survive with just one Rabbit hole, even Rabbits have sense enough to have a back door.
krundoloss
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2010
How tolerant!
Human emotions and society have no bearing on leaving the earth?
That will be one motivation for many to leave. Just as the Pilgrims left Europe for religious freedom, people will leave earth for colonies on planets, moons and space stations to be able to create their own societies free of the intolerance demonstrated here.

Im not intolerant, it just doesnt make sense bringing God and Jesus into this discussion. We are trying to understand our world and think of how we can live past our humble planet. I feel that talking about Jesus and God just stunts the imagination and prevents new and interesting ideas.

Leaving the planet for religious freedom, how 15th century! Ha!
krundoloss
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2010
Oh, and why are religious people always getting offended? You should feel secure in your faith. you have all the answers, and you are going to heaven. So relax.
krundoloss
3.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2010
And you are at the top, of course? How do you measure the distance between "behind" and yourself?

No Im not at the top, but Im not at the bottom. Its not just evolution of the body that I speak of, and Im not pointing at any one group, Im just saying that while we may advance in many ways, Mankind AS A WHOLE advances very slowly.
Ronan
2 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2010
Hawking's right, hypothetically. But...hm. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to ramble a bit about things I have no way of knowing, using terms that indicate a lot more certainty than I have any right to have. Just a heads-up.

I'd be surprised if we make it off planet, at least in any permanent sense. Earth is the closest thing to a perfect home for humans that exists in the galaxy, because we've evolved to live here. We'll never find another world that's ready right out of the box; it'll either be completely inhospitable, like Venus or the moons of Jupiter, capable of sustaining life but not our kind of life (for instance, a world that's more or less like Earth was 3.8 billion years ago; great for proto-life, nasty for pretty much anything else), or full of life--but the wrong kind of life.
Ronan
1.3 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2010
(Continued:) At best, it'd be weird chiralities and strange amino acids, which would make for a world whose air we might be able to breath, but which would still be more or less unlivable for us due to incompatible biochemistry. At worst--well, there are many different ways that alien life and us could fit together poorly, some more dramatic than others. Earth will probably always be the only world humans can live on unsupported, the only world on which human civilization could rebound following a crash, the only world willing to tolerate ignorance. We may spread out to a few other planets in our solar system; we might even spread to other stars. But all those other settlements will be colonies, maybe self-supporting as long as their current civilization remains stable, but doomed as soon as a collapse happens. If humans die on Earth, sooner or later we'd die everywhere else.
Ronan
2 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2010
My point of view, at least. I could be wrong, of course, and I'm not sure whether I want to be or not. But what I've said above in such irritatingly certain tones is what seems most likely to me, and I'll probably be proven wrong in the next fifty-one hundred years. But, for what it's worth...
krundoloss
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2010
Well the goal, at least, is doing what life does best, propogation of the species. Thats what the whole discussion is about. We want to live past our planet, which is a huge undertaking. We can do it, but Im not sure if we will. We should definitely try.

BTW, I like all of you. Your point of views are nice, just let me know what they are instead of attacking my point of view.
Ronan
2.5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2010
Otto1923: I'm not concerned with whether or not we'll be able to survive successfully when things are going well; when we're in full control of our technology, know what we're doing, understand science, etc, survival will be easy. I'm talking about what happens when the extraterrestrial civilizations collapse. If America were to fall--really FALL, I mean, undergo a collapse similar in scale to the fall of the Maya--then Manhattanites would leave Manhattan, and take to farming and hunting outside the now-useless city. If a civilization on Mars collapses, there's no countryside to flee to.
Ronan
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2010
Krundoloss: Are you sure you understand how evolution works? It's not possible for one population or species to be "behind" or "ahead" of another, unless you're actually comparing animals from different time periods. Every human population on Earth is equally evolved by definition, as we've all been evolving for the same period of time. Also, it's worth noting that evolution has no goal, no advancement in mind; it could shape us to be more intelligent, but it could also shape us into (given time) small, brainless parasites living under some larger animal's skin. Or into some kind of flying animal. Or into grassland grazers. Evolution takes what it's given.
Sanescience
4.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2010
On space colonization: Humans currently cannot survive a trip to Mars with current technology. The levels of radiation they would be exposed to would be very unhealthy to deadly.
Except that by using Vasimr engines we can get there in 3.9 days.

Try to keep up.


otto1923: You need to practice your math estimation skills, you would have sensed that is utterly ridiculous.

I think you meant 39 days. And no, that is not technology we currently have developed. It is still a ways off.
elephants_are_soft_and_squishy
4.5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2010
Why don't we just wait a few more years? The earth will be too warm, too polluted and empty of usable resources. Well, at least there's gravity, so we can enjoy that while practicing our survival skills on a hostile planet.
elephants_are_soft_and_squishy
3 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2010
It's hard to say where Hawking is coming from. He lives in a different world than most of us.

I really don't think it's possible for us to go off into Space looking for a new home. The technological, economic, and societal obstacles are huge. I'm not saying we shouldn't keep working away at it, just that there aren't any signs of realistic solutions on the horizon - may in another thousand years? I'm not even sure we can get to Mars, let alone somewhere with a breathable atmosphere.

Meanwhile, we've suckered ourselves into believing that Star Trek must be just around the corner. This is wishful thinking. Sadly, it encourages people to think, "Oh, we don't need to worry about overpopulation/pollution/climate change/biodiversity loss here on earth - we'll all head out just like The Pilgrims and find a new planet, even better than the old one! All our problems will be solved."

Is there any evidence that this is not wishful thinking caused by watching too much TV?
Caliban
2.8 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2010
The other stumbling block to colonization of space is: at what level of technology can we maintain any colonies- whether in space itself or on an exoplanet.

Charles Stross, the writer, has given it some thought:

http://www.antipo...ata.html

Regardless -while, IMO, humanity is flawed, and needs a great deal of, essentially, _ethical_ evolution in order to be able to have any real hope for survival in the long term- I don't see any help for it: we simply don't have any real choice other than to at least try to make a go of it off-planet, in the hope that maybe at some point we'll get it right.

Will this qualify me for a ticket off of the "Big Blue Marble"?

I doubt it. I think otto is correct in predicting an opportunity of deliberate, one might say -eugenic- selection of candidates. Which is ok with me- sometimes you gotta take one for the team, right?
rvlife
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2010
Another one in the coming, problems are aplenty.

http://in.news.ya...i_1.html
kasen
4.5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2010
So, yeah, transhumanism anyone? It basically solves most of the problems: easier space travel(maybe even at c), no/less need for terraforming and the existential conundrums it entails would weed out the non-inquisitive, unwise, or just plain stupid.
rvlife
1.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2010
To live in an inhoaspitable alien land , first you have to make it livable. Which would require the setting up of huge facilities like weather proof enclosures and powerplants etc.,
Initially these facilities will have to be taken from earth. And this would require massive resources.
Further microbial alien life in these lands (if it exists) could pose a serious threat to human lives and our earthly medicines may not work on them. Our own homegrown viruses and bacterias might mutate in the alien weather and grow out of control triggering mass die offs in these colonies.
Considering all aspects, I think colonising space may be possible but not feasible and it may not take place at all.
Even if we does, we will need constant and massive inputs from planet earth to these colonies regularly.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2010
Otto
marjoe...


Please don't call him that. For a reason follow the link:
http://www.imdb.c...0068924/

Marjoe learned. Marjon refuses to.

Ethelred
topor
4.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2010
More land?
All the people in the world could fit into an area the size of TX and have ~1000 ft^2 per person.

Land isn't just space. It is also food, water and energy.
Skultch
5 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2010

Herd everyone into a desolate area that can't be used for agriculture and turn the rest of the earth into farms.
Silverberg had book where all the people lived in mile high buildings with only a few farming.


=Hell
Ronan
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2010
Marjon: And I'm sure such a massive reorganization of Earth's biomes wouldn't have any negative effects on, say, rainfall patterns or global temperature. And, of course, the millions of species that would be driven into extinction when Earth is converted from a world to a farm isn't something to be worried about.

...And for what it's worth, neither a ringworld or a dyson sphere is really feasible. Both would require, at minimum, a Jupiter-mass or two of construction materials, and they'd have to be insanely strong (that is, stronger than is really possible with materials held together with the electromagnetic force; you'd need to bring in the strong or weak nuclear force for them to stand a chance of surviving the strains placed on them). Unless your Dyson sphere is made of some material light enough that it can be supported in place by the outward pressure of solar radiation (in which case you certainly can't live on it, just use it for power generation), it's a no-go.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2010
neither a ringworld or a dyson sphere is really feasible.

What a luddite!

Above and beyond the obstacles pointed out above, if we were to discover life within the solar system outside of Earth we'd be entirely unable to ethically do it. Additionally you'd need more time than you have to build it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2010
" 8Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her:
death, mourning and famine.
She will be consumed by fire,
for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.

9"When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will weep and mourn over her."
Rather pantheistic of the Christians. Taking the Gaia story and twisting it into a story of dominance over the Earth.
Ronan
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2010
neither a ringworld or a dyson sphere is really feasible.

What a luddite!

Hrm. I don't see how that's fair; I was just pointing out that, well, they AREN'T feasible. Not for now, at any rate, or with any form of technology that we can foresee. I don't say they're impossible, but amount of matter needed would be ridiculous (and besides--if your civilization is capable of cannibalizing a gas giant, what do you need with a Dyson sphere, anyway?), and we'd have to become adept at dealing with the strong nuclear force to be able to create a material capable of withstanding the strains that a Dyson sphere or ringworld would feel. And also, like I said, some form of a Dyson sphere (at least) might still be possible; it would either have to be, basically, a solar sail enveloping the entire solar system, or it would need to be a Dyson swarm, or some other collection of orbiting satellites, rather than an actual sphere.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2010
What a luddite!


Even Larry Niven was and is fully aware that the Ringworld was largely a bullshit concept that was physically impossible. It requires massive quantities of Unobtainium and equally massive quantities of Unbelievium.

The Dyson Sphere has all those problems AND is thermodynamically a no go. This was why David Brin had heavily modified the concept to produce a shell with a fractal surface and it still required considerable amounts of Unobtanium.

And go read Make Room Make Room or just watch the movie under the name Soylent Green. I seem to recall that in a previous post you expressed the idiotic desire to let the human population grow at the present exponential EVEN after I pointed the severe problems with the concept.

Such as reaching a human mass greater than the mass of the Universe in just a few thousand years.

Ethelred
kasen
2.4 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2010
Otto, how about some Qur'an quotes next? Also, don't forget the Pali Canon, the Vedas, Torah and, hey, why not, the Satanic Bible. And, of course, don't spare us your interpretation of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

Reason is a process, not an end. Reason doesn't motivate. You'll have to come up with a better ultimate god.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2010
Hawkins talks the big walk but don't walk the big talk. I assume the wheelchair is evidence of his ABILITY .. ?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2010
Reason doesn't motivate.
Only if the audience is unreasonable.
Rather pantheistic of the Christians. Taking the Gaia story and twisting it into a story of dominance over the Earth.
"The Christians"? You know better than that.
Thou shalt not generalize.
Because the principle of induction is controversial even in mathematics.

It's the Bible frajo, that is the Christian source book. It is not excluded from any form of Christianity I'm aware of, meaning it was not a generalization.

I never stated all christians believe or give creedence to the story. Hell, most of them don't even give creedence to the religion.
Au-Pu
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2010
The posts are interesting. Some sensible, some not.
I think Hawkings suggestion is our only hope of long term survival.
But I do not believe that we are sufficiently intelligent to control our excesses and it will be this inability that will see us as the cause of our own demise before we are able to settle other worlds.
Presently the prognosis is not good.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2010
The posts are interesting. Some sensible, some not.
I think Hawkings suggestion is our only hope of long term survival.
But I do not believe that we are sufficiently intelligent to control our excesses and it will be this inability that will see us as the cause of our own demise before we are able to settle other worlds.
Presently the prognosis is not good.

I think we're going to see a new ideological renaissance in the comming generation. Then again, that could simply be my own ideological folly mashed in with a little Dunning Krueger.
ironjustice
3 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2010
Quote: Virgin Space is flying the means to get there.
Answer: Isn't it Virgin who is involved in price fixing shenanigans ? WHEN we allow these 'capitalistic tendencies' INTO the areas which we FEEL to BE 'important' we THEN allow these capitalistic tendencies to steer us in directions in which THEY make money. IF there is no money to BE made then the capitalits begin to take measures in order to INSURE they get their piece of the pie. IE: price fixing. Imho.
Ruler4You
1 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2010
I say pile as many people on his chair as it can hold and shoot them into deep space. Give us a call when you get there. We'll keep the light on.
kasen
3 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
Only if the audience is unreasonable.


Reason doesn't provide a purpose, only means to achieving it. It's an efficient way of seeing most things, but, ad infinitum, any causal chain explaining behaviour or phenomena eventually ends up with a loose end(what happened before the Big Bang?) or in a tautology(cyclic universe and such). Reason cannot explain itself.

It is not excluded from any form of Christianity I'm aware of, meaning it was not a generalization.


Definitely not excluded, but its interpretations vary greatly. Eastern Orthodoxy has always maintained that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, for instance. Then there's the Protestant sola scriptura principle, which leads to a sort of constitutional, democratic religion.
ironjustice
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2010
Quote: using creativity and ingenuity to meet the needs of their customers
Answer: by CREATING the 'need'. IF one uses 'by hook or by crook' TO ones' 'repetoire' THEN the LURE of cash is the CARROT to the 'developement of new and inovative research' and WHILE they are doing this 'for the benefit of everyone' they use their 'hook or by crook' attitude which they have HONED in their DRIVE for the almighty dollar. IE: fourplexes being developed into homes for the 'richer'. WHEN the END GOAL is GOVERNED by the people who are in search of the money as an end goal will ULTIMATELY lead AWAY from the NEEDED end goal. IF the NEEDED end goal and the end goal of the capitalists WERE able to coincide then and only then will the NEEDED end goal be met. Again as evidenced in the food shortages and the food being made into gas for your car. Imho.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2010
Quote: Eastern Orthodoxy has always maintained that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, for instance.
Answer: You are correct. A man by the name of Jack Ensign Addington has written the answer to this 'code' and they even have courses using this book to describe it to you. He found in the Bible a PROVABLE 'code' and this code leads one to 'enlightenment' .. er .. sort of. ;)
This below is a class they teach somewhere ..

PS 107 - Metaphysical Interpretation and Review of the Bible
(39 hours/13 weeks)
This class, based on Jack Addington's book, The Hidden Mystery of the
Bible," will introduce New Thought students to the hidden or esoteric
meanings of Biblical scriptures. Students will begin to understand
the
deeper meanings of names, places and numbers found in the Bible, and
will uncover an infinite source of illumination and wisdom.

Textbooks:
The Hidden Mystery of the Bible, Jack Addington; The Science of Mind,
Ernest Holmes; The Bible

baudrunner
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2010
something Freudian about Hawking..

He who described the black hole wants to make one of himself. As you all may, or (probably) may not, know, black holes are objects travelling at luminal velocities. They exhibit all the same characteristics. A black hole's X-ray emissions are the exhaust plume of an atomic engine. Others use different means of propulsion, and yet others were thrown. The objects are almost all habited by people, for whom time is a relative factor. They have acquired extreme mass because of their velocity, and they seem pretty much fixed in space, according to our static temporal frame of reference.

The ancient Egyptian God Ra's "boat of millions of years" and his golden flying disks; their being described as "mariners of the heavens", etc. It's been done before, and will continue to be done.

(the above quotes are taken directly from the literal texts of the hieroglyphs of the legends of the gods of ancient Egypt)
SteveL
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
Hawkings is correct. We do have all of our eggs in one basket. I believe, he belives, that we have it in our power to rectify this risk - or at least we should be starting on this task. A world - killer strike is beyond our control to prevent. Part of humanity moving out of the cradle may very well be possible. We darn sure won't get anyhwere without trying.

Whether we are "mature enough" is not the issue. Surviving long enough to become "mature" is.

I have no doubts that we can overcome technological and biological issues that arise from moving out into our solar system. The only significant concern I have deals with political, philosophical or religious fanaticism. The Vietnam war put the brakes on the US space program and social nanny programs have further hampered progress by consuming the bulk of revenue.

Putting people back to work to save humanity is a good way to improve current economies and to invest in future generations. I'm all for us getting started.
OdinsAcolyte
1.5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
All things must pass Mr. Hawking. So?
In the span of time you are considering you leave out one thing. Our distant progeny shall evolve into something else. If the human race survives we may not recognize it. I already don't much like it... I can accept individuals but don't much care for the species. By and large most of us waste our lives away. The human vulgate seem to be nothing more than a gene pool.
kasen
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
They were written by People for sociopolitical Purposes


So, in other words, a great deal of planning went into them and they are the product of Reason? Which is it: the Bible is evil because it was written with rationality to subdue irrational people, or because it's irrationality threatens the species' rationality? Can't have both and a functional logic at the same time, y'know.
Alfonthemove
1 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2010
I am absolutely Amazed that there are so many "people" that can say so much, and yet have No Understanding of Anything. Anyone who has traveled about and seen the wonders of this creation and still denies there is a "Creator" just is not thinking. I know it is not popular in this Secular Society to speak of "God", "Jesus" and the "Holy Scriptures", But I would challenge anyone of you to spend 1/10th the time in study of that document, as you do chasing these fantasies. Look into history and you will see that over and over again "man has said"..(i.e. the earth is flat)then years later the "Truth" comes out and it was in "The Scriptures" all the time. You can run to the stars if you like, but if you think you are going to outrun God, you are wasting your time.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2010
Definitely not excluded, but its interpretations vary greatly. Eastern Orthodoxy has always maintained that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, for instance. Then there's the Protestant sola scriptura principle, which leads to a sort of constitutional, democratic religion.
Oh I don't disagree. If the interpretations were always consistent you wouldn't have had the iconoclastic revolution, Martin Luther's revolt, Mormons, etc.

I'm speaking to the foundational text from which the story is derived.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2010
I am absolutely Amazed that there are so many "people" that can say so much, and yet have No Understanding of Anything. Anyone who has traveled about and seen the wonders of this creation and still denies there is a "Creator" just is not thinking.
But I would challenge anyone of you to spend 1/10th the time in study of that document, as you do chasing these fantasies. Look into history and you will see that over and over again "man has said"..(i.e. the earth is flat)then years later the "Truth" comes out and it was in "The Scriptures" all the time.
If you think that there is a predictive truth in the scriptures, you may want to name one that wasn't pre-existing at the time of the codification.

The shape of the earth was determined by the Greeks almost 500 years before the supposed birth of Christ. The knowledge of atoms is about the same age.

This is like the "Miracle of Iron" in the Quran, which is also entirely ridiculous.
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2010
Putting people back to work to save humanity is a good way to improve current economies and to invest in future generations. I'm all for us getting started.

Who is going to put people back to work? The government? What will the government work will be started to 'save humanity'?
The only way to 'save humanity' is for free people to trade freely in their own self-interest. Each trade is win-win. Each person has a self interest to save themselves, but to do so, they must produce a product or service that meets the needs and wants of another individual who is interested in saving himself. Expand that to the entire population and you have billions of people saving each other by saving themselves. Why is that so hard to understand?


I'm sorry, I was trying to stay on the topic for this article. I didn't see anywhere in the article anything about "free trade" or "government regulation". The topic I was on was one about saving humanity by spreading our genome.
SteveL
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2010
Marjon; I'm attempting to not support you, and other posters, taking over of this topic. I do not prefer to discuss economics, religion or politics in a science topic thread any more than I have to.

My only mention of the above is that I fear radical influences distract from the intended issue of this topic - that of spreading the human genome beyond this planet. The vast majority of the posts here exemplify my concerns. Another scientific discussion abused and buried under a pile of extraneous bickering.
Dr_Moon
1.2 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2010
Sometimes, I think Hawking's intellect clouds his common sense. If we can destroy each other on earth, what is to stop us from doing the same in space? As far as overpopulation goes, Man only occupies about 20% of land surface on earth and despite predictions new fields of oil, natural gas and coal are being dicovered in large quantities all the time. It's likely by the time we run out, something new will have been discovered to replace them.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2010
Sometimes, I think Hawking's intellect clouds his common sense. If we can destroy each other on earth, what is to stop us from doing the same in space?
It isn't a matter of us destroying ourselves, it's the fact that the Universe could destroy us rather easily if we're all located on one conveniently small planet.
SteveL
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2010
^^^^ What he said. ^^^^
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2010
Herd everyone into a desolate area that can't be used for agriculture and turn the rest of the earth into farms.


How would you get to the distant farms, do work, and come back in a day (since if we were located in the Middle East there would be farms in Western Europe according to your plan)? Where would we store all of the food and water that would be required? Where would we store the transport vehicles that would be required to bring this food back to us? Where would our power come from? What about plumbing/sewage? Where would our clothes be made? If our things break where would the shops be where things are fixed? We'd need more space than just 1000ft^2/person.

Basically what you're describing is a really big city with a LOT of agriculture around it. How is that better than having many cities spread around the world with SOME agriculture around them? We wouldn't use less land, but we'd be more concentrated.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2010
Just pointing out alternatives to those alarmists crying out for population control
Define "population control" from your perspective.

Population control from my perspective is simple.

Education.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2010
if it's so promising and prospective to make planets in space habitable - why not just to start with Earth?


That's just the old argument about 'starting to put things right here before we move elsewhere'. If that had ever been a viable attitude then America would never have been settled.

I think Hawking is right: to stay on earth is just a recipe for disaster. Look what happened to the dinosaurs. Sure it may be tens of millions of years before the next big one hits - but the law of big numbers will get this planet (sooner or later).

Kurzweil (and others) are wrong about the singularity, though. No growth is truly exponential AND unchecked. If that were true then the world would be a fuzzy ball of bacteria. Any growth curve only _looks_ exponential during the early parts of the upswing.

Think about it: if growth were _truly_ unchecked then it wouldn't be exponential in the first place - it'd be instantaneous.
Caliban
4.8 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2010

Like Zimbabwe? A country that used to export food but is now bankrupt and starving?
Or Cuba? Where the government now 'allows' its victims to grow their own food and sell the surplus?
"The Holodomor was a (.....)"The joint statement at the United Nations in 2003 has defined the famine as the result of cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime that caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs and other nationalities in the USSR.[23]"
BTW, the NYT supported the actions and its reporter 'won' a Pulitzer for covering up Stalin's genocide.


You mean like Goldman Sachs lead the charge to raid the commodities markets, and pursue of long position of buy at any price, to obtain a virtual corner on grain, and drive the price out of reach, so that millions and millions starved, while grain sat in storage?

http://www.harper.../0083022

Read all about it, mangy moron mongo. Educate yourself.
ArcainOne
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2010
I have always loved Steven Hawking, I we often have the same thoughts on the universe. I have a tendency to believe life is destined to spread through out the universe, to master it, to control it, to be as gods! (Play grand dramatic mad scientist background music)...

That is as long as we grow up, stop fighting, stop being greedy pricks, learn money and land isn't everything, start helping each other and become a unified world...

Crazy... to a lot of people I am sure but to me, that is what we need, and the chosen of man kind will ascend to the heavens... a 'revolation' if you will
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
Cali, you don't know much about commodity futures do you?
"At issue for Goldman Sachs is a major exemption it enjoys from limits on trading in certain types of agricultural commodities."
http://www.market...09-07-28
How do they get an exemption?


mongo-

I said: "read ALL about it." Then, you can probably answer your own question, as well as discover how your "freemarketeers" starved millions and millions.
boldone894
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2010
~SNIP~
That is as long as we grow up, stop fighting, stop being greedy pricks, learn money and land isn't everything, start helping each other and become a unified world... ~SNIP~

Aye, but there is the rub! Ideally it is a wonderful thought, but in reality there will always be the one that steps up to exploit when the opportunity presents, even when we thought we eradicated all the assholes! Maybe soylent green is the answer!? Probably not but considering those that have had a turn at ruining -- I mean running-- the planet. I can't think of anything other than "We are toast!, Say goodnight and hand the keys over to the cockroaches as they will out survive us by another 200 million years...g'night.
The escape to space colonies thing will only serve the rich and well connected anyway so the vast majority of us are left to extinction.
RobertKLR
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2010
Every time Hawking speaks he proves that his genius is limited. His comments are coming straight from the late night radio show Coast to Coast. Next topic the Anunnaki and Nibiru.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
Cali, you don't know much about commodity futures do you?
"At issue for Goldman Sachs is a major exemption it enjoys from limits on trading in certain types of agricultural commodities."
http://www.market...09-07-28
How do they get an exemption?


mongo-

I said: "read ALL about it." Then, you can probably answer your own question, as well as discover how your "freemarketeers" starved millions and millions.

Provide a link that can be read.


So I did. read the article that I provided a link to, instead of ignoring it an substituting some of your shillmill BS.

kasen
1.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2010
Like many religionists they use god to excuse the fact that they cant or wont live within their means.


Come on, it's a well known fact that poverty and lack of education is what causes people to shag like there's no tomorrow. With the exception of the Catholic Church and some fundie sects, I don't know of any major religion that explicitly solicits procreation and bans contraception.

The Earth can easily sustain some 10 billion people, maybe more. It's when each of those people wants, or is made to crave a widescreen TV, an iPhone, bottled water, or a car that things get out of control. If only there was a way to convince the masses to seek something other than material wealth...

Anyone familiar with Hubology?
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2010
I am absolutely Amazed that there are so many "people
seen the wonders of this creation and still denies there is a "Creator" just is not thinking
I am completely amazed that anyone would say such nonsense. I CAN understand that some people would think that their own awe is enough for THEM to believe in a god. I can't uderstand that you claim that the rest of us don't think when it is so BLOODY obvious that people that do serious thinking about the Universe are LESS likely to be religious than those who don't.
But I would challenge anyone of you to spend 1/10th the time in study of that document, as you do chasing these fantasies
I challenge YOU to show some evidence to support Genesis. That grass was growing before the Sun was created. That there was Great Flood. Two books of it was enough. Why should I believe the rest when I know the first two books are full of it.

More to follow
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2010
Look into history and you will see that over and over again "man has said"..(i.e. the earth is flat)then years later the "Truth" comes out and it was in "The Scriptures"
Actually the Bible says the world is flat. It calls the world a DISC which is flat. It never calls it spherical.
You can run to the stars if you like, but if you think you are going to outrun God, you are wasting your time.
I can't outrun something that doesn't exist. There MAY be A god but, Jehovah, the god of Genesis, simply doesn't exist since Genesis describes a world we do not live in.

Ethelred
Rohaun
2 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2010
About the aliens comment. From a historical perspective look at the mayflower. They left for some reason of the pursuit of freedom. They didnt have the backing of the bank to fund the trip, they used the resources they had. And we all know what happens next.

So what if these beings are having political strife in there home, and decide to leave. Maybe they use the most standard of their technology, and have a high load of uneducated, women, children, and (due to travel condition) sick. If they found this planet habitable, use your imagination and create a time line of events...
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2010
'some reason'?
It is called religious freedom.


In many cases that is false. They often came to the New World to have their own religious colony. Where you HAD to be one of them. It was their way or the highway and there weren't any highways.

Ethelred
rvlife
1.5 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2010
if you want to reduce population growth, increase individual prosperity.


Agree.
My father used to say this, Sex and babys is the favourite passtime of the economicaly weak. It's free. And they can't afford to spend much for other entertainment.
rvlife
2 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
I remember one politician in India advocating the distribution of free television sets to the poor as a means of population control.
Logic: The more soap operas they watch, the less time they will have for sex.
Rohaun
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2010
i tried to be non specific. But the point is, they left and found a new place to live, and in this place they moved out the "indigenous species". So imagine that.
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2010
It was those Puritans who started Harvard,
They put people in stocks for thinking. Killed young and old women for being being witches. There are reasons the Founding Fathers chose to make the US a secular nation.
created a robust economy
I think the available resources had a lot to do with that. In England they did those things but there they they had allow other cults.
and produced men like Ben Franklin
Who became an Atheist.
Sam Adams and John Adams
Who helped create a secular nation.
They are also the ancestors of the modern nanny state
Which is mostly a fantasy of yours.
What you condemn the Puritans
False. I was pointing out that they DID NOT come here for religious freedom. They came here to live in communities where ONLY Puritans could live.
state interference in everyone's life
NOT state. Religion, for the Puritans by the Puritans and of the Puritans. Rather than the fantasy state you are living in that no one else does.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2010
The wealthy ones are not very credible when preaching abstinence to the poor. Neither are they wise. Because their preachings sound like they think the poor are stupid.

The only 'rich' who are doing that are the democrats like Pelosi, Kerry and Obama.
The entrepreneurial rich, like Rush Limbaugh, are trying to help anyone else who wants to, get rich, too. They know the 'pie' is not fixed and if they can do it, so can anyone else.
The differentiation is not between rich or poor it is between those who want the power to control others.

What a ridiculous dividing line. Where do you think the democrats you dislike and the republicans you do like make their money?

The exact same place. Corporate America.

You really need to smarten up a bit.
Rev_Blair
Aug 14, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skultch
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2010

The only 'rich' who are doing that are the democrats like Pelosi, Kerry and Obama.
The entrepreneurial rich, like Rush Limbaugh, are trying to help anyone else who wants to, get rich, too. They know the 'pie' is not fixed and if they can do it, so can anyone else.
The differentiation is not between rich or poor it is between those who want the power to control others.


Do you really think there is a significant difference between donkeys and elephants and how many of them want to "control others?" You are beyond delusional. You are just a ditto head that made up his mind a long time ago and has closed off any competing ideas that contradict your worldview.
Skultch
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2010
If AMD made a better product at a lower cost they would prevail.
That is called competition.
The real power is the consumer, not the state.


Intel was using unfair practices, namely strong-arming board and PC makers into only using Intel. I'm sure you know this and merely choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your present argument. We've tried Laissez-faire; it produced child labor and lifelong servitude to employer-run communities with zero oversight, not even from market forces. Admit it, there are facts out there that don't support your anarchist worldview.
Skultch
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2010
It is amazing that even great minds and scientist believe that the time is running out for this world in large part because mankind is raping the world of its natural resources at an alarming rate. Christians attribute this primarily to greed and selfishness. Do you think God will sit idly by while man destroys His good creation and not do anything about it? Please visit my website at http://www.revela...ruth.org Rev. Daniel W. Blair author of Final Warning


Since an able god doesn't, in all likelihood, exist, we have to do this for ourselves. We can't just wait for the off chance of easy salvation. Isn't it just as likely that he gave us the intellectual tools to do this for ourselves and risk extinction? Oh, no, the bible says we are the "chosen ones" and he would never allow that. That's ridiculous well-wishing with only indirect hearsay to support it.

"Final Warning" ??? Please.
Skultch
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2010
ntel was using unfair practices, namely strong-arming board and PC makers into only using Intel.

Obviously customers did not care and could not tell the difference.
That seems to be a marketing problem with AMD.
Beta tapes were better quality than VHS, but VHS had better marketing skills. Same with Gates and MS.
If AMD made a better product the public demanded, no strong arm tactics would matter. The public would demand AMD CPUs and Dell would tell Intel to piss off.


Sometimes the technology dictates that the only possibilities don't give the people a reason to differentiate. There was and is no way to make a practically better product. If they can fairly corner the market, fine by me. But if they have to use unethical practices, you are fine with that. Nice ethical framework you've got there. That's pretty convenient for you to separate religious ethics from economic theory.
GDM
4.5 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2010
Amazing how little it takes to stray from the subject.
I intend (and hope my heirs do as well) to go into space to stay, build, and thrive, using the massive resources that exist in greater abundance than on Earth. I suspect that I, and those of similar persuasion, will probably have to do this without government support. Fine, we will sell our goods back to the Govt. at a substantial profit. Those that want to stay can do so. Those who would seek to prevent anyone from leaving for any reason, will have a fight on their hands. This is simply an extrapolation of human history. Think it won't happen? So did all the previous naysayers throughout time.
Skultch
4.4 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2010

Where is the fault is such a world view?


Nothing. You just pick and choose who is doing the controlling. You choose to believe the only ones doing the controlling are the ones that don't agree with you. Your statement that you don't care about why they are controlling is 100% dishonest and you know it.
Skultch
4 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2010
If a distributor wants to sell certain products, say Maytag, they can't discount that product without permission. Is that unethical if both parties agree to the contract?
And you admit AMD has no technical advantage? Then their problem is marketing.


You are all of a sudden going general when we were obviously talking about a specific case. One Intel had to settle out of court to avoid losing the suit. You are still ignoring how they broke fair market rules. Rules that even in your anarchist fairy-tale land would need to avoid destructive monopolies that would stifle competition.

Your debate logic is hopelessly fallacious. You need to take a class in practical reasoning and logic 101.
Skultch
3.3 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2010
Your statement that you don't care about why they are controlling is 100% dishonest and you know it.

Why must anyone pick and choose their master?


You must know. You do it in every other post.
TabulaMentis
1.2 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2010
The last few years Hawking's comments have become more and more bizarre.
Was it a couple of years ago Sir Hawking said he believed there were no other intellignet life forms anywhere in the universe besides us.
However, his books mention God here and there.
At his age and with his health condition I may be the same way.
james11
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
Rev Blair... Think to yourself, how many planets exist? Does god care about every single one and is he observing them all? He must have plently of help.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2010
So funny that Marjon doesn't think unfair business practices are a form of theft or infringment upon liberty.
muggins
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2010
Terraforming Mars is a likely candidate as it has 24 hour and 39 minute days as well as ice water. Mars atmosphere has a very high CO2 level which is good for plants which = oxygen. Using a greenhouse gas effect to warm the planet may be a possibility to create liquid water H2O = hydrogen(fuel) and oxygen. Nearby dwarf planet Ceres could be used for exporting water to Mars but would require a transportation system. Still has a lot of hurdles to over come such as the thin atmosphere. :)

http://en.wikiped..._of_Mars
http://www.youtub...NJOPMRKA
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2010
i tried to be non specific.(...) they moved out the "indigenous species". So imagine that.


The indigenous are still there and have opened casinos.


Mangy, mangy, mangy. you are an ignorant, arrogant, insufferable fucktard.

The fact that I can even begin to understand the thought process that produced that statement is testament to the virulent sickness of your worldview, and how thoroughly you have spread your pollution here on this site.

It comes as no surprise that you would think that operating casinos on a reservation that is hardly fit for any other purpose in any way even begins to compensate for the loss of their Culture, lands, language, and an ancient, balanced way of life was somehow just compensation for that unimaginable loss, and, in fact "MADE IT ALL BETTER".

That's akin to me saying you shouldn't complain if I chop off your mother's legs, blind her, and cut out her tongue, since she can still survive on catfood if she whores herself.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2010
It is amazing that even great minds and scientist believe that the time is running out for this world in large part because mankind is raping the world of its natural resources at an alarming rate. Christians attribute this primarily to greed and selfishness. Do you think God will sit idly by while man destroys His good creation and not do anything about it? Please visit my website at http://www.revela...ruth.org Rev. Daniel W. Blair author of Final Warning


Hey, Rev,

Which "god" are you talking about?

How about YOU do THIS: Get on the horn to all your "god(s)", and tell him to come and fetch all his little children, lickety-split, because they don't play nice. I'm sure they will be as pleased as punch to be up in Heaven, and all.

The rest of us would certainly appreciate it.

Yours, very truly,

Caliban
Caliban
4 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2010
What is wrong with a world view that there are those who want to control me and those who do not (too few of those and most on this board lust for such control).
It doesn't matter if the motivation is wealth or 'to save humanity', the desire for power is the same. Motivations don't matter much to me.
I have no desire for force anyone to pay for my existence nor do I want to take anyone's money by theft or fraud. I respect your property if you respect mine.
Where is the fault is such a world view?


Firstly, mongo, you fucktard -that isn't the personal worldview that you've expounded for everyone's edification here for so long, and ad nauseam.

Oversimplifying the mangyworld's precepts to make them appear innocuous just doesn't cut it.

Mangy says that he has no desire to control anyone, and yet he would have everyone exist in "Freemarketonia"- but you had better be a straight, xian, prolife, state hatin', bootstrappin', antiregulationist, OR ELSE.

Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2010
Hey, Rev,

Which "god" are you talking about?

How about YOU do THIS: Get on the horn to all your "god(s)", and tell him to come and fetch all his little children, lickety-split, because they don't play nice. I'm sure they will be as pleased as punch to be up in Heaven, and all.

The rest of us would certainly appreciate it.

Yours, very truly,

Caliban

That's the best part of the rapture. If it's true we'll have a Christian free world afterwards.
Xaero
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2010
This page is trying to insert Java/PDF virus block

/iframe src="hxxp://85.234.190.64/tds/in.cgi?default"

after open ad block delivered via customizable script page hxxp://adms.physorg.com/openads/www/delivery/ajs.php

You can analyze it after saving complete page to disk.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2010
Cali wants to to use the majority mob to control business,
As in stop them from polluting the air.
change the definition of marriage,
Uh do you have a clue? EVER? The people of the state VOTED to deny gays the right to marry. A JUDGE over threw the law, basicaly on the same grounds that the early state laws had been overthrown.

And there is every indication that next time OUTSIDE RightWingNuts won't be able to frighten the California population with the same pack lies they used to get the law passed by the voters. I don't care all that much either way EXCEPT I don't like a bunch asses from outside the sate telling us how to run things. That includes you. Its our state and if we decide that gays can marry what the hell is your problem with that.

You seem to be for controlling people on this thing. Typical WingNut hypocrisy.
ban religion

Lie. For one thing that would be illegal. For another its just plain false.
nd kill babies.
Lie.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2010
The state denies the 'right' for anyone under a certain age to marry
Yes and that is controlling people.
A constitutional amendment defining marriage is between one man and one woman does not deny any homosexual the 'right' to marry
Oh that is pure rubbish. Living a lie is not marriage. But you seem to like lies so maybe you would do that.
The majority decided but a single judge voided the will of the people
I did say that. I was pointing out that YOU wrote it wrong in your previous post.
Choosing such a path, there is now no legal, logical objection for courts to force the state to recognize any 'marriage', including polygamy
Have you read the California State Constitution? The judge did. Apparently the decision was based on the State Constitution which has stronger measures protecting equal rights then the US Constitution.
Mormons and Muslims have a better, constitutional argument as a ban on polygamy violates their religious rights


More to follow
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2010
So,atheists, be prepared to be hung by your own petard as polygamy is legalized and Mormons and Muslims out breed the athesits, legally
That is as stupid as telling me what I told you and then acting like you were correcting me. Christians out breed Atheists AND us Agnostics. So what would be different? Mormons are already out breeding YOU Christians.

However Aetheists get to grow because many Christians figure out the truth and become Agnostics. Few go the other way.

So where is your Libertarianism on this? Gone away to RightWingNut Land where rights are for Christians and its OK for Christians to tell others how to live their lives but not OK for non-Christians to ask to be left alone.

And as usual you evaded the rest.

Good post by your standards. You evaded the hard stuff and then agreed with me while pretending to correct me.

OK even by your standards that was grossly incompetent.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2010
Many here propose just that.
Evasion. That is NOT what you said. You said California was trying to make religion illegal which is a typical Rush Limbaugh style lie. Make up crap because the audience is so enamored with the RightWingNut fantasy that they won't check. Here you get checked.

You lied. No polite way to say that when it that clear,
Smoking tobacco in Cali-fornia is evil, but not marijuana?
Ah the Great Libertarian shows that he is really a RightWingNut yet again. In so little time.

Smoking sisn't ilegal. Making others inhale your smoke is. I expect the laws that applie to tobbaco smoke will apply to marijuana should the law pass.

Your hypocrisy on this would astound me if you hadn't already made it clear that you want freedom for you and not for anyone else.

And the quote you linked is a lie.

http://en.wikiped...ition_19

Could you please make a lie free day? Starting now? Maybe you will get like telling the truth.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2010
This libertarian's POV is the state should not grant any privilege to marriage and should not recognize marriage at all
Well isn't that special. Marriage is not a privalege, it is above all else an alliance to raise children. Every culture has it.
Christians can preach all they want
Evasion. You are the one complaining about control. And clearly you were not just talking about preaching. You were talking about control.
The state makes laws telling us how to live and we have NO choice but to listen.
We do not live in RightWingNut Land. At least not yet. As a consequence we still have Government of by and for the people. Note BY. We the people decide on how to live. YOU have a choice. You can stay the hell out of my state and maybe even quit lying about it.

One theme of the tea parties is "government, leave us alone".


With a special exemption for religion to NOT leave us alone.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2010
Christians, with no legal authority, can't express their opinions
So what are you doing? Are you telling that you are NOT expressing your opinion?
but its ok for the government to force people to live the way a minority dictates?
You are the one pitching the fit that California isn't doing things that way YOU want it to. For religious reasons.

And I note that you have to admit that you lied about California making religion illegal.

Most California cities allow landlords to regulate smoking at will.


Gosh so then people HAVE to live with those landlords? No they don't. So it isn't illegal and that sort thing goes for all the rest of the crap you posted.

None of those laws made smoking illegal. They made inflicting smoke on others illegal.
Talk about hypocrisy!
Talk about reading problems instead. PROPOSED ORDINANCE. Not an actual law and not likely to survive in court AND not the State of California.

No wonder I ignore you most of the time.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2010
Religion cannot force you to do anything
When you quit demanding that things be done according to your religious beliefs I will quit pointing out that you ARE NOT the Libertarian you claim to be.
If a religion makes you feel guilty, that is your problem.
Sorry to disappoint, it isn't my problem. At this moment your lies and evasions are. Not much though. You are pretty transparent.
How do homosexual couples create children within the marriage?
I never claimed they did. I have simply been pointing out your hypocrisy and just plain lies. However it can be done. Its called artificial insemination. Obviously that would only apply to lesbian couples. At the moment an artificial uterus is kind of hard to obtain.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2010
What does this mean except that you want to ban religious speech?


No. Learn to read. You might stop making so many stupid statements if you would just learn how to read what is actually written by someone than Rush Limbaugh.

The Teabaggers want their religion to forced on others. THAT exemption.

Ethelred
Skultch
4.1 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2010
How do Rush and Hannity and the ilk brainwash so many people? They're not all crazy or stupid. Is it simply a combo of mental laziness, fear of being different, confirmation bias, and just cowardly not challenging themselves?

I mean, they clearly rely on straw men, other fallacies, and outright lies that they know their base won't even want to check on. Is it just that their listeners don't want to and/or aren't capable of seeing these facts? There must be more, right?

Is it just me, or are their messages getting more dangerous? One thing is, they seem to want to subvert the value of a well rounded education, just so they can control politics. WTF?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2010
How do Rush and Hannity and the ilk brainwash so many people? They're not all crazy or stupid. Is it simply a combo of mental laziness, fear of being different, confirmation bias, and just cowardly not challenging themselves?

Yes.
Is it just me, or are their messages getting more dangerous? One thing is, they seem to want to subvert the value of a well rounded education, just so they can control politics. WTF?

Which is why we must never let them have any control. Unbiased education is vital to everyone, all the time.
MadPutz
5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2010
Hawking did not say "must". He was merely detailing odds and reducing risk. Like a 0.1% chance of humans going extinct if they stay on earth compared to a 0.0001% chance of humans going extinct if they were distributed among various planets. I understand, those not comfortable with negligible probability differences can misinterpret things as black and white.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2010
Ethel asserted the state should support marriage 'for the children'. A man and a woman are needed to create a child. Data supports that a man and a woman, together, are the best parental choice.
No it doesn't.
Promotion of homosexual marriage is not in the best interest of the children, it is in the best interest of the homosexuals and the state that desires the dilution of a traditional family.
Research in Norway has confirmed this.

No it didn't otherwise you'd link it. Meanwhile all studies performed by the APA, AAAC and AIP show conclusibvely, through long term study that there are no ill effects to homosexual parentage.
KBK
3.5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2010
Yeah Ray Kurzweil does have some pretty interesting theories. I've read all his books except for the health ones haha.

I think if we spread into space it's only a matter of time before the colony will want to fight with the home planet, and then we would have interplanetary war, possibly capable of destroying both worlds.

We need to work on ourselves, because no matter where we are, we will fight and kill each other.

That's a shame.


It is always interesting to note that the 6,000+ year old cuneiform tablets found all over Ancient Persia..ie IRAQ (this information,and far more, has been purposely obscured, some say it is the real reason for the occupation of Iraq) say exactly...

......what you just said.
KBK
5 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2010
How do Rush and Hannity and the ilk brainwash so many people? They're not all crazy or stupid. Is it simply a combo of mental laziness, fear of being different, confirmation bias, and just cowardly not challenging themselves?

I mean, they clearly rely on straw men, other fallacies, and outright lies that they know their base won't even want to check on. Is it just that their listeners don't want to and/or aren't capable of seeing these facts? There must be more, right?

Is it just me, or are their messages getting more dangerous? One thing is, they seem to want to subvert the value of a well rounded education, just so they can control politics. WTF?


This has always been the tactic of the fascistic. They use the masses against the educated and middle class. Pick an enemy, inflame the illiterate into acts of war against themselves and the 'straw enemy'.. Rule #1, control all media, first.
KBK
3 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2010
"Yep. Essentially, it's no different than European colonialism. "

Ridiculous. Colonialism, whether European, Africa, Chinese, Arab, or any sort, involves taking over someones else's land, not setting down on an uninhabited planet(s). There are many engineering issues involved here, but no moral ones. We have a right to explore the universe and try to preserve our species.
Gravity and acceleration are equivalent, so that problem has been solved.


I agree. But, what if the universe, which has recently been shown to have 100's more times (again!) of 'habitable possibilities than even recently thought..what if that universe does have something akin to a galactic group that governs?

And what if that group says that humans cannot go into space until they literally stop killing themselves?

And NO...they cannot be allowed to unite in tribal fear and evolve into a space faring dangerous 'tribe' by knowing of the galactic group before fixing themselves in enforced isolation?
Skultch
2 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2010
Unfortunately, I don't see how we will socially evolve fast enough to avoid tribal warfare from non-Earth, human, societies. Maybe.......maybe, knowledge of life on distant solar systems will give enough of us enough perspective to cast away our superfluous religions and petty differences to practically come together. I doubt that will happen and I doubt it would even be enough considering the amount of selfish, greedy brainwashing that continues at every level of society at every level of economic status. Pessimistic views, yes; please argue against them.
Jayman
3 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2010
The man has been watching too many sci-fi movies in his spare time.
James007E
2 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2010
We did not think about the Moon. Infact we did for a long time.
Andrux
3 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2010
The only real factors leading to the end of humanity would be that our genes all come from warriors who won the wars (the most violent ones of course)and the we rather have more than have better. Laws should be put in place to prevent a large flashlight including the giant 9V battery to be sold for less that the 9V battery itself, consequently leading to people keeping their old flashlight rather than disposing of it to buy a 'new' one at wal-mart. especially now that just about everything we make contains electronic with precious and highly polluting metals ... toasters, coffee machines, and all the rest of the crap that doesn't need it. Just as if the five digital clocks already in my kitchen weren't enough to indicate me the right time. We must learn to rebuild our societies on durability and freedom. it isn't so far fetched you know, much less than thinking we could all be shipped to another planet or moon and survive. What has changed since the 60's in a home? nothing at all
James007E
5 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2010
In fact we have for a long time. Stephen Hawking said to colonizing space, as human has. Why not the Moon? Earth and the Moon are closer then you think. The Moon is closer to Earth and colonizing the Moon. But people wanted to go far, like Mars. Mars are dangers to go at. But the Moon is closer to the Earth. We can go many trips on the Earth and the Moon. Yes the Moon is dangers too. Space is danger too. The Moon you can go lots of trips. The Moon we can colonizing or building a Moon Station or Moon Base. The Moon could do making, science stuff, driving it and do science. Plus explore the Moon area and even train to go to Mars Area.
James007E
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2010
The moon is the brightest object in the night sky but gives off no light of its own. Instead, it reflects light from the sun. Like Earth and the rest of the solar system, the moon is about 4.6 billion years old.
The moon is much smaller than Earth. The moon's average radius (distance from its center to its surface) is 1,079.6 miles (1,737.4 kilometers), about 27 percent of the radius of Earth. The moon is also much less massive than Earth. The moon has a mass (amount of matter) of 8.10 x 1019 tons (7.35 x 1019 metric tons). Its mass in metric tons would be written out as 735 followed by 17 zeroes. Earth is about 81 times that massive. The moon's density (mass divided by volume) is about 3.34 grams per cubic centimeter, roughly 60 percent of Earth's density. Because the moon has less mass than Earth, the force due to gravity at the lunar surface is only about 1/6 of that on Earth. Thus, a person standing on the moon would feel as if his or her weight had decreased by 5/6.
James007E
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2010
And if that person dropped a rock, the rock would fall to the surface much more slowly than the same rock would fall to Earth. Despite the moon's relatively weak gravitational force, the moon is close enough to Earth to produce tides in Earth's waters. The average distance from the center of Earth to the center of the moon is 238,897 miles (384,467 kilometers). That distance is growing -- but extremely slowly.
badal
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2010
I like Hawking too much but i think it's not possible for us to spread out in space for survive. Though it's bit like unacceptable but I am sure there are no more extra terrestial planet for us.
Alphakronik
1 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2010
So says the man who hasn't left his wheelchair in 15 20 years or more.

The irony is killing me.
rethinker
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2010
I'm just missing elementary logic in Mr. Hawking's recommendation: if it's so promising and prospective to make planets in space habitable - why not just to start with Earth?


We don't have to leave,we just have to believe.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2010
People that are free to trade with each other have no need for war. War only benefits those in power.
Why do so many here support such state power instead of free markets?


Money equals power, and the free market favors those with money. People get greedy, corner markets, and create monopolies designed to lower production costs and hike profits, the very fundamental idea behind stock markets. Its why we have EP Zones in 3rd world countries who pay their "employees" a dime an hour to make something they will sell for hundreds and even thousands of dollars. I am not trying to bash free market, it works when it is not exploited but we are humans and exploitation is what we do best. Sadly the more money you have, the more exploitation you can do.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2010
Physically disabled people like Hawkings and those with no legs would be much better suited to a life in 0 G.
Wrong, they'd atrophy faster and die faster.
People that are free to trade with each other have no need for war. War only benefits those in power.
And gun manufacturers, and boat builders, and the aircraft industry, and ......
Why do so many here support such state power instead of free markets?
I'd rather have state power, which is controllable by law and voters as opposed to corporate power which is controlled by no one.
Monopolists cannot exist without the force of the state.
wrong again.
How do they keep an audience in a free radio market when the socialists like Air America are bankrupt?
Radio is one of the most heavily regulated markets around. Conservatives are backed by corporate power. Air America was a non-profit that was self-funded. Not an apt comparison.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
How else can those 'employees' make a dime if that company was not there?
Why are those countries in that condition in the first place?


Oh buddy, I can tell you have never studied sociology, or anthropology. My definition of "poor" is the inability house and feed your family in a decent fashion. To the buisness man the definition of poor is someone with out money. These people "OFTEN" have very stable lives before industrialization and modernization, with plenty of food and shelter to go around.
ArcainOne
3.8 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2010
Note that China is now having to pay higher wages and even they are starting to off-shore their manufacturing.
That is the way economic growth occurs.
The Germans opened factories in the USA.
People in PI and India welcome the call center jobs that pay above average salaries.


These are already industrialized countries, the US also did the same thing in the 1920s to its own people and immigrants. Now laws in the US force us to treat them fairly, pay them decently, and give them benefits. Why do you think Unions where created. The same "cycle" occured in China and other countries as well. Industrialization hits and gets cheep labor. Labor gets expensive, Factories close down, move to another country there is cheap labor
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2010
Sadly the more money you have, the more exploitation you can do.
Happily, the money you have, the more investment one can do (Paul Allen, Branson, Gates, ......)
and the more economic prosperity can be brought to a poor region.


Because it is cheep labor you do not have to pay benefits or give raises for seniority or excellent worker. Again the overall point is we often bring misery before we make the lives of these people better. Plus it takes jobs away from the countries we sell to, there are many "poor" people in America that could use a job (such as Detroit), but they are too expensive by the companies standards.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010

If they had such stable lives, why don't they want to return to such 'stability'? Few people want to return to the 'stability' battling nature for survival.
Why don't you 'go native' and live in such stability with no computer, electricity, running water, toilet, vaccines, technology,.....?


You realize some people here in the US actually do right? And they have chosen to do so... Ohmish for instance live very good productive lives with out any of that. No to mention the guys who believe you should be self sufficient, I find them crazy but I still respect their life style. If you have studied any anthropology you would know that "our" way is NOT always the best way. Google search Bali and Green Revolution. Finally you should do some research on the relationships between the Hawaiian resorts and the local or native Hawaiians for more information on "going back to stability".
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
you would know that "our" way is NOT always the best way.

What is the 'best way'?
I prefer to leave that up to the individual, not elite control freaks like Otto, SH or A'One.


Which individual? I'm advocating for the rights of the developing country with the raw resources the company is exploiting, you seem to be advocating for the rights of the corporation (legally identified as an individual by US law) that does the exploiting...

do a google search of Globalization, you will see the pros and the cons. It is the cons, the negative effects, we must address and change, still too many companies are doing these practices all for the benefit of greed and power.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2010
It is the governments of these countries that allow this to happen. Why blame the company?
Address the greed and power of government and you may see some progress. Companies have only the power they can buy from a government.
Every socialist blames greedy companies and if only the right, noble people could be found to run the government and stop those greedy companies the world would be utopia.
Until socialist fellow travelers recognize that government is power and the problem, blaming capitalism only strengthens socialism and reduces liberty and prosperity.


It takes two to tango. Are you telling me that because these governments "allow" these acts to happen, then it is okay for that company to practice them?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2010
What is the 'best way'?
I prefer to leave that up to the individual, not elite control freaks like Otto, SH or A'One.

That's the great thing about us, we don't want to control anything. We don't want to tell you who to worship, we don't want to tell you how to raise your kids, we don't want to tell you what to do with your money. We just want you to follow the same rules that the rest of us do, no exceptions, and no discrimination.
Skultch
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2010
People run companies and people run government organizations. Some of those people (in both types) do work beneficial to most people and hurt few, some of them do the opposite. How is it one is inherently more motivated and/or more able to do good than the other? As usual, the moderate understanding is the correct one, IMHO.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2010
{q}I think people like you attack companies because it is low hanging fruit and you trust government power over the power of individuals. I think deep down, you don't trust individuals because you don't trust yourself.[q/]

I think that the mere fact of the existence of people like mangy and the freimarketeers is the most damning of all possible arguments for the the existence of God, and at the same time, the best possible argument for the existence of MAMMON, the god mangy and the freimarketeers serve with such untiring devotion.

It helps that he pays them well and splits them up in shifts. No one fucktard is equal to the task.

Another article discusses how trusting people make better lie detectors.
I suggest people who want to be controlled by the government are afraid they can't control themselves.


I suggest that they don't trust the mangy minions of freimarket MAMMONISM to control their unbridled rapaciousness.

ArcainOne
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2010
I think people like you attack companies because it is low hanging fruit and you trust government power over the power of individuals. I think deep down, you don't trust individuals because you don't trust yourself.
...
I suggest people who want to be controlled by the government are afraid they can't control themselves.


Okay, baring the psychological analysis Dr. Phil you never answered my question.

I'll tell you why I don't trust the government, why I don't trust corporations, because I used to. I was once a young lad who believed in America. As I grew up I learned the truth. Our government was corrupt, focusing on issues that don't matter in order to obscure ones that do. Our medical system is broken because if you don't have insurance you don't get the treatment you truly need. Our FDA is a joke, recalling most of the drugs they release with in the year. What is behind ALL of these problems, Big corporations looking to make money, every bloody one of them...
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
Ethel asserted the state should support marriage 'for the children'.
I said no such thing. I said that marriage is an alliance for raising children. I said all cultures have marriage. I NEVER said the state should support marriage for the children DON'T LIE about what I said.

That was low even by your standards. To just plain lie and claim I supported your religious beliefs is reprehensible in the extreme.

You owe me an apology.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2010
How do they keep an audience in a free radio market when the socialists like Air America are bankrupt?


Some people are so vested in fantasies that they prefer lies to the truth.

You for instance.

If it is not a privilege, then why involve the state?


Why not?

Why did you lie?

Why won't you apologize?

Is the fantasy that important to you that you would rather lie than deal with the truth?

You agree with me that the state should not be in the business of granting privilege to marriage?


What state? What privaliges? We, as in you, me and all of the United States of America, live in a nation that has government by the people for the people and OF the people, not of some nebulous state. I know Europeans don't understand that but YOU really should.

We the people chose to tax ourselves. We the people chose to give a tax break to people that were raising children.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2010
Like the old saying goes: "Curiosity killed the cat."
Spying will eventually destroy humankind if we do not get control of ourselves.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2010
Mormons (who are Christian, someone implied they were not)


Mormons are not really Christians. They are followes of the words of a liar, Joseph Smith. They do sometimes follow the words of Jesus except where they would conflict with Joseph Smith and other Latter Day Saints. They also think they will be given a planet to be a god of. Which I don't think is something that Jesus ever said. Then again most Christians believe in the Trinity and that isn't in the Bible either.

the government either accepts all definitions and does not discriminate, OR, the state must define marriage.


I am fine with the idea of allowing multiple spouses.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2010
Ethelred Quote:
"Then again most Christians believe in the Trinity and that isn't in the Bible either."

All three 'Father, Son and the Holy Ghost' are mentioned in the Bible. The trinity is the last subject to be added to the Bible.
I think I have heard the word 'trinity' is not mentioned in the Bible, nor is the word 'tribulation' mentioned in the Bible as well.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
So how will more corrupt government fix anything?
By not actually being corrupt or at least by being no more corrupt than it is as opposed to the fantasy levels that you claim.
Do you trust a lion to be a lion?
Yes. What is your point? The US government is not a lion.
Capitalism trusts people to act in their self interest
So does the US government which is why we have anti-monopoly laws.
You have heard Adam Smith's quote?
The one about people in business conspiring together? Yes.
The key to taming government is to follow the Constitution and trust government to act in its interest.
Now that Bush is out the US government is doing a much better job of following the Constitution.
Voters must take responsibility and vote the bastards out
Which bastards? Only some are corrupt.
Controlling a corporation is easy, don't buy their stuff
Doesn't work when they act as Smith says they will and conspire against the buyers and form monopolies.

More sanity coming
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2010
Ethelred Quote:
"They also think they will be given a planet to be a god of."

I hope it is planet Earth. I also hope it will be all of us and not just Mormons. If that happens, then it means humans are not that stupid after all in which we will annihilate ourselves or need someone else to control us because we will not be able to control ourselves.
rvlife
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
Ahem...
I think we are drifting faraway from the main subject...
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2010
Ahem...
I think we are drifting faraway from the main subject...


OK. Within fifty years we will have gravity engines and be able to find another habitual place to live. That will most likely happen before we destroy ourselves.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2010
P.S.: Maybe that is how we got here in the first place and we are doomed to repeat history.
rvlife
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2010

OK. Within fifty years we will have gravity engines and be able to find another habitual place to live. That will most likely happen before we destroy ourselves.

You think so?
Whatever major technology we have today was invented 50 years ago. We have only managed to improvise on the original.
What makes you think we will make a massive technological breakthrough in the next 50 years.
With govenments having handful of other problems, I think spending on technology will actually subside.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010

So how will more corrupt government fix anything?
... Capitalism trusts people to act in their self interest.


Exactly... Greed, money, power, thank you for your support.


You have heard Adam Smith's quote?
The key to taming government is to follow the Constitution and trust government to act in its interest. Voters must take responsibility and vote the bastards out. Controlling a corporation is easy, don't buy their stuff and if the government is limited in power, the government can't force us to buy their stuff.


You ever hear of a monopoly?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010
the government is limited in power, the government can't force us to buy their stuff.
It is limited in power. Only local govenments have ever forced people to buy things in this country. Even then they couldn't stop people from going to another state and buying things there. EXCEPT when the Trusts and Monopolies controlled ALL of specific businesses in the 1900's.
What was the definition of insanity?
Depends on who you ask.
Doing the same thing (promoting more government) and expecting different results?
Why did you change that and add in the remark about government?

NOW how about you stop doing the same thing all the time. You know making up stuff. Misquoting, evading, falsifying the positions of others.

The usual definition of insanity is being out of touch with reality. Rejoin reality.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010

OK. Within fifty years we will have gravity engines and be able to find another habitual place to live. That will most likely happen before we destroy ourselves.

You think so?
Whatever major technology we have today was invented 50 years ago. We have only managed to improvise on the original.
What makes you think we will make a massive technological breakthrough in the next 50 years.
With govenments having handful of other problems, I think spending on technology will actually subside.


The Wright Brothers successfully flew the first airplane around 1904. About one year before naysayers were stating it would hundreds, thousands of years of years before humankind would fly.
Maybe I know something you do not, but I for sure have a more positive outlook for the future when people work together to accomplish a common goal.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
Mormons are not really Christians. They are followes of the words of a liar,
So far I'm not seeing the difference.
Joseph Smith.
Ah, ok. The person followed makes the difference.
They do sometimes follow the words of Jesus except where they would conflict with Joseph Smith and other Latter Day Saints. They also think they will be given a planet to be a god of. Which I don't think is something that Jesus ever said.
There's a lot of things that Christians believe in that were never said, like having a pope (catholics) hating gays(most christians), a pit of everlasting fire (the concept of hell), corpus connubi(moratorium on contraception)
I am fine with the idea of allowing multiple spouses.
So am I. If you're affluent and can support multiple wives and many children, then go for it. If you're destitute, no second marriage for you.

Fun fact, original christianity once believed that no follower of Jesus should have intercourse. They changed that quickly
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010
As with SH, I challenge you to give me a monopoly that does not exist without the backing of the state preventing competition.
Land ownership is a monopoly enforced by the right of property, something that you say does not come from government. That's what we call a natural monopoly.

I'm assuming you're looking for an "absolute" monopoly. So here's a prime example, DeBeers. No government regulatory body has given them sole rights to all the world's diamonds.

A monopoly is defined simply as a market in which no new competition will arise. The diamond market is as such.
What rules are those, mob rules?

No, that'd be the free market.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2010
Islam and Mormones are not. They don't give women the right to have multiple spouses.


I know that. Allowing multiple spouses fits their needs in any case. Of course THEY might insist that the law not include women but in California that would be illegal. In any case there aren't enough straight men to go around already so women aren't going to have much opportunity to take advantage of equality under that hypothetical law.

Ethelred

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2010
Islam and Mormones are not. They don't give women the right to have multiple spouses.


I know that. Allowing multiple spouses fits their needs in any case. Of course THEY might insist that the law not include women but in California that would be illegal. In any case there aren't enough straight men to go around already so women aren't going to have much opportunity to take advantage of equality under that hypothetical law.
The biggest issue here would be parentage and the responsibilities thereof. Our laws aren't prepared for multi-spousal relationships at this time. It would be an interesting ordeal to study/debate.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
The person followed makes the difference
Jesus might have been sincere. There is no such possibility with Joseph Smith
like having a pope
The Pope originally the Bishop of Rome. It isn't a belief, it's an organization. Most groups have those sort of things. Even when there aren't many people in the group.
hating gays(most christians)
The hate part is in the Bible. Somewhere. I have seen it quoted. Not the same word but the intent was pretty clear.
a pit of everlasting fire (the concept of hell)
Its there too. I remember pointing out that Hell was often used to translate the word Gehenna, which is a trash dump. Someone pointed to a specific verse that was a bit more clear about the fire part.
Fun fact, original christianity once believed that no follower of Jesus should have intercourse
I don't think that is a fact. I think that was just the opinion of Paul. However I do know that the Shakers went on that belief. No more Shakers. Evolution in action.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
Ever hear of OPEC. They try to do that and have not succeeded.
Ever hear of Standard Oil.

And OPEC HAS succeeded. The price of oil has gone up considerably since it came into existence.
none will ever succeed as long as competition is free to compete.
Which is why the Trusts didn't allow competition. That IS what a monopoly does. That IS why we have anti-monopoly laws. Lying about the existence of monopolies won't make them go away.
Cable companies were granted monopolies and abused that power.
Yep. And Standard Oil did it without it being granted. So did Microsoft. So DOES DeBeers.
Conspiracies do not last long in free markets, unless they conspire to produce the best product at the lowest cost.
Well they don't last in the US anyway. We passed laws against them. We wouldn't have had to do that if they had not existed.

And where are the answers to MY questions?

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
Jesus might have been sincere. There is no such possibility with Joseph Smith
If you want to talk to someone who does not believe in magic, talk to a magician. If you want to talk to someone who does not believe in Christianity, talk to a Pope. http://pix.motiva...nGod.jpg
It isn't a belief, it's an organization. Most groups have those sort of things. Even when there aren't many people in the group.
Ah but the Bible states in several places that religion is a personal thing and should NOT be performed in public.
I remember pointing out that Hell was often used to translate the word Gehenna, which is a trash dump.
The concept of hell is absent from early Christian texts. It isn't until the rise of Roman Christianty that Hades is retasked with being the land of punishment as opposed to being the place were all souls go.

To be continued.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2010
Gehenna was a valley, sometimes referred to as the Pit of Moloch, where human sacrifices were performed. One retelling of history states that Moloch wasn't a demon but a tyrant. He was slain as a sacrifice and tossed into the pit when the Israelites displaced his people in Canaan. This is one retelling of where the statement "Let them suffer with Moloch", or "Let Moloch take them" came from.

The Hebrew term "Gehinnom" came from this geographical story as that was where the Hebrews put the bodies of the "evil dead" which later became a trashheap.
I don't think that is a fact. I think that was just the opinion of Paul.
The rites of imitatio Christi were a pillar of the early church until the passing of the last of Jesus' contemporaries did not herald the end of all existence.

Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2010
If you want to talk to someone who does not believe in Christianity, talk to a Pope.
That is ridiculous. The Pope has never claimed to be invulnerable. You do know that the last was shot don't you.
Ah but the Bible states in several places that religion is a personal thing and should NOT be performed in public
It also says the opposite. It frequently contradicts itself. Which allows believers to pick and choose.
The concept of hell is absent from early Christian texts.
Deu 32:22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
I didn't think you had that one right. So I did a quick search for the word 'hell'. That is the only with fire in the same verse in the KJV. Oops no it isn't.

Mat 5:22
Mat 18:9
Mar 9:47
Rev 20:14

The last one has hell being thrown into the lake of fire. Does that make Hell iterative?

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
That is ridiculous. The Pope has never claimed to be invulnerable. You do know that the last was shot don't you.
The tenet of God protecting his faithful from all earthly harms comes to mind.
It also says the opposite. It frequently contradicts itself. Which allows believers to pick and choose.
Which shows how mutable the immutable word of God actually is.
The last one has hell being thrown into the lake of fire. Does that make Hell iterative?
Pick your Biblical version. The KJV makes explicit mentions of hell but many versions do not. Many refer to hell as "the pit" or Hades. And some refer to it as such:
"If your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out. It is better for you to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the fire of Gehenna,"

Hell is a post 500AD invention of Christianity. The source texts and early manuscripts do not make any statements of hell, but of the Gehenna fire.
rvlife
3 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2010

Maybe I know something you do not, but I for sure have a more positive outlook for the future when people work together to accomplish a common goal.

Whatever you might know, or your approach is, or whatever you might invent you'll not get past Moon or at the most Mars with all those equipment and men needed for colonising, within the next 50 years.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
It was not a monopoly and they reduced the cost of kerosene and improved its quality to their customers.
Yes it was. No one could found an oil company without Rockefellar owning a piece of it. That is the exact definition of market monopoly.
You have still not given any examples of a free market monopoly.

Again, DeBeers.
Whatever you might know, or your approach is, or whatever you might invent you'll not get past Moon or at the most Mars with all those equipment and men needed for colonising, within the next 50 years.

You already had to move the goalpost within the span of formulating and then writing that comment. That alone shows that you are not in a position to make an educated statement on the matter.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010
It was not a monopoly and they reduced the cost of kerosene and improved its quality to their customers

Utter rubbish. It was a monopoly.
You have still not given any examples of a free market monopoly
Funny how you are evading Micrsoft and DeBeers. Plus all the other old Robber Barons besides Standard Oil which WAS a monopoly, just plain lying won't change the court decision.

American Sugar Refining Company
Northern Securities Company
The American Tobacco Company
The American Fruit Company
forty-four suits were brought during Roosevelt’s administration

That's a lot of suits for something you claim doesn't exist.
"Without De Beers to control the market, the growing flood of diamonds will kill prices.
Now. Maybe. After decades.
Monopolies cannot survive market forces without government protection
And you posted that knowing that DeBeers was and still is a monopoly. Amazing the way you tell yourself lies and so expect others to be as gullible.

Ethelred
Skultch
3 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2010

http://www.forbes...dex.html

DeBeers has generated so much power from it's "mining" monopolies that it can force the hand of even more small African nations to grant it yet more "mining" monopolies. Of course, people like you choose to see this as government assistance, when the reality is the governments are being extorted.

Do you drink the swill you are peddling?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
Funny link that. He doesn't agree with you. A cartel is a monopoly in exactly the sense you insist can't happen. Exactly the sense that Adam Smith said happens. A bunch of businessmen conspire against the consumers.

Were you hoping no one would look? Or are you so invested in your fantasy that you didn't look past the remark that "De Beers is not a monopoly." and read the rest of the paragraph:

It is an arrangement among producers to limit the number of diamonds that reach the market. To achieve this goal, it had been until this year a buyer of last resort, and contracts with other producers to buy up their production, which it then warehouses in its vault.


Ethelred
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010
My comment got messed up somehow.

"De Beers Sales Jump To P17.9 Billion"
http://de-beers-n...3226116/

DeBeers is doing just fine, even with all of this synthetic "competition."
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2010
http://www.thefre...ndustry/
"The clearest definition of monopoly is one seller, with the law prohibiting competitors from entering the market. "
http://www.fff.or...592c.asp


Links from people that lie. How nice. How expected.

Standard Oil was a monopoly. The Supreme Court made that decision. A bunch of RightWingNuts that you read to exclude reality won't change that.

And that bogus definition is beyond ludicrous.

Ethelred
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
Just because "the govt" sometimes allows monopolies to continue, it does not follow that "the govt" is required for their creation.

I can't just go to "the govt" and ask for permission to start a monopoly. I have no power. Companies with already tremendous power are able to extort their way into even more power granted by "the govt." How did they get that power from the beginning? Business practices that stifle competition and corrode the free market system.

Sorry, but we the people will need to oversee things to ensure the colonization of space does not include the same atrocities that European colonization did in the past.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010
Gentlemen, We're wasting our time by feeding this troll.

Ethelred summed it up nicely here:
Amazing the way you tell yourself lies and so expect others to be as gullible.

Not only does this sum and square what Marjon is, but also his motivations. I refuse further participation.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2010

Maybe I know something you do not, but I for sure have a more positive outlook for the future when people work together to accomplish a common goal.

Whatever you might know, or your approach is, or whatever you might invent you'll not get past Moon or at the most Mars with all those equipment and men needed for colonising, within the next 50 years.


That is an ignorant statement by you. How do you know what I know and do not know?
I can understand why you have a negative viewpoint on gravity engines. Governments have been keeping all of that information secret since the 1950s shortly after the Roswell, New Mexico accident.
The US government was at first cooperative with the public about UFOs until they realized all the problems that UFO technology will create.
Yes, gravity engines will be out in the open by 2060 or sooner.
WikiPedia talks about artificial intelligence, robotics, immortality, etc. and most scientists agree that those
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
DeBeers was not a monopoly:
http://www.thedai...ket.html


No DeBeers was a monopoly, it is in question today whether it still is, at the very least it's power and influence has been stiffeled. DeBeers (was) the only known monopoly to have formed with out the aid of governments on a world scale.

Again a free market will still "allow" child labor, wage slavery, and sweet shops for corporations trying to cut their costs. It will also still allow a country to grow dependent upon a single company in regions where these problems are most likely to occur. While we, the Modernized World, won't notice or care because its thousands of miles away. Globalization is as much destructive as it can be beneficial.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010
continued from previous post:

things will come to be by 2050. I think it my take a little longer, by 2060 at the latest.
Sir Isaac Newton predicted that the end of the world will happen by 2060. I am with him on that one.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Aug 17, 2010
Redacted.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010

"Private factory owners could not forcibly subjugate "free labour" children; they could not compel them to work in conditions their parents found unacceptable. "


And yet there are plenty of incidences that do... Google Search.. it is beautiful... in a horrific kind of way.


"The situation, however, was much different for "parish apprentice" children, and close examination reveals that it was these children on whom the critics were focusing when they spoke of the "evils" of capitalism's Industrial Revolution. These youngsters, it turns out, were under the direct authority and supervision not of their parents in a free labor market, but of government officials. "
http://www.mackinac.org/3879


And you still have Sweat Shops, Wave Slaves, income inequality, Oh my favorite Environment Degradation.

Again its not some magical cure all. Like EVERYTHING in this world it requires a moderation, balance, and information (business transparency).
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2010
"The situation, however, was much different for "parish apprentice" children, and close examination reveals that it was these children on whom the critics were focusing when they spoke of the "evils" of capitalism's Industrial Revolution. These youngsters, it turns out, were under the direct authority and supervision not of their parents in a free labor market, but of government officials. "
The significance here is the fact that "parish appretices" were children given to the church. These people are considered "government officials" because Great Britain has a theocratic adoption and orphanage system.

The government didn't do it, the church did marjon.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2010
Boy I sure do like space!
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2010
Boy I sure do like space!

We are entering a very interesting time in human evolution and technology.
rvlife
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2010

That is an ignorant statement by you. How do you know what I know and do not know?
I can understand why you have a negative viewpoint on gravity engines. Governments have been keeping all of that information secret since the 1950s shortly after the Roswell, New Mexico accident.
The US government was at first cooperative with the public about UFOs until they realized all the problems that UFO technology will create.
Yes, gravity engines will be out in the open by 2060 or sooner.
WikiPedia talks about artificial intelligence, robotics, immortality, etc. and most scientists agree that those

I agree, I am not technically qualified to make such a statement. I live in a Third World country. The ground realities here are far different from what you have in America. Our planned man to moon mission is still 10 years away (as per schedule, but delay is the name of the game here). The governance is gone to the dogs, with corrupt and illiterate ploiticians ruling. (Contd..)
rvlife
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2010
(Contd...)
We are deceived in to believing we are an emerging super powers, while a third of our population goes to bed in empty stomach.
For us, leave aside colonising outer space, surviving the next 50 years is a far fetched dream.
TabulaMentis
1.5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2010
Rvlife:

Your English is excellent. I suspect you are from India?
Americans do have it made for the most part until our politicians bankrupt this country, then what?
Money is a problem, but that will not stop people from fulfilling their dreams for long.

What do you mean when you say surviving the next 50 years is a far fetched dream?
rvlife
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2010

What do you mean when you say surviving the next 50 years is a far fetched dream?

You are right. I am from India.
What I mean to say is, with so many problems round the corner, the day to day survival is all that is in the minds of people and leaders here. Spreading into the cosmos is the last thing they will think about.
I agree all the developed countries went through this pace. But remember, they did not had to face overpopulation, climate change or oil shortage. India is heavily dependent on oil and coal and most of it comes from outside India. When the oil runs out in the 2040's all development will stop unless we come out with a ground breaking new energy source or transport concept.
our leaders behave as if there is no tomorrow. Their motto seems to be ,Make hay while the sun is shining.'
So far we have not managed to educate all, forget about enlightening the masses.
rvlife
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2010
I'm inclined to think that you are not what you pretend to be. That you are cheating in order to denounce China. The country with the most successful ecomomy of this planet in the past three decades.

Ha..Ha..Ha..
I am an ordinary citizen. Why do you think China will take my word for it?
rvlife
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2010
We are surrounded by hostile nuclear neighbours. Yesterday only I read in the newspapers that China has moved some nuclear capable missiles near to the Indian border. A freak nuclear accident could very well wipe us out of the world map.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2010
So, Ethelred, you getting anywhere at all with the Queen Mother of trolls here?
Sure I am. Even he must have noticed that he squirming on the hook. He will just keep lying to himself about it as I destroy the rest of his nonsense.

It does help to have others helping me. Marjon is an amazingly prolific nonsense generator. It isn't actually doing any research. Just quoting from the same RightWingNuts that he has quoted before.

No actual thoughts seem be there so they can't slow him down. Nor does reality slow him down.

Oh and I don't think he is a full blown troll. He actually seems to believe the crap. True trolls post crap to tick people off. They don't care if they prove anything. They usually don't care to deal with me for long because I don't lose my temper which is what they want.

I chased a number of them off of the old Maximum PC site. They would go potty mouthed expecting me to run away. They thought Ethelred was a woman's name and that I would be shocked.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2010
Just another example of corporations using the gov't to 'compete'
EVASION. It shows that monopolies existed. And it is pretty poor thinking even without the evasion.

Its an example of what people MUST do to protect themselves from people that use money as a tool of repression.
What monopoly?
The one that the lost the court case. Lying about it being a monopoly won't stop it from being one.

Nothing in that quote gave ANY evidence that Standard Oil was not a monopoly when it lost its case. Last time the crap you pulled was from way after and now it is way before. Either way ii doesn't show what you claim.
I know you believe government can do no wrong
Do you really think that lying about me like that will get past me? I have never claimed any such thing. I never will. People are people and there is no magic that keeps people inside or outside of government from making mistakes or doing wrong.

More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2010
That's why California is bankrupt and must pay its bills with IOUs?
It isn't bankrupt if it can pay its bills with credit. Also the original cause of the State's economic problems was a bunch of thieves in a poorly regulated business. Enron. They made billions by rigging a power shortage in California.

And that was evasion again. I showed a LOT of monopolies and you chose to lie about ONE of them and ignore the rest. Excuse me, you lied about TWO of them. You lied about DeBeers as well and are now evading on it again.

We have shown the monopolies exist and can and have existed without governments creating them. And your response has been to lie, stonewall, use bogus irrelvent claims and of course EVADE.

So if you have to engage in mendacious and duplicitous behavior why don't do yourself a favor and rejoin reality?

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2010
So if you have to engage in mendacious and duplicitous behavior why don't do yourself a favor and rejoin reality?
If I may interject, it is purely because reality depresses him. The ignorant are often upset when faced with the glut of information they are unaware of.
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2010
That was 10 years ago
And we are still dealing with the problems. Billions of dollars is not trivial.
It was CA regulators
Lie. It was the actions of Enron to fix the market.
I have referenced the report, many times. It was NOT a free market.
No it wasn't. Enron rigged it.

Nice links, irrelevant. Not about the energy problem that damaged the state economy at all.
California has the government it deserves
A bunch of thieving Texans wreck the economy and drive Bush's then main rival out of office to be replaced by a Republican.

The whole post was the usual evasions.

So I will just repeat the stuff you want to go away.

We have shown that monopolies exist and can and have existed without governments creating them. And your response has been to lie, stonewall, use bogus irrelevant claims and of course EVADE.

So if you have to engage in mendacious and duplicitous behavior why don't do yourself a favor and rejoin reality?

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2010
In California,


Yet another worthless evasion to avoid dealing with monopolies. You brought up California to evade in the first place and now you are evading the real cause of the states problems.

Enron.

Of course it would help if The Govanator had some negotiating skills that come from experience. But that still would not give the state the stolen money back as Enron was only able to keep a little of it. Stupidest guys in the room.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2010
It is interesting that Popper was motivated to his falsification philosophy by Marxists who kept changing the rules when their predictions failed.
Popper engaged in this journey of philosophical intent due to epistemological fallacy. Marxists were a side concern. Answer ethelred's questions.

Here they are a third time:
We have shown that monopolies exist and can and have existed without governments creating them. And your response has been to lie, stonewall, use bogus irrelevant claims and of course EVADE.

So if you have to engage in mendacious and duplicitous behavior why don't do yourself a favor and rejoin reality?
Skultch
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2010
We have shown that monopolies exist and can and have existed without governments creating them. And your response has been to lie, stonewall, use bogus irrelevant claims and of course EVADE.

So if you have to engage in mendacious and duplicitous behavior why don't do yourself a favor and rejoin reality?

Based upon the definition of an efficiency monopoly, such monopolies can be created in a free market.
What is wrong with an efficiency monopoly?
I will note also that Popper did not support Marxism, but many here who preach Popper support Marxism. How rational is that?


More evasion.

How do you sleep at night with the knowledge of such obvious and monumental bias that completely subverts all rationality?

To borrow a quote from one of my favorite scifi movies: "Are you mentally divergent, friend?"

If you can guess the movie without google or IMDB, you get a 1 hour pass from me thinking you have an IQ of 80 or lower.
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2010
More evasion.

How do you sleep at night with the knowledge of such obvious and monumental bias that completely subverts all rationality?

To borrow a quote from one of my favorite scifi movies: "Are you mentally divergent, friend?"

If you can guess the movie without google or IMDB, you get a 1 hour pass from me thinking you have an IQ of 80 or lower.

Again, more insults and no enlightenment.


Please. No enlightenment? Coming from you?

You argued that a monopoly can't exist without govt. We gave you examples that refute that claim and your only responses are irrelevant, which we have pointed out. Argumentative evasion is what that is. Your worldview is inconsistent. At best, you are in DENIAL.
ArcainOne
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2010
"the DeBeers diamond
syndicate are examples of �near� monopolies."
http://facstaff.g...er22.pdf
DeBeers, through market forces, has abandoned its efforts to control the diamond market.
This leaves the only monopolies that can be perpetuated regardless of market forces are those supported by the government.


No... again DeBeers was a Monopoly, every single place I look up information on them states "WAS a Monopoly" stressing the was part, including themselves. This is one you cannot argue... period.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2010
I draw the line here. "near" monopoly, "pure" monopoly, syndicate, all semantics for the same thing. Bob down the street has a chihuahua while Frank has a German Shepard, they are both still dogs. It still stands that DeBeers was a Monopoly/syndicate that existed outside any government, and practiced Monopolistic behaviors such as driving out competition, restricting access from others, and exaggerating the value of their products.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2010
Rvlife:

Do not worry too much about China. Their maps seem to change from year to year. The next thing they will declare is that the entire world was their territory from a map five thousand years old.

Solar electric and wind turbines would be a solution. Just think all of the people it would employ?
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2010
And free markets ended that 'monopoly' as predicted.


Only because they withheld diamonds from the US and other countries during World War II. It still existed as a monopoly, Yes I said it, with out government support and on a world wide scale. And it is still under suspicion today as to whether it is still a monopoly just more cleverly hidden, dispersed among organizations such as the World Diamond Congress.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2010
What? You AGREE?
Free markets DO limit monopoly power.
It appears to me that he is politely disagreeing with you.
rvlife
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2010

Solar electric and wind turbines would be a solution. Just think all of the people it would employ?

Sure, It would provide employment to a million people. But if the oil runs dry a billion will come to the streets.
Most of the third world govt's are so incompetent, I presume in the next 20 years or so, when the problems compound all around, they might collapse leading to total anarchy in these parts.
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2010

Solar electric and wind turbines would be a solution. Just think all of the people it would employ?

Sure, It would provide employment to a million people. But if the oil runs dry a billion will come to the streets.
Most of the third world govt's are so incompetent, I presume in the next 20 years or so, when the problems compound all around, they might collapse leading to total anarchy in these parts.

That becomes a real problem when a country has nuclear weapons!
rvlife
not rated yet Aug 19, 2010
That becomes a real problem when a country has nuclear weapons!

Reason enough for me to subscribe to Dr.Frank Fenner school of thought.
rvlife
not rated yet Aug 19, 2010
The Only Way a freak nuclear accident could occur is if it was Planned to occur.

And what would be the motive behind such a plan?
rvlife
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2010
The governance is gone to the dogs, with corrupt and illiterate ploiticians ruling.

Where is that NOT a problem? You just described most US politicians and judges.

Politicians everywhere are the same. Do you think they are a different species other than Homo Sapiens?
Then, extinction of this species might give humans a chance to survive.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2010
Politicians everywhere are the same. Do you think they are a different species other than Homo Sapiens?
Then, extinction of this species might give humans a chance to survive.
Recommending genocide of a group due to their vocation is, well, telling that you don't understand the basis of the problem.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2010
Have people in India ever heard of birth control?
rvlife
5 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2010
Have people in India ever heard of birth control?

We have it since the 1975. But as the case everywhere only the middle class has adopted it. The Have not's and muslims do not subscribe to it. Our petty politicans do not want to ensure it because of vote bank politics. Muslims still advocate polygamy outside the law.
But, we had a large stock to start with. Even if a couple produces only one off spring, it will still make a substantial number.
rvlife
5 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2010
Apart from population you can't blame us much for anything else. We have been very frugal consumers of food, energy and oil. Our per capita carbon footprint is one of the lowest in the world. India has a huge middle class which still adores the Gandhian value 'Simple living, High thinking.'
rvlife
5 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2010

Recommending genocide of a group due to their vocation is, well, telling that you don't understand the basis of the problem.

Last week India's would be future prime minister Rahul Gandhi was interacting with post Graduation students of Mysore University. When he asked what is the greatest problem the country is facing the answer was 'politicans'. When he asked for a solution, he was shocked with the answer and couldn't speak for a while. The students said 'shoot them at sight'.
It will just be a matter of time before someone will think of this as a solution, whether it is right or wrong, unless the politicans mend their ways.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2010
Apart from population you can't blame us much for anything else. We have been very frugal consumers of food, energy and oil. Our per capita carbon footprint is one of the lowest in the world. India has a huge middle class which still adores the Gandhian value 'Simple living, High thinking.'
Yes but your high thinkers don't live so simply. THis is evidenced by the carbon foot print associated with the various classes. The top 1% of India use 80% of the fuel resources. Then again, I'm in America, forget I said anything.
rvlife
5 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2010
Yes but your high thinkers don't live so simply. THis is evidenced by the carbon foot print associated with the various classes. The top 1% of India use 80% of the fuel resources. Then again, I'm in America, forget I said anything.

Exactly. Since you are only 4% of the world populace, what is your foot print size?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2010
My personal foot print is very low but those of my contemporaries... not so much.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2010
My personal foot print is very low but those of my contemporaries... not so much.

How about the support structure you use to live?
Your travel, your house, your food, ....?

All accounted for within my estimates. It wouldn't exactly be accurate if I was only going off of my personal existence, now would it? It's not exactly like you can breathe less to save the planet.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2010
It's not exactly like you can breathe less to save the planet.

That is what the EPA wants us to do.


Mongo, this might be the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in print. You purpose here, and maybe in life, is counter productive, even from your perspective.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2010
Why wouldn't our 'friendly' govt force us all to start using rebreathers to scrub the CO2?


Because not every conspiracy theory that relies on slippery slope fallacies to cause irrational fear is worth considering past an initial thought. Why do you get suckered into it? Do you not see how it affects the next thing you buy into? If any of these crazy ideas "might" be true, then they all could be. The ability to just make shit up is independent from truth. Do you really not care about truth?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2010
Because not every conspiracy theory that relies on slippery slope fallacies to cause irrational fear is worth considering past an initial thought. Why do you get suckered into it? Do you not see how it affects the next thing you buy into? If any of these crazy ideas "might" be true, then they all could be. The ability to just make shit up is independent from truth. Do you really not care about truth?

He doesn't. He has said as much. In the past marjon has stated that in order to get someone to agree with you, lying is perfectly acceptable. Basically some sort of weird, free-market taqiyya policy.

The issue with marjon is the fact he doesn't care enough to think. He greatly prefers that someone else thinks for him so that he can simply act, as thoughtless action means no guilt in his world.

Someday he'll realize that by listening to things without personally investigating them he's removed himself from the democratic process of reason and discovery.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2010
Just a side note Marjon.

Why wouldn't our 'friendly' govt force us all to start using rebreathers to scrub the CO2?

We may have to start wearing rebreathers jsut to go outside if people who hold similar views, and a total ignorance of science (like you) get their way.
Skultch
3 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2010
Human CO2 isn't as big a problem as livestock methane. When are the scientists going to come out with the fart capture devices, anyway? :)

Hmmmm....... cows butts connected to dirigibles with hoses......hmmmmmm. :)
Skultch
1 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2010
I like the dirigible idea, mostly for ease of collection compared to individual bags for every animal. The first obstacle I see is hose tangling. That should be fixable. I'll need some engineering help with that, though. Next is fecal pass-through. I don't want to have any powered suction; that kinda defeats the purpose. How hard to cows fart? I mean, do they push it out, or let it sneak out? If it sneaks, would gravity do all the work for me?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2010
Just a side note Marjon.

Why wouldn't our 'friendly' govt force us all to start using rebreathers to scrub the CO2?

We may have to start wearing rebreathers jsut to go outside if people who hold similar views, and a total ignorance of science (like you) get their way.

But you trust the govt to be in charge of the science?

That's the great thing about science, there's no way to control independent discovery. One would think that you'd enjoy science based on your free market idealism.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2010
Which is one reason why I am wary of scientific consensus.
There's no such thing. If you're trying to rope the AGCC theoretics into this recognize that the "consensus" spoken of is not a "scientific consensus" and the corrupt media and body politic presented it, but as a consensus of opinion on the validity of the theory when interviewing scientists.

The AGCC theory has been well vetted and scinetifically supported as far back as the 1950's. You're arguing against ignorant talking heads on your TV. Turn it off and read a book from time to time.
rvlife
5 / 5 (1) Sep 11, 2010
My personal foot print is very low but those of my contemporaries... not so much.

The problem everywhere is the same. You take any country, civilisation or the world as a whole. A small number posessing all the riches, using most of the resources and causing most of the pollution. And this very class is reluctant to change, they lobby so that the govt's will not bring in legislation that will affect their lifestyle. They don't give a heck about the well being of the planet.
Irony is, when the time comes for paying back, the middle and lower class with a very frugal consumption habit and a negligible footprint are made to suffer equally. Infact they are more vulnerable to the climate change disasters.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.