One problem with articles like that is that we read what the person says, but we don’t know what questions the interviewer asked that may have directed or even biased the answers.  I rather doubt that Hawking instituted the interview, and I can imagine questions asked that would generate just what he said.  None of it is unreasonable or outside scientific feasibility.

Since most of the stars are far more than six light-years away from us, people would have to live on the space ship much longer than six years.  I can envision putting people in a coma, almost suspended animation, for most of their time, waking up once every month or so for a few hours to take care of bodily functions, eating, and whatever maintenance is needed. 

Occam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm9PRhNeTtg

I love the Fox News clip.

I hate to do this, but the movie The Prestige had an interesting plot device that involved transporting and doubles (and ethics and a whole bunch of other good stuff).  If you’re one to read movie spoilers, have a look.  It’s rather long.

Debbie

Dr. Hawkins has always been ahead of the curve in his thinking, albeit not always correct, implies he’s human. But I believe if mankind
doesn’t follow this good advice we will be doomed.

Here is one idea that could work.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13167

Yes, but I think it is still a dream to think that we will leave the earth in the near future.  Maybe a century from now if we do not destory ourselves first.

Yes, but this is the wrong kind of thinking. That is why nothing is happening because people
are afraid to do anything.

That’s not what I meant.  I was thinking about how much we have progressed relations wise and how fast we can bring about the technology needed for this.

I think if we were to leave earth now and did meet others from other planets, it could potentially turn into “War of the Worlds”, IF there is life out there besides us and think potentially there is.  Can you see the religious extremists going out into the galaxy and then run into other people from other worlds?  It could possibly be worse then the Crusades.  Can you see people who are racist bigots leaving the earth?  That could turn out badly too if they met others from different planets.  The human race needs to grow up a little more before we can make that move safely and wisely.

Secondly, the technology we have to colonize/terraform other planets is still in the making.  What we do have has not been tested, but is at best in beta form, IF it even exists.  Terraforming probably will not happen in our lifetime and probably won’t be perfected for generations to come.

I am only thinking of our current growth both as a species and technology wise.

I see your point, but we cannot let what if’s stop us from trying, even if we fail miserably.

Too much is riding on our succeeding.

I’d have myself transported three times without destroying the original then have a different form of therapy used on each of the “MEs”.  And if two of them worked, well, that’s just the world’s benefit to have two of me around

It’s impossible, by quantum mechanics’ no-cloning theorem. It’s in principle possible to copy a quantum state, but only if the original is destroyed.

I guess that the idea of going to other planets still a mere fantasy if current health problems are not solved first.

Einstein and other scientists invented ideas of space traveling in complete ignorance of what such a travel will involve. For them in their imaginations traveling in outer space was idealized as traveling in a train from New York to Washington DC. In those years it was a complete ignorance about space traveling and any imagination was accepted as valid.

Today, our reality is showing that astronauts standing in space for less than a year returned back to earth with such a health status as if they were decades older than their current age.

The consequences of standing in outer space are practically catastrophic to the point that astronauts must be living in and out in recovering rooms for years!

Their bones suffered of osteoporosis, their inmune system deteriorated, the production of red cells decreased, their bodies became distorted, they suffered disorientation, their discs were deformed, anything happened to them but “becoming more younger” from outer space traveling at great speeds.

No doubt that for traveling to Mars the astronauts will use drugs, and this is a fact which must be faced; even athletes use drugs on ground for better performance. The astronauts will use drugs to travel to Mars otherwise they will become masses of deformed flesh in the floor of the space ship.

Hawking appears to live in the world of fantasy created by Einstein in science. Of course that “in paper” everything can be possible, but physical reality is a different thing.

Right now, astronauts must be under drugs to test their performance and come back as some Russian astronauts do after a year in the Space Station: walking.

So far the US astronauts must be taken in wheelchairs from the space ship to their recovery rooms. Maybe is too much soda or the famous genetically modified food, but no doubt that the resistance of Russian astronauts is fair better than the US astronauts in long standing in outer space. Some say that the reason is because Russian astronauts do the required physical exercises all the time while the US astronauts don’t. Even so, on ground the consequences of not doing physical exercises won’t make you body to sufffer of strong osteoporosis in short months.

Now, we assume that astronauts must be people in very good health condition, what about the fat guy who lives around the corner of your house? or, what about your son who suffers of asthma? What are the chances of their survival in a long trip in outer space?

The idea is good, looking for new horizons, but guys like Hawking keep their mouths shut about the current health problems in a space traveling because these problems show their theories are as false as a three dollar bill.

My opinion is to discuss the health problems of the astronauts more openly in order to receive ideas to improve their performance.

Instead of bubbling around in order to be mentioned in the news, the scientists must show to the general public the negative consequences of space traveling in order to avoid false hope.

From this point, solutions should be asked. The more plausible ideas must be tested, and from the successful tests the hope of traveling to planets outside our solar system may be shared.

Right now, space traveling of humans looking for new horizons still is a fantasy, we barely survive some miles away from ground in outer space.

I think the idea of abandoning earth to survive is certainly necessary over some length of time.  It is known that eventually our moon will leave earths orbit, our sun will die & the galaxy Andromeda will collide with our own.  Steven Hawking was pointing out that the time before these cosmic threats become a problem is so far in the future that it is far more likely that human ignorance will be the culprit.  I doubt he meant to evacuate all life – that doesn’t solve the problem.  I think he was interested in pursuing the colonization of other planets to increase humanities chances in general, not as a whole.

As for the best method for doing so – I think Occum nailed this one.  Transporting matter is extremely costly over the vast distances required and our biology can’t handle the timeframe.  Copying our consciousness onto/into robotic mechanisms will overcome these obstacles.  The problem people have with this leap is the nature of consciousness.  We internalize who we are as a place or “behind these eyes”.  If we could be 100% sure that our consciousness would transfer seamlessly to robotic means we would still be apprehensive to self destruct the physical perception of our consciousness/soul and make the transition.  Even if your consciousness had 100 times the survival success rate in robotic form over biological form I think the average person would still prefer to live out their biological existence & only consider transferring to robotic form once the biological form was near failure.

I think this is the root of the dilemma Doug was presenting.  I see no difference between biological & robotic agents of consciousness.  Either the machine is doing the replication of atoms or the DNA is doing the replication of atoms.  The consciousness of a replicated individual would be internalized the same as pre replication - even if the replica recognized they were a new copy, because that is the method consciousness has evolved to function.

This is a 23 min video of Ray Kurzweil explaining the advancement of technology.  Near the end he talks of the intertwining of robotics & biology and how we could use nano-bots to enhance humans, but ultimately full robotic control of consciousness would be the most efficient.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/38

Retrospy,

I agree and we do need someone or something, maybe even NASA, if they will
look at new technology.

NASA has recently shut down website catering to new technology. I think the
good hard working folks at NASA might have their hands full with many projects
they have in development.

Something will happen and it will probably be the private space companies now forming.

I like this forum as the folks here are intelligent nice people. Thank you for letting be
part of this forum.

I heard the original message by Hawking and he said so long as we dont take care of the planet we might as well take the notion of terra forming or finding another habitable planet seriously.

i took it as a social critique.

mthomas - 01 September 2007 02:14 PM

I see your point, but we cannot let what if’s stop us from trying, even if we fail miserably.

Too much is riding on our succeeding.

I never said anything about “what if”, except in the case of other beings on other planets.  There is not what if to it when it comes to most humans not capable to dealing with intersteller life.  They can’t even avoid going to war with their own (that being human).  There is also not what if about the technology either.  The fact is, we don’t have it yet. That is not saying we should not keep trying, but I think it will take at least 100 years before it is successful.  I agree, there is a lot at stake, but the point is, we won’t see it happen nor will our grandchildren, BUT their grandchildren might succeed after they examine our mistakes and put their heads together in order to make it work.

mriana,

sure, there is a possibility we could do it in 100 years.

but all 6 billion-plus of us wouldnt go. the rest would suffer the fates we made for ourselves.

rather than spending 100 years to seek a solution that will benefit only a few, we should spend that 100 years preserving what we go and taking care of each other. i think that is hawkins point, though he does it from a very pessimistic perspective.

actually, i found his comment to be somewhat similar to something ghandi once said: “Must I do all the evil I can before I learn to shun it? Is it not enough to know the evil to shun it? If not, we should be sincere enough to admit that we love evil too well to give it up.”