Stephen Hawking has asked the internet a question on Yahoo.



It's a pretty open ended question so I'll try and narrow it down a bit. This is however casual conversation so feel free to just answer Dr. Hawking's question.


Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?

1. Yes. The world is NOT in chaos politically, socially, and environmentally. The state of the world in 2006 is demonstrably BETTER for more people on earth than it ever has throughout human history. We, as humans, enjoy longer lives, a better standard of living, more freedom, more ability to move, communicate, and perform commerce, less war (on a global basis), better medical care, and less threat of genocide, plague, and other large scale killers of human beings.

2. We'll survive, the issue is the "quality" of that survival. And if we focus on quality of life, the 3 most important issues are (1) the preservation of western civilization with its associated freedoms, liberties, and values (2) the elimination or at least the confinement of competing social organizations like the Jihadist Islamists and/or predatory communist/socialist/collectivists and (3) a climate that encourages research into medical technology, health care, and personal wellness.

3. Will we have to expand to space? God no! What a silly idea that guy has. Space is not habitable but our planet sure is. If anything, we need to find ways to improve irrigation, power generation, and utilize the vast oceans as we have not to date. Space is a waste of time and money. If it were up to me, I'd cancel NASA right now and eliminate all manned space flight and focus only on satellite technology that can be used for communication and other purposes.

Great questions, psyclist.

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

Amazingly, I think it will. Technology is marching onward. I believe that technology can and will solve the emerging problems of our day.

I think Hawking is a bit too loose with the term "chaos". The human condition has always been one of chaos. Heck, I would defend the position that the current era is one of unmatched peace in the world. There are 500 million more people today than there were in 1990. That's a booming population and populations don't boom during "chaos".

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

While none of these will end the human race, I believe the top three problems are:

1. Energy. Economic growth is dependent upon energy. There is a serious dearth in development of new energy technologies. I believe that portable nuclear devices will be developed within the next century that will provide portable, virtually limitless power on a scale small enough not to be overly dangerous (as weapons). Technology will solve this problem.

2. Food Production. With the world's booming population, we need food to feed them. Since the population is in poorer countries, we need cheap food. I think geneticists will create hardy hybrids that will flourish in areas where current crops cannot. There will be resistance to this, of course, but this resistance needs to be overcome. Technology will solve this problem.

3. Over dependence upon chemicals and medicines. I believe that the human race is becoming too dependent on outside chemicals to cure disease. Instead of exercising to be healthy, people want to take a pill. While medicines are definitely beneficial -- I myself am dependent upon medicine for basic functioning (insulin) -- it is overused for situations where it is not needed. I often think about what will happen if civilization collapses (not the end of the human race, but maybe the end of convenient gadgets like cars and batteries and insulin ). I wouldn't last long, in all likelihood. But neither would literally tens of millions of Americans who are dependent upon non-life sustaining drugs like Zoloft, Ritalin, Viagra, Lipitor, Zocor, Nexium, Prevacid. The top 500 drugs in the US amount to about $300 billion in sales.

Here, technology is the problem.

Yes. I say this not because I'm overly confident with the human race's ability to govern itself and maintain society, I say yes only because I don't see anything catastrophic enough to effectively kill off the human race.


I'm with Amlord with 1.Energy, we as a people and we as Americans need to figure out how to be able to transport ourselves without damaging the environment as much as we do and we need to figure out a safe and efficient alternative to gasoline/fossil fuel. 2. I'm with LordHelmet, Islamic Fundamentalism/Terrorism. Between individual terrorist groups and cells and governments that sponsor them, there is plenty of potential for terrorists to use weapons of mass destruction on their enemies [read: non-Muslims]. 3. The Government, c'mon, I'm a libertarian, you knew this was coming. The government in the United States and the world government of the United Nations are the largest tools for tyranny and the stripping of individual rights which leads to oppression. In order to keep the government at bay we need to elect third party members to Congress and state governments, we need to prevent international organizations from stripping away our sovereignty and we need to, by the grace of God have a court system that respects the law.


I doubt it, not something I'd be interested in, but then I'll be dead by then anyway.

CP

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

Survive? Of course we will. There's nothing out there on the horizon that jeapordizes that (keep in mind that as long as two humans are left that can procreate, we have survived). The most likely suspects would be viruses, but to have something come up that would completely exterminate the species seems extremely farfetched. Even in the absolute worst situations, I don't see avian flu being much of an issue for Eskimos, for example.

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?

Given my answer to a, the answer to the follow-on questions would have to be nothing, and no.

Would love to answer from my sci-fi side, but don't think the answers would be accurate, unless the time frame is extended a few millenia. Of those things that could endanger the survivability of the species, leaving the planet would probably be the only possible answer.

Given an extended time frame, the main issue that would need to be addressed would be for humans to think of themselves as an single entity, as opposed to a bunch of disparate groups. Humans, as opposed to Americans or Caucasians, for example. Only then could any of the endeavours necessary to ensure survival be possible. I don't see this being remotely possible in the next hundred years, unless some external force drastically speeds up the process (like being actually faced with extermination).

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

I am very optmistic for the survival of the human race. Human progress as always allowed for the adaptation of the species in areas such as technology. It is through human intellect and reason that I believe that not only will we survive, but we will prosper. Unfortunately the very things that will progress us past our wildest imaginations can also be the bringers of our worst nightmares.

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

Individual Liberty
Individual Liberty
Individual Liberty

When the policies of government recognize the rights of the individual to make choices right or wrong, and to take risks this is how progress will occur. Freedom is always on the defensive from outside forces that hope to erode the institutions and firmly held beliefs that allow for men to be free. When recognition of individual liberty is accept fully, human nature will take care of the rest.

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?

Not in the next 100 years. There is still plenty of land on this earth that is not utilized for maximum efficiency. When New York City was getting crowded in the early 20th century, the builders decided to build up. We just have to follow suit. Instead of a plot of land hold a housing development for 1000 families, it could very well hold 10,000 families if we utilize the space and build up.

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

There's only one that I can think of right now: nanotech. If it gets out of control (which, really, would only be a matter of time), we could be in for some serious trouble. Think of it as like a virus, only one that's completely uncontrollable by any immune system.

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

Probably, but the quality of life experienced on this planet may be far worse than that to which we are accustomed. It might well be that our children's children will not have the same amenities. I foresee longevity greatly improved for a relative few, while the average lifespan for the rest of the world is shortened perhaps by a decade or two.

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

-Management of resources: Energy, food, potable water supply, the ecology

-Continuing overpopulation, particularly in countries suffering from it now, e.g., India and China

-Finding ways to mitigate the effects of climate change to fend off overheating, cooling, drought and super storms


Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?

I think that while Stephen Hawking is a visionary, we simply cannot find another place out there in this solar system or another that is suitable to sustain human life. Even if we could, we do not have the mechanism to send vast numbers of humans to colonize. If such a place other than this planet was found, we would have to send children to grow up during the journey there, barring the development of Star Trekkian warp engine drive. For that matter, we can't even guarantee that the Space Shuttle, which is out in space right now, will be able to bring the astronauts back safely.

That means that we can't trade our current dwelling for a "dee-luxe apartment in the sky" (with apologies to "The Jeffersons"). Whatever planet or satellite is close by, it will have far fewer resources than what we're living on right now. Imagine what power, water, and air would cost a resident on the moon.

I believe that humanity will continue to exist, but without sustainable energy sources for food, warmth, light and transportation, everyday life will become much more difficult than our current adult generations and a couple of generations before us experienced during their customary threescore and ten years.

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

Maybe, I would slap no guarantee on it though.

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

Self understanding as it relates to anything that self has to do with, in a factual sense not lore.
The big ones in that would be environmental impact, cultural relations and cultural development.

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?

It has no choice if it wants to survive, forgetting anything else our sun is a star that will nova someday destroying earth as a viable environment for survival.

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?
Yes, 'twere I a betting man, I would put my money on survival. Of course, it's possible that we may need Bruce Willis nuking an incoming comet to do it..., but other than that sort of low probability event, I'm in the livin' large camp.

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?
Government corruption, Islamofacism (heck, I'm tempted to say Islam period), and developing the ability to contain a pandemic given our incredibly effective global transportation system.

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?
Yes, but not in the next 100 years. Certainly if we want to survive a few hundred million years.

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?
Yes, although many Americans think that the rapture or second coming is going to happen in their lives (I can't find the poll I heard quoted though, arg).

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?
Religion, of all kinds. I have a feeling that much more harm is caused than not due to religion.
Energy dependance and finding renewable energy
Overpopulation

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?
No. Space expansion is still many many years off at the soonest (by my completely unprofessional opinion).

Yes. Like cockroaches, homo sapiens are a hardy breed and pretty tough to kill. We are quite adaptable and barring an Armageddon extinction level event occurring we should be around for the foreseeable future.



one: An end to war. If we put as much effort in trying to find ways to stay alive as we do in trying to find newer, faster and more efficient ways to kill mass numbers of human beings this world would be a better place. Maybe we will develop larger craniums and smaller adrenal glands. I wonder sometimes what is the true natural state of mankind--civilization or barbarism? I hope it's the former and not the latter. Our time is far too brief on this planet to spend it like Michael ("I don't want to wipe everyone out. Just my enemies) Corleone.

two: New, cleaner energy sources because the other day I passed a gas station where the price for regular unleaded stood at $3.05 a gallon. The ironic coincidence? I was playing Tower of Power's "Only So Much Oil in the Ground." I refuse to believe we have to be shackled to burning fossil fuel and the power it gives OPEC over us and the wars we have to wage over it.

three: Curb once and for all our gluttonous need for more of whatever is bigger, shinier, faster, sexier and popular than last year's model. Rampaging consumerism is not a good thing when it destroys the joy of living simply. Too much stuff we Americans throw away would feed entire families throughout the world. There's no good reason why a nation with five percent of the world's population should gulp down 50 percent of the world's energy supply. This mentality of dying with as many credit cards maxed out as our wallets can hold while we chug down another Biggie-sized burger and a 96 ounce Big Burp drink cup on our way to the new Wal-Mart has got to go. We are becoming a nation of consumers instead of thinkers, dreamers and doers.



Hell to the no. The idea that we can clear-cut all the forests, kill off all the animals and build big enough guns and bombs to kill anything or anyone that screws with us and then leave a burnt-out shell of Earth to repeat the same sad, stupid mistakes on the moon or Mars is laughable on its face.

We've only got one world and we'd better get busy fixing this one before going off to louse up another. The least we can do is try to tidy up a bit before fzooming off into space in search of the next major land mass to build a Starbucks, 48-screen multiplex and strip mall.

Survival

We're in a period of changes that accelerate on a rising curve. The race will survive, but probably not at the ever-increasing numbers we've seen up until now. I think the death rate will exceed the birth rate worldwide, possibly within the next decade. That's my impression anyway. If disease doesn't do it, then someone's going to hit the button.

What we need to do

Figure out how to live without screwing up the planet. This involves a lot of individual things, but there are folks working on them, which is good. We're heading in the right direction, although the road isn't exactly clear of obstacles.

Cut and run to Mars

Yeah, right. That's more problematic than figuring out how to live without screwing up the planet. Besides, if we don't learn this first thing, we'll just go screw up someplace else.

Stephen Hawkins is a brilliant physicist. He's clueless on this point.

Hmm



That aside here is my outlook on the future.

Weapon technology is the greatest threat I see to the future. It is becoming easier and easier to blow things up on an increasing scale. It is also apparently obvious that there are enough crazies to blow up the world. This threat will lead to a much larger problem. In order to keep these "crazies" from blowing up civilization we will be faced with the decision of giving up freedom for security. Big brother is the only answer to this threat and technology will allow all of our lives to be monitored.

The greatest tyrants have always arrived as saviors.

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

Probably not.

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

1.Population
2. WMDs.
3. Environmental degradation.

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?


Buckminster Fuller suggested something like that but in a different sense than Hawking. Bucky felt that long distance space travel would require a "black box", I believe he called it, that would be a total recycling unit in order to make sustained travel possible. He felt we wouldn't be motivated to develop such a thing for terrestrial reasons so space travel was necessary to focus our technological genius on such a solution. Then this recycling solution could be brought back to earth and applied to the problems of scarce resources on earth.

I'm not sure whether Hawking is saying life on earth is going to be destroyed, so projecting ourselves into outer space is the future of mankind. I don't think we should be taking our ethos "out there" if we can't make it here.

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?
Yes, I do think so. Human beings are pretty adaptable, but what we consider to be quality of life might go by the wayside (as has been mentioned).

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?
I'll give two:
1. Management of scarce resources- Food supply, water, we need better and less damaging energy sources, ect.
2. WMD. I do believe that we might see an end to large governments, as power devolves and weapons capable of annihilating millions get into the hands of smaller entities. If nothing changes, we might enter an age of nuclear blackmail from small bands of thugs, or tiny unstable governments (the same thing). It wouldn't do to be a large rich target in such a world.

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?
Let's see, if we can't resolve our differences enough to survive on the perfect planet we are genetically adapted to inhabit, we could all board some spaceships (like sardines in a can) and travel to a different much less hospitable planet where we could inhabit some collective manufactured airbubble and it would work out somehow? Call me skeptical.

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

Yes; even the worst doom-mongers (such as Jams Lovelock) don't seriously expect that likely climate changes (however they are caused) will cuased the extinction of our species. That of lots of others, yes, and in the worst case, a dramatic fall in human population, but not extinction.

However, I am not nearly so convinced that current civilisation, especially consumer capitalism, can survive. (Nor am I entriely convinced it should.)

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

1. We must develop ways to adapt to the changes in climate that are coming. Whether or not they are man made is immaterial - all the evidence suggests that they are coming.
2. We must finds ways to consume fewer resources as they become more scarce, and to find equable ways of dividing up truly essential resources (i.e. water and food - not oil). More efficient technology will go some of the way to doing this, but I do not believe it will met the whole need, and that Western consumerism - particularly the American version - is not sustainable NOW let alone in 50 or 100 years' time.

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?
Not for a few more centuries, no. Ultimately, humans (or another species that evolves here and replaces us, whether or not they descend from us) probably will colonise other parts of the solar system. I doubt we'll ever get much further than that without a serious revision of what we understand to be the laws of physics.

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

Sort of depends on how nice the machines treat us, doesn't it?


What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

Don't give computers the ability to think, or if it simply can't be stopped then at least give some serious thought to what kinds of restraint we can impose upon our silicone progeny.

The three most important issues we must resolve regarding the continued survival of the human race are probably:

Biodiversity. The loss of species supporting the global eco system.
bio-chemical pollution. The build up of toxic substances in our biological systems.
Machine intelligence. Being replaced by the next level of intelligence.


Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?

No, simply because I don't believe that in the next century, human beings can actually survive in space for long enough to establish a viable presence there. We might just as well expect to return to the sea's as live in space for any length of time. Space is the hardest and most dangerous environment known to humanity and the distances involved and the resources it requires to actually get any where with our current level of technology (or anything we can expect to invent within the next ten decades) prevents us using space as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Poor Dr H must be off his trolley if he thinks we're going any where in space any time soon. Even the most hopefull designs for an interstellar vehicle require power outputs that equal twenty five Saturn V rockets and an extensive low orbit construction effort that makes the ISS look like a kids science project.

It aint' happening in our life times unless some one discovers the secret of anti gravity or something...

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

Yes. The Cold War is over, and complete destruction no longer seems probable. Collapse however seems plausible.

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

We rely on gradually to rapidly depleting finite resources (oil, metal, coal, etc), and we are overexploiting regeneratable resources (timber, in some places fish, maybe ozone if you believe such things)

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?

Interstellar travel seems implausible for a space program evolving as slowly as ours in the short, medium, and probably even long term, and for those who remain on Earth, such travel is irrelevant, unless it carries large numbers of people away, which seems even more implausible.

Terraforming Mars would take more then a century to do, and likely more will and sacrifice then we are willing to commit.

Interspace raw material transportation would cost more then the cargo it could hold, so forget mining...

The worlds we see in science fiction are fanciful but unlikely and generally impossible; though fans of such literature will never admit that...

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

Yes, I believe that we'll make it but like some others on here, I think we'll see a reduction in population and a slowing of the population growth. If this reversal isn't caused by ourselves, I think nature will do it via disease or some other means.


What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

After reading the responses from ADers, reading High Noon: Twenty Global Problems, Twenty Years to Solve Them, and various different publications in the net, I really think most of the problems (such as poverty, WMDs, environmental concerns) can be grouped under one major problem: our lack of global cooperation. While globalization is still rather infantile, I don't think the leaders of the world have come to realize that we're quickly becoming a global community and that the actions taken by one country will affect others more dramatically than in the past. Furthermore, I think that the leaders are still stuck in a myopic, individualistic mindset which is hindering our ability to solve global problems. I think that our leaders think about how to solve problems with "What's best for my country?" or "How is this going to affect my country?” Now granted self preservation is important but I feel that too often countries will undermined the efforts to solve a particular problem because it might inconvenience their country in some fashion. If we continue this self centered mindset over the next century, then we're just going to see "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" and none of the problems like poverty or overpopulation or education will ever be solved and eventually, maybe not in 100 years but maybe in 500 or 1,000, these still festering problems will lead to our demise.

Now, (puts flame retardant suit on) I believe that right now, America is one of, if not the biggest promoter of this problem. However, there's still time and we have the ability to change that. Granted I'm still young, but I've been in some pretty heavy leadership positions before and I believe America is doing a poor job of being a global leader. In my opinion, a leader is self-sacrificing. The first one in in the morning and the last one to leave. Leaders don't think about what is best for themselves but what is best for those they lead and the group as a whole. And most importantly, a good leader doesn't lead followers, a good leader creates more leaders. America has to stop thinking about how it can remain the top dog on the global playground. This isn't to say we hand over the power to the EU or China but rather to get them to become leaders with us working towards a common vision. We need to lead all countries to believe that the ultimate goal shouldn't be total control or to be the world's only super power but that the main goal should be the ability to cooperate with the other global leaders. In my opinion, unilateralism, dismissal of the UN and other global constructs, and isolating the rest of the world is the exact opposite of what a global leader should do.

Obviously this is all a bit abstract so I'll try and use a real world example here. I'm not trying to start a debate on this example, it's just to clarify the above...

Take the problems of WMDs. In my opinion, America should be the FIRST country to disarm. That's what a good leader would do. If we're serious about disarmament, we have to lead the way. Show countries that we mean what we say. Somebody has to take the first step and that's what a leader does, they take the first step.


Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?
No, but it'd be pretty cool.

psyclist, i realize you have your flame retardant suit on, but i must ask...how could you possibly come to this conclusion? The United States has been at the forefront at nearly every technological and scientific advancement made in the past 50 years or so. Thos advancements have benefited every country willing to share in them from the richest to the poorest of countries. In my humble opinion, it is that individualist perspective that we have which is what has brought about such progress. Cooperation between nations is definately something that should be aimed for, but a collective perspective that follows along the lines that we being the richest nation must make certain sacrifices (economic and others) in order to accomadate others would be counter-productive. Individuals and nations should be free to pursue their own aims as long as those aims do not interfere with the affairs of others. This competition has historically contributed to the most important inventions and policies that have allowed us to survive.

As Hayek puts it, Many kinds of economic planning are indeed practicable only if the planning authority can effectively shut out all extraneous influences; the result of such planning is therefore inevitably the piling-up of restrictions on the movement of men and goods. Basically that sacrifices must be made since the ends justifies the means would in the long run hurt the majority of people since the ends of such planning would not be what the planners originally intended.

I never said anything about technology, scientific research. And this wasn't a diatribe on capitalism either. I'm not sure what you're refering to.




Yep, and as the world continues to shrink we have to realize that those aims are going to interfere more and more.

You made the argument that America is the biggest promoter of the problem of a self-centered mindset that helps only our nation and hurts everyone else. I made the argument that i find this notion to be wrong being that many if not all of the advances that the US has made has trickled down into poorer countries and allowed them to experience those benefits. Technology and scientific research area huge part of that. And i did not even mention capitalism at all in my post...so what exactly are you referring to?

How does taking the lead on combating global environmental problems, nuclear disarmament, fighting poverty etc. hinder or supress our ability to come up with new technology? I think we talking about two different things here. I don't think we have a self centered mindset when it comes to creating new technology as those doing the creating want to sell it to as many people as possible. I was referring to things like diplomacy, conflict resolution, treaties etc.

Space travel is not impossible but the technology it requires and of course the economic resources it currently requires is on the fringes when it comes to societal concern. Most things shot up into space happen to come from fear and the desire to talk on a cell phone, most people do not sit around and talk about how cool the Hubble telescope is.

One solution space travel could offer is the ability for people to go into space! Now you might not think it that big of an issue with just a casual glance, but I do not remember many wars being fought over the poles on our planet, or more so the room to maneuver and ability to find resources that someone else does not own or occupy being open, this would in its own way defuse the need for warfare. When you have all of space to move around in, it would require a rather large populous to bring about the need for warfare save some crusader like ideology one might find in the game halo.

I imagine though that current pursuits into space would be done by government only more then just everyday people, which at large would bring about more danger overall in the issue, such as starwars and then the subsequent death of space exploration at the death of the cold war, or not such a vigor for it.

Its the animal and its dreams that drive all of this and give rise to the human experience at large and for what all that means you have a lot of talk and not much fact, save biologists and the likes being burnt at the stake for saying the world is not flat nor the center of the universe. So if people do not center attention at space travel in any major form, that reality will be slow to non existent.

Human population will continue to grow, you have to take into account the means of survival employed and related impact it has on the environment and non human organisms, this current picture is not pretty, and again human motivation to make change in that direction is slow to non existent overall. You also have to take into account the fact that warfare is pretty much a permanent fixture in the human experience, which of course is made worse by various facets of human creation and motivation, such as biological or chemical knowledge applied to warfare, there is a lot of focus to not understand in movement to peace but to deploy armed people as peacekeepers and the inability by people on a whole to live in peaceful national society or international society, even though we all happen to be people on this planet.

I dont find it far fetched that some people do not have a happy outlook towards our future, I personally think ignorance is the worst enemy humans have and the cause of all our problems, and I never really see a true desire to stop this, we simply just allow ignorance to live and propagate overall, so I overall do not find it shocking when people independent of any particular ideology save some framework of research to be down on things

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

Yes, almost certainly. Looking even one day into the future is a difficult thing to do, but such weak and often foolish foresight is vital to the survival of the human species. With that in mind, let me do my best to take a wild guess as to what things might be like in 2106. Some people will live in luxury, and some people will live in misery. Some nations will be ruled by minimally repressive governments, and some will be ruled by authoritarian governments. Sounds like 2006, doesn't it?

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

To limit myself to three, I must speak very broadly.

1. Preserving the natural environment. Let me offer one example of the challenges we face.

Link



Perhaps you don't like amphibians very much. However, out of sheer self-interest, we should try to imagine the consequences of such an immense loss of species.

Add to this the challenges of deforestation, regional overpopulation, climate change, and so on, and it seems obvious that the human species should do the best it can to take care of the environment which allows it to live.

2. Preserving human health. It is tragically ironic that the threat comes from both wealth and poverty.

Link



Link



Add to this the very real threat of pathogenic micro-organisms which are resistant to multiple drugs, and you can see why health care must be one of the top priorities of this century.

Link



Harmless, thank goodness; but the microbial genes which are responsible for drug resistance pass from harmless organisms to harmful organisms quite easily.



3. Preserving human decency. By this I mean the difficult and heartbreaking problem of preventing the cruel and senseless suffering which human beings inflict on each other. Although the first two challenges I have listed can be approached using technological methods, it is more difficult to figure out what strategy works best to prevent people from becoming fanatics. It seems to me that the best hope is to offer as much accurate information about as many subjects to as many people as possible. Ignorance is the breeding ground of hate.

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?


As almost everyone has said, space exploration does not offer a practical escape route for the human species at any time in the imaginable future. In the unimaginable future -- thousands of years from now, when humanity itself will be something beyond our ability to comprehend -- this may be a relevant question. This is one reason why space exploration is not a total waste of resources at the present time, although there are certainly other priorities. (The other reason is the immense increase in knowledge which has been gained, and will continue to be gained, from space exploration.)

We are living in a Malthusian nightmare; but there seems little that the world can (or will) do about it. Charles Darwin held out hope that man would evolve into a more perfect species, but feared that he was already doomed to self-destruction before getting there. Certainly, we are no better for following the Commandment to “Be fruitful and multiply. . . .” Genesis 1:28 (KJV). Ours has not been a history of good husbandry. Man may be master on this planet; but we are rapidly laying waste to the land and the sea upon which we depend for life's subsistence; for when this goes, then, surely as the earth turns, so shall we go also.

Can someone please tell Hawking for me that for all of recorded human history we have lived in the state that he described, and so to take that time and, well, you get the point [and so Victoria understated the point, but she was simply being gracious].

And while most will likely suggest your purportedly more practical means of alleviating this, that, and the other problem, what have some said here? That our growing number hasn't helped. Neither has splitting the atom. So, I would accordingly suggest that neither our number nor the state of our practical knowledge [technology] means a thing. We want to improve the world, then time to change the mindset. And as James Loewen reports, by way of chapter introduction, by way of borrowing from Vine Deloria, Jr., though Vine was a tad bit too pessimistic when it comes to the timing of it, but "Making this shift in viewpoint is essentially religious, not economic or political." Or as I hinted on that other thread, we don't need a new Excel or Word, we need a new system software.

And, lastly, re space, someone named Hawking is already orbiting Pluto. Does he want us to export the mindset we now have? To take, as some have it, our trash into space? And given the physical reality, I am simply left wondering why some refuse to accept that here we are and so time to make the best of it [and, yes, if our sun does indeed go red giant one day, then, yes, we will have that fatal global warming that some so fear]. And, sorry, but one more, can someone be so kind as to please tell Hawking for me that my sinking suspicion is that he isn't looking to space for advancement, but for escape [and so some will leave us to establish that master race]. By the way, that ought to be a fun exercise, deciding just who gets to go. With the rich, savory, and deserved irony being that the controversy over that question might well turn out to be that spark that ignites the crisis that brings an end to humanity [or at least a humanity as we know it, since I'm hedging my bets on this one].

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?

Yes, I think it will be tough but we will find a way.

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?

Food, global warming and energy.

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?

No.

Do you think the human race will survive the next 100 years?
I 'don't doubt the human race will survive in the next 100 years. Mankind has the tendency to adapt to changing situations.

What are the 3 most important issues we must resolve or policies we must change in order to survive?
Apart from pollution, global warming and energy: lack of fresh water could be a serious problem. Although earth has a lot of water, only 3% is classified as fresh water, of which 77% is stored as ice and 22% as groundwater and soil moisture. Less than 1% of the entire world total is contained in lakes, rivers and wetlands. This is an awfully low percentage considering the world population and the importance of water to sustain life.

Do you think that the human race will have to expand into space to survive (as Dr. Hawking has suggested elsewhere)?
Honestly I think this will not happen within 100 years, maybe it will always be an impossibility. There are too many serious technological obstacles.