Did you really mean our survival over the next 100 years depends on getting off this planet and establishing space colonies, or did you state that out of frustration?
If colonization were not possible, what would your solution to the here and now be?
I would really be interested in hearing how you came those conclusions and what your current solutions are.....thx
2006-07-11 18:18:57 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
"Did you really mean our survival over the next 100 years depends on getting off this planet and establishing space colonies"
That is not what he said: "...if humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth."
He was simply referring to future advances in space exploration and colonization.
2006-07-11 18:32:05 · answer #1 · answered by Seikilos 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is postulated by some scientists that every few millenia, by one means or another the human population of the planet has been reducedto tens of thousands or less! Something is going to get us, however it probably does not represent the extinction of mankind.
2006-07-12 02:06:35 · answer #2 · answered by Sleeping Troll 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dear tired_of_it,
Of course I'm serious. Do I look like the kind of theoretical physicist that just shoots this crap out of his proverbial logic rectum? Get yourself on the moon. Or Cydonia. Either way, colonise.
Insincerely,
Stephen Hawking
P.S. Frustration? The only thing that's frustrating is that saucy little Chinese number ignoring me.
2006-07-12 01:25:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have a funny feeling that S.H. doesn't convey ideas that he doesn't believe.
2006-07-12 01:22:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i agree with hawkings. were all going to blow ourselves up.
2006-07-12 01:21:46 · answer #5 · answered by nicholas_dloniak 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋