If your house is destroyed by an earthquake, you can rebuild another house elsewhere but… what do you do if your planet is destroyed by an imbalanced climate spun out of control? Where else can you go?
Outer space seems the only possible answer, and you might be surprise to learn that it’s not just science fiction fans who think so!
Steven Hawking is 64-years old and an indisputably brilliant physicist. In his book A Brief History In Time, Hawking attempts to bring science to the non-scientist in an understandable way. Topics like the origin of the universe, string theory, time travel, etc., are covered in ways that leave an average layman with an expanded sense of how vast a picture our existence really is.
In my opinion, Hawking is qualified to bring a credible opinion to the subject of planet Earth and the risks it faces. Let’s read what Hawking recently said (Ed.- all emphasis is mine)
It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species. Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of.
-from Hawking Says Humans Must Go Into Space, Breitbart.com, 13 June 2006.
Ok, it’s an opinion; everybody’s got one, right? Why should we give this one any more consideration than any other? I can think of at least a few reasons:
- The man is educationally qualified to speak out on such matters; he’s no armchair-scientist.
- The body of scientific data overwhelmingly support such a conclusion.
- The risk of ignoring him if he’s correct is almost certainly irrecoverable.
If Hawking is wrong, at worst we’ll have spent a few unnecessary years looking more closely into the matter and come away even better informed than we are today. Increasing one’s understanding is almost never an effort from which people come away saying, “Damn… I wish I hadn’t learned so much more about that!”
On the other hand, if Hawking is on track with his concerns then the implications for everyone on this planet are indeed grave. Unlike the house we considered at the beginning of this post, there are no other easily accessible, human-friendly planets nearby. A quick taxicab ride or a trans-atlantic jet flight are not going to get us out of this one. Even money, no matter how much of it we may amass, is insufficient to save us from a planetary ecosystem gone amok.
With that in mind, what can you do TODAY that could help the situation?
- You could drive more intelligently. By that I mean you could make several stops in one outing instead of making several outings. Do not underestimate the significnat impact of several billion people undertaking very small changes in their lifestyle!
- You could drive less. For those of us who have access to public transportation (buses, trains, subways, etc.), is it really too much to ask you to use these mass transit facilities once a month? Could you possibly endure twice a month or—heavens—once a week?
- You could recycle. Yes, I know, this advice has been mentioned so often that it almost certainly bounces off every pair of eyes and ears that encounter it these days. Even so, it’s good advice… sound advice… practical advice. Is it really too much to ask that you put your glass, metal and cardboard in separate bins? No, it’s not to much to ask; just do it! {smile} Please.
I hope this post finds you well and in good spirits. I hope the information herein makes a difference in your life. If everyone who reads this would only act on one suggestions with even a casual diligence, the difference would be measureable and worthwhile. Will you please contribute to this worthwhile effort? It’s the only planet we’ve got and we really ought to consider leaving it in good condition for our children and their children; don’t you agree?
6 responses so far ↓
1 Paul -V- // Jun 14, 2006 at 11:02 am
This might sound a bit wacky, but I think one of the reasons the earth created us was so that we could go out and seed other planets with earth-based life forms.
2 Richard // Jun 14, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I don’t think it sounds wacky, Paul. To me, it sounds like an extension of the idea that an ever-increasing awareness of ourselves and our planet-of-residence is generally a ‘good thing.’
As our knowledge of this planet and its ecosystem grows, it becomes a virtually inescapable conclusion that we are quickly outgrowing the planet’s natural ability to support life of our kind.
One way to approach this problem is through conservation: take steps to help the ecosystem maintain a life-sustaining balance and cycle.
Another way to approach the situation is via space exploration: find other celestial bodies where life may thrive.
I think a combination of these approaches is best: try to save what we’ve got for as long as possible while looking around for other planets/moons, just in case.
:)
3 TommyZ // Jul 5, 2006 at 3:52 pm
The fact is that nothing lasts forever. Conservation is no longer an option
for our species, its to late. The future is space and a new beginning.We should find
a celestial body with a funtioning immigration system. Have a great day Steve.
4 Richard // Jul 5, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Hi, Steve. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.
I think you’re probably right about conservation no longer being an option, though my reason for agreeing with you may be different than your reason for saying so! :-)
I think the capacity to conserve exists. I think the capability of effective conservation exists, too. What I think is missing, and this is the reason that I agree about it being to late, is the willingness of the population to conserve.
I believe there are enough of us that were we all to conserve responsibly (not even perfectly, just responsibly!) starting NOW, things would dramatically improve.
As for finding another celestial body, I agree that’s one option to explore. Even if we were to find one TODAY, however, I seriously doubt that the presence of mind exists among humanity to efficiently utilize said discovery: just as monetary priorities cloud our thinking today, and that clouded thinking imposes artificial limits on what we allow ourselves to do today, I think a ready-made Earth-2 would not solve the problem of human extinction via widespread stupidity; at best, I think it would only delay it for a few more decades at best.
Take good care!
5 wurzbach // Aug 4, 2006 at 11:21 pm
I believe we have already irreversibly damaged our environment and it is only a matter of time until we meet our demise. However if i am wrong, we are not far from making it irreversible. Unfortunately conservation alone will not solve the problem. There are too many of us, the only way to stop the end would be limit breeding to the smartest individuals, not the richest (say goodbye to people like John Kerry and “W”), then you would need to put the rest (anyone with less than 120 iq) to sleep. Alas, I guess we all have to die because the people in power won’t go for exterminating themselves, their constituents, lower Europe, most of South America, and all of Africa.
6 Richard // Aug 5, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Wow! Usually it’s me who sounds cynical, even pessimistic compared to many others but your words make me sound like an optimist! :-)
While I agree that too many in power seem to give environmental concerns too little consideration and corresponding action, I don’t believe we’ve passed the point of ‘know’ return.
I also agree that the situation is much graver than many realize, and that the potential exists for responsible interaction with our environment. That said, I’m inclined to lean more toward your view that the powers will likely not give this matter the attention it deserves until the crisis is undeniable. Whether we’ll have passed the turning point by then or not remains to be seen but in this matter I’m no optimist.
What concerns me most about your perspective is your willingness to kill off otherwise healthy people on the basis of their IQ. I’m nowhere near persuaded that murder is the only, let alone even an acceptible, solution to the problems we’re currently facing. Within your framework of thought, taking your own life–while not my personal preference for you–would at least be within your sovereign rights as an individual but… taking another’s life??? without their consent???
If you carefully think through the moral aspects of what you’ve suggested, I think (and I sincerely hope) you’ll realize the great immorality of taking upon yourself that authority and power.
Leave a Comment