The "Hawking Solution": Will Saving Humanity Require Leaving Earth Behind?

Humans have always been fascinated by the idea of space travel. Some even believe that colonizing new planets is man’s best hope for the future. The popular idea is that we’ll eventually need some fresh, unexploited new worlds to inhabit.

Professor Stephen Hawking, celebrated expert on the cosmological theories of gravity and black holes, believes that traveling into space is the only way humans will be able to survive in the long-term. He has said, "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 ... I think the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space." Another of his famous quotes reiterates his position that we need to get off the planet relatively soon. "I don't think the human race will survive the next 1,000 years unless we spread into space."

Now Hawking is taking that first step and heading into space himself. His colleague, billionaire Sir Richard Branson, is said to be investing well around 200 million into Virgin Galactic and has signed up around 200 people, at a cost of just 200K a ticket, to follow him into space.

No, they’re not colonizing another planet just yet. Their flights will be short at two and a half hours and the period in "space" will last less than four minutes before the passengers are returned to the spaceport in New Mexico.

The Benson Space Company, led by American Jim Benson, is also offering similar flights into space to a point 63 miles above ground. Since space officially starts at 62 miles, the passengers will have officially bought their "space wings".

So far, the trend of taking rich people for expensive joy rides into space, appears to be predominantly led by the mega-rich hoping to capitalize on what could be a substantial future trend. Benson, Branson, and other entrepreneurs of the private space tourism industry like Elon Musk, the founder of PayPal, Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, and Robert Bigelow, the American hotelier, plan on doing what it takes to help the rich fulfill their fancy. Indeed, looking down at the Earth’s atmosphere (immediately after damaging it with an unnecessary space flight) must be exhilarating.

Is the idea that we should be getting off the planet being used as an excuse to further damage the environment in the name of exploration, moneymaking and old-fashioned boyish fun? Hey, if we’re eventually ditching the Earth anyway, why not trash it up a bit first?

Advocates say that this type of space tourism raises public awareness and will help us get closer to our intergalactic goals. In reality, space tourism (which will likely be no more than a very high altitude trip) will not likely offer any real scientific advancement. The only sure thing is that it will further damage the Earth’s protective barrier, and hasten the day when Hawking helps fulfill his own prophesy of having an unlivable planet.

Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to use our resources to focus on solutions to saving our Earth, rather than escaping it? The truth is that we’re nowhere near being able to colonize a new planet, assuming that there is even a planet in existence that could fit the bill. Lets not forget that such a planet (one close enough to travel to and with the all right factors to support human life) may exist only in our fantasies.

But just for the sake of argument, say that in the next several hundred years, space colonization does become a reality- who would get to go? The problems with Hawking’s solution is that while it may save a “seed” of human life- a few lucky specimens- it won’t save Earth’s inhabitants. The majority of Earthlings would surely be left behind on a planet increasingly unfit for life. That doesn’t seem like an acceptable plan for the human race, and certainly nothing to cheer for.

Maybe it’s time we faced up to the facts that as pleasant as finding a new “Eden” sounds, is not likely to happen anytime in the next few generations, or perhaps not ever. As exotic and exciting as space tourism and future colonization sounds, it’s a hope that can easily be misused as an intergalactic copout. I’m all for scientific exploration, but our first priority needs to be saving planet Earth.

Posted by Rebecca Sato

Comments

[Liz]

In what sense is Richard Branson Hawking's "colleague"?

Liz...He's not...that was poor phrasing, which we've edited. Should be no confusion now! My thanks for the ping! Casey.

[Jim Benson]

Hawking is probably about the millionth person to say humanity needs to spread its genes to space -- yawn!

Short and simple -- if we want to go to space to stay, space has to pay. Taxpayer financed political space programs have accomplished very little in this sense, other than create a bunch of mostly worthless jobs for a few favored Congressional districts.

We need to commercially utilize the abundant natural resources in space -- read "Mining the Sky" by Dr. John S. Lewis. That will start a sustainable space-based economy. Anything less than that is a waste of time and money.

First with SpaceDev, and now with Benson Space Company, I am doing what I can to help make space happen for all of humanity.

Onward and upward!

Jim Benson
Benson Space Company
SpaceDev

Thanks, Jim. You're right: Hawking may be the millionth person to champion space migration, but the other 999,999 were not "Hawking." ; ) Best, Casey

[handsomeboymodelingschool]

So 1 Million people have suggested we move to another planet, but there are 6.5 Billion people here. I think the point is instead of having the "cut & run" attitude we need to take care of our own planet.

[Rebecca Sato]

I actually agree with some of Jim's comments. He has shared a valid opinion. I also want to express that I absolutely admire and respect Stephen Hawking. His opinion matters, which is why he's worth quoting. The man has contributed greatly to our understanding of the universe. Even so, with all the recent hoopla about habitable planets and extraterrestrial life- I stand by my opinion that humanity's first commitment should be working towards sustainable life on Earth.--Rebecca Sato

[Steve Eagleson]

I don't know if moving into space will save mankind, but it might give the planet a fighting chance.

[Steve Williams]

Thanks for your amusing article; it made me chuckle.

However, there are other factors you should consider. Simply based on the fact that we're well over-due a planet-wide catastrophe; such as a meteor strike, we should all agree that it's a logical step to colonise space (or other 'worlds')

I disagree with your comments about damage to the environment at the cost of boyish games or pipe dreams of space colonisation for the mega-wealthy. Space tourism will damage the environment significantly less than the worlds ever expanding passenger air industry has/does/will; a small price to pay. Priorities should be considered in priority order.

You also write that there are no planets we can inhabit? It never fails to amaze me as to how naive some people can be; especially in light of some of the most recent planet finds. Furthermore, the moon and Mars are just two more neighbourly solar bodies that would suit us just fine. If we can survive for years orbiting in a tin can (Mia, ISS), why not on the surface of a close by airless planet, perhaps terrorforming?

There's one thing that is guaranteed; Earth is going to become inhospitable, one way or another, irrespective as to what we do now or in the future. The cosmic odds are stacked against us, and I know who's camp I'd prefer to live in, even if it is outside of my children’s life-time.

Finally, this is a stab at saving more than just our own genetic skins.

[Jack Butler]

Terrorforming, indeed. Freudian halfslips, anyone?

One point the article made was that there is significant question over who would go. How many people are being born every day? I believe it is in the millions. If we cannot send more colonists away than there are people being born, and we cannot, then colonization cannot help the population crush. It might allow our genes to survive (though it would more likely hasten their mutation into something else), but only the lucky few who escaped would be able to put the terrors of Earth behind them. The rest would suffer.

And as for that--the lucky few? How long would colonies be likely to survive cut off entirely from a sustaining parent? What difficulties might colonists face that we have not yet even imagined?

Regardless whether we colonize other planets, we must come to terms with our impact on the planet or suffer collapse.

Genetic skins?

I'm a writer and mathematician, by the way, who has written an sf novel which imagines, in great detail, the terraforming of Mars. I love the idea of space travel.

Just that the answers aint all that easy.

[Steve Willams]

I'm very happy for you in your chosen career. And who better to tell us all the true facts than a mathematician sci-fi writer. You mention this in passing as if it means something? If nothing else, I guess we can all see that you're very proud of yourself; you must have many friends. ;)

In fairness to you; you're quite right: I didn't indicate any time scales or include advancements in technology over 'unknown' period of time; I admit to missing out a few minor complications our species need to overcome for long-term space-habitation; whilst I'm completely aware of the bottle-neck the travel agent neglected to mention, I did indicate that this is completely irrelevant to anyone alive in this century; and finally on this point, I did mean 'terrorforming', which is the only thing humanity is good at in every facet.

However, the things I mention are quite plausible. When I say minor complications, I do mean minor. But then, as you already indicate, no one needs to spell out the details to you... do they.

I wasn't going to depress the readers even further by mentioning over-crowding and the myriad of complications that await an uncontrolled species contained in a closed habitat. But 'nature' does have a way, doesn't she.

Now then, who was it that said humanity will never fly, break the sound barrier, take shuttles into space or rockets to the moon... but to name a few?

:0)

[Don Tomlinson]

Am I the only one who sees the real problem here. We cannot seem to even disuss options without taking a stab at each other like the children we are, maybe we should not survive. If we cannot understand this what is the point? We are still killing each other over natural resources, does anybody see a problem with this? I vote for space and hope we grow up before we go... move over Hawkins I am with you...

[D Smith]

I think that our goal should be to conserve the most complex creation in the know universe (Our Brains) and the realistic solution is to collonise another habitat. Survival is not guaranteed on a single planet. Yes lets do all we can to make the environment last but understand our greater goal is to simply exist (a handful or millions is irrelivant)

[Matt]

Yes we need to get off of the planet, but sacrificing the environment is not an option. If colonizing other worlds like Mars sacrifices the Earth's delicate ecological balance in getting man's genes/eggs out of our one little basket, then this is not an achievment, but a tragedy. Respect Mother earth and reach for Mars. Terraforming is an option, but only in the long term. In the short term we must get off the planet by economic incentives. i applaud the efforts of the rich to bring space travel into the minds and the wallets of the wealthy elite, but i am not going to be alive when space travel is cheap or normalized enough for the public or myself to have any lasting interest in space travel or stay on Mars.

[Deon]

This is pathetic. I cannot believe that so many of you actually think that we'd somehow be able to colonize another planet before our own home is F.U.B.A.R. I love Hawking and have always respected him, but as far as practical solutions goes it's real ignorant to think that going into space is the magic solution we've all been looking for.
"the moon and Mars are just two more neighbourly solar bodies that would suit us just fine" - Dude, seriously, you should play less strategy games.

[Ben]

If we want to colonize another planet to mitigate against the effective eradication of life on earth by some external cataclysm - then obviously the only way to achieve this is for some of us to be somewhere else before it happens.

If we are trying to avoid a cataclysm of our own creation rather than external (supernova / GRB / meteor / comet / wandering black hole) where there is the possibility that if we did avoid it then life would still “continue”.

In this second scenario would the best thing for the world as a whole and humanity long term not be for a global plague to wipe out 75% of the human population today - rest of the biosphere not effected by plague?

This seems the only low impact way on the planet of solving our problems while being able to sustainably recover longer term.

Apart from the fact a lot of people would be dead - what exactly would be the downside of this brave new world over what we have to look forwards to currently.

It occurs to me that we might have some challenges making nuclear reactors safe / decommissioned to prevent decay and leaks into ground water. But we should be able to let the rest of the excess human infrastructure collapse and crumble without negative impact on the wider wilder planet.

[Kahn10]

The environment and space colonization do not have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, to be feasible they must be co-mutual goals. The process of putting even a kilogram of matter into space using the old rocket method is so prohibitively expensive that it will not be what lifts man permanently from the surface of our global cradle.

The aspect of space launch that makes it expensive is the reliance of expanding gasses to propel the projectile into orbit, along with the cost of making the process reasonably safe to do what amounts to putting a few kilotons of dynamite under a tin can with its soft and precious cargo inside. Those gasses are the part which makes it harmful to our environment and will also be the first to be laywayed when we start to exeunt en masse.

We are not yet privy to the technology which will eventually begin the next great Diaspora of man, but there are already plans in the work that might lead us to the right path. The current most promising is the space elevator. This is a pole constructed of nano-tubes (or whatever future material proves most suited for the job) that extends twenty-three miles at a tangent from the Earth's surface. This would allow people and materials to be moved using conventional motors to a launch platform at a permanently anchored satellite in geo-synchronous orbit.

The major advantage to this approach is that it will position a large, flat surface above a large portion of the Earths energy robbing atmosphere and have a physical foot extending all the way back to the surface. In creating a space port we have also created the environment for the most efficient solar collector possible.

This would be a good time to mention that many of the scientific advances that have allowed us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions have been created directly from our space program as it serves as a crossing-point from the theoretical to the possible. If anything the colonization of space may be the Earth's salvation as much as humanity's.

[cden]

While I agree that we should take care of our planet and try to repair the damage done, the cold reality of it is that colonizing other planets will be necessary for the long-term survival of humanity, and perhaps the millions of other species on this planet.

Taking care of our planet is a goal we should strive for so we may always be able to inhabit it, but have some events are beyond mankinds control. Ever heard of gamma ray bursts? Or how about another dinosaur-killer sized asteroid? What is humanity to do if the earth experiences a catastrophic climate change beyond our control? (There is evidence this has occurred before, look up "snowball earth") Not to mention that in another billion years that the sun will slowly start to expand, frying anything left on this planet, but that is a long ways away, so I won't worry about that.

Investing in new space technologies now will help prepare humanity for challenges that we WILL face in the future. The way I see it, colonizing space and other planets will safeguard our species, and despite whatever you're views on humans are, I believe that it is worth trying to preserve ourselves, because for all we know we could be the sentient species in the universe. Surely it is honorable to try to preserve the knowledge that we have acquired?

Take care of Earth, but don't cut out space travel and exploration. Not to mention that it is possible we could one day acquire many of our resources from other moons, planets, etc. once the technology advances enough. (There is enough water in asteroids to virtually supply our for a long, long time.)

I'm sorry, but I believe that this article does not take into account the many benefits of space travel and chooses to focus on how the earth is suffering because of space travel. Fine, let's go live in caves again, and we can become extinct while blissfully ignorant as the next great disaster befalls our planet.

[Christopher]

Finally a blog worth reading. My initial reaction was one of leaving the earth, to find a way to exploit the resources that are within our grasp (kinda). But then it occurred to me that the reason why Earth is in such rough shape is not because of the lack of resources, but because of the abundance of them. We need to stop having children that cannot be cared for. Earth needs a negative population growth for now. This does not mean murder, abortion, and suicide should be morally acceptable. What I mean is that we need to take care of the people that are here, now. God told us to procreate. Well, procreation is consuming us because of war and famine. This is not what he had in mind. This gets to some crazy deep stuff that I can't get into. We have enough here...we just need to stop living out of balance with our home...oh yeah...FUCK BUSH!

[Christopher]

Finally a blog worth reading. My initial reaction was one of leaving the earth, to find a way to exploit the resources that are within our grasp (kinda). But then it occurred to me that the reason why Earth is in such rough shape is not because of the lack of resources, but because of the abundance of them. We need to stop having children that cannot be cared for. Earth needs a negative population growth for now. This does not mean murder, abortion, and suicide should be morally acceptable. What I mean is that we need to take care of the people that are here, now. God told us to procreate. Well, procreation is consuming us because of war and famine. This is not what he had in mind. This gets to some crazy deep stuff that I can't get into. We have enough here...we just need to stop living out of balance with our home...oh yeah...FUCK BUSH!

[Summer Glau]

I'm just noting something here... depending on who you are, you'd say space starts at diffrent altitudes... There's really no universal agreement.

[Summer Glau]

Christopher you must have a problem with Bush or something... (But then again, maybe he deserves it...)

[martin weiss]

It's simple: think of earth as the egg in which humanity has evolved to this (rather immature) stage. If we don't hatch out, we poison/exhaust the resources of the egg and die.

[Karl Zimmerman]

Well, Hawking is right in the long term. Stellar models tell us that the Sun will warm gradually over the next 100 million years or so, to the point where the Earth will be uninhabitable. If we wish anything like the current human race to survive beyond that time, we'll have to move out.

Of course, by then, "the human race" may no longer be a meaningful term. We don't know what evolution will do to us in that time; homo sapiens has only walked the Earth for 100,000 years, one-thousandth of the time it will take before the Earth fries. But there are many global catastrophes that might happen before then, including runaway global warming, nuclear war, and asteroid impacts. Having a presence elsewhere would certainly increase our chances of long-term survival.

But it would be inaccurate to say EITHER that "we have to colonize other worlds" OR "we have to solve our problems at home". We either will, or we won't. As far as we know, we're the first species on Earth to have the capacity to imagine our own extinction. While we have a genetically-induced drive to procreate, we have no genetically-induced drive to ensure the survival of our species as a whole; it's never been an issue. Until now.

If we wish to ensure the survival of our species, I think the best approach is to take all avenues to that end; change to a sustainable economy here, AND colonize other worlds. Try to ensure neither goal suffers for the other. No one knows which approach will succeed in the long run, whether one is unnecessary, or whether one might be necessary for the other to succeed.

[tagway]

This is home where we live and die...

[tagway]

This is home where we live and die...

[Smarty]

You're a moron.

[wim van der weerd]

The 'Hawking solution'? In my opinion this is psychopathological escapism.

HSF is a waste of money, resources, talents and, yes, lifes anyway!