Stephen Hawking Warns to Leave Earth of Become Exinct
Laura (guest) 09 Aug 2010 19:54
Stephen Hawking Warns to Leave Earth of Become Exinct
Forum
» General Discussion / Comments
» Stephen Hawking Warns to Leave Earth of Become Exinct
Summary:
What do you guys think of this and why is FoxNews all over this and the 2012 crap?
Laura (guest) 09 Aug 2010 19:54
What to think of it? Stephen Hawking is one of our, and perhaps all, times greatest minds. Nevertheless, many of his claims over the past years have been far from ortodox and based on his own "understanding" on things. This is just another example of that, and shouldn't be linked to 2012 in any way.
It is however close to a fact that planet earth isn't a long term solution for our existence any more. That's because of future aspects like shortage of food/overpopulation, the risk of asteroids hitting us in a near future1 which could turn out to be global extinction event, irreversible damages on our ecosystems and excessive damages to earth in general. So, in my honest oppinion he is right, but there is no immidiate danger however (we'll likelly not even see the consequnces during our lifetime). But in the long run, most effects are in fact irreversible and will affect our grand children and comming generations, sadly
Footnotes
1. around 2180 that is, so not a cause for concern during our lifetime
Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan
Also, you linked your article from FauxNews. They purposely twist headlines for the sake of fearmongering.
If you read what Hawking says, he says this is more of a long-term warning. And what he says isn't something new and exciting, especially with how vague he was in his warnings.
"Something bad could happen in a hundred, or thousand, or ten thousand or so years!"
Do I get a Noble Peace Prize now?
No, really, read the article before you post it. It's not remotely related to 2012.
"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."
"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.
Hawking is clearly stating that he's worried about human stupidity involving a destructive war, which he's always showed concern over. Again, no 2012 connections at all.
Also, unless it'll scare you crapless, just look at how FauxNews states their headlines. They're written to draw you in with fear or questionable labeling. "NASA to visit asteroid on collision course with Earth".
Yeah, in 170 years, you fearmongering douchebags.
I'm glad to see that others hear know about Fox Noise tactics. They are another of the media outlets acquired in recent years by Rupert Murdoch (like the Hysteria Channel and others). Did you know Faux News actually went to court and WON the right to lie and distort the news?
I would adopt the term 'Faux Noise' for them, except that 'faux' is pronounced like 'foe', isn't it?
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Yes, and they actually are real noise, but false news. That's why I alternate between Faux News and Fox Noise, and sometimes Cluster Fox.
Actually I checked, and History is owned by A&E, which is co-owned by Hearst and ABC, and ABC is owned by Disney.
Mudrake on the other hand owns 75% of NatGeo.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Well, I'm going to have to recheck that because Sidney and I were looking up how much of the American media Murdoch has acquired and I was thinking that Both ABC and the Hysteria Channel were among them. Mudrake, I like that.
This listing shows him owning 50% of the History Channel and 50 % of the National Geographic Channel. I don't know how reliable it is, but I'm going to do some more checking.
Woah. Faux News won a COURT CASE that would allow them to lie and distort news? Could I get some evidence of this, Alene Y? This is a pretty major claim, and no offense but it sounds… well, like a hoax to prove your point.
Here is one of the many reports. I'm done posting here.
Yep, I knew that was what you were going to link. I apologize, but that story lacks so many details and to top it off Fox News were the defendants against two angry ex-employees.
While it DOES allow Fox News to lie as they see fit now, to state Fox News went to court and won the right to lie and distort news if you spreading false truths about something that says completely otherwise.
I apologize for debunking you, and I do agree with you that Fox News is a load of bullcrap… but yeah. Sorry.
PS: Don't be like the woo woos and run away when you're being questioned about potential falsehood. Thanks.
Yep, I knew that was what you were going to link. I apologize, but that story lacks so many details and to top it off Fox News were the defendants against two angry ex-employees.
Yes, ex-employees who were purportedly fired for being pressured to run inaccurate versions of a story. Why do you think that article is lacking details? It explains who was involved with the lawsuit and why, and it summarizes the conclusion: "…the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a 'law, rule, or regulation,' it was simply a 'policy.' Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly."
While it DOES allow Fox News to lie as they see fit now, to state Fox News went to court and won the right to lie and distort news if you spreading false truths about something that says completely otherwise.
That's exactly what it says. To the point, it affirms that FCC "policy" has no legal bearing on whether journalistic entities must report honestly. Since the whole case centered on a pair of ex-employees who were allegedly canned for refusing to make false statements, I'm not sure how one draws any other conclusion. Whether FOX specifically sought the "right to lie" or not, they indeed "won" it. Or, more accurately, they always had it. So, let's just call it like it is.
Even you admit that "it DOES allow Fox News to lie as they see fit," so what exactly are you disputing?
I apologize for debunking you, and I do agree with you that Fox News is a load of bullcrap… but yeah. Sorry.
You haven't debunked anything.
PS: Don't be like the woo woos and run away when you're being questioned about potential falsehood. Thanks.
That's really uncalled for and not reflective of what transpired above, IMO.
I apologize, but you're taking the word of two disgruntled employees who could have been fired for any number of reasons, simple because you don't like Fox Noise, Faux News, so on and so forth.
I do believe the possibility they did indeed refuse to 'spice the story up' was the result of their termination, but automatically taking the side you'd rather see win instead of considering the fact that anger leads to lies is ignorant.
Again, yes. I do admit this DID allow Fox News to continue doing what it does do today, but you can't just take the word of two angry ex-employees entirely at face value. That would be the very same as taking the 'facts' of the 2012 woowoos at face value because what they say has 'fact' behind it.
I stress, again, that I hate Fox News and I'm sure they did this. It's just ignorant to automatically assume those two ex-employees are automatically telling the truth. Even if they were, they lost their case. Justice is cruel.
I apologize, but you're taking the word of two disgruntled employees who could have been fired for any number of reasons, simple because you don't like Fox Noise, Faux News, so on and so forth.
I'm not taking anyone's word. I am simply repeating the result of the suit: "…the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a 'law, rule, or regulation,' it was simply a 'policy.' Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly." Are you disputing the accuracy of that report? If so, why?
Also, why do you assume I "don't like Fox Noise?" I offered no input on that aspect of the discussion. Incidentally, I don't care for Fox News, but I can't call them categorically worse than any other outlet; they simply swing right in their bias as opposed to left.
I do believe the possibility they did indeed refuse to 'spice the story up' was the result of their termination, but automatically taking the side you'd rather see win instead of considering the fact that anger leads to lies is ignorant.
I don't care why they were terminated. Yeah, it's a possibility — a very good possibility — but that's fundamentally irrelevant to anything I said to you. Please read my post again. If you'll notice, I took care to use the phrases "purportedly fired" and "allegedly canned."
Again, you assume I wanted FOX News to get hammered here. How do you know I don't agree with the court's ruling?
…but you can't just take the word of two angry ex-employees entirely at face value. That would be the very same as taking the 'facts' of the 2012 woowoos at face value because what they say has 'fact' behind it.
Where exactly in my last post did I do this? For that matter, where did Alene?
I stress, again, that I hate Fox News and I'm sure they did this.
Why are you sure?
It's just ignorant to automatically assume those two ex-employees are automatically telling the truth.
Again, at what point in my last post did I do this? Also, the allegations against FOX stem from those very employees, so why are you "sure [FOX] did this?"
Even if they were, they lost their case. Justice is cruel.
Justice is hard to find, especially in the system thus named.
My "sureness" is my opinion. I am not stating they did in fact do it and everyone else is wrong for thinking they didn't.
It's a sort of pointless argument at this point, I admit now. My original post in response to that link was in fact not Fox News going to court to be allowed to lie about news. That's all and nothing more.
I got a little ahead of myself, my apologies.
My original post in response to that link was in fact not Fox News going to court to be allowed to lie about news. That's all and nothing more.
The problem is that FOX indeed went to court (they were sued), and they indeed "won" the "right" to lie (though, as I noted, they technically always had it; the ruling simply affirmed that FCC policy is not legally enforceable). That FOX was the defendant doesn't change anything, because it was their actions that precipitated the lawsuit in the first place. Beyond that, rather than settle, they went to court and lost, appealed and won. The devil is in the details, they say, but regardless of those details, that is exactly what happened in summary. One can spin the rest in any way he/she desires, as is the case with anything.
Your opinion and mine notwithstanding, your attack on Alene was unfounded. That's my point.
Thanks Juju.
I was quite upset that Moo just appeared a couple of weeks ago and immediately attacked everything I said, even when I was agreeing with him.
As one of the founding members of our group, although I don't expect any special treatment, I do resent being attacked by some newcomer as if I were someone who just showed up to argue. I appreciate your defending me and reinforcing the point about the Fox court case.
Yeesh. Didn't realize you'd get so upset over it. I apologize again, but I still don't think your reference is sufficient evidence to say "Did you know Faux News actually went to court and WON the right to lie and distort the news?"
Because that's inaccurate. This is actually the only thing I got in a huff about because it's stretching the truth of the case.
Yes, it is possible Fox News does lie and distort news. No, that one article is not sufficient to claim as such. It does point fingers, but your quote is not what happened.
Again, I apologize for being overly aggressive and attacking (…) you, but you overstated your claim to an outrageous level. That wasn't what happened, but that is one conclusion an individual can come up with.
It's a fact Fox News DOES make their headlines a little provocative for the sake of drawing you in, but claiming falsehood with the lack of evidence we have besides a court case where they were on the defense about lying and distorting news and winning that they WEREN'T is questionable at best.
It just depends how you look at the case. It's a shame they won their case, of course, because we know what they do.
Anyway, don't be so defensive and victimized.
I'm not defensive and victimized. I realize that you only came here to argue with everyone whether they agree with you or not.
Yes, it is possible Fox News does lie and distort news. No, that one article is not sufficient to claim as such. It does point fingers, but your quote is not what happened.
Moo, since simple facts apparently aren't enough for us to get at least a tenuous hold on "what happened," maybe you'd care to enlighten the rest of us on what exactly that was, in your view. Whether you agree with the tone of Alene's source or not, it seems to me that one must try inordinately hard, to the point of sheer stubbornness, to avoid acknowledging that FOX both went to court and won. What they won is expressed in the case summary I've already quoted for you twice ("FCC policy … does not rise to the level of a 'law, rule, or regulation'") , but it seems you aren't really interested in that.
Like I said, the devil is in the details. Maybe FOX really thought the story was inadequate and feared the legal repercussions if Monsanto Corporation pinpointed even the smallest inaccuracy. Maybe FOX executives are scum who were paid off by Monsanto to axe the nosy journalists. Who knows? But it's irrelevant. What is relevant is that FOX News went to court and won, and the court ruled that they can lie legally. Period.
…but claiming falsehood with the lack of evidence
Who on earth is "claiming falsehood" here? You have a terrible habit of drawing baseless assumptions and constructing straw-men.
It just depends how you look at the case.
It depends on whether you're willing to simply accept the facts for what they are: FOX News went to court and won, and the ruling affirmed their right to lie. End of story. We need not even consider one another's views on whether that is good or bad, as doing so doesn't change anything.
Anyway, don't be so defensive and victimized.
Maybe refrain from using lines like, "I apologize for debunking you," and "Don't be like the woo woos and run away…." That's some pretty hostile stuff, and that you then implore the person to not "be so defensive" is just puzzlingly ironic.
Moo told Alene,
Anyway, don't be so defensive and victimized.
This sounds like something from a clod on the level of the guy depicted in the lyrics of Put Another Log on the Fire.
Alene doesn't need me to defend her, but I will, because this final cheap shot at her is an outrage.
Do you recall what else you've said here? A few examples to refresh your memory:
You've repeatedly accused Alene of falsehood:
10 Aug 2010, 21:31
This is a pretty major claim, and no offense but it sounds… well, like a hoax to prove your point.
10 Aug 2010, 22:27
While it DOES allow Fox News to lie as they see fit now, to state Fox News went to court and won the right to lie and distort news if [sic] you spreading false truths about something that says completely otherwise.
Any competent speaker of the English language who read that article and its supporting links would find your statement that "it says completely otherwise" laughable.
To Alene, 10 Aug 2010, 22:27
I apologize for debunking you, …
As JuJu pointed out (11 Aug 2010, 06:10), you've debunked nothing.
You also took the following cheap shot at Alene, with the accusation of "potential" falsehood thrown in for good measure:
10 Aug 2010, 22:27
PS: Don't be like the woo woos and run away when you're being questioned about potential falsehood.
In your responses to JuJu, you've repeatedly accused him of being ignorant and acting out of bias:
11 Aug 2010, 06:15
… automatically taking the side you'd rather see win instead of considering the fact that anger leads to lies is ignorant.
11 Aug 2010, 06:15
It's just ignorant to automatically assume those two ex-employees are automatically telling the truth.
11 Aug 2010, 06:15
… you're taking the word of two disgruntled employees who could have been fired for any number of reasons, simple [sic] because you don't like Fox Noise, …
11 Aug 2010, 06:15
[Y]ou can't just take the word of two angry ex-employees entirely at face value. That would be the very same as taking the 'facts' of the 2012 woowoos at face value because what they say has 'fact' behind it.
Finally, you seem to have no clue that JuJu has demolished the following statement of yours beyond any further need for comment:
10 Aug 2010, 22:27
Yep, I knew that was what you were going to link. I apologize, but that story lacks so many details and to top it off Fox News were the defendants against two angry ex-employees.
And you have the gall to tell Alene
Anyway, don't be so defensive and victimized.
Unfold
Re: Stephen Hawking Warns to Leave Earth of Become Exinct by 
Jim Smith (guest), 12 Aug 2010 02:12
Jim Smith (guest), 12 Aug 2010 02:12
Oi. It wasn't meant to be a shot. People are getting really defensive, really quickly. It was just meant to say "There was no need for it, don't be defensive over it."
However, I've apologized four times now, but apparently my choice of wording is angering people further. It is in turn that I shall no longer post on this thread, seeing as it's becoming a 'defend a person who doesn't actually need to be defended over something so trivia' debate, now.
For the last time, I apologize to you, Alene. I did not realize that me calling you out would turn into such a spectator sport. I have no interest in fighting your friends off for something I can label up as a poor choice of words and ultimately a misunderstanding.
Though if we're all going to fight, we're all just going to end up losing in the end. I'll have no further part in this.
I will note one last time, however, that Fox News were the DEFENDANTS in that case. They did not, as I have quoted Alene, go to court to get the right to lie and distort news. THIS claim is what I was against, because it was bogus. That was NOT why they went, they went due to being called out on it, and the jury decided with the evidence given this was not true.
What SHOULD have been said was "Fox News was sued for lying and distorting news, but managing to avoid the lawsuit." This is accurate.
Done now.
Moo said,
People are getting really defensive, really quickly.
If you look at my post again, no one here got defensive "quickly": you had to work at it. You repeatedly insulted them and accused them -baselessly- of dishonesty, then threw that final put-down in Alene's face.
And you still seem to have no clue that you did anything wrong.
You've acted like a clod toward Alene, and if you're any kind of a person at all, you'll apologize.
Unfold
Re: Stephen Hawking Warns to Leave Earth of Become Exinct by Jim Smith (guest), 12 Aug 2010 02:52
Jim Smith (guest), 12 Aug 2010 02:52
Several years ago a man was facing charges for murdering a Six year old girl. He was the defendant. Rather than serving a life sentence, he was only given 5-10 years of prison-time.
Now, I'm not sure how things work in your little bubble, but I personally hold the belief firm, that this man should have faced life in prison or, death.
Being the defendant doesn't automatically make you innocent. It just means that you get to spew more bullshit to try to make your case.
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
I will suggest that this particular horse is well and truly dead.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Thanks everybody. I agree.
To Moo: Fox was the defendant in the original case
where the two journalists who were fired for refusing to report Monsanto's distorted version of the story won a judgement of $425,000. Then Fox filed in the appellate court to get it overturned.
"During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so."
This should clear it up.
Fair enough, Alene. As your stalwart guardians have demanded, I will apologize for a sixth and final time.
I am sorry.
No more now :<
I demand a Seventh apology, but to me.
What for? I have no idea. I just feel needy, greedy and.. whatever rhymes with greedy that is relevant to what I'm posting.
Seriously, now.. It's nice of you to apologize. Several times. There's definitely no shame in apologies. Now I demand that we all hug it out and continue to debunk the nonsense that is 2012 doomsday prophecies.
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
What?! You mean they're not real?!
All joking aside, I'll apologize to you when (insert adult rated content here), thanks. :|
Shucks. Do I at least get a lollipop?
Watermelon flavored, if you will.
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
Very well then, that I can do.
"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said.
With all-due respect to Hawking, the human race is the danger. Granted, we're a brilliant species, but when it all boils down to facts… We're just primitives with guns. However there are some out there who make me wonder if there is something more to our species, perhaps a sliver of hope for our future.
I hope that one day, someone in a new generation will be able to right our wrongs, but who's to say?
Fox News, is, indeed, bullshit. There it is. Blunt as can be. I can't say it any other way to where it's anymore clear…
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
I know he's a well respected scientist or physcist but Stephen Hawking has the most boring robotic sounding voice ever
Does that… what… I… Even taking that as a witty joke (heck, I chuckled), I don't think I can comment there…
He's the most boring ROBOT ever. Not ever one deathray attached. =/
Excuse me? Hawking RAY-diation!?!?
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Mind = Blown
Also, to be fair, isn't Hawking RAY-diation suppose to be the helpful thing that'll prevent CERN's Deathray, errr, the LHC from causing microscopic black holes from eating us apart?
Man, conspiracy theories are fun :D No wonder people do them!
But no, seriously. Isn't that the theory of what Hawking Radiation basically is? The Pac-Man to Blackholes? I'm aware I could google this, but I like to see if my memory holds.
Hawking Radiation is an interesting effect. Basically the idea is that due to the strong gravitational field near the event horizon of a black hole, there is a constant quantum flux of particle-antiparticle pairs that appear, and then annihilate each other.
If a pair is produced close to the surface of the event horizon, then one of the two may be drawn into the black hole while the symmetrical anti-particle escapes (e.g., a positron-electron pair is produced, the positron gets drawn in, while the electron escapes, or vice-versa). The effect is a radiation of escaped particles. This represents a net loss of energy which must come from the mass of the black hole.
As a result, all black holes lose mass. Due to the tiny masses of quantum black holes, the mass lost represents a larger proportion to the total mass of the black hole than it would for stellar mass black holes. Therefore the quantum black hole evaporates very quickly.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Apparently you weren't aware that Stephen Hawking is almost completely paralyzed and he can't talk. He has a computer generated voice. We should have some respect and compassion for a great scientist who continues his work against such overwhelming disability.
As far as his statement about leaving Earth in order for the human race to continue, he didn't mean NOW or even soon. It is what must happen eventually, before the Earth becomes too hot to support life. That will be in a billion or more years when the Sun has expanded and heated up (on its way toward becoming a red giant) to the point that the atmosphere dries out and the oceans evaporate.
Before you all jump on this and say that is 5.5 billion years away, I'm not talking about when it actually enters its first red giant stage. That doesn't happen all at once. The Sun will be expanding and brightening all the way up to entering its red giant phase.
As the person who made the original comment i'll apologize for my ignorance i didn't know Hawking was paralyzed MY BAD.
I thought you probably didn't know that. He has Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease). He is the longest living survivor to date. He has been incapacitated and talking through a computer for years. As you may have guessed, I have a great deal of admiration for him.
Oh, I totally knew his condition. I was just joking in good humor. I didn't make a bad joke, I swear.
Who wouldn't want a death ray?
As an admirer of Stephen Hawking and a brother of a handicapped, jokes of Stephen Hawking's disability, or anyone's disability is unappreciated.
None of our usual posters would knowingly make jokes about Stephen Hawking's disability or that of any handicapped person. The joke, I believe, was about Hawking radiation. If you were offended, I apologize on behalf of all of us.
Pretty much. I think the joke really was how utterly robotic his synthetic voice sounds. While the CAUSE for it is sad, it's still funny to hear him do speeches.
I sympathize for Hawking, but it's hard not to think of the man as a giant robot of death. Or I may be a soulless individual.
Either way, it was harmless. No one here is bashing Hawking for his disabilities.
I wasn't aware that there is something funny about it.
Perhaps it may not be bashing, but comments such as "I think the joke really was how utterly robotic his synthetic voice sounds.", "it's still funny to hear him do speeches.", "but it's hard not to think of the man as a giant robot of death.", are greatly unappreciated and not only is it unappreciated, it's rather uncalled for.
So a person's efforts to overcome an overwhelming disability are a source of amusement to you.
I'm afraid I don't quite see it that way.
Cry me a river of self-righteous tears, honestly. If you two are those rare (as in, non-existent) individuals who have never laughed at something entirely inappropriate, have a medal. Since I know for a fact that isn't the case, don't give me a hard time for trying to help justify Mike's initial joke.
I find the voice funny. I find it absolutely hysterical. Does this make me the bad person you're attempting to portray? No. I find it absolutely freaking hilarious how it sounds. Do I find his condition funny? No. Do I find the fact it's his only method of communication funny? No. Do I find the sound of the computerized, robotic voice funny? Hell yes a thousand times.
I'm not trying to turn you over to my side (there's some irony here considering this website…), but I'm not going to sit back and get the self-righteous parade ran over me multiple times because some people think me finding Microsoft Sam to be hilarious is suddenly offensive because one man uses it as a legitimate form of speech.
TL;DR - If you ever once laughed at Microsoft Sam being used for a stupid purpose, congratulations. You're as bad as I am and apparently need to kill yourself. If you never once did this, that's okay. I could find plenty of other inappropriate things any of you have laughed at and start giving you the self-righteous talks.
Ultimately we're terribly off-topic of the point of this site. I'm pretty sure I don't need to stress this again, but no one is making fun of Hawking himself. Not a damn person here. But I will continue to laugh at Microsoft Sam's voice regardless until the day I die.
Let me state this clearly for people who may get upset at me again. I am not laughing at Hawking. I am laughing at Microsoft Sam. Deal with it. Otherwise, cry me a river of self-righteous tears and let's move on.
Had i know i probably wouldn't have made the comment considering although it's not a disease i was born with a disablity so i probably wouldn't find it funny if someone picked on me because of it.
(account deleted)Hi Mike,
I can't speak for anyone else here, of course, but I think you've apologized sincerely, and that's good enough. How about if you just consider yourself forgiven, and go on making your usual (and helpful) posts?
Jim
"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain
Can we all just get back to helping people with 2012? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but people seeing this might get kinda discourage with the help.
Putting my foot down, right now, and agreeing with JasonLaz.
Comments or, even jokes such as the ones that SiC and Bikenbeer have pointed out belong somewhere else.
There's a difference between having a sense of humor and acting like an adult and minding what you say, and considering that this website is here to help people, those comments aren't helpful in any way, shape or, form.
In fact, I find those comments and jokes quite threatening as it will discourage visitors from posting and asking questions about things that concern them.
Are you going to make fun of someone who's worried about sink holes? If you say no, how can you prove that after the childish behavior in this thread?
Now, drop the subject, grow up and move on.
—
As for the actual subject at hand, Stephen Hawking warns of something real, because one day we, as a species, will have to find another home, be it due to overpopulation, pollution or, the death of our Sun.
He doesn't say "OMG!!! We have to leave NOW!", he's saying that some time in our future, whether it's a thousand years, a million years or, even a billion years, we will eventually have to find another home.
Nothing lasts forever, but our little blue marble called Earth and our Sun has plenty of years to come.
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
Time out, everybody. This thread is locked.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
/forum/t-257993/stephen-hawking-warns-to-leave-earth-of-become-exinct#post-