Stephen Hawking and the human emigration project

[Marzan]

Couldn't really find a topic to fit it in (if the mods can suggest one please feel free to move it!).

Stephen Hawking embraces the Global plan?!

http://www.telegraph...-a-century.html

Although the reasoning ans scenarios are quite different, it's interesting to note some serious scientists are advocating for mankind to begin contemplating leaving the earth. Of course "resource depletion and overpopulation" are not quite as compelling reasons as an attack by the Zentraedi or the Supervision army.

In any case, it's be interesting to hear what you some of you think about the prospect of humanity leaving it's cradle a century from now.

[Einherjar]

At the rate we're consuming resources as a whole, we have to settle new worlds or we'll kill each other eventually.

[RD Blade]

There is no chance of:

• Finding a planet within our reach that can sustain human life.
• Building a craft that can carry a significant amount of us there.
• Any average person finding a seat on the craft before the ruling elite.
• Humanity surviving when its only remaining members refuse to do menial tasks like custodial duties.

Edited August 10, 2010 by RD Blade

[big F]

Well one thing is for sure sooner or later all the oil will be gone all the trees will be gone and the fish are already going, so we have to do something. Either that or get smart limit the birth rate and produce more sustainable food and fuels.

The only other thing is gonna be a future akin to something like (pick your Sci Fi) Judge Dread, the cursed earth or Avatar, a world where everything has been used up, so we go and plunder another world, or Mad Max, we Nuked our selves back into the stone age over some dispute over oil or something similar.

There are many many SciFi books that use these type scenarios as a back drop or story prequel to the novel context.

The other way to look at it 100 or so years from now we have fleet/s out there plundering the resources of the solar system and or nearby systems, acting like the aliens in Independence Day who go from planet to planet taking everything regardless whether life exist there or not.

This way would mean we as a species had learnt nothing or have not learnt to make our own fuels or food supplies.

Although as the saying goes theres always a bigger dog.... Sooner or later we'd come up against aliens who might take offence to us destroying their world.

[dizman]

I hear soylent green tastes pretty good, I'm looking forward to that future.

[eugimon]

There is no chance of:

• Finding a planet within our reach that can sustain human life.
• Building a craft that can carry a significant amount of us there.
• Any average person finding a seat on the craft before the ruling elite.
• Humanity surviving when its only remaining members refuse to do menial tasks like custodial duties.

I'm of the opinion that if the "ruling elite" left earth, the rest of us would be in a much better situation and we wouldn't want to leave.

[Million Star]

Well, I wouldn`t rule the Earth out yet, there is 3-400 years of oil left even without new field discoveries, the air and water keep getting cleaner as technology improves and if we embrace nuclear power then we have a good few 1000s of years to develop nuclear fusion. No point wasting government resources on futile ideas like wind, solar power and planetary emigration in a rush before the technology is even close. Get to nuclear fusion first, then we`ll talk. Maybe even about super long distance space travel.

Also many experts now believe the Earths population will level out and start declining in the next 20 years. This is easy to believe as it is already happening in almost all developed countries and contraception programs in developing countries are starting to take hold already.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Million Star

[eugimon]

Well, I wouldn`t rule the Earth out yet, there is 3-400 years of oil left even without new field discoveries, the air and water keep getting cleaner as technology improves and if we embrace nuclear power then we have a good few 1000s of years to develop nuclear fusion. No point wasting government resources on futile ideas like wind, solar power and planetary emigration in a rush before the technology is even close. Get to nuclear fusion first, then we`ll talk. Maybe even about super long distance space travel.

Also many experts now believe the Earths population will level out and start declining in the next 20 years. This is easy to believe as it is already happening in almost all developed countries and contraception programs in developing countries are starting to take hold already.

lol. Wind and solar are powering much of europe and asia, they're a proven and cheap source of power once you factor in the trillions of dollars in subsidies the US government has spoon fed big oil and coal in terms of land leases, environmental damage the government has had to clean up, the deleterious effects to the health of the local population not to mention the trillion or so dollars we've spent in just the last ten years trying to secure one of those large oil fields. The issue with those fuel sources isn't how much is left but how hard and how polluting they are to retrieve.

In terms of economics, wind and solar both create far more jobs in all sectors of the economy then does drilling for oil which is a capital intensive but labor light industry.

Besides, with an attitude like that, we'd still be scooping oil out of the tar pits with buckets because we wouldn't have spent the money to develop futile ideas like oil rigs and refineries. All technology has to start somewhere, to say that because it doesn't fill all our needs *right now* it's a waste of time and money is not only short sighted but laughable.

[Ghost Train]

The next planet we land on, we're probably going to fuk it up too OMG look what we did to Pandora... oh wait.

Interstellar destinations are probably beyond our understanding of physics right now. I think terraforming Mars is probably the best bet. Then in a few hundred years, we can have the war of Martian Independence when 10th generation fighters duke it out in the 0.333g Martian atmosphere.

[JB0]

The next planet we land on, we're probably going to fuk it up too OMG look what we did to Pandora... oh wait.

Interstellar destinations are probably beyond our understanding of physics right now. I think terraforming Mars is probably the best bet. Then in a few hundred years, we can have the war of Martian Independence when 10th generation fighters duke it out in the 0.333g Martian atmosphere.

And then the Earth will send two prototype Mosquito fighters with adaptive weapons systems in and crush the rebellion!

(Go play Mars Matrix.)

Seriously, though... we HAVE to leave Earth if we intend to survive.

Global extinctions aren't really an uncommon event, and I'd like to think we'd scattered before the next one hit Earth.

We don't need the zentradi to wipe things out. We ALREADY live in a cosmic shooting gallery. And the Earth's had some pretty radical climate shifts in it's history even WITHOUT the help of giant space rocks. Heck, homo sapiens came into existence DURING one.

And of course, ultra-long term, the sun has a finite lifespan. Assuming that our descendants are still around in 4 billion years.

Of course, we will ignore the long-term in favor of the shortest-term we can think of until the day we see a definite doom. At which point, it'll be too late.

Edited August 11, 2010 by JB0

[Snail00]

I'm of the opinion that if the "ruling elite" left earth, the rest of us would be in a much better situation and we wouldn't want to leave.

YES exactly!

um maybe we should include the cast of repo men

Edited August 11, 2010 by Snail00

[wolfx]

So Hawking's gonna set up the Zeon regime?

[anime52k8]

In terms of economics, wind and solar both create far more jobs in all sectors of the economy then does drilling for oil which is a capital intensive but labor light industry.

The future is space based solar power man.

I for one embrace the idea of space based power and the giant robots needed to defend it.

So Hawking's gonna set up the Zeon regime?

SIEG ZEON!

Edited August 11, 2010 by anime52k8

[frothymug]

First of all, props to using Macross Plus music on the video.

The concept is pretty good, but there's many things that are not being considered. There is no mention of the logistics required to get that much material into outer space. The first thing that would need to happen is to create a better propulsion system. The amount of fuel that would need to be spent in getting all that poo into orbit is astronomical, pun intended. The other issue that quickly comes to mind, is how will that energy be returned to the Earth's power grid? Microwaves? I'm sure the answer would be simple, but I don't know what would be the best way to get it done.

The figures as to the amount of power that will need to be generated seem greatly exaggerated. It reeks of anti-big oil. I'm all for going to a hydrogen economy, but the logistics in getting that in place will be ridiculous, as well. It will take decades to switch our energy needs to hydrogen, but that doesn't mean we just give up on it right now.

Another incredible discovery will be the creation of the superconductor. The amount of energy saved by using a superconductor will be incredible. Power companies all over the world will pay out of the ass to build a new power grid on superconductors, because they'll end up saving so much money that's lost during power transmission.

If I seem pessimistic, good. I just can't stand it when there are concepts like this that are deeply rooted into the destruction of the petroleum economy. Even if we remove petroleum-based fuels from our everyday needs, we will still need it for other products, such as PLASTICS!

Imma get off my soapbox now and let someone else do some bitching.

[macrossnake]

We needs to find the planet LV-426.

[badboy00z]

I was watching his show on the Discovery Channel and it got me thinking. How the hell does he know what he's talking about? Does he hold the knowledge of efficient interplanetary travel?? Lol.

IMO finding a more efficient source of propulsion is the biggest hurdle when it comes to sending large immigration fleets into space. Someone needs to make SK's Thermal Nuclear Engine or Star Wars' repulsor lift technology a reality. Lol

I personally don't give a damn about what happens to Earth after I die. lol

[eriku]

The planet has been scheduled for demolition this Thursday to make way for a hyperspace bypass anyway, so I don't see what the point of all this speculation is. Surely you guys know about this? It's been posted at Alpha Centauri for the last 50 years.

[Ghost Train]

Oh crap brb... Buying a new towel

[jenius]

Ugh, the Earth isn't going anywhere. While it's true, spreading out would be a good idea, the idea is way in front of the ability. We could easily do another 4000 years just like the last 4000 years and still have enough resources to make things work. When the oil runs out there will be some synthetic means to the same end and it will always work that way. This is like the whole recycling debate. When people hear how inefficient and generally wasteful recycling is they typically REFUSE to believe it because of just how certain they are the Earth NEEDS them to recylce. It is not human waste or a dearth of resources that will wipe man out.

[eugimon]

First of all, props to using Macross Plus music on the video.

The concept is pretty good, but there's many things that are not being considered. There is no mention of the logistics required to get that much material into outer space. The first thing that would need to happen is to create a better propulsion system. The amount of fuel that would need to be spent in getting all that poo into orbit is astronomical, pun intended. The other issue that quickly comes to mind, is how will that energy be returned to the Earth's power grid? Microwaves? I'm sure the answer would be simple, but I don't know what would be the best way to get it done.

The figures as to the amount of power that will need to be generated seem greatly exaggerated. It reeks of anti-big oil. I'm all for going to a hydrogen economy, but the logistics in getting that in place will be ridiculous, as well. It will take decades to switch our energy needs to hydrogen, but that doesn't mean we just give up on it right now.

Another incredible discovery will be the creation of the superconductor. The amount of energy saved by using a superconductor will be incredible. Power companies all over the world will pay out of the ass to build a new power grid on superconductors, because they'll end up saving so much money that's lost during power transmission.

If I seem pessimistic, good. I just can't stand it when there are concepts like this that are deeply rooted into the destruction of the petroleum economy. Even if we remove petroleum-based fuels from our everyday needs, we will still need it for other products, such as PLASTICS!

Imma get off my soapbox now and let someone else do some bitching.

The petroleum economy has been the single largest source of wealth redistribution in all of human history, funneling hundreds of trillions of dollars into the hands of a few states and more specifically, into the hands of a few families fueling wars, conflict, despotic regimes and economic and social instability across the vast majority of the world.

Americans live in a sheltered petroleum paradise where our tax dollars subsidize the industry, land rights are given away next to nothing, where tax payers continually clean up their spills, where our health care system picks up the tab for treating the communities who live near the wells and refineries for mysterious illnesses and cancer.

If the US government stopped subsidizing big oil, made them pay a fair value for what they do and consequently, Americans paid a more accurate cost for gasoline (8-15 USD per gallon) then you would quickly understand what countries all across Europe, Japan and Israel have realized, big oil is a one way road to economic ruin.

We more than have the economic, technological and manufacturing resources to go renewable energy. If we hadn't abandoned research and investment into solar and wind in the 80's then the US would *still* be the world leader in those technologies instead of countries like German and Japan. In fact, if we had just invested the nearly 300 million dollars PER DAY we spend in iraq on wind and solar we already would have more electrical generation than all of the projected equivalent in oil reserves in Alaska and we would have revitalized the manufacturing sector all across America in the process.

It's entirely preposterous to NOT want to destroy the petroleum economy.

The only thing science fiction about this thread is the idea hat we can drill our way out of the energy crisis.

[reddsun1]

Meh, damned fear-mongers.

Tell Hawking to fetch me a quart o' oil and a gallon o' 110 octane, an' kiss my arse...

[Marzan]

Good arguments for both staying/leaving. It seems that in the absence of an external motivation, the main sticking point is energy. How much energy capacity is left on the planet, how much of it is sustainable, and how much is needed for future generations.

If mankind begins to "mine" outer space in search of raw materials, the main obstacle would be the expenditure needed to achieve this goal. Ironically man would run out of resources, trying to procure more resources.

[Funkenstein]

I think the main reason Hawking is saying this is that extinction level events are not rare, and actually quite periodic, sort of like an interstellar bowel movement. The main cause of our extinction would be an asteroid. It doesn't necessarily need to wipe out all of Earth's life, just damage human civilization enough that we can no longer function in the post-impact environment.

Its asteroids that will probably kill us, and no matter where we are on Earth, the likelihood of instantaneous death by asteroid is still the same.

[VT 1010]

There are a lot of claims and accusations being made all around in this thread (we're already on the edge of politics), but does anyone have any credible sources? You can say anything you want and state it as fact, but how do we know you're not full of it (and I'm not saying anybody here is)? If you're going to make some of these arguments (particularly about energy), you may want to quote some actual data. Just something to think about.

[jenius]

Seems a bit lofty... citing sources requires time and research and nobody is being paid or graded on these posts. I think once we get members who do start citing and then counter arguments with more citing this thread would instantly be stomped for being too political. I think if you want something cited you're better off saying "That sounds like an interesting point, where did you come across that info?"

[eugimon]

that's way more time and effort I care to invest in this conversation. But google is your friend.

There's more than a few books you can read on the subject such as

Thomas Friedman's Hot Flat and Crowded

Jeremy Rifkin's The Hydrogen Economy

if reading isn't your thing there's plenty of documentaries.

Honestly, there's a TON of information out there but you need to get it from sources other than fox news and glen beck ;p

but let's do some math, here's some figures from the EIA

the US imported close to 13 million barrels of oil in 2008 PER DAY, on average oil cost around 90$ per barrel in 2008

13,000,000 x 90 = 1.1 billion, give or take

1,100,000,000 x 365 = 400 billion dollars in 2008, and our oil consumption has only gone up.

So yeah, we've sent trillions of dollars out of this country on oil. It actually makes up a fairly substantial part of our trade deficit. And that annual half trillion dollars? That's not even including the tax incentives we've given big oil and coal, the land rights we gave them on the cheap, the 1 trillion dollars we've spent looking for WMD's in Iraq and we now know that Cheney and oil firms were already dividing up the oil fields before we even declared war, it goes on and on and on.

If you don't want to believe in climate science, whatever, but sending a half trillion dollars every year out of this country for energy? When we could be creating jobs and building a modern energy grid like Europe, Japan, Israel, and even China? That's inexcusable.

Edited August 11, 2010 by eugimon

[big F]

The main problem is not should we shouldn't we, but can we.

Some time in the future the earth is in a bit of a bad way population levels have out stripped food production, and raw materials are getting harder to procure, so Mankind looks at moving out of the house to a new place.

The problem is as stated earlier the cost of energy to get all the resources that are not available in near space, into space. By cost I don't mean $£ etc more how many tones of Oil Hydrogen Oxygen etc. I forget how many tones of Hydrogen and Oxygen it currently takes to get 1 tonne of cargo into orbit but its quite a few. Think how many tonnes of equipment and materials would be needed to build something capable of Stella travel, Light speed capable of not.

Chances are the required amounts will not be produce-able in one country but probably also the ability will be owned by several mega corps, so it will have to be an all in project unless we get one Mega corp going it alone and finding something to own or patent out in space.

Even if the need is not urgent for several hundred years it will still be a costly one.

I saw something a while ago on propulsion and how scientist were looking at working out how gravity works, they said something along the lines of it is a force exerted on objects but is also an energy and working out how the two interact would be the key to unlocking its manipulation. There are some experiments being done including work with the Hadron Collider to try and work this out. Fast-forward X years and we unlock it and use it to get the hundreds of tonnes of stuff in orbit, that would put mankind back in the driving seat.

For all the oil fans and haters out there IMO you cant really be either in this day and age, what would happen say if some terrorist organisation dropped a nuke on one or more of the larger oil fields rendering it/them useless, suddenly oil is in shorter supply globally and like it or not the alternatives would have to be explored. Economics would certainly take a dive and several companies would benefit, maybe they would end up kick starting an expansion expedition.

Maybe afterall it will be something slower like the colonization of America or Australia albeit without horses and railroads, space travel becomes easy much like air travel to day new planets and opportunities are made available and mankind just starts to expand outwards, at a gradual pace.

[Ghost Train]

that's way more time and effort I care to invest in this conversation. But google is your friend.

There's more than a few books you can read on the subject such as

Thomas Friedman's Hot Flat and Crowded

Jeremy Rifkin's The Hydrogen Economy

if reading isn't your thing there's plenty of documentaries.

Honestly, there's a TON of information out there but you need to get it from sources other than fox news and glen beck ;p

but let's do some math, here's some figures from the EIA

the US imported close to 13 million barrels of oil in 2008 PER DAY, on average oil cost around 90$ per barrel in 2008

13,000,000 x 90 = 1.1 billion, give or take

1,100,000,000 x 365 = 400 billion dollars in 2008, and our oil consumption has only gone up.

So yeah, we've sent trillions of dollars out of this country on oil. It actually makes up a fairly substantial part of our trade deficit. And that annual half trillion dollars? That's not even including the tax incentives we've given big oil and coal, the land rights we gave them on the cheap, the 1 trillion dollars we've spent looking for WMD's in Iraq and we now know that Cheney and oil firms were already dividing up the oil fields before we even declared war, it goes on and on and on.

If you don't want to believe in climate science, whatever, but sending a half trillion dollars every year out of this country for energy? When we could be creating jobs and building a modern energy grid like Europe, Japan, Israel, and even China? That's inexcusable.

Unfortunately, our country was hijacked for 8 years by an extremist sect of Christianity that believes that they can be taken up and rescued from this cruel world at any moment.

Hence, thinking 5, 10, or even 100 years ahead is not exactly high on their to-do list. Why bother investing in the future, if the end-times could happen at any moment? Get rich now, get rich quick, and just go with what works now... because the end is near.

[frothymug]

I love how you quickly bring up Fox News and Glenn Beck, even though this discussion has nothing to do with them. Makes it completely obvious which side of the ball you play on. Next time, try making statements that simply discuss the facts, not your political leanings.

So, rather than ring up our trade deficit by buying foreign oil, why not drill domestically? I seem to recall certain environmentalist policies that prohibit us from doing so. Problem is solved on our end and we give ourselves more time to get ready for the hydrogen economy.

[Ghost Train]

So, rather than ring up our trade deficit by buying foreign oil, why not drill domestically? I seem to recall certain environmentalist policies that prohibit us from doing so. Problem is solved on our end and we give ourselves more time to get ready for the hydrogen economy.

LOL... someone's been living under a rock the whole summer. But if you believe in Glen Beck, I guess you feel that Mexico has somehow annexed the Louisiana Exclusive Commercial Zone where a certain oil well misbehaved this summer.

Asking for facts, followed by "I seem to recall" is not particularly effective.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Ghost Train

[jenius]

Whether or not the US should drill domestically doesn't seem to have a heck of a lot to do with colonizing space. I think the broader point is that, absent of a force that compells mankind, the decision will boil down to money. It's like private enterprises going into space. So far there hasn't been much of that because there's no money to be made. Until colonizing planets offers a profit (and there's obviously an assumption of feasibility there) then mankind is going to keep playing in the cradle.

[eugimon]

I love how you quickly bring up Fox News and Glenn Beck, even though this discussion has nothing to do with them. Makes it completely obvious which side of the ball you play on. Next time, try making statements that simply discuss the facts, not your political leanings.

So, rather than ring up our trade deficit by buying foreign oil, why not drill domestically? I seem to recall certain environmentalist policies that prohibit us from doing so. Problem is solved on our end and we give ourselves more time to get ready for the hydrogen economy.

Oh please, get off your high horse, I've listed numerous facts and examples of what I'm talking about, feel free to ignore everything because of one off hand joke.

But lets talk numbers, why can't we "drill baby drill" our way out of this?because the US has around 20 billion barrels of oil left, if we're importing 13 million barrels per day, then 20 billion barrels will last us how long? And those reserves are in places that are hard to get, like in wells 10,000 feet below the sea under another 5,000 feet of mud and rock.

We've had MORE than enough time to switch our economy over, but here's a history lesson.

In the 1970's the USA didn't support certain OPEC nations when they went to war with Israel, in retaliation they stopped pumping oil and we had massive gas shortages. The Carter administration mandated more fuel efficient cars and energy conservation as a national strategy.

This policy of conservation cut into the pocket books of big oil and OPEC and they started delivering oil again. Reagan also took office around this time, froze fuel efficiency standards, ripped the solar panels off the white house, cut funding and tax cuts to solar and wind technology, either driving those businesses under or out of the country so that companies like Sharp could swoop in a buy their way into renewable energies on the cheap.

Flash forward 30 years and Japan has installed more solar panels in the past year in Japan than all of the residential solar panels in California *ever*. Germany is the leader in solar technology and European wind companies call America the "new India" because our labor is so cheap.

So, instead of using the past 30 years to develop these "futile" industries, we wasted them on SUV's, blowing up mountains, two failed wars, and trillions of wasted dollars with no ROI, and oh yeah, quite a few people dead from oil wells and refineries exploding and coal mines collapsing or exploding (that's "clean" coal for you). Meanwhile, US car firms have to license hybrid technology from the Japanese and the Germans are far ahead of us in flex fuels and bio-diesel, China is producing record numbers of solar panels on the cheap, Japanese residential homes are installing hydrogen fuel cell generators, Israel is building a battery highway for plug-in vehicles.

As for those "environmental" policies you're so dismissive of, out of any 1st world country, America has the most lax policies in nearly everything. The problem isn't that we don't let industry pollute enough it's that Americans consume FAR too much.

Edited August 11, 2010 by eugimon

[Radd]

I think it's always smart to look ahead to the future, whether or not we're willing or able to go there quite yet. I do agree that, barring some incredible leaps in technology and a kick in the rear that forces us out there, it will come down to the money. Space is full of resources. The moment a corporation figures out that the cost/benefit ratio is in their favour, I expect we'll be out there.

Of course, it won't be the "ruling elite" that get out there first, it will be those sent to get the resources they want.

Getting there in the first place will require people to start looking ahead. As a species, we're still pretty bad about that. The economy, the problem down in the gulf, and many other issues are, when you get right down to it, the result of people not thinking ahead.

[frothymug]

I have no problem with being efficient with what we have. I wish we could move forward and reduce our dependency on petroleum, but that is going to take a lot of time. That doesn't mean that I can go around bad-mouthing anything that has to do with exploratory drilling and extraction. The US may have 21 billion barrels of PROVEN reserve, but that doesn't take into account the unproven numbers... they're unreliable, but it's something to consider. Canada has a ridiculous amount of proven reserve. I think, second only to Saudi Arabia... It's all food for thought. Remember, necessity is the mother of invention.

However, I blame the lethargy gripping this country's work force. People no longer have any incentive to stay ahead of the game. Everyone's become complacent, thinking that this country is untouchable. Meanwhile, we have China charging up the production ladder, ready to overtake the US in GNP. It drives me nuts that people think it's a great idea to institute a cradle-to-the-grave entitlement attitude. It will just cause people to keep getting lazier, and we stop producing.

What I would love to have is good old-fashioned American pride and exceptionalism; the will and drive to keep on innovating and producing. It was that attitude that allowed us to overcome the Axis powers in WWII, despite getting almost all of our Pacific fleet bombed into oblivion, and fighting a war on two fronts. It's that same attitude that allowed us to put a man on the moon. It's that attitude that keeps other countries moving forward while trying to keep up.

I have no problems with people coming on here and expressing their opinions, but when it's obvious that their statements are politically or idealogically-charged, it really just ruins it for me. I agree that there is and always will be a bit of strong-arming going on in the private industry. Whenever there is a person involved, there's always the possibility of that person becoming corrupted by his or her power. However, the free market will always fuel innovation when it's unencumbered by ridiculous beauraucracy. If we want to progress in space travel, it will be the private industries who will fuel that need. NASA is too bloated and has basically gotten itself castrated over the years.

[VT 1010]

What began as an interesting discussion is now starting to get a little crazy. I wonder how long it'll be until this thread gets locked. Maybe we should start a pool.

that's way more time and effort I care to invest in this conversation. But google is your friend.

There's more than a few books you can read on the subject such as

Thomas Friedman's Hot Flat and Crowded

Jeremy Rifkin's The Hydrogen Economy

if reading isn't your thing there's plenty of documentaries.

Honestly, there's a TON of information out there but you need to get it from sources other than fox news and glen beck ;p

Like another famous scientist said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You do realize that, because you made these claims, the burden of proof lies with you and no one else. And saying Google is your friend is terribly insufficient. Listing those two books is a good start; however, giving actual quotes with page numbers would be more helpful. Would you also mind listing some of these documentaries? You say we need to get the info from other sources. I realize Glenn Beck is nuts (in a generalized, unpolitical manner. These are things he has to work on too.), but what are these other sources? I'm in no way saying you right or wrong--nor I that I agree or disagree. I'm trying to help you (and everyone else in this thread) make a more compelling argument. Why should we discuss matters of science in this thread without any regard for skepticism and critical thinking? This is the foundation of science.

Of course I say this, but it will still devolve into politicized arguments involving Hitler and comments about someones mother...

So in summery, I think Stephen Hawking makes a good point. Someone needs to build a few Megaroads!