Glad to see the idea of building underground arks mentioned. Usually people when talking about ensuring mankind's survival only talk about colonizing mars. But as explained in the video, it's not a solution to a nearby supernova or a GRB. And it's not as if an asteroid impact would completely destroy Earth or anything. It would make it worse a place to live, but it'd still be better than mars. Earth is not a basket that would be destroyed if someone drops it. There's nothing in space that could damage Earth as bad as a basket in the analogy. Ensuring the long term survival for mankind probably consists in building large emergency infrastructures on Earth. Bunkers, basically. In fact many have already been built during the cold war. Also things like the Seed Vault would be useful. Research into long term storage of food and energy would also help.
the Fermi pardox can't be if that was the one we would still see micro organisms in space yet there is nothing, meteors from Mars should contain bacteria, nearby goldilocks zone planets should be sludge balls
my theory is that dark matter and dark energy are gravity-based stealth technology that hides all other sentient species. the idea is that any worthy civilisation would need to master gravity-manipulation technology without destroying itself before they can join the rest of advanced intergalactic civilisation. before that, even the smartest species are just treated as safari animals living in the wild and generally ignored.
How about instead of trying to make the universe more habitable for us, we make ourselves more survivable, through the use of genetic engineering or transhumanism?
because its easier to build a huge arc and put people inside, than to go to each one of those people and engineer them to survive in a plethora of environments.
That's why we need to develop an artificial intelligence that is comprised of microscopic robots (Replicators from Stargate SG1). This way we can live forever through our inventions.
Weirdly the pbs space time vids have lower volume than other videos on youtube, not sure if its just my computer but without changing the volume it feels like the audio here is dropped near 30% than other vids
its so people will listen more carefully. its educational not entertainment(kinda), so they dont need to keep our attention because we want the information.{i think}
Is it worth it? Our primate ancestors did what they needed to do to continue the species, not knowing that we'd get weak and hairless and glorify Cyrus and Bieber with our fragile technology. I think we owe it to the next of species to enable them to even exist, and let them make the decision for themselves what is worth doing for the survival of the entire species.
+Matt look into the civilizations types and tiers, many theorists explain how civilizations would die from a level 1 to 2. very interesting. oh if you were wondering, we are currently at around .75.
If that's your description of humanity, this isn't mine. We came a long way and if we had discarded humanity for its bad points in the past, we wouldn't be here today. Tomorrow is another deal and, and thankfully, there won't be anymore Bieber and Cyrus, maybe there will be other ones or we'll step out of those kind of things, like we stepped out of many things already. Or maybe the bad is only inherent to the good. Like there is no good without bad, maybe the good itself creates a bad by contrast, because nothing can be all the same and constant so contrast there will always be.
What does it matter if our descendants aren't human? That's going to be the case anyway... our goal should be to preserve intelligent life in the universe.
Not a bad idea. But I think you are just an idiot. Let me guess you don't want a wall. You don't want it because it Donald Trump idea but if you political God Obama wanted it you would.have been all over it and supported. Pull you head out of your ass. A wall is a great idea.
Digital uploads + nano assemblers that can build a body attached to billions of probes (which themselves are created by nano assemblers)sent to every star system in our galaxy and andromeda. With artificial super intelligence on our side, it could be a reality sooner than even the most optimistic of sci-fi writers envision.
As far as we know, we are the only life in the universe capable of knowledge retention and reason. Going by that unlikely assumption that this is true, us dying out would mean the universe loses its only vessels for self-reflection. For this reason alone we owe to the universe to not only survive, but to thrive, learning and evolve to continue providing a service that is as far as we know, is entirely unique unique. I will add though, that when you see fantastically shallow comments like "first thing is to actually make humanity worth saving", kinda makes me doubt everything I just said.
It is in the nature of consciousness, of intelligence to be capable of greatness and superficiality in equal parts. Nothing that is, in its own design, always good can ever be anything great. For we strange vessels, we thinking matter, we rise to greatness only because we have a choice not to. There will always be those whose minds falter, cold, closed-in, empty. But they are the product of a grand experiment of incredible variation and are to be seen as a byproduct, not the essence.
To assume that we are invaluable to the universe and are obligated to thrive is incredibly arrogant. As much as when europeans invaded the Americas and felt that they owe it the world to "civilize" the "savages". Also there are a lot of species on Earth alone that are capable of knowledge retention and reason, feelings too, or have you never had a dog ?
Velko Ivanov I don't know. What else in the universe is there to assign value? With invasions you have humans against other humans and the hypocrisy is obvious. But do dogs, or other species have 'values' like this? Is there anything else we know of that has the concept of 'invaluable'?
Sokar .....To me, that is, to my way of thinking, it's quite limited thinking to imagine that because we don't "KNOW" of other sentient life, that is, on other planets (or even gas clouds), that on unimaginatively countless orbs out there, that planet Earth just, for some strange reason, happens to have the only intelligent life.
Life Before After Well that depends on how you look at it. If the human mind has a fault then we can expect that fault to influence the thinking of everyone and thus their views on pretty much everything. A simple issue could give rise to insanely complex results. I believe this is the case. One flaw in the human mind is tribal thinking, another confirmation bias. I certainly have not seen societies free from 'ancient religion' being particularly smarter than those with. (Putting aside the issue of not all religions 'looking forward to the apocalypse'.) Certainly this year has shown me a surprising number of atheists wanting a Trump presidency to cause mass chaos and thus ensure a faster revolution.
+Gareth Dean There are many caveats I didn't put because my point would need a long paragraph and would be obscured. Probably still is so I'll try to clarify... I didn't suggest there are societies today that are free from ancient religions and that are better. I think that if people were more scientifically literate and applied the scientific method where appropriate in their lives, then society would flourish at a much rapid pace. I'll probably need another caveat here... No, I am not suggesting a darwinian world either. Second, I was obviously talking about the main religions, the Abrahamic religions; the ones that are more troublesome... They look forward to the apocalypse. Third, please provide sources/survey for your claim that atheists are looking forward to the mass chaos a Trump presidency might cause. Your reading of youtube comments is not a reliable source. You are simply trying to draw similarities between religious and non-religious people to imply that neither is better, just to keep the status quo which completely misses the point.
tonee899 Given the recent occurrence of Trump's candidacy a peer reviewed source is unlikely to be available, it'd all be polls and online sources. (Though as a contrast I'd be interested in your sources for religious people 'looking forward to the apocalypse'.) My objection would be then that being religious doesn't change the way your mind works, fundamentally you're still human and still prone to the biases inherent in having a mind evolved as ours has. Scientific literacy has a surprisingly low impact on many things. For example while religious belief and politics both provide strong predictors of belief in evolution, scientific literacy (and educational achievement) tend to be weak or nonindicative. (See for example scholar.google.co.nz/scholar_url?url=citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.547.6811%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm14JtWtzEvw3NvPa7-YS6pZQk7aGQ&nossl=1&oi=scholarr ) In several issues being white and well educated *increases* your chances of disagreeing with scientific consensus. (These are typically 'left wing' issues such as GMOs or vaccines.) Indeed attempting to educate people on such issues often has no effect or simply entrenches their beliefs. (See for example here: pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365 ) Indeed the 'knowledge gap' theory has proven to be at best ineffective and often laughably bad at dealing with unscientific attitudes. ( www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23808985.1996.11678931 ) One can argue that this is a failure of critical thinking, that, if people were taught how to question ideas, given the 'scientific mindset' these obstacles could be overcome. But that moves us from the things people believe more to why they believe them. Especially given the role politics plays in people's beliefs I'd argue that religion is only a part and not a particularly special part of what affects our progress. We find extremism and unscientific thinking everywhere we look, from communist Russia and its Lamarckian genetics to eugenics to psychology's continuing dabblings in race and intelligence to the modern 'skeptic' movements backing conspiracies. In the end science is hard, you have to put aside natural human biases, which we often do very poorly. I am skeptical that something as amorphous and varied as religion is the be-all and end-all.
Extinction proofing idea: re-invent our monetary/economic systems to produce efficient, stable, and healthy societies that actually have the energy and collective intelligence to progress technologically.
We've been trying to do that for about forty years with absolutely nothing to show for it. If we have to wait until every belly in the third world has been filled, and until every inner-city addict has been cured, then we are doomed.
Gustav Babic WTF are you talking about? We throw people in jail for using minuscule amounts of drugs and in doing so ruin them psychologically. Only country that has tried what i'm talking about is Portugal and the results are far less drug use and less prisoners.
TRIBUTE TO NEAL STEPHENSON Neal Stephenson is one of the most important science fiction authors of our time, known for his grand scope, intricate plots, and deep exploration of complex ideas. His work has had a profound impact on popular culture, blending science fiction with other genres and featuring witty dialogue and clever observations. Stephenson's novels have won numerous awards and continue to be enjoyed by readers around the world. Notable works: Snow Crash Diamond Age Cryptonomicon The Baroque Cycle Seveneves Adaptations: Snow Crash (TV series) Cryptonomicon (video game) Stephenson is a true master of his craft, and his work is a testament to his visionary mind. *LOVE FROM INDIA*
Most people wouldn't be, even with a lottery system or something like that to give normal people a chance there would still be a large percentage of the population who would rather enjoy their last days rather than try to help some strangers survive.
"Future proof humamity"? How daft. Have you forgotten about evolution? And which future exponentially-evolving human species would you be referring to. Please give more practical videos next time.
The ideal solution to extinction-events? "If you don't push this button, this facility will assume there is no one left and reboot humanity automatically." At this point we understand biochemistry and nuclear technology well enough to know that you can make a cloning facility which can clone and raise humans without any input. The cloning bit isn't even that much beyond current technology (although the artificial womb may be). The hardest part is a computer which can raise human children. That's very ambitious and not something I'm entirely comfortable with. That said, it is far more practical to send a facility which can create any Earth creatures it needs--humans included--to the stars than it is to make something big enough to hold breeding populations. Unless we get a working FTL, this is how we will realistically colonize the stars.
As far as our almost not even human ancestors go, think back to where our current species came from. Our ancestors were able to survive extinction events millions of years ago without any technology that comes even close to rivaling our own now. Sure, they weren't as catastrophic as a gamma burst or super nova, but they survived. It should be our duty to provide the same kind of hope for a future to our descendants that our ancestors gave to us, even if they didn't know it at the time.
We barely survived a supervolcano even a few thousands years ago, not a mass extinction. So you are saying "we survivde a fall from the second floor. This wasn't as catastrophic as a fall from a flying plane but we should be ok".
David Sbabo Reading comprehension isn't quite your forte. And yes, that's exactly the point of my comment: given your analogy if 1 guy in a million survives the human species does not go extinct.
I had an idea earlier today. In the event of a large asteroid, if we had enough time to know its impending arrival and prepare for it, what if we put it in orbit around Earth? To be clear, it would be a very large and controlled orbit that we would have to make sure did not get out of control at any point, but this is beside the point. If we put a relatively small asteroid (under 500m-3km in diameter) in a stable orbit, we could then proceed to mine it and ship its internal components back to Earth for study and use. Economic crash of the Iridium/platinum markets asside, this would be a huge leap forward in our space-faring technology, and -more importantly- in the number of, and scope of, competitive companies seeing space as a way to make money. Thusly pushing more competition to get into space as a way to make money and, consequentially, making better technology for humans to survive in space, as well as perhaps space hotels, space ports, etc. This is all just my wild speculations, but it would be very interesting to see it come into play in the near future.
''everyone in the world'' ahaha, the chavs and wannabe gangasta's probably don't know what an asteroid is... I'm sorry but a very, very small proportion of humanity would be willing to help, let alone have the knowledge to help.
My thinking is we should already be pushing outwards. use the suns energy to power material refinement in the asteroid belt to produce the materials needed to build generation ships, slingshot around jupiter an out of the solar system. Maybe snagging some comets in the oort cloud for extra water/fuel. it might even be possible to hit some of the giant icy objects in the oort cloud with something like a rail gun to destabilize them into an ejection path, then just ride the dwarf planet to a new solar system. Make sure there are a variety of materials available on the ship and have a massive radio transceiver facing back towards Earth so if, for instance, Earth doctors crack suspended animation for humans, the generation ship can take advantage of it.
With the current lack of immediate threats, we should focus on more immediate problems for the time being. Once we've achieved wold peace, defeated disease and world hunger and got all of humanity living in a post-scarcity world, creating dozens of contingency plans for when life on earth experiences a really bad days at the office should be a piece of cake. We've made it so far, what's another hundred years or so?
Maybe you want to adjust your time frame, another hundred years or so won't be enough to begin to address the "immediate" threats you listed. Although I agree they are the most important issues to resolve in any long term plan for humanity.
We dont know how many time those problems will take to be solved, also trying to avoid our extincion is a pretty good way to solve some of the problems you listed above, example: we colonize mars, we have more terrain to inhabit, so we can balance population in both planets, more resources (and so less need for war) and also we can grow more food (so we can solve hunger).
go underground or build some kind of magnetic field amplifier in important city/colony places with advanced green houses. or splice cockroach DNA into people which ever is more cost affective
I liked the idea of deep underground shelters to protect from a gamma ray burst. Mars seems like it would be a good candidate for that sort of idea, since it's much less geologically active than Earth and has near-Earth gravity, right? Alternately, we could probably arrange space arcs that are permanently out of the line of sight of any star threatening to go all gamma on us.
Underground Moon Colony It solves several problems at once. Firstly, it protects against huge radiation bursts. Secondly, it moves humans off of Earth, safeguarding the species from biosphere-destroying events that might only affect Earth (volcanoes, evolution, asteroids). Underground moon colonies are naturally shielded from solar winds, which is a classic lunar colonization issue. Being underground can also solve structural issues that come with maintaining a pressurized atmosphere on the moon, and circumvents some of the materials cost of constantly building sealed structures on the moon when more colony space is needed. The moon is also the only extraterrestrial body we have already been to, so we as a species know we can get back there more easily than other bodies like Mars, Venus, or Jovian moons. That said, we still have all of the problems that normally come with living on another planet, including not having any atmosphere and decreased gravity.
Love the channel, two part question. 1. If we were to identify an impending supernova that is a GRB candidate, do we have a means to predict the orientation of the blast? 2. Are GRBs that are not oriented directly at us detectable? Perhaps through reflection or scattering effects?
What about capturing bigger rocks than any that could hit us, and keep them in orbit so in case of an emergency we can slingshot our own towards the oncoming one. In regards to gamma ray burst, with in the next 550m years before the next estimated one, I'm sure it will be possible to eclipse the width of the burst with the moon, harvesting pure sun energy and building planetary/lunar thrusters, whats your take?
keeping objects large enough, even to just "punt" dooms-day like objects away.. means vastly changing our own Earth's planet.. sea would rupture, seasons would be beyond fucked up, we could have so much less solar light that our plant life dies.. and then it becomes a question of "how big is the next big thing going to be?" as for Gamma Bursts.. just one thing in that to kinda though the idea off.. the planet would die if he moved it. light is a wave and warps around objects. the distance needed for earth itself to be survivalable seems way too steep for any number of people to keep up with it.
In my opinion, it's simple: it doesn't matter how, just set up some interplanetary and/or deep underground colonies that are large enough and sufficiently equipped to survive indefinitely and equipped to, if not found colonies, at least interact with others. Going interplanetary isn't just a survival strategy, it's an inevitable future.
"Is it worth it for the sake of some not-quite-human descendants" I answer with a question, where would we be if our ancestors found it 'not worth it' to preserve themselves when faced with extinction?
Imagine this, a few thousand years after the big impact the descendants of the survivors who emerged from the underground shelters are now beginning to merge their isolated farming and fishing communities into permanent villages. The villagers appoint leaders to help coordinate and guide their efforts. After a few more thousand years these leaders become kings, and then pretty soon open warfare on Planet Earth re-emerges. However, the fighting will be more like the battles that occurred between ancient Sumer and Elam, than anything that occurred prior to the big impact. Mostly stone axes, and maybe a few weapons crafted from slag minerals harvested from the ancient buried metropolises, and that's about it. Eventually one of the petty kings will defeat his neighbour, and then he will decide that he must build a huge stone monument to commemorate his victories. Thousands of slaves are rounded up and are put to work chiselling limestone with copper tools. And the cycle repeats itself without anyone knowing what came before. The idea of a future group of slave pointlessly constructing pyramids under the crack of a whip sends chills down my spine.
Dorient François There is no doubt that we cannot see the future. However, if it appears that our civilization is facing a collapse, then we should take every step possible to prevent that collapse. If even a handful of humans manage to survive the collapse of our civilization, then eventually they're descendants will probably try to organize themselves into competing factions, because that is human nature. Most likely this will mean future dark-ages, slavery, and wars. I think that it's best if we can avoid having to repeat the bronze-age / iron-age, and if we can hold onto what we have.
Since gamma ray bursts only last a short time. If there are moon bases on different parts of the moon, then those facing away from the gamma ray burst would survive. Problem solved. You can thank me now :-)
Gareth Dean This would be thousands or millions of years in the future. By then, they would have huge bases with thousands of people, and would be self sufficient, by mining and growing their own food.
its irrelavant, unless it will be a challenge to build a space ark or colonize some where by then. If that is so, then we might as well mention the heat death of the universe.
Honestly, if we aren't dead or scattered by then, we just aren't trying and can deal with the results of being an entire species of worthless couch-potatoes, too damn bad for us.
Compguy321 Why return?? We could keep the ark up indefinitely and run a shuttle between it and Earth. The folks on the ark could benefit from advances in Terrestrial technology and people would have the freedom to come and go.
Seriously, Space Time and MagicScrumpy are the greatest things to ever happen to TH-cam. I've honestly learned so much from this channel, about General and Special Relativity, to Dark Energy and the expansion of the universe, to Quantum Mechanics. This channel is honestly one of my favorite channels and I always get really really excited when I see a new video (along with MagicScrumpy). Thank you so much.
Loved your approach to this issue. You covered some questions I haven't heard or thought of. Eventually, I think we'll send life on a one-way trip if for no other reason than we'll have done everything else. But if and when future generations visit will they be us anymore?
My idea: 1) Build computer to upload our minds/consciousness. 2) Send them across the galaxie to form a galactic supercloud of minds. 3) Build human like robots we can "impersonate" with those minds.
I just hope we first survive capitalism first. (or neo liberalism, to be more precise) PS: That doesn't imply that communism or socialism is the answer.
Well this is the video I have been waiting for. I think it is the essential purpose of all life to eventually leave behind its home planet and eventually it's home star. Anything else leads to extinction. I really doubt we will ever find faster than light travel to be possible. The universe doesn't have to give us way to make it easy. I think our current work with probes is the right direction. If we could eventually have AI controlled ships that could scout near by stars, and create new scout ships with the materials in each new solar system it reaches, they could then get the information on if and where to send terraforming ships to which systems. Hopefully to only have to tweak planets that are already close to habitable. If we had ark style ships that could travel to another star while holding its people for generations they could get to the stars. Maybe even without the need for more than a generation or two. The last and third phase though being the transport of people to the new star systems.
If we found a way to survive in structures extremely close to the sun, we could build six of them, one per vector, and In this way, even if a nearby star explodes the sun itself would protect at least half of the structures. Plus, being so close to the sun we would have a near unlimited power supply.
if we build something to absorb that energy( gamma ray burst ) , then we can use it to travel in space or 'maybe' use it to create a worm hole. That would be awesome.This can help us to escape any kind of extinction.
lol 'Colonies are insurance against global annihilation.' So now we get to talk about our new subject with the addition of "multi"...for our new....wait for it... "multi-global annihilation" problem. Aren't colonies mankind's leading, long term, cause of war? Establish colony, give it around 100 years to cook, then watch it explode into war. How is space going to be any different? No one will go all in and make space colonies happen until there is something worthwhile to exploit. So, we have exploitation, and an isolated service based population.. hmm... that's never happened before...
6:18: "...NASA's Near Earth Object program has located 90% of objects larger than 1km in diameter that cross the earth's orbit." That's... an interesting assertion. Hmm... neo.jpl.nasa.gov/stats/ Ah. Got it. Look at that curve flattening out.
Random Question appeared in my Brain recently: E=mc^2 means the same as "Energy=low amount of mass/matter" (howsoever you call it) to say that simple: Energy=mass Now my Question: Does Energy cause Gravitation? (To be more precise: 1 Part Energy causes as much Gravitation as 1/c^2 of 1 Part matter? (hopefully i didn't mess up sth xD)) I hope you understand what I mean xD
Can we save humanity by colinising other planets? If we live on different planets in the solar system, milky way or even another galaxy. The worlds are so far apart we would diverge into different species as we are formed by different pressures. Then would those species see each other as friends or as foe's? Perhaps evy each other for wealth or health. If two neighboring countries on earth can't unify and so fight other, why would that be different interplanetary? Let's fix ourselves and live in peace here on earth, for the time we have left. For otherwise, we will become the aliens we fear!
Could a star collapse into a black hole, not really close enough to drag us in or anything but maybe close enough to disrupt planet orbits? Perhaps as far as removing several or all from our system? Or would our suns gravity balance it out. Or am I totally off my rocker. ;-)
1.For protection against our own planet, we can get cover underwater. Why don't we start building under water? We have like 70% more free surface to build on it, but why stop there? The volume is huge. 2.Also, speaking of advanced civilizations and Elon Musk's Space X corporation which promises cheaper flight programs: why not building a lead Dyson sphere or a similar structure (some kind of modular panels with spaces in between) around our planet, the side facing the sun could be covered with solar panels and the other side it could be covered in lead? Lead is known to absorb Gamma rays...
Meteor-Proofing humanity is perhaps the most straightforward engineering challenge. We can use a high powered laser array to produce jets of material that would change the orbit of the offending space rock. From what I know, lasers are the best tech on hand for changing the orbits of comets and asteroids. GRBs and Super/Hyper Novae are a bit trickier. Further development in Arcology; self-sustaining cities, could prove promising. If we built Arcology Complexes in the sub-surfaces lava tubes of Mars and Luna, it would be for the inhabitants as if nothing happened. Earth's active geology makes this strategy less viable.
Great channel, although this video seemed a little underwhelming. As an engineer with 20 years+ building large projects with habitability as a constraint, I would say 2 years to build any kind of "arc" is way over optimistic. Just the pre-conceptual design phase would be a challenge. I would first formally categorize all of the hazards and look at time at risk to decide how to prioritize. Most likely an earth based arc will be the first priority again assuming the goal is to only preserve the species (not all 7 billion people). A more realistic approach will likely to assume the next say century will be time at risk (no real defence), but rather keep our current tech development and industrial trajectory increasing. Then is say maybe 100 years, we should have much more ability to do the enormous projects required for some form of meaningful arc. Examples of tech/infrastructure could include such things as: 1) Fusion power, 2) Better materials from nano-scale engineering, 3) Improved analytical tools for chem/bio tech. 4) Rapid prototyping/manufacturing systems. 5) Better medicine (especially Psychology). 6) Advances in other areas such as education and government. Sorry for sounding a little Ayn Rand-ish, but at our current state of engineering, anything built in the next few decades probably will not serve as a real defence for more than the same amount of time.
So, survivability. First, bioengineering: sufficiently advanced bioengineering can virtually make us immortal, as well as ended our reliance on farm animals and exposed-to-the-weather farming. Second, genetic engineering: this will remove countless diseases, allow us to survive far more hazardous climates, and, if sufficiently advanced, make us virtually immortal. Third, nanotechnology: increased sophistication of nearly every technology known to humanity, including safer and cheaper space travel, and, if sufficiently advanced, make us virtually immortal. Fourth, robotics: increased construction and mass production capabilities, removal of many labor-intensive jobs - allowing humans to focus on things that require intelligence and/or creativity. And I could go on, with, f.ex. neuroscience, medicine, physics, etc. Some specific technologies: -3D-printing: increased construction capabilities. -4D-printing: less maintenance needed, increased construction capabilities. -AI: removal of many repetitive jobs - allowing humans to focus on things that require intelligence and/or creativity. And I could go on, with, f.ex. metamaterials, holography, lasers, etc. All of the above, however, only (dramatically) increase our chances of survival if we chose one, or more, of the already mentioned options - space habitat, underground city, interstellar settlements, etc.
Ok so we know what to do to be safe: become interstellar or we need to go deeper Roadmap Interstellar: 2050 - first light sail / laser based interstellar micro sat 2100 - first scalable EM drive (assuming that it IS possible and the scientists on the right track with the running experiments) 2150 - first macroscopic interstellar satellite launch (called MIS now) 2200 - MIS reaches 0.5c and starts breaking 2250 - MIS reaches the 30LY barrier 2280 - we learn about MIS reaching the barrier 2300 - Ark gets build now with Gen 2 IS drives Problems to overcome: -how to survive without sunlight -how to get energy worth tens to hundreds of times the energy in all fossil fuel reserves in space -genetic diversity -renewable food resources Roadmap Great Residential Bunker (GRB): 2050 - GMO algae capable of driving oxygen production for GRB 2100 - better start drilling (don't forget to plumb the ocean into the ocean into the cave 2200 - humanity is sort of secured Problems to overcome here are similar but since we need access to the ocean anyway it should be possible to insulate the glorified pipes in such a matter that the temperature difference to the earth down there gives us unlimited energy Since we basically have less problems staying on earth and we'd be able to use the acronym GRB (Great Residential Bunker) for our plan I guess it isn't really worth going interstellar to safe humanity. Also we would sort of split humanities evolution into 2 separate lines when going the hard way which may or may not be a good thing to conserve mankind depending on whether you would consider both lines mankind or not. now to critique on this video: I didn't like the interview part too much, it felt a lot like promo for the book (i know that interviews are some kind of advertising in almost all cases, but it doesn't have to feel that way). Though the idea of bringing people into the show ain't bad. Maybe you could bring in some other scientists in the future
Actually, I think the movie "WALL-E" depicts a quite plausable scenario, which can make a valid option with some fine tuning. And yeah, probably it is something that was mentioned in other sci-fi as I imagine, but I usually read different kind of fiction. In my opinion engineering a great, self-sustainig vessel (near perfect cycle of matter and energy reuse), and through predictions and calculations (for which we already have a good base information, thanks to social webs, and a wide range of psychological tests) assembling the crew of say X (for the calculation of X you need to consider the genetic/material AND the complex behavioural factors of our species, the closest estimate by the smartest biologist I spoke to, is somewhere between 1300-1800 carefully selected individuals) and sending them into the most promising direction could really be a strong choice. The way I see it with the population boom in the 20th century, and with the first alpine-style ascent to Everest in 1978 (not taking away any credit from Hillary and Tenzing) we ended both our numerical, and physical expansion in our natural habitat. We are in a way more diverse than ever before. So if for not solely for security but rather probability reasons, it is high time we actually get into this. Moreover, a confined experience like an interstellar voyage could be for the better of our species. In a very finite space, you have to maintain physical efficiency, while also adressing the needs of the complex human mind. How should this be achieved? Well thats something one cannot solve on their own. Should we launch the vessel with many infants and a few "elders" or handpick them and hope they don't freak out? Should we keep in touch with with home-base, or should this be a completly new branch of our kind, like homo sapiens itineris? There are certainly many things to be debated on. In my opinion One thing is for sure though. The trip needn't be Mfalconfast. History has many examples, that rapidly changing locations on a big scale is not always the best thing to do, and most invasive species of plants and animals will strongly disagree with me perhaps. Many bad things came out of the fast exporting and unleashing of new material or immaterial packets of information on pristine land. We shouldn't just carry our current human ways to other systems, we should first get used to being in space, enjoy the ride so to speak. And like a great guys before me said: "Remember, baby steps" :)
![[Live] ศึกมหึมันส์มวยไทยสังเวียนเดือด เวทีมวยชั่วคราวสวนสยาม | จันทร์ 30 กันยายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pM1k6f7JXUc/mqdefault.jpg)
Build a WALL ! around earth
But that would be racist towards aliens!
You definitely get a spot on the ark
Afonso de Portugal who cares aliens are rapist with thier huge diks
+msms47 Damn Aliens, taking our JOBS!
And make the space aliens pay for it!
People say like "great video", when the episode is 13 min long and has been released 2 min ago
?
relativity?
Next week's video was also great!
That's not a accurate time. bud.
I have 8 screens and watch 8 different 100 second segments all at the same time thus I can watch the entire video in about 100 seconds. Cool huh?
Best humankind survival technique? education and get rid of nukes
nuclear weapons are also a good deterrence.
+fredthemanish back to the vat Nixon, and take Agnew with you!
And when an asteroid threatens Earth, what will we nuke it with? Chinese take-away?
When Will You Learn? No, but you can use Chinese take-away to make a gravitational pull on the asteroid and change the trajectory of the asteroid.
I really hope that this is the plot for Armageddon 2!
Glad to see the idea of building underground arks mentioned. Usually people when talking about ensuring mankind's survival only talk about colonizing mars. But as explained in the video, it's not a solution to a nearby supernova or a GRB. And it's not as if an asteroid impact would completely destroy Earth or anything. It would make it worse a place to live, but it'd still be better than mars. Earth is not a basket that would be destroyed if someone drops it. There's nothing in space that could damage Earth as bad as a basket in the analogy.
Ensuring the long term survival for mankind probably consists in building large emergency infrastructures on Earth. Bunkers, basically. In fact many have already been built during the cold war. Also things like the Seed Vault would be useful. Research into long term storage of food and energy would also help.
We are doomed. That's why the Fermi paradox exist. Everyone has died.
read the three body problem and the dark forest.
+Teddy Couch We are already dead. This is hell.
the Fermi pardox can't be if that was the one we would still see micro organisms in space yet there is nothing, meteors from Mars should contain bacteria, nearby goldilocks zone planets should be sludge balls
To be fair, they might be; we have nowhere near the resolution so spot sludge on nearby planets.
my theory is that dark matter and dark energy are gravity-based stealth technology that hides all other sentient species. the idea is that any worthy civilisation would need to master gravity-manipulation technology without destroying itself before they can join the rest of advanced intergalactic civilisation. before that, even the smartest species are just treated as safari animals living in the wild and generally ignored.
But why is there hair around Uranus?
Did you come from scishow?
wrong channel bro
Pretty darn sure theres more hair around Uranus!
+Magical Drizzle i dont get a lot of hair around Myanus.
OMG I was literally going to reply exactly that! Just "wrong channel bro". I hadn't even checked the earlier replies.
How about instead of trying to make the universe more habitable for us, we make ourselves more survivable, through the use of genetic engineering or transhumanism?
... smart, but the most reliesilent creatures are microscopic and simple. so we have a crappy paradox.
because its easier to build a huge arc and put people inside, than to go to each one of those people and engineer them to survive in a plethora of environments.
That's why we need to develop an artificial intelligence that is comprised of microscopic robots (Replicators from Stargate SG1). This way we can live forever through our inventions.
There won't be enough support for it as it will be seen as inhumane and wouldn't be allowed to happen
+Matthey Thomas Pfff give it a hundred years... Or preferably less.
first thing is to actually make humanity worth saving
good point
It BEGINS right now.
And it's true at any instant.
Potential is enough. Worthiness is subjective.
+Jérôme J. this!!!
first thing we have to do it get everyone to understand the same priority. Forget the worth saving part because there'll always be assholes.
"... and at the moment, _we_ are trying to kill us."
So right you are
Weirdly the pbs space time vids have lower volume than other videos on youtube, not sure if its just my computer but without changing the volume it feels like the audio here is dropped near 30% than other vids
yes. I am experiencing the same.
they are way lower... except for the f'ng gmc ads before them!
its so people will listen more carefully. its educational not entertainment(kinda), so they dont need to keep our attention because we want the information.{i think}
Is it worth it? Our primate ancestors did what they needed to do to continue the species, not knowing that we'd get weak and hairless and glorify Cyrus and Bieber with our fragile technology. I think we owe it to the next of species to enable them to even exist, and let them make the decision for themselves what is worth doing for the survival of the entire species.
men are still good.
+fredthemanish for sure. I was thinking more like millions of years from now. I hope we can even get that far.
+Matt look into the civilizations types and tiers, many theorists explain how civilizations would die from a level 1 to 2. very interesting. oh if you were wondering, we are currently at around .75.
We're currently what they call a Type 0 civilization...if you go with Dr. Michio Kakus' examples.
If that's your description of humanity, this isn't mine. We came a long way and if we had discarded humanity for its bad points in the past, we wouldn't be here today. Tomorrow is another deal and, and thankfully, there won't be anymore Bieber and Cyrus, maybe there will be other ones or we'll step out of those kind of things, like we stepped out of many things already. Or maybe the bad is only inherent to the good. Like there is no good without bad, maybe the good itself creates a bad by contrast, because nothing can be all the same and constant so contrast there will always be.
We also need Will Smith.
He's already the captain of the Ark
His ship will be called the Willenium Prime.
***** I've never had an internet before. What can I do with it?
***** If it's an oyster, it can make pearls. Are they Black Pearls? We could bring Johnny Depp, then, too.
damn gamma ray bursts are scary
What does it matter if our descendants aren't human? That's going to be the case anyway... our goal should be to preserve intelligent life in the universe.
A special shout to Neal! A Young Lady's Primer is my favorite sci-fi of all time! Thanks for a nice video and for inviting him!
Gotta love those random Star Trek sound effects XD
We're gonne build a huuuuge wall and we're going to make aliens pay for it.
Greetings
Donald
Not a bad idea. But I think you are just an idiot. Let me guess you don't want a wall. You don't want it because it Donald Trump idea but if you political God Obama wanted it you would.have been all over it and supported. Pull you head out of your ass. A wall is a great idea.
We need warp capability. I feel it is within reach if we bring together the world best minds.
They're working on it
We just need negative mass to not just be hypothetical.
There's a dude that discovered negative energy but creating it for such use he figures will take some doing.
Sayris13
Got link?
We need Anti Matter. And well, heh you know
"Uh, yeah, we did... next week"
Nice
Proper science teaching is pure love.
"Yeah, we did ... next weak..." :D lol :D you've just earned yourself another subscriber :)
Seveneves is amazing. One of the very few books I don't mind being plugged 😊
We would cause our own extinction long before any natural disaster occurs TBH
Digital uploads + nano assemblers that can build a body attached to billions of probes (which themselves are created by nano assemblers)sent to every star system in our galaxy and andromeda.
With artificial super intelligence on our side, it could be a reality sooner than even the most optimistic of sci-fi writers envision.
As far as we know, we are the only life in the universe capable of knowledge retention and reason. Going by that unlikely assumption that this is true, us dying out would mean the universe loses its only vessels for self-reflection. For this reason alone we owe to the universe to not only survive, but to thrive, learning and evolve to continue providing a service that is as far as we know, is entirely unique unique.
I will add though, that when you see fantastically shallow comments like "first thing is to actually make humanity worth saving", kinda makes me doubt everything I just said.
It is in the nature of consciousness, of intelligence to be capable of greatness and superficiality in equal parts. Nothing that is, in its own design, always good can ever be anything great. For we strange vessels, we thinking matter, we rise to greatness only because we have a choice not to. There will always be those whose minds falter, cold, closed-in, empty. But they are the product of a grand experiment of incredible variation and are to be seen as a byproduct, not the essence.
To assume that we are invaluable to the universe and are obligated to thrive is incredibly arrogant. As much as when europeans invaded the Americas and felt that they owe it the world to "civilize" the "savages". Also there are a lot of species on Earth alone that are capable of knowledge retention and reason, feelings too, or have you never had a dog ?
Velko Ivanov
I don't know. What else in the universe is there to assign value? With invasions you have humans against other humans and the hypocrisy is obvious. But do dogs, or other species have 'values' like this? Is there anything else we know of that has the concept of 'invaluable'?
Sokar .....To me, that is, to my way of thinking, it's quite limited thinking to imagine that because we don't "KNOW" of other sentient life, that is, on other planets (or even gas clouds), that on unimaginatively countless orbs out there, that planet Earth just, for some strange reason, happens to have the only intelligent life.
if we had less people that believed in ancient religions, we'd do more. religious people look forward to the apocalypse.
I don't know, from what I've seen stupidity is damn near universal.
Gareth Dean I'm sure it's more complicated than just stupidity being near universal.
Life Before After
Well that depends on how you look at it. If the human mind has a fault then we can expect that fault to influence the thinking of everyone and thus their views on pretty much everything. A simple issue could give rise to insanely complex results.
I believe this is the case. One flaw in the human mind is tribal thinking, another confirmation bias. I certainly have not seen societies free from 'ancient religion' being particularly smarter than those with. (Putting aside the issue of not all religions 'looking forward to the apocalypse'.) Certainly this year has shown me a surprising number of atheists wanting a Trump presidency to cause mass chaos and thus ensure a faster revolution.
+Gareth Dean
There are many caveats I didn't put because my point would need a long paragraph and would be obscured. Probably still is so I'll try to clarify... I didn't suggest there are societies today that are free from ancient religions and that are better. I think that if people were more scientifically literate and applied the scientific method where appropriate in their lives, then society would flourish at a much rapid pace.
I'll probably need another caveat here...
No, I am not suggesting a darwinian world either.
Second, I was obviously talking about the main religions, the Abrahamic religions; the ones that are more troublesome... They look forward to the apocalypse.
Third, please provide sources/survey for your claim that atheists are looking forward to the mass chaos a Trump presidency might cause. Your reading of youtube comments is not a reliable source. You are simply trying to draw similarities between religious and non-religious people to imply that neither is better, just to keep the status quo which completely misses the point.
tonee899
Given the recent occurrence of Trump's candidacy a peer reviewed source is unlikely to be available, it'd all be polls and online sources. (Though as a contrast I'd be interested in your sources for religious people 'looking forward to the apocalypse'.)
My objection would be then that being religious doesn't change the way your mind works, fundamentally you're still human and still prone to the biases inherent in having a mind evolved as ours has.
Scientific literacy has a surprisingly low impact on many things. For example while religious belief and politics both provide strong predictors of belief in evolution, scientific literacy (and educational achievement) tend to be weak or nonindicative. (See for example scholar.google.co.nz/scholar_url?url=citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.547.6811%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm14JtWtzEvw3NvPa7-YS6pZQk7aGQ&nossl=1&oi=scholarr ) In several issues being white and well educated *increases* your chances of disagreeing with scientific consensus. (These are typically 'left wing' issues such as GMOs or vaccines.) Indeed attempting to educate people on such issues often has no effect or simply entrenches their beliefs. (See for example here: pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365 )
Indeed the 'knowledge gap' theory has proven to be at best ineffective and often laughably bad at dealing with unscientific attitudes. ( www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23808985.1996.11678931 )
One can argue that this is a failure of critical thinking, that, if people were taught how to question ideas, given the 'scientific mindset' these obstacles could be overcome. But that moves us from the things people believe more to why they believe them. Especially given the role politics plays in people's beliefs I'd argue that religion is only a part and not a particularly special part of what affects our progress. We find extremism and unscientific thinking everywhere we look, from communist Russia and its Lamarckian genetics to eugenics to psychology's continuing dabblings in race and intelligence to the modern 'skeptic' movements backing conspiracies.
In the end science is hard, you have to put aside natural human biases, which we often do very poorly. I am skeptical that something as amorphous and varied as religion is the be-all and end-all.
Extinction proofing idea: re-invent our monetary/economic systems to produce efficient, stable, and healthy societies that actually have the energy and collective intelligence to progress technologically.
But what will we do with all the junkies?
Gustav Babic Help them get clean by treating addiction like a health issue and not a problem of character.
We've been trying to do that for about forty years with absolutely nothing to show for it. If we have to wait until every belly in the third world has been filled, and until every inner-city addict has been cured, then we are doomed.
Gustav Babic WTF are you talking about? We throw people in jail for using minuscule amounts of drugs and in doing so ruin them psychologically. Only country that has tried what i'm talking about is Portugal and the results are far less drug use and less prisoners.
I don't know, I guess judges aren't sentencing addicts to court-ordered drug rehab programs after all...?
I really like the "extinction insurance" idea!
We should make arks in different places like: Space, Underground, Underwater, ETC.
TRIBUTE TO NEAL STEPHENSON
Neal Stephenson is one of the most important science fiction authors of our time, known for his grand scope, intricate plots, and deep exploration of complex ideas. His work has had a profound impact on popular culture, blending science fiction with other genres and featuring witty dialogue and clever observations. Stephenson's novels have won numerous awards and continue to be enjoyed by readers around the world.
Notable works:
Snow Crash
Diamond Age
Cryptonomicon
The Baroque Cycle
Seveneves
Adaptations:
Snow Crash (TV series)
Cryptonomicon (video game)
Stephenson is a true master of his craft, and his work is a testament to his visionary mind.
*LOVE FROM INDIA*
Reading SevenEves at the moment, great book, though Its sad to realise I would not be worth a place.
Most people wouldn't be, even with a lottery system or something like that to give normal people a chance there would still be a large percentage of the population who would rather enjoy their last days rather than try to help some strangers survive.
Greg Egan's Diaspora, anyone?
We are all in a dying condition. Some only have 15 years left. Worry about that.
this problem is less about people dying, everybody dies, this is about future generation's ability to ever come to life.
Some are already dead...
+BMAN488877 Pffff, I've still got my penis in my hand.
lol
some have been dead for a quite long time
First off, we have to stop killing eath other...
who says we can't do both?
"Future proof humamity"? How daft. Have you forgotten about evolution? And which future exponentially-evolving human species would you be referring to. Please give more practical videos next time.
The ideal solution to extinction-events? "If you don't push this button, this facility will assume there is no one left and reboot humanity automatically."
At this point we understand biochemistry and nuclear technology well enough to know that you can make a cloning facility which can clone and raise humans without any input. The cloning bit isn't even that much beyond current technology (although the artificial womb may be). The hardest part is a computer which can raise human children. That's very ambitious and not something I'm entirely comfortable with.
That said, it is far more practical to send a facility which can create any Earth creatures it needs--humans included--to the stars than it is to make something big enough to hold breeding populations. Unless we get a working FTL, this is how we will realistically colonize the stars.
As far as our almost not even human ancestors go, think back to where our current species came from. Our ancestors were able to survive extinction events millions of years ago without any technology that comes even close to rivaling our own now. Sure, they weren't as catastrophic as a gamma burst or super nova, but they survived. It should be our duty to provide the same kind of hope for a future to our descendants that our ancestors gave to us, even if they didn't know it at the time.
We barely survived a supervolcano even a few thousands years ago, not a mass extinction. So you are saying "we survivde a fall from the second floor. This wasn't as catastrophic as a fall from a flying plane but we should be ok".
People survived falling from a plane without a parachute, so much for your analogy. We'll survive, somehow, somewhere.
John T. DiFool : sure "1 guy out of 1 million survived a fall from a plane, so we'll be ok" :p
+David Sbabo you sir are the first person I've seen with a functional brain in the TH-cam comment section for a while
David Sbabo
Reading comprehension isn't quite your forte.
And yes, that's exactly the point of my comment: given your analogy if 1 guy in a million survives the human species does not go extinct.
Upload our minds in deep underground computers connected to the internet: problem solved
why not build a portal to another dimension? populate that oo
Assuming nobody tries to hack the system, no viruses or just everyone going and leaving nobody behind to run the power stations.
Gareth Dean Obvious nuclear power supply is obvious
J. S Intercept That's not...realistic bro.. ;)
Matrix
"unfortunate chemistry"
I love it
AI, there's no way around it. Shout out to Matt for featuring Neil. Enjoyed Seveneves and Snow Crash.
I had an idea earlier today.
In the event of a large asteroid, if we had enough time to know its impending arrival and prepare for it, what if we put it in orbit around Earth?
To be clear, it would be a very large and controlled orbit that we would have to make sure did not get out of control at any point, but this is beside the point.
If we put a relatively small asteroid (under 500m-3km in diameter) in a stable orbit, we could then proceed to mine it and ship its internal components back to Earth for study and use.
Economic crash of the Iridium/platinum markets asside, this would be a huge leap forward in our space-faring technology, and -more importantly- in the number of, and scope of, competitive companies seeing space as a way to make money. Thusly pushing more competition to get into space as a way to make money and, consequentially, making better technology for humans to survive in space, as well as perhaps space hotels, space ports, etc.
This is all just my wild speculations, but it would be very interesting to see it come into play in the near future.
oh I thought this was a study of the post Trump era.
Nah, that only wipes out America.
...And anything us poor bastards can hit from here.
Amperzand
I'm safe, America thinks my country is Australia.
Gareth Dean
Yeah, you're probably fine down there.
I'm safe too! Trump probably doesn't even know what New Zealand is.
"The moon explodes."
Oh, cool, so you watched Cowboy Bebop. In that case we'll be fine if we're not space cowboys.
Why is it called the K-T event if Cretaceous starts with a C
Detective Inspector Me
Maybe it was initially named in a different language, like German, where the name of the period (Kreide) does start with a K.
''everyone in the world'' ahaha, the chavs and wannabe gangasta's probably don't know what an asteroid is... I'm sorry but a very, very small proportion of humanity would be willing to help, let alone have the knowledge to help.
My thinking is we should already be pushing outwards. use the suns energy to power material refinement in the asteroid belt to produce the materials needed to build generation ships, slingshot around jupiter an out of the solar system. Maybe snagging some comets in the oort cloud for extra water/fuel.
it might even be possible to hit some of the giant icy objects in the oort cloud with something like a rail gun to destabilize them into an ejection path, then just ride the dwarf planet to a new solar system.
Make sure there are a variety of materials available on the ship and have a massive radio transceiver facing back towards Earth so if, for instance, Earth doctors crack suspended animation for humans, the generation ship can take advantage of it.
So if Earth gets hit with a gamma ray burst does that mean it'll turn into planet hulk?
Dominant culture is destroying the environment and depleting the topsoil. I would say this is the biggest threat we face.
With the current lack of immediate threats, we should focus on more immediate problems for the time being. Once we've achieved wold peace, defeated disease and world hunger and got all of humanity living in a post-scarcity world, creating dozens of contingency plans for when life on earth experiences a really bad days at the office should be a piece of cake. We've made it so far, what's another hundred years or so?
Maybe you want to adjust your time frame, another hundred years or so won't be enough to begin to address the "immediate" threats you listed.
Although I agree they are the most important issues to resolve in any long term plan for humanity.
We dont know how many time those problems will take to be solved, also trying to avoid our extincion is a pretty good way to solve some of the problems you listed above, example: we colonize mars, we have more terrain to inhabit, so we can balance population in both planets, more resources (and so less need for war) and also we can grow more food (so we can solve hunger).
Sadly due to the nature of the human race it will be impossible for everyone to work together unless we were all under one rule
+Matthew Thomas or a pseudo one rule like a UN on steroids
If only it were that simple... That would be ideal, but it's likely that the world will end from our own sun dying before we all get along. :-/
go underground or build some kind of magnetic field amplifier in important city/colony places with advanced green houses. or splice cockroach DNA into people which ever is more cost affective
I liked the idea of deep underground shelters to protect from a gamma ray burst. Mars seems like it would be a good candidate for that sort of idea, since it's much less geologically active than Earth and has near-Earth gravity, right? Alternately, we could probably arrange space arcs that are permanently out of the line of sight of any star threatening to go all gamma on us.
We can pray to some alien overlord give us an uplink in trade of us become their vassals. Or maybe I'm just playing too much of Stellaris
Your question is nonsensical: How can genocide be survived? If you survived genocide, then there would be no genocide.
It kind of sounds like the odds of the whole gamma burst or super nova event would be just as likely anywhere and everywhere in space.
Underground Moon Colony
It solves several problems at once. Firstly, it protects against huge radiation bursts. Secondly, it moves humans off of Earth, safeguarding the species from biosphere-destroying events that might only affect Earth (volcanoes, evolution, asteroids).
Underground moon colonies are naturally shielded from solar winds, which is a classic lunar colonization issue. Being underground can also solve structural issues that come with maintaining a pressurized atmosphere on the moon, and circumvents some of the materials cost of constantly building sealed structures on the moon when more colony space is needed. The moon is also the only extraterrestrial body we have already been to, so we as a species know we can get back there more easily than other bodies like Mars, Venus, or Jovian moons. That said, we still have all of the problems that normally come with living on another planet, including not having any atmosphere and decreased gravity.
It was not the impact, was something else. But life did not die, it ADAPTED, didn't it?
How wide would a gamma ray burst be if it was at 6500 ly from earth? It would hit our entire solar system? What about nearby stars?
The smoothness with which you spelled out "vhsjpdfg" made me laugh so suddenly, omg
Neil Armstrong: Man will spacerock
How do we know when an asteroid is heading to destroy humanity what is the chances of detecting one in 3 to 5 years
huamnity must survive, if not for us, then the millions of years of evolutions progress.
what kind of sheilding can we use to protect us from all the types of radiation?
Love the channel, two part question.
1. If we were to identify an impending supernova that is a GRB candidate, do we have a means to predict the orientation of the blast?
2. Are GRBs that are not oriented directly at us detectable? Perhaps through reflection or scattering effects?
Of course we can Survive the Destruction of the Earth..... *if we move to Venus!*
lolololo..... fools.
Let's just not build that underground city on Venus.
Penny Lane lolololol....ya. I bet these guys want us to try to colonies the SUN.
best korea is already taking care of the sun colony for us, dont worry
Saturn's moons more like
+madscientistshusta im buying 3 square megametres on titan, and epithemus as we speak.
I loved physics jokes. Oh, sorry. Causality. I love physics jokes.
What about capturing bigger rocks than any that could hit us, and keep them in orbit so in case of an emergency we can slingshot our own towards the oncoming one.
In regards to gamma ray burst, with in the next 550m years before the next estimated one, I'm sure it will be possible to eclipse the width of the burst with the moon, harvesting pure sun energy and building planetary/lunar thrusters, whats your take?
keeping objects large enough, even to just "punt" dooms-day like objects away.. means vastly changing our own Earth's planet.. sea would rupture, seasons would be beyond fucked up, we could have so much less solar light that our plant life dies.. and then it becomes a question of "how big is the next big thing going to be?"
as for Gamma Bursts.. just one thing in that to kinda though the idea off.. the planet would die if he moved it. light is a wave and warps around objects. the distance needed for earth itself to be survivalable seems way too steep for any number of people to keep up with it.
Humanity need Space Habitat! Even one can guarantee human race survive.
In my opinion, it's simple: it doesn't matter how, just set up some interplanetary and/or deep underground colonies that are large enough and sufficiently equipped to survive indefinitely and equipped to, if not found colonies, at least interact with others. Going interplanetary isn't just a survival strategy, it's an inevitable future.
In a long future Mercury cuold be a great place for deep underground cities, because it's core is cold. Mars would be great as well.
Any talk about human colonies has to include building a sustainable biomes, and ultimately that takes a planet.
Lol "we did next week", I see what you did there, or did you happen there because I saw?! *Gasp*
"Is it worth it for the sake of some not-quite-human descendants"
I answer with a question, where would we be if our ancestors found it 'not worth it' to preserve themselves when faced with extinction?
Imagine this, a few thousand years after the big impact the descendants of the survivors who emerged from the underground shelters are now beginning to merge their isolated farming and fishing communities into permanent villages. The villagers appoint leaders to help coordinate and guide their efforts. After a few more thousand years these leaders become kings, and then pretty soon open warfare on Planet Earth re-emerges. However, the fighting will be more like the battles that occurred between ancient Sumer and Elam, than anything that occurred prior to the big impact. Mostly stone axes, and maybe a few weapons crafted from slag minerals harvested from the ancient buried metropolises, and that's about it. Eventually one of the petty kings will defeat his neighbour, and then he will decide that he must build a huge stone monument to commemorate his victories. Thousands of slaves are rounded up and are put to work chiselling limestone with copper tools. And the cycle repeats itself without anyone knowing what came before. The idea of a future group of slave pointlessly constructing pyramids under the crack of a whip sends chills down my spine.
Dorient François
There is no doubt that we cannot see the future. However, if it appears that our civilization is facing a collapse, then we should take every step possible to prevent that collapse. If even a handful of humans manage to survive the collapse of our civilization, then eventually they're descendants will probably try to organize themselves into competing factions, because that is human nature. Most likely this will mean future dark-ages, slavery, and wars. I think that it's best if we can avoid having to repeat the bronze-age / iron-age, and if we can hold onto what we have.
Us? Survive? Nope... The rich? Yes.
Since gamma ray bursts only last a short time. If there are moon bases on different parts of the moon, then those facing away from the gamma ray burst would survive. Problem solved. You can thank me now :-)
Assuming they don't need Earth for supplies.
Gareth Dean This would be thousands or millions of years in the future. By then, they would have huge bases with thousands of people, and would be self sufficient, by mining and growing their own food.
Surprised didn't mention how the Sun will fry the Earth in about 1 billion years.
its irrelavant, unless it will be a challenge to build a space ark or colonize some where by then. If that is so, then we might as well mention the heat death of the universe.
IF we survive that long humanity won't be humanity anymore
4.5 billion years btw.
the sunset from mars would be superb by the time that is going on. Assuming we haven't turned the entire solar system into a super computer (++).
Honestly, if we aren't dead or scattered by then, we just aren't trying and can deal with the results of being an entire species of worthless couch-potatoes, too damn bad for us.
What about having an “arc” in orbit able to support a small population of people for many years, then return to earth?
Compguy321
Why return?? We could keep the ark up indefinitely and run a shuttle between it and Earth. The folks on the ark could benefit from advances in Terrestrial technology and people would have the freedom to come and go.
Seriously, Space Time and MagicScrumpy are the greatest things to ever happen to TH-cam. I've honestly learned so much from this channel, about General and Special Relativity, to Dark Energy and the expansion of the universe, to Quantum Mechanics. This channel is honestly one of my favorite channels and I always get really really excited when I see a new video (along with MagicScrumpy). Thank you so much.
Loved your approach to this issue. You covered some questions I haven't heard or thought of.
Eventually, I think we'll send life on a one-way trip if for no other reason than we'll have done everything else. But if and when future generations visit will they be us anymore?
Elon Musk = Tax evasion.
My idea:
1) Build computer to upload our minds/consciousness.
2) Send them across the galaxie to form a galactic supercloud of minds.
3) Build human like robots we can "impersonate" with those minds.
I just hope we first survive capitalism first. (or neo liberalism, to be more precise)
PS: That doesn't imply that communism or socialism is the answer.
Well this is the video I have been waiting for. I think it is the essential purpose of all life to eventually leave behind its home planet and eventually it's home star. Anything else leads to extinction.
I really doubt we will ever find faster than light travel to be possible. The universe doesn't have to give us way to make it easy.
I think our current work with probes is the right direction. If we could eventually have AI controlled ships that could scout near by stars, and create new scout ships with the materials in each new solar system it reaches, they could then get the information on if and where to send terraforming ships to which systems. Hopefully to only have to tweak planets that are already close to habitable.
If we had ark style ships that could travel to another star while holding its people for generations they could get to the stars. Maybe even without the need for more than a generation or two. The last and third phase though being the transport of people to the new star systems.
If we found a way to survive in structures extremely close to the sun, we could build six of them, one per vector, and In this way, even if a nearby star explodes the sun itself would protect at least half of the structures. Plus, being so close to the sun we would have a near unlimited power supply.
Hey Matt - I'd like to see more videos on how relativity affects everyday things such as electrons (electrical current) moving down a wire.
Extinction-proofing humanity: We transcend our meat (e.g. "Altered Carbon" by Richard K. Morgan).
if we build something to absorb that energy( gamma ray burst ) , then we can use it to travel in space or 'maybe' use it to create a worm hole.
That would be awesome.This can help us to escape any kind of extinction.
In most cases wouldn't not maintaining nuclear power plants be disastrous for survival on earth? Do we have a solution for this?
2:24 "GOOD TO BE HERE"
"what have future generations ever done for me?" - the onion
lol 'Colonies are insurance against global annihilation.' So now we get to talk about our new subject with the addition of "multi"...for our new....wait for it... "multi-global annihilation" problem.
Aren't colonies mankind's leading, long term, cause of war? Establish colony, give it around 100 years to cook, then watch it explode into war. How is space going to be any different?
No one will go all in and make space colonies happen until there is something worthwhile to exploit. So, we have exploitation, and an isolated service based population.. hmm... that's never happened before...
6:18: "...NASA's Near Earth Object program has located 90% of objects larger than 1km in diameter that cross the earth's orbit." That's... an interesting assertion. Hmm... neo.jpl.nasa.gov/stats/ Ah. Got it. Look at that curve flattening out.
Random Question appeared in my Brain recently:
E=mc^2 means the same as "Energy=low amount of mass/matter" (howsoever you call it)
to say that simple: Energy=mass
Now my Question: Does Energy cause Gravitation? (To be more precise: 1 Part Energy causes as much Gravitation as 1/c^2 of 1 Part matter? (hopefully i didn't mess up sth xD))
I hope you understand what I mean xD
Can we save humanity by colinising other planets? If we live on different planets in the solar system, milky way or even another galaxy. The worlds are so far apart we would diverge into different species as we are formed by different pressures. Then would those species see each other as friends or as foe's? Perhaps evy each other for wealth or health. If two neighboring countries on earth can't unify and so fight other, why would that be different interplanetary? Let's fix ourselves and live in peace here on earth, for the time we have left. For otherwise, we will become the aliens we fear!
Could a star collapse into a black hole, not really close enough to drag us in or anything but maybe close enough to disrupt planet orbits? Perhaps as far as removing several or all from our system? Or would our suns gravity balance it out. Or am I totally off my rocker. ;-)
1.For protection against our own planet, we can get cover underwater. Why don't we start building under water? We have like 70% more free surface to build on it, but why stop there? The volume is huge.
2.Also, speaking of advanced civilizations and Elon Musk's Space X corporation which promises cheaper flight programs: why not building a lead Dyson sphere or a similar structure (some kind of modular panels with spaces in between) around our planet, the side facing the sun could be covered with solar panels and the other side it could be covered in lead? Lead is known to absorb Gamma rays...
Meteor-Proofing humanity is perhaps the most straightforward engineering challenge. We can use a high powered laser array to produce jets of material that would change the orbit of the offending space rock. From what I know, lasers are the best tech on hand for changing the orbits of comets and asteroids.
GRBs and Super/Hyper Novae are a bit trickier. Further development in Arcology; self-sustaining cities, could prove promising. If we built Arcology Complexes in the sub-surfaces lava tubes of Mars and Luna, it would be for the inhabitants as if nothing happened. Earth's active geology makes this strategy less viable.
Great channel, although this video seemed a little underwhelming. As an engineer with 20 years+ building large projects with habitability as a constraint, I would say 2 years to build any kind of "arc" is way over optimistic. Just the pre-conceptual design phase would be a challenge. I would first formally categorize all of the hazards and look at time at risk to decide how to prioritize. Most likely an earth based arc will be the first priority again assuming the goal is to only preserve the species (not all 7 billion people).
A more realistic approach will likely to assume the next say century will be time at risk (no real defence), but rather keep our current tech development and industrial trajectory increasing. Then is say maybe 100 years, we should have much more ability to do the enormous projects required for some form of meaningful arc. Examples of tech/infrastructure could include such things as:
1) Fusion power,
2) Better materials from nano-scale engineering,
3) Improved analytical tools for chem/bio tech.
4) Rapid prototyping/manufacturing systems.
5) Better medicine (especially Psychology).
6) Advances in other areas such as education and government.
Sorry for sounding a little Ayn Rand-ish, but at our current state of engineering, anything built in the next few decades probably will not serve as a real defence for more than the same amount of time.
So, survivability.
First, bioengineering: sufficiently advanced bioengineering can virtually make us immortal, as well as ended our reliance on farm animals and exposed-to-the-weather farming.
Second, genetic engineering: this will remove countless diseases, allow us to survive far more hazardous climates, and, if sufficiently advanced, make us virtually immortal.
Third, nanotechnology: increased sophistication of nearly every technology known to humanity, including safer and cheaper space travel, and, if sufficiently advanced, make us virtually immortal.
Fourth, robotics: increased construction and mass production capabilities, removal of many labor-intensive jobs - allowing humans to focus on things that require intelligence and/or creativity.
And I could go on, with, f.ex. neuroscience, medicine, physics, etc.
Some specific technologies:
-3D-printing: increased construction capabilities.
-4D-printing: less maintenance needed, increased construction capabilities.
-AI: removal of many repetitive jobs - allowing humans to focus on things that require intelligence and/or creativity.
And I could go on, with, f.ex. metamaterials, holography, lasers, etc.
All of the above, however, only (dramatically) increase our chances of survival if we chose one, or more, of the already mentioned options - space habitat, underground city, interstellar settlements, etc.
Ok so we know what to do to be safe: become interstellar or we need to go deeper
Roadmap Interstellar:
2050 - first light sail / laser based interstellar micro sat
2100 - first scalable EM drive (assuming that it IS possible and the scientists on the right track with the running experiments)
2150 - first macroscopic interstellar satellite launch (called MIS now)
2200 - MIS reaches 0.5c and starts breaking
2250 - MIS reaches the 30LY barrier
2280 - we learn about MIS reaching the barrier
2300 - Ark gets build now with Gen 2 IS drives
Problems to overcome:
-how to survive without sunlight
-how to get energy worth tens to hundreds of times the energy in all fossil fuel reserves in space
-genetic diversity
-renewable food resources
Roadmap Great Residential Bunker (GRB):
2050 - GMO algae capable of driving oxygen production for GRB
2100 - better start drilling (don't forget to plumb the ocean into the ocean into the cave
2200 - humanity is sort of secured
Problems to overcome here are similar but since we need access to the ocean anyway it should be possible to insulate the glorified pipes in such a matter that the temperature difference to the earth down there gives us unlimited energy
Since we basically have less problems staying on earth and we'd be able to use the acronym GRB (Great Residential Bunker) for our plan I guess it isn't really worth going interstellar to safe humanity. Also we would sort of split humanities evolution into 2 separate lines when going the hard way which may or may not be a good thing to conserve mankind depending on whether you would consider both lines mankind or not.
now to critique on this video:
I didn't like the interview part too much, it felt a lot like promo for the book (i know that interviews are some kind of advertising in almost all cases, but it doesn't have to feel that way). Though the idea of bringing people into the show ain't bad. Maybe you could bring in some other scientists in the future
April 1st spoiler: The clue is at 05:35: "Thanks for having me on."
Actually, I think the movie "WALL-E" depicts a quite plausable scenario, which can make a valid option with some fine tuning. And yeah, probably it is something that was mentioned in other sci-fi as I imagine, but I usually read different kind of fiction. In my opinion engineering a great, self-sustainig vessel (near perfect cycle of matter and energy reuse), and through predictions and calculations (for which we already have a good base information, thanks to social webs, and a wide range of psychological tests) assembling the crew of say X (for the calculation of X you need to consider the genetic/material AND the complex behavioural factors of our species, the closest estimate by the smartest biologist I spoke to, is somewhere between 1300-1800 carefully selected individuals) and sending them into the most promising direction could really be a strong choice.
The way I see it with the population boom in the 20th century, and with the first alpine-style ascent to Everest in 1978 (not taking away any credit from Hillary and Tenzing) we ended both our numerical, and physical expansion in our natural habitat. We are in a way more diverse than ever before. So if for not solely for security but rather probability reasons, it is high time we actually get into this. Moreover, a confined experience like an interstellar voyage could be for the better of our species. In a very finite space, you have to maintain physical efficiency, while also adressing the needs of the complex human mind. How should this be achieved? Well thats something one cannot solve on their own. Should we launch the vessel with many infants and a few "elders" or handpick them and hope they don't freak out? Should we keep in touch with with home-base, or should this be a completly new branch of our kind, like homo sapiens itineris? There are certainly many things to be debated on.
In my opinion One thing is for sure though. The trip needn't be Mfalconfast. History has many examples, that rapidly changing locations on a big scale is not always the best thing to do, and most invasive species of plants and animals will strongly disagree with me perhaps. Many bad things came out of the fast exporting and unleashing of new material or immaterial packets of information on pristine land. We shouldn't just carry our current human ways to other systems, we should first get used to being in space, enjoy the ride so to speak. And like a great guys before me said: "Remember, baby steps" :)