It definitely seems like most people are content with colonizing Mars rather than trying to save our own planet.  Maybe they all just feel it'd be easier to build a city high enough above the ground to avoid the poisoned air and buzz around in gas masks, like the Jetsons did,  than tackle the environmental problems of such insurmountable proportions that we're so busily creating for ourselves.

It's sad, though, that even people as intellectually esteemed as Stephen Hawking would prefer colonizing a cold, inhospitable planet to saving our own Eden.  

I think submersible ocean colonies need to be established first.  Submersible for safety.  And much more economical than space colonies.

It's not looking good for space travel since the means to do that is in short supply.

These ocean colonies could be self supporting through energy and aquacultural food exports, liquid fuels from algae and electricity through underwater cables.  Solar, wind, wave, and ocean current power are abundant and renewable.

Floating attol like island design.  With the major residential areas able to submerge within the protected area formed by a larger floating ring that collects wave power and protects the floating island.

Aquaculture would be located within the outer protective ring on floating docks.  The problems with governance and owmership would need to be worked out.  These could be sovereign nations, corporations, or part of existing nations.

Better to solve those difficulties here on earth before they have to be faced in space.  In a best case scenario the land areas of earth could be preserved as the bulk of humanity takes up residence in these eco-friendly renewably powered and fed communities.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

happens to be on the mind.  We just watched an old episode, in which Homer goes up in a space shuttle, and releases the contents of a bag of potato chips in zero grav, and breaks open an experimental ant colony, and the news media, mistaking the ant on the camera for an invading master race, bow down in craven surrender and compliance.

Stephen Hawking did a "Star Trek: Next Generation" episode, didn't he, in which he is playing poker (of all the boring wastes of time!) with Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton.  And of course Jordy, who rigged the whole thing.

Anyway, I would not be too hard on the lad.  True, it will take a lot of work to get any of us to go anywhere, and find that that "anywhere" will be worth hanging on to.  But even truer, let us do what we can, while there is still a chance, to hang on to the home we have.

But even truer, let us do what we can, while there is still a chance, to hang on to the home we have. I agree wholeheartedly... I do, however, think we need to broaden our definition of "what we can (do)" to include more revolutionary actions.

I am also skeptical of Hawking's idea of space colonies insofar as I'm not sure the human race can survive without Earth's biodiversity.  This is the really dangerous aspect of capitalist development, in the long run: we are kissing Earth's biodiversity goodbye with the reckless invasion of natural habitats.

http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/