He was not referring to the sun running out of fuel...he was referring to the global warming process becoming self-perpetuating and turning our climate into something as hot as Venus within the next 100 years. Once the permafrost melts and gives up its methane, the process will likely take off without anymore human-caused input.

@dahermit that process I don't really know. Now, the Sun running out of juice, the writing is on the wall...

@IamNobody According to the scientists, we still have five billion years before the sun runs out of energy.[spaceplace.nasa.gov]

@dahermit correct and as far as it seems to be, it will happen.

@Coffeo According to Hawking, we have less than 100 years. The world's permanent snow pack is rapidly shrinking which means more heat is absorbed because the White snow is not reflecting it back into space and the methane (another green-house gas) is being released from the melting permafrost. You are correct, among the "bad stuff to happen" is more and more impoverished people who may rebel against the corporate excesses and there could be massive revolutions against the oligarchs with disastrous results. No one can possible foretell the exact course of events, but it is notable that all previous historical democracies ended in failure and things are always in flux.

The problem is that without faster than light speed travel, there are no viable planets on which human life can exist. Terri-forming Mars is most likely a fantasy and the nearest solar system to ours is 10 light years away...80,000 + years at current rocket speeds. In sum, 100 years (Hawkins estimate) is not long enough to get humankind's act together (develop the technology) even if faster than light travel is even possible.

@dahermit We aren't that far apart. I agree it is unlikely to devlop the technologies in such a short time, but we did manage to land a man on the moon within ten years of hte challenge made by Kennedy, so i do tno think it would be impossible either. However, under the current world views it is unlikely that resources would be prioritized in a way that puts the goal within reach.

My point was that Hawkings was not really saying that the rest of the earth should be left to die. He ws just wayign if we want humans to survive (at all) we need to do something about it, because another mass extinction is very likely. That woudl be a mass extinction from natural causes. As it stands we have already started a mass extinction of species via man made causes (golobl climate changes).