because of doubts that there'll be a quick end to the trade war between the us and china. the worries have been aggravated by the arrest of a top executive from chinese tech giant huawei on an american warrant. there are fears this will further undermine us—china trade relations. meng wanzhou was detained in canada after an extradition request from the united states. it's understood she's accused of violating us sanctions against iran. beijing wants her release. and this story if is trending on bbc.com... these are pictures of a space x rocket — failing to land safely back on earth. it was returning to florida when it started spinning on its decent. it's guidance system directed it to splash down in the ocean. that's all for now. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news. it's hardtalk with stephen sackur. welcome to hardtalk

i'm stephen sackur. how do we decide what is important? how do we balance the personal priorities of the here and now, with the big picture challenges that will determine the future of human civilisation? my guest is used to considering the biggest of canvases. martin rees is one of the world's leading astrophysicists, but recently he has been gazing into the future of our own planet. the next century, he says, will determine humanity's long term destiny. so, are the prospects good or grim? sirmartin

sir martin rees, welcome to hardtalk. good to be here. we are used to you gazing at the third is corner of the universe and yet here we are having just published a book on the prospect for humanity. now your focus is here, on the prospect for humanity. now yourfocus is here, on the blue planet and you appear to believe that this century is the most critical humankind has ever known. why? the earth has been around for 45 billion century but this is the first one on species, the human species, has the power to affect what happens next. iraq more of us, 7.7 billion and the number growing,

we are more empowered by technology and we are affecting the atmosphere, climate, biodiversity and search and we are empowered by technology so a few people have the power to disrupt society completely so that makes society completely so that makes society fragile. this is the first century where we have had these new threats, those we cause collectively and those we can cause in small groups. if you are to give the threat is sort of weight and the scale, what are the threat you see out there which we could call existential, which in your view actually threaten the survival of human civilisation as we know it today? in any case, we have a bumpy ride, just how bumpy does depend on choices we make politically but would there are two things we can predict 30 to 50 years ahead. the population will be larger, more than

nine billion people. secondly, the climate will be warmer and we will have to cope with that. on the next 10- 20 have to cope with that. on the next 10— 20 years, we are going to be worried more about bio and cyber technologies but 50— 100 years ahead then we will worry about these global trends and i think one of the issues i raised in my book very strongly is to what extent do we make sacrifices now in order to remove the threats at the end of the century. normally, if you are a builder, you would want your money back by 2050 but some people address the climate issue. some downplay the importance of climate change compared to more immediate ways but

thatis compared to more immediate ways but that is because he writes of the old 2050 were as many of us feel in the context of human life which ought to apply smaller discount rate and be prepared to think now about what risks might be confronted by babies born today he will be alive in 2070. whether it be simple citizens like me 01’ whether it be simple citizens like me or political leaders who willed real power, we should all of us be thinking about strategising and planning beyond the five decades bad. in some context we do. 0bviously, bad. in some context we do. obviously, in some context we cannot plan even 10— 20 years ahead. sub technologies we cannot predict that far ahead but when we can plausibly predict, as we can in the case of population, biodiversity and

climate, we should take account of that. you have been at this for a while, concerned about the prospects of humanity. in 2003, you wrote the book, ourfinal hour, and he gave civilisation are 50—50 chance of surviving the 21st century. it does not seem to be that in the 15 years since then, there is any reason to believe the odds have got better. they are about the same we're slightly clearer about what is more serious. when we get down to what needs to be done, and two you agree with sir david attenborough, for example, who at the un climate meeting in poland just the other day said we are facing a man—made disaster of global scale. 0ur greatest threat in 1,000 years. it is climate change and if we do not ta ke is climate change and if we do not take action, collapse of our

civilisation and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon. do you agree with him and that therefore feel climate change has to be the dominant issue for all of us, leaders and citizens? would not be quite so big as him but it clearly is an important threat to address and especially difficult —— apocalyptic. what will happen in remote apocalyptic. what will happen in re m ote parts apocalyptic. what will happen in remote parts of the world in 50 yea rs' remote parts of the world in 50 years' time, it is a hard sell to politicians. politicians will listen if there is strong public support and, of course, people like david attenborough will help that. i was a bit involved in a scientific conference that led to the drafting ofa conference that led to the drafting of a paper in 2015 which was for the 2015 pyrus climate change and it had

a big effect. whatever you think about the church, you cannot deny its long—term vision and global range andi its long—term vision and global range and i think if we are to address these issues at all, that it has got to be because the politicians are aware of public support for them in public support comes from people like the pope and david attenborough. the reason i do listen to your view about what humanity must do. you talk repeatedly about the need for rationality, for collective action, foran rationality, for collective action, for an international approach to these and, of course, climate change is perhaps the most obvious example where really collective international action is effective but it is not happening. in fact, the impulse in many parts of the world is away from the collective action to much more nationalistic policy and strategy. it writes of

the pessimism. i would counter the optimists by pointing out that there are many ways they are in the present era the gap between the way things are and the way they could be is wider than ever because we have the technology to provide a better world for the 7.5 billion people alive now at address these issues but we are not doing it. the gap between what we could do and what we are doing is depressingly wide and it is an ethical indictment for our age. do you see it as your role to be less of the scientist, as you have been, fascinated by seeking explanations of the polls, dark matter, do you find yourself more and more inclined to focus on an effort to persuade all of us but in particular our political leaders that they have to take seriously the

message is from science about the future of the planet?” message is from science about the future of the planet? i scientist, also a citizen and a university teachers so you need to make these things were that it is important to ensure the public is informed and oui’ ensure the public is informed and our students are informed. let's be practical. you are not a citizen of the united states but i shall you watch what happens in the most economically powerful notion of earth. when president trump gets to see the latest analysis from his own federally funded scientists about the dramatic impact that climate change will have on the us over the next decades and he says, quite frankly and openly, i do not believe it. what is it your conclusion? the only way to get to politicians is via the public. they will not listen directly to experts, they will listen though if there is a strong

public feeling and if you think of great changes in the us, slavery, the abolition, black power, gay rights, they all started with public movements and only when the public was clearly onside but the politicians respond and that is why it is important to engage with the wider public. but it is not easy that it wider public. but it is not easy thatitis wider public. but it is not easy that it is with leaders like donald trump. vladimir putin, the new president of brazil, all of whom seemed to believe that policy—making is about making their country when it. it is depressing but in this country, where things are not that bad, politicians are on the whole positive but unless they know they have a big support that will not privatise this issue. jean—paul ducatis said we'd know what to do

but we did not know how to get re—elected. —— junker. but we did not know how to get re-elected. -- junker. and education. you must regard taping into the mind of the public as the most important role you have. of course, in the content of students, with whom i have the most contact, to make sure they are aware of these issues and i should urgent i gratified by the number of students who do have these long—term concerns. size should show the ability —— science, because many of these problems all, on a different kind of frame, weapons of mass destruction, cyber terror, all of these things are the product of

science, people like you. of course they are but scientists should be aware of the users to which their work could be put but we don't a lwa ys work could be put but we don't always know this. for example the laser, that it would be used as a weapon but full eye surgery and dvds. you have all ideas and it is true of all inventions. scientists have to make sure that the politicians and public are aware but also all these decisions on how to use science involved ethics, economics and politics and scientists are just citizens in both respects so scientists can offer advice. of course, i mention in my book great men involved in making the first atomic bomb, and they return to civilian life but they

felt they had an obligation to do what they could to harvest the powers to help unleash. they did not succeed but they felt they had a special responsibility. scientists do but cannot expect that their word is the one that holds sway. and they cannot know where some of those inventions take humanity. i wonder and it strikes me that you are now looking back over the course of a long career and friendships with stephen hawking ‘s and many other things, i wonder whether you feel 110w things, i wonder whether you feel now that actually, what matters most is not the expansion of human knowledge, the stuff you have been working on all of your life, but understanding human nature. it is ultimately human nature that will dictate if we thrive or self—destruct. dictate if we thrive or self-destruct. there is no conflict between those things. it is a positive correlation. but also thinking about science, if you look

back, despite all the downsides, it is clear that we could not have 7.7 billion people at least being fed in this world without the technology that has come in the last 50 years so we that has come in the last 50 years so we do not really want to stop sides, we need to ensure we can avoid its downside. i will tell you what i am fascinated by, not least in the book, is when you start looking for. yes, we are ina you start looking for. yes, we are in a pickle in you have got and descriptions how we can avoid the worst of the pickle but then you start thinking very creatively about where intelligence may be going next, and you are suggesting that it may go beyond the sort of organic human intelligence that we have and that we have made the most off to a certain extent in the last 1000 yea rs. certain extent in the last 1000 years. you are suggesting there may very soon be a years. you are suggesting there may very soon be a crossover years. you are suggesting there may very soon be a crossover point where we marry out human intelligence with

inorganic, electronic intelligence. —— our. ijust want you to explain what you mean. well, first of all, i am interest in this. astronomers are interested to know about the outcome ofli interested to know about the outcome of 4 billion years, but they tend to think we humans are the culmination, that no astronomer could believe that. the earth is halfway to its life and we may not even be the halfway stage revolution. it then, going to us being in a special century, one of the things that may change this century is that electronic intelligence may in many respects become comparable with human intelligence of an organic kind of in our brains at, and this isa kind of in our brains at, and this is a real game changer because this may mean that future evolution is not darwinian but it is kind of a secular intelligent design, when we designed a species. and this is scary and away and this is an ethical question, of course, and

already people talk about genetic modification, except sure, and cyborg technology with extra in our rain, et cetera. and these are issues were we clearly need to have wide discussion on consensus in my book is more a way to draw people's attention to this discussion. any link this to space exploration because your argument is that because your argument is that because of everything we have discussed, from growing population to growing weasels this and carbon emissions and man—made climate change, there is an ever greater impetus for us as pccs to explore beyond the frontiers of the planet, and ultimately, to find other places in this universe we can leave. be your argument appears to be that we can only really contemplate doing that if we do leave behind owl organic state. —— but your argument. well, just to correct you a bit, i

very su btly well, just to correct you a bit, i very subtly criticise people like elon musk and my late colleague stephen hawking, talk about mass emigration to mars. —— our. i think thatis emigration to mars. —— our. i think that is a dangerous delusion. there is nowhere in owl solar system which is nowhere in owl solar system which is as clever as the top of everest or the entire week, so while i certainly cheer on efforts to go to mars, do not think it is any solution and it is i think, to think that we can terror for mars rather than dealing with climate change and the earth. but to put it bluntly, do you not believe that actually this melding of human intelligence and artificial intelligence gives us, in the longest and long terms, the capacity to imagine a post— human era where intelligent beings, whatever we cool them, because there will be certainly a modification of our organic humanness, this post human beings will have the capacity

to travel over unimaginable differences and perhaps colonise places and planets that we have not even thought of? —— terraform and. well, the word art is important. my scenario is human stay on the open do not change all that fast, but the post— human evolution will start with crazy pioneers who get to mars because they will be away from the regulators, who will try to control these things and credential and ethical grounds. —— us. and they will have every incentive because they will be very ill adapted to mars, andi they will be very ill adapted to mars, and i think the first post— humans are going to be created on mars and then as you say, they might be electronic, they might be essentially a mortal, and then they do not go off to the great blue yonder. is a fascinating thought. when you have these thoughts, is this year being playful do you want us this year being playful do you want us to spend serious amounts of time

furthering that thought process? -- immortal. i think we should think about this and i think there are only a few hundred people thinking about these far future scenario and extreme risks in the world, and that isa extreme risks in the world, and that is a good thing. but i think... you know what, just strikes me that they are not know what, just strikes me that they a re not really know what, just strikes me that they are not really far future because as you just said, given the history of the planet, given the tiny blink of the planet, given the tiny blink of the i timela pse the planet, given the tiny blink of the i timelapse that human civilisation represents on this planet, if we are talking about another 1000 years until summer this could come into fruition, in terms of geological time or planetary time, that absolutely nothing. —— of the tiny time scape. of course, that is true, but in terms of our resources , is true, but in terms of our resources, a very is true, but in terms of our resources, a very carefully say that ifi resources, a very carefully say that if i was an american, i would not support nasa's men's programme. you would not put any public money into a space programme? no. because

robots can do all the practical things better than humans, but i would cheer on the private companies like elon musk‘s company because they can use private money and take higher risks than nasa could impose on taxpayer funded civilians. higher risks than nasa could impose on taxpayerfunded civilians. i would cheer on the private companies but i would not put in any public money. you have actually said that this may be so very important to the future of us as a species and for us getting to a point where we actually then contemplating, as you say, post— human era. you are saying the market will sort of allow this to happen in the long and? well, it depends. use the word us, and i think us on earth... no, i am saying in an ironic sense, you are saying it is the us on earth who will be the catalyst for the then he you say might colonise other stars, other corners of our universe. —— you say. none of that can happen without a. well, it can happen without any

political decision supporting us. -- us. political decision supporting us. -- us. going back to the timescales, we have as much capacity for evolution hours we have had in the future. have as much capacity for evolution hours we have had in the futurem ta kes hours we have had in the futurem takes about a million years to evolve a new species, were ‘s technical innovation takes only a century. the teacher revolution is going to be far faster and far less predictable i certainly do not think we can imagine that we humans are in any sense the culmination, but we should i think about our species, the sort of chauvinistic about our species, and not wanted to change too much. we had talked in this interview about technologies and also about ethics and values. what we have not talked about is spirituality, but as you later in your studies and your life and your career, as you reflect on everything you have learned, do you find you have a space in your own thinking for a power beyond understanding,

beyond rationality, beyond science? well, i mean, ishare the beyond rationality, beyond science? well, i mean, i share the sense of mystery and wonder with many people who are religious. i mean i am not religious in any dogmatic sense, but ido religious in any dogmatic sense, but i do share that sense which they do have, and they also... what is that sends them? is not in a formal religion orformal god, sends them? is not in a formal religion or formal god, but what is it? well, it is a sense of looking at the universe and realising we do not understand that. i discuss it in the book, i discuss the limits of our understanding, we can never understand in detail how our own brains work, so we are going to be limited in our understanding that is not mean we have to accept a particular dogma. although what i do mention is, i simply say, the mcgregor book is wonderful on that topic incidentally, and it is the same thing which is more important and more valuable to us now for its ritual. and its unifying context, then the docklands. so to sum up,

are you saying that despite everything your work has contributed to you, which is a vast expansion of human knowledge about the universe around us, that ultimately, a very great deal of what is will remain mysterious, beyond comprehension? well, beyond our innocence of human, but of course we talk about post— humans, we do not know how much more they are going to understand. good as me, there is a lot to think about. martin rees, i thank you very much for being on hardtalk. thank you very much. thank you very much. hello there.

we ending the week on a pretty turbulent note. some strong winds and the way to scotland. severe gales he could cause problems and as well as the very strong winds on friday in scotland, also is in heavy rain around particularly across south—west england. 0ver rain around particularly across south—west england. over the next few hours, some localised surface flooding could be brought by that. this developing area of low pressure continues to fall in the low pressure deepens and that continues to strengthen the winds. the strongest winds will be going into the north in the uk and you can see some of the heaviest rain will be trading back across wales in the south—west england. a0 millimetres of rain and that could cause a few issues first thing friday morning. certainly is big puddles in the morning commute across this part of the world. the winds will continue to strengthen as we go on to the next few hours. —— certainly some. there is a good chance you're going out in the next two hours of things in the heavy rain around as well but it will not be a cold start to the day. the winds will continue to

strengthen to the morning across northern ireland than scotland. this is where the strongest winds are going to come through, probably the strongest around midday on the early afternoon, with gusts around 70 to 80 miles an hour. could even top that in one or two of the very most exposed locations, there will be heavy rain as well. further south, a band of rain will continue to push eastwards a cross band of rain will continue to push eastwards across england, clearing friday. we will see some sunshine following and a few showers the western parts of england and wales and a day. showers too for northern ireland. showers will be falling through the afternoon. seven to 10 degrees as the cooler air continues to work its way in. as far as the weekend goes, it will stay in the wind industry and further showers around on saturday. it turns cool on sunday that with a bit more in the way of sunshine. there is a chart to ta ke way of sunshine. there is a chart to take us through the friday night. wind still buffeting scotland, it will take a while for those winds is down and then we will start to see the next system approaching from the west. so this is forecast to saturday. most of us will certainly

some bright and sunny spells that is going to be a blustery kind of david showers moving into the western pushing eastwards as the day goes by. one of those days were most of us by. one of those days were most of us will see a list of stellar rain. temperature is between nine and 13 celsius, as we are just about on the mild side of things. —— most of us will see some rain. still showers knocking around although it is going to start to feel a little bit cooler than that. showers are really quite likely to work into parts of north wales and north—west england, particularly around cheshire, greater manchester and merseyside. the temperature is going down. seven to 11 degrees, and your higher sunday. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: some respite for asian stock markets, up a little after falls in europe and the us over renewed trade war fears. that's prompted by the arrest of a top executive from chinese tech giant huawei on a request from the united states.

canada's pm says it's a normal investigation. there was no engagement or involvement in the political level in this decision because we respect the independence of ourjudicial processes. i'm kasia madera in london. also in the programme: first clues about the death of the thai businessman and owner of leicester city football club, a fault is found with his helicopter.