Stephen Hawking Asks The Internet a Question

Your Answer, Stephen by ackthpt · 2006-07-07 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

'How can the human race survive the next hundred years?'

Birthcontrol, ween of dependence on high energy consumption and colonise the solar system, because we sure aren't going to get along forever on this rock alone.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Your Answer, Stephen by ackthpt · 2006-07-07 05:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't thin there is any way we will be living in space in the next 100 years. Also, I don't think moving is the solution to our problems.

I don't see us all moving to other planets, moons and space communinities, I just see an extension and survival of Man through that avenue. This planet will be exhausted at the rate of consumption.

It's like the drug addict who thinks that moving away from the city will solve their drug addiction. The problems we have aren't a result of where we live, but how we live.

And it's energy, per capita, which is mostly How We Live. It isn't just the SUV guzzling gas, but the appliances at home and all the goods we purchase which require energy to manufacture, package and distribute. The USA is consuming commodities at a blazing rate, but China with it's vast population will match that in short order. Economics will play a part, as China and India consume more goods and energy the costs (as they are already doing in most goods) will rise and reduce consumption simply because people won't be able to have it all anymore, but choose from fewer things which are important to them. The big adjustment is going to be when petroleum runs scarce. Everything will change as the cost of petrol increases. Sadly, there will also be increased competition for land as is expected much low lying lands will flood thanks to the warmer climate.

Be wary. Wars are waged more over competition for resources than any other reason.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Your Answer, Stephen by CRCulver · 2006-07-07 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

As for birthcontrol - why (unless the couple is not ready for children yet..)?? Space is just that - space, lots of it. With asteroid belt having an entire planet disassembled into small nice pieces with huge surface area.

People who feel that the Earth is becoming overpopulated don't see colonization as a real cure. Even if you avoided the problem of cost-to-orbit with rockets by constructing space elevators, at this rate you would never be able to move more people off the planet than are being born on it. (This unpleasant fact is a big plot element of Kim Stanley Robinson's Blue Mars ). Therefore, many see birth control as the only way to minimize what they feel is an undesirably large terrestrial population.

Although the only way to make it really work would be to have forced abortions a la the Chinese authoritarian state. I've seen this advocated before among Slashdot comments. It's ironic that the same community which often tends toward a libertarian view of restricting government power has those who want the government to get into the business of abortion.
Re:Your Answer, Stephen by BewireNomali · 2006-07-07 06:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

Maybe, up until this point, man could not survive without religion. Marx proposed as such and considered God the ephemeral parent of an immature society. Thus maybe the fact that religion has not gone extinct is an indication that society would be far worse without it. Perhaps a world in which people cannot police themselves needs a "god" and fear of eternal rebuke in order to keep them in line.

For the record, I'm not religious or even a believer, but I do think that much of human civilization follows a similar paradigm to evolution. Things exist for a reason - or did anyway... because they served a function. If religion is this opiate that the masses need, and it is abolished, what do we replace it with? Meds?

--
un burrito me trampeó.
Re:Your Answer, Stephen by zuzulo · 2006-07-07 06:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Most of the issues and coping strategies folks have been bringing up are reasonable, albeit relatively short term concerns. It appears to me, however, that these concerns miss the point - a 100 year timeframe is much different than a 20 year one.

I suggest that the human race will survive the next 25 years or so by muddling along in its time honored traditions barring, of course, some unforseen global catastrophe. Problems like overpopulation, environmental degredation, warfare, disease, global warming - these are serious problems but problems the human race has shown itself to be capable of dealing with as long as one is not overly concerned about collateral damage. And when looking at something like the survival of the human race, a few billion here or there kind of falls into the noise.

Considering the longer term (25-75 years out) future of the human raises some more interesting concerns ...

One of the questions I find compelling is how human social, cultural, political, and economic networks will survive and behave in a post-scarcity economy. For about 15 years the inflation adjusted costs of manufactured goods has continued to decrease. Just in time manufacturing, custom fabrication, these trends all point toward a transition to an economy based on 'how to do/build things' rather than 'things' alone. I have yet to see any cogent model of how human networks will adapt to this transition, and I therefore belive that this transition has the potential to be quite disruptive.

Another consideration is how the definition of 'human' may change as a result of technological progress and environmental demands. If anything, I suspect that the answer to the question 'how will the human race survive the next 100 years?' is, in the long term, quite simple.

Change what it means to be human.

Terrifying, and extraordinarily difficult to predict, but in the long run the *only* way species survive is by changing - and the potential for that change to be mediated by technology in humans drastically accellerates the potential timeframe. Some relatively simple changes are already filtering into human culture almost invisibly - laser eye surgery, fairly serious cosmetic modifications, cochlear implants, hair transplants, hair removal, sex reassignment, prosthetics, longterm drug therapies, gene therapy; I could go on and on.

Sometimes the only way to solve an intractable problem is my changing the terms of the problem itself. Just as Alexander the Great trumped generations of philosophers by cutting the Gordian Knot in half instead of untangling it, it may be that the only way to truly insure the long term survival of the human race is by changing what it means to be human.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:Your Answer, Stephen by alucinor · 2006-07-07 08:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

Alright, this comment of mine was silly.

I believe in God, obviously, so I was set off a bit. I shouldn't really care, though, how other people think. Actions are what matter, after all.

I do agree that religion is foolish; I see it as a way of objectifying God, reducing him into an idol, a utility. And as a utility, religion is indeed unnecessary.

God is just a part of me, though. I don't know WHAT he is as much as WHO he is. He's at the core of who I am, and to deny God would be to deny my own existence. I don't feel any handicapped by this any more than I feel that breathing or a pulse is a handicap, or that my love for my wife is a useless reliance and a weakness.

God and I are good friends. He communicates with me on a daily basis, using events in my own life around me as his vocal chords.

And I doubt mean to make it sound as if I have a special connection that elevates my status, because the way I see it, God is not above me or you. There is no hierarchy, so there is no elevation of status through association.

It's merely an instinct. I tried denying it for years, but I eventually had to come to accept it as intrinsic to who I am. That's the kind of creature I am. Perhaps you are just different sorts of creatures.

I see the scientific, testable aspect of God as being Love. That we can all share, despite our internal universes that define who we are.

--
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Re:Your Answer, Stephen by BewireNomali · 2006-07-07 08:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

huge numbers is relative. there are six billion people on the planet. an argument can be made tha organized religion has been inordinately successful. Too successful.

I think your point is valid to some degree but I think its because another inexorable drive has reached critical mass. Technology. Information is available to all and is free. We've developed sophisticated ways of waging war. What once required the might of a country now requires nothing more than some cash and enough dedicated people to fill your average classroom. The BARRIERS TO ENTRY are too low. It makes EVERYONE a threat.

A theory floats around about why we've never heard from another species. It proposes that they all reach a point at which they use their own technology to destroy themselves. In other words, no civilization can survive its own technological advancement past a critical juncture.

We've been on the brink of it since the dawn of the atomic age.

So, in hindsight, the post I originally responded to wasn't too far off. At some point, organized religions are going to have to concede to something else... some other unifying force. However, I don't think banning religion or making it a forceful change is going to work. People have to evolve.

My mom always said not to argue with fools. I never understood what she meant as a child. She explained it to me further - that when you discuss something with someone, you're at the mercy of the person in the group with the least ability to comprehend. The group can only move forward with consensus when that person does so. So in a group, you're not at the mercy of the top of curve so much as at the mercy of those at the bottom. Here in the US, Bush's appeal is somewhat an indication of this.

Not to label religious zealots as fools, but we can't move to another place until the zealots decide, one way or another, to not be zealots anymore.

--
un burrito me trampeó.
Re:Your Answer, Stephen by devnull17 · 2006-07-07 18:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

OK, I'll bite.

Atheism is, in my opinion, a higher evolutionary state than theism. If you want to talk about progress, the secular, scientific worldview has brought us all kinds of advancements in virtually every aspect of life. Scientists, not priests, discovered electricity, developed antibiotics, found a way to travel to the moon; the list goes on and on. If you look back at human history, religion has generally been the biggest impediment to scientific progress. Its main use was (and continues to be) as a device allowing a select, manipulative few to gain control over and wealth from the gullible masses. Religion has had a role in almost every war in human history, and there's been a clear trend over the past few centuries: The more secular a country is, the less likely it is to go to war.

It's popular among secularists these days to placate believers by saying that science and religion can coexist, but I don't believe that's true. The progressive believers, those who no longer believe in stoning disobedient children to death, for instance, are deliberately ignoring a portion of what they consider to be the word of God. The extremists, on the other hand, may find themselves at odds with the modern world, but they're the ones who are truly being faithful to their beliefs.

I'd also like to add that the human mind has the capability to convince itself of the veracity of some incredible horseshit--look at Scientology, for instance. Heaven's Gate? Jonestown? These people were all sure they were right about the nature of the universe, just as you appear to be. The only difference between your beliefs and theirs is that yours are more widespread.

Take a step back and look at the modern world objectively. Religion threatens us in a very serious way. Islamic terrorism is a threat now, but it's nothing compared to what it will be when nuclear weapons technology becomes more advanced and widespread. It doesn't help that the world's only remaining superpower is being run by what the Muslims (and some of us) see as a villain straight out of central casting.

Believing in God, in my opinion, is no different than believing in Santa Claus. It may be comforting, but no matter how much you want to believe it, a fat man in red is not going to make presents appear in front of the tree in your living room. The world would be so much better off if people would just see it for what it was.
Re:Your Answer, Stephen by devnull17 · 2006-07-07 21:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
First up atheism takes as much faith as religion. So I applaude that you have a faith based system integrated into your life.
I just believe in the empirical. If God comes down from Heaven and starts talking to me tomorrow, I'll believe in God. I just like having proof of something before I let it shape my worldview. I'm silly like that.

so do saturated fats, should we hold McDonalds (religion) accountable for all the fat, unhealthy people (zealots) in the world? Or instead should we say that how people interact with McDonalds is the real problem? A burger a month... no problem... three a day every day... big problem. Like wise faith and religion implemented as caring and sharing, or implemented as a holy war against everyone.
The difference is that if you eat McDonald's every day, it will probably kill you, but it won't have any direct effect on me. However, if some nut with a suitcase bomb steps onto my subway train with a plan to get his 72 virgins, that is very much everyone else's problem. If you want something a little more close to home, look at the control that Christians are intent on exercising on other peoples' decisions about gay marriage, drugs and abortion. Or the insistence that everyone else's children be taught fairy tales in biology class. Or the fact that the Christian voting bloc was the swing vote that put that monkey idiot president of ours in power. If you're more "spiritual" than "religious," more power to ya. But I've found that the vast majority of religious people out there are little more than sheep.

the world is a brilliant magnificent place, screwed up by people, just like everything else.
I agree that the world is magnificent, and that people haven't been taking very good care of it. But that's neither here nor there. Painting things with such broad strokes (world good, man evil) doesn't seem very helpful to me.

"Religion has had a role in almost every war in human history" WTF? Mongols? Roman? Spanish? Cold war? Way go to with the generalisations.
Christianity was, in fact, a cause of serious turmoil in Rome. The Spanish are infamous for their particularly cruel brand of Catholicism, and there have been dozens of feuds in Western Europe caused by some petty disagreement between Christian sects. And the Cold War wasn't a war, but many viewed it as a conflict between God's America and the godless, cold communist state.

"A higher evolutionary state than theism" so its more evolved? More evolved would indicate some kind of advantage over lesser evolved entities, so why aren't the 'evolved' running and governing the world in a athiest way? Aparently you guys are 'the elite' yet your not at the top (most western politicals leaders are affiliated with some religion as are a large number of business people)... go figure?
Would you disagree with any of the following?
1. There is a strong correlation between countries becoming more secular or progressive, and the development of technology.
2. More secular states tend to be more prosperous and technologically advanced than theocracies.
3. Religion has traditionally been an impediment to the development of science.
I'm not talking about individuals; I'm talking about sociological trends.

" Its main use was (and continues to be) as a device allowing a select, manipulative few to gain control over and wealth from the gullible masses" oh you mean like politics? So we should ditch that was well and all revert to anarchy? Because thats more eveolved right?
Huh? They're not at all alike. Politics is a necessary evil that comes with a government run by a hierarchy of people. But it's better than anarchy. There have been times throughout history when church and state were one, but law and order come from the "state" part, and secular governments function jus

Educate the World by eldavojohn · 2006-07-07 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?

I'd like to think that education would cure all three of those issues. But it's a rather naïve view. Either way, I'll have my official answer be better education throughout the entire world about everything. That's our best strategy for making it through the next 100 years. Bank on the children. If you raise a child, it's your duty to make sure that they become far smarter than you are. I think it was around high school when I became much more intelligent than my father but I don't fault him for it. I only thank him for ensuring that his son and daughters were well educated even though he wasn't.

Given those three issues, it seems probable that we may not make it another hundred years without severe loss of life. I don't think the loss of life will be complete with the death of all humans but I think there is a high probability for a large loss of our populations in one country or another. I don't mean thousands like natural disasters but I mean a hundred million or more.

We'll survive, just not at a luxury like we've known. Honestly, if a lot of major religions and their leaders could start coming to terms with each other. You know, make it so that it's not like a death sentence when you don't believe in God or Allah? You could also reveal to everyone that our leaders should be more like Gandhi and less like Hitler. That would probably help with those first two problems. In every country, to be a successful politician you need a lot of financial support. Unfortunately, the ideal people leading us are those with no interest in padding their own pockets.

As for the third problem you listed, we're screwed. We're screwed because our numbers are reaching epic proportions that the earth cannot sustain and there's really no way around it aside from birth control. I don't support enforced birth control as far as the Chinese have taken it but you have to admit it certainly curbed their population growth rate. If nature fails us or vice versa, things will be pretty bad though I doubt we would become extinct entirely.

Of course, there are an infinite number of universes and I'm sure there exists one which doesn't have any of those three problems ....

*loads a bullet into the chamber of his handgun*

...which is why I suggest you get to work on the machine that allows yourself, ten beautiful women and I a way to cross over to that parallel universe, Mr. Hawking.

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Educate the World by GoatMonkey2112 · 2006-07-07 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Having more education than someone does not necessarily make you more intelligent.
Re:Educate the World by MobyDisk · 2006-07-07 06:55 · Score: 4, Informative

True, but it means you can put that intelligence to better use.

simplicity by jaydonnell · 2006-07-07 05:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

We have to stop being a desposable consumerist society. I.e. we have to live more simply. Now I'm not saying that we all need to be organic gardeners who tailor their own clothes and live directly off the land. I'm very much a metropolitan technologist, but I think that consumption purely for the sake of consumption is our biggest problem. The real question is if the market can correct this or if the market will dig such a deep hole that it doesn't react until the shit hits the fan.

Re:simplicity by Reality+Master+101 · 2006-07-07 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

but I think that consumption purely for the sake of consumption is our biggest problem.

I vehemently disagree. Messes are a problem, not consumption. Why do we have this new puritanism taking over in certain places? I don't want conservation. I want to live in a Utopia of plentiful abundance, and there is no intrinsic reason why we can't have it.

The solution to all our problems is more technology, not less. You claim to be a "metropolitan technologist", but you appear to be a "guilty metropolitan technologist". Well, I say we shed the guilt and embrace civilization. We just need to make being less messy a higher priority.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:simplicity by zippthorne · 2006-07-07 05:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Wait.. are you suggesting we should live a more spartan lifestyle to stave off the HEAT DEATH of the universe?

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!

Just one... by TheRequiem13 · 2006-07-07 05:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

good ol' pandemic. A real nasty beast of a bug.

Kill off a couple billion, and we'll be good to go for a while.

--
What?

One Day at a Time by PackMan97 · 2006-07-07 05:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

As silly as it sounds...we will survive just like we always have. One day at a time.

There have been plenty of forecasters of doom saying that the earth would run out of space, food, energy and whatnot and the population continues to expand.

We'll muddle our way through the next 100 years just like we have the few thousand prior to this one.

Change by Bakadan · 2006-07-07 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

Humans are like cockroaches. We've infected every corner of the globe, and we're not going away. However, if we are to survive and prosper for the next century and hopefully longer, there's going to be some big changes. My boyfriend and I were talking, and following the depletion of oil resources (and not before), we'll see a massive centralization of cities, mostly on coasts, and a move towards renewable energy sources. Cars will never go away; they have too much momentum (no pun intended). But when this happens, we'll see much more of a community feel, as everyone will be in much closer quarters. The massive towers in Dubai and Kuala Lampur (sp?) are good examples of this, and will propogate into the next century as we won't have the finances to get around. Cities like Los Angeles will become a thing of the past, as it will no longer be feasible to have your suburban house with a white picket fence. With this, we'll see a lot of changes. Society will be permanently altered. But as Gloria Gaynor said, "we will survive". If we want to extend ourselves to Mars and the moons of the gas giants, we'll need to perfect the biodome, to be able to live independently. Interstellar travel is out of the question, and always will be. We should give up on it and focus on going to Mars, Europa, and some of the other moons. -sigh-

Small Scale by zabbey · 2006-07-07 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Any one trying to answer this question seriously is breaking out the 50 cent words. Did he say 100 years? In the past 100 years there's been two world wars, super bombs have been invented, a cold war, etc. Real question should be: "How did we survive the last 100 Years?" If we survived through all that we'll survive the next 100 years just fine.

Talk about a vague question by AKAImBatman · 2006-07-07 05:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Answer: By shear force of will

If he wants a more detailed answer than that, he should ask a more detailed question. As any historian can tell you, the "social, political, and environmental chaos" he refers to is absolutely nothing new. The only difference between then and now is that our toys are bigger and shinier.

Pick any period in human history, and I think you'll find that it's easy to define "social, political, and environmental chaos" that worked against the residents of the period. In fact, the conditions that humans have found acceptable in past periods of history are regularly referred to as "squalor" in this day and age. Yet there are precious few examples of civilizations that were wiped out by such conditions.

Yes, the human race makes a lot of messes. Sometimes we stumble across messes that aren't our own doing. Any way you cut it, though, humans will always react to a problem before it reaches the level of self-destruction. Our instict for survival is too strong to do otherwise.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

It can't. by Anne_Nonymous · 2006-07-07 05:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

>> I imagine you can do better than 'It Can't.'

Sometimes the correct answer is really boring.

Humans need a crisis to change by spiffery · 2006-07-07 05:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the pattern is that humans follow a path of least resistance until a need arises. It is understandable to look at humankind and say that we are headed for a crisis, and there will most likely be one. But what happens at that crisis period is a matter of debate. When global warming becomes an obvious crisis to nearly every human on the planet there will be change. Once the need for unification becomes apparent, it will happen. Whether circumstances will allow reversal is a question beyond my ken, but my feeling is that humans will continue doing what we're doing until we hit a critical point. Then people will change, as needed, until the next crisis. Populations will grow, people will die, and problems will be dealt with locally until it is necessary for things to change. And I don't have any particular faith in humanity, except that we do what is necessary when problems arise.

Re:Simple (Not Quite) by damacus · 2006-07-07 05:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

100,000 years ago up until the 1930s, there were no nuclear bombs. We only had technology to inflict localized damage on our fellow man and planet. Now there are enough nukes to wreck the planet, advancement in biology such that we now have the capability to create biological weapons on a wide scale. Also, in the last 200 and 300 years, industrial society has exploded and we've seen rapid deforestation and ecological carelessness on a massively wide scale.

The situation is vastly different, and failing to acknowledge that is naive.

Re:Simple (Not Quite) by MrNougat · 2006-07-07 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Indeed, the human race will survive the next 100 years no matter what happens, and probably the next thousand or zillion after that. But plain survival doesn't necessarily have to be comfortable. A species can survive for a long time in really adverse and sucky conditions.

Seems that many people interpreted the question (as may have been intended) to be: "How can the human race survive the next 100 years and come out the other end comfortable and thriving?"

Well, let's think about that. Pick any 100 year span in history. I would bet that, at the end of any 100 year span, most of humanity is merely surviving in really adverse and sucky conditions. A small fraction of the whole of humanity actually thrives. That is as true today as ever.

Maybe the question should rightly be interpreted as "How can the small fraction of humanity which is today thriving continue to thrive through the next 100 years and never mind the people who are already scrabbling for survival today." Because that's really the only question anyone has ever truly asked.

--
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk

The Pill, for men. by Peter+Trepan · 2006-07-07 07:29 · Score: 4, Funny

How to solve the population problem:

Require that all the men of the world teach kindergarten for five years.
Provide free birth control pills to them after this five-year period.
If the pope says anything about it, kick his pointy-headed ass.

--

Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

Abolish religion? No, just tax it. by Thing+1 · 2006-07-07 08:48 · Score: 4, Informative

I think the first step is to not give religious organizations preferential tax treatment. The rest should write itself.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

keeping down population growth is not so hard by jeffsenter · 2006-07-07 10:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Female literacy is one of the key factors in determining birth rates.

Increased female literacy allows women greater access to information on birth control and also higher statuts in society leading to greater control over reproductive decisions. To reduce population growth teach girls to read. This is an abstract of a study discussing factors impacting birth rates such as female literacy. Here is a little bit more info.

Slashdot Mirror

Stephen Hawking Asks The Internet a Question

27 of 1,171 comments (clear)