Slashdot Mirror
Hawking Says Scientific Progress Is Major Source of New Threats To Humanity
HughPickens.com writes: BBC reports that according to Stephen Hawking most of the threats humans now face come from advances in science and technology, including nuclear war, global warming and genetically-engineered viruses. "Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next thousand or ten thousand years," said Hawking in answer to a question during the BBC Reith Lectures. "By that time we should have spread out into space, and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the human race. However, we will not establish self-sustaining colonies in space for at least the next hundred years, so we have to be very careful in this period."
During his lecture Hawking also answered a question on whether his synthesized electronic voice had shaped his personality, perhaps allowing the introvert to become an extrovert. Replying that he had never been called an introvert before, Hawking added: "Just because I spend a lot of time thinking doesn't mean I don't like parties and getting into trouble."
During his lecture Hawking also answered a question on whether his synthesized electronic voice had shaped his personality, perhaps allowing the introvert to become an extrovert. Replying that he had never been called an introvert before, Hawking added: "Just because I spend a lot of time thinking doesn't mean I don't like parties and getting into trouble."
Why do I care about the human race surviving?
Biologically it makes no sense, unless it's my gene pool out there in space.
Advances in computing have enabled oppression that would have been unimaginable not even a few decades ago. Big Data makes the world a more dangerous place to live.
Weapons technology has so divorced the operator from the consequences of his decisions that push-button killing, Milgram-style, is not only common but officially encouraged.
And now I have a new favorite email signature quote.
.#!~~sdfs
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
This guy is typically wrong in his bets and theories. Sure, he has been right in the past but had he not been in a wheel chair, no one would care about him.
Just look at how Facebook has been using big data to oppress.
The guy is a brilliant theoretical physicist and a celebrity scientist, but this in no way makes him an authority in the social implications of scientific discovery.
Every time I see a report about Stephen Hawking talking about the end of the human race because of this or that all I can picture is that he is now a senile old man bitching about kids these days and the world going to hell in a hand basket. It's just less apparent because of his physical situation / appearance.
Bug data or big data?
Is it something that causes deaths or makes everyone stupid or what?
love is just extroverted narcissism
Bug data was used in Starship Troopers.
Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next thousand or ten thousand years," said Hawking ...
Pretty sure "the planet" will be fine no matter. Humans on the other hand ... It would also be disappointing for the huge, wonderful variety of plants and animals that share this planet with us to suffer because of our carelessness or apathy.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.
From the invention to the bow and arrow to the trebuchet (piling on the plague bodies as ammunition) to the first nuclear bomb. Why? Because humanity continually builds tools that extend our reach, to give us abilities beyond our natural and current technological abilities.
Still, I think we will end on the mundane, the species exhausting resources on earth, rather than an extraordinary bang. Bangs we can survive, and even thrive. The exhaustion, otoh, comes from lack of planning and foresight. If anything describes us as a species, it's lack of foresight into macroscopic matters amongst the crowd.
I don't agree with Hawking. Yes, scientific progress has created technology that could be used to wipe out most or all human life. However, science is generally logical enough to recognize that such uses of technology are counterproductive. Science is built upon logic and reason, which also includes a basic survival instinct. Religion, on the other hand, frequently runs contrary to this logic and reason. Religion tends to promote war and generally teaches that those who die in war are martyrs. Again, science is built upon logic and reason that includes the need to survive, but those who die killing others over religion believe they are martyrs and go to heaven. Religion is far more likely to wipe out humanity than scientific progress.
These are merely the tools of our destruction. The source of that destruction is the same as it has ever been: the series of survival instincts and cultural behaviors built over the millennia that have yet to adapt to our current capabilities. Hubris, tribalism, greedy self-interest, and distrust of things that don't look like us, sound like us, or move like us prevent us from understanding what it means to live in a world where we could possibly feed, clothe, and house every single human being. Worse, if we had sufficient self-awareness, we'd realize that we're at a point that having a negative population growth would be the responsible thing to do, not only for the planet, but for the species. But instead we charge forward, taking what we can, giving little back, worrying about things we don't need and people we don't like.
I'm not saying it'd be a better world, but it might be the one that survives.
Life extension as punishment and torture. Put on your tin hat for a moment, and think up the worst possible thing you can do to a human. Then try to comprehend the fact that somebody, somewhere is actually doing it right now.
Oh, we can genetically engineer these plants to make them more resistant to insects and disease? Great, do it and let's start shipping it ASAP! What's that, we need more time to test it for safety? Nonsense, looks good to me, just STFU and ship it or YOU'RE FIRED and I'll get someone else to do it!
That's the kind of thinking we have in this world and that's what's going to get us in trouble. Never mind what the impact of your decisions are 100 years from now, they want money NOW and who cares? They'll all be dead by then, it's someone else's problem. We, as a race, have to stop thinking like children with ADD, and start thinking about the bigger, longer-term picture. Sadly it may already be too late; GMO crops are already proliferating. Global warming is not being controlled and won't be for quite some time. These two things alone may have already doomed us. We won't know for a while, will we? Ironically I'm not as worried as you might think, because it's likely I'll be dead before anything sort of H.E.L.E. happens, so it will be someone else's problem -- but it doesn't mean I don't have sympathy and pity for the poor souls who will have to deal with The End, if that's what it comes to.
Welcoming your mod-downs to neg one troll; it just reminds me that there's no tag for plus five wise.
Completely off topic, but am I the only one annoyed by the Slashdot quote today at the bottom of the page? Are they trolling, or did they purposely print that misquote? lol What would Ash say about this? ;-)
"Gort, klaatu nikto barada." -- The Day the Earth Stood Still
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
Humanity's greatest threat is humanity. The technology itself isn't the threat; its potential misuse by other humans is the threat.
Remember, genetically-engineered viruses don't kill people. People with genetically-engineered viruses kill people.
Really? And the Dems are not?
Please site where Republicans are more interested in collecting information and preventing dissenters than Democrats.
I guess you haven't heard of the Supreme Court case being discussed right now in which the unions (they're Democrats from what I've been told) have been oppressing their members and making arguments that suppression of dissent gives them the ability to do more "good". Sweet.
Again, please give sources.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Humanity will be quite capable of exterminating itself in space as well. What is needed is a spiritual and religious revival where men actually fear the eternal consequences of their actions again. Religion will be what saves us from this because only religion can provide the eternal carrot and stick necessary to not only make most people behave, but incentivize them to regulate with civility those who won't in ways that endanger the public.
I am perplexed by some of the responses to this article. Steven Hawkins is "unqualified to comment" on the future of our species? Why? Because "no one would care if he weren't in a wheelchair'?
Would that there were an automated Moron Filter. (Chrome/Firefox snap-in, anyone?)
I too am hopeful for the future of our species on this planet, but not optimistic. I agree with the expressed opinion that this is a particularly vulnerable and dangerous time for that future, as we have developed several ways to significantly imperil human life on the planet, but no means to expand to any other habitat. Until that changes, the chances of our species having a lasting presence in the universe would seem at significant risk.
Am I qualified to have an opinion? Cogito, ergo sum.
"By that time we should have spread out into space, and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the human race. However, we will not establish self-sustaining colonies in space for at least the next hundred years, so we have to be very careful in this period."
Establishing just one colony in space that is self-sustaining and able to expand without Earth in the next century is extremely optimistic, even if humanity decided to focus its productive power on it like a global Apollo program. Given the scope of the task, I think millennia is a more reasonable timescale for such an endeavor. And as an aside, if we are able to focus on just one task, maybe world peace or an end to global warming would be better tasks?
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
It's obvious that technology is changing faster than man's ability to make wise choices is improving. The ocean is a mess, the climate is changing, pollution is a problem worldwide, and yet we still have shortsighted idiots running the show and those idiots do things like make war in countries which
have resources which are desired, rather than spending time and money in a concerted effort to find other means of supplying the energy needs of a country and its people. Basically humanity is engaging in the same set of behaviors over and over, and technology is the main variable which is truly changing. Humanity is like a naive child which is given increasingly more dangerous toys without limits being placed on the use of those toys.
If this doesn't cause concern in the mind of the reader, I submit that the reader isn't thinking on a very high level.
Scabs are called scabs because they are scabs. That is who they be. They need to be silenced so if bug data is used for that, I'm all for it.
Before science I could happily eat french fries, drink some booze to chill after work, or go and have a walk. Then came science to tell me that fries give cancer, booze gives cancer, and the air is full of polutant, so... yep, more cancer.
Really? And the Dems are not?
Please site where Republicans are more interested in collecting information and preventing dissenters than Democrats.
I guess you haven't heard of the Supreme Court case being discussed right now in which the unions (they're Democrats from what I've been told) have been oppressing their members and making arguments that suppression of dissent gives them the ability to do more "good". Sweet.
Again, please give sources.
I don't know about the republicans or the democrats, but I am pretty sure that whatever unions do, they aren't the government.
To quote the late, great Bill Hicks, "We're a virus with shoes"
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
Both introverts and extroverts like being around people and doing interesting things. The main difference between introverts and extroverts is the way they recharge. Introverts recharge by being alone while extroverts recharge by being with people. This is a general statement that applies to most people.
Did he happen to mention how close the LHC is to destroying the universe?
most of the threats humans now face come from advances in science and technology
As opposed to threats we used to face which have been stopped by advances in science and technology.
We're not talking about scabs but union members who dissent with the union actions.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
"Hawking Says Scientific Progress Is Major Source of New Threats To Humanity"
Not sure he said "new" or if that was just the editor, but....
Of course, all new threats are due to humanity itself! As for asteroids or any of the old threats, well, there's nothing new under the Sun. So yeah, any planetary level threat or danger to humans that didn't exist thousands of years ago, is "us".
Or is it just other peoples scientific advancements that are the problem? LOL. If we do nothing and never did anything, the human race would be doomed when the Sun takes Earth out.
Human behavior is the greatest threat to humanity. That, and bears.
The guy is a brilliant theoretical physicist and a celebrity scientist, but this in no way makes him an authority in the social implications of scientific discovery.
Oh, I don't know. I'm sure keen to find out his picks for The Oscars.
The major reason why Hawking should shut up on such topics is that he doesn't understand politicians. Being a rational scientist and thinker, he naturally assumes that political leaders will react rationally by promoting cautions and safeguards in scientific endeavour.
But they won't. They'll react by banning scientific progress itself, because they're neither supportive of science nor in the slightest bit rational.
Galantai proposes an alternative to the Kardashev scale that focuses on survival of the species. The short version is that if we can survive the destruction of the planet we are at one level, survive solar system destruction at least another level up, without detailing the kinds of events that would make multiple star systems unlivable - there are levels above that. These are links to the Galantai scale stuff: http://www.centauri-dreams.org... http://mono.eik.bme.hu/~galant...
If you're going to argue with a troll, at least take your own advice and present a source on that "unions are telling the Supreme Court it's okay to suppress dissent" thing.
Please don't feed the trolls. They leave poop everywhere.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Extrapolate far enough into the future fantastic technologies, which become more and more potentially dangerous and eventually you can say it will blow up X.
House/Village/City/Country/World/Solar System/Galaxy/Universe/etc...
Scientific progress may provide the big new threats to humanity, but it's also provided more or less all the ADVANCEMENTS enjoyed by humanity as well, such as most of your kids not dying before age 2, or being able to survive that paper-cut infection. Dentistry.
I have no doubt that if you could mass the ongoing, sustained (and really compounding) science benefits to humanity vs the new dangers it's created, the benefits win handily.
In fact, taking the population as a handy shorthand, just now benefits outweigh risks globally by 7.125 billion points.
-Styopa
This guy is typically wrong in his bets and theories. Sure, he has been right in the past but had he not been in a wheel chair, no one would care about him.
Someone on the Internet, says Hawking's says nobody would care about Hawking if he wasn't in a wheelchair!
Let's all drop everything and listen to what this person on the Internet has to say because this person is obviously smarter than someone who figured out how to apply Quantum Mechanics to a Relativistic problem!
Did he also speculate that water is wet? Or that fire is hot?
Nothing against Steve here, but his observation is obvious knowledge. The more we progress in tech, science, etc. the more new and creative ways we'll find to kill each other. It's been that way since cavemen first discovered that you can sharpen a stick, and I don't expect it to change anytime soon either.
That said, we're finding equally new and creative ways to survive as well. From advances in medicine to sanitation and energy production, we're increasing our own survivability at a frankly alarming pace. And the numbers bear this out; birth rates are cratering in most civilized countries, but population continues to grow.
This signature is false.
The movie was certainly a liberal wet dream. It also had little to do with the book of the same name.
... and then invent AI that immediately learns how to spread out faster than we figured out for ourselves.
Why is it so important to preserve the human race? We keep wiping ourselves out: many great civilizations have perished because all the available land was used up for food. Now we are able to make our whole planet uninhabitable for ourselves, and quote a long way on our way to doing exactly that. We are unsustainable and we should therefore die out. And besides, after you're dead, what does it matter to you what happens to humanity?
-- Cheers!
By that time we should have spread out into space, and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the human race.
Scientific curiosity is inherent to humans. If that is the cause of our ultimate demise, we won't escape it, regardless of if we'll all be on Earth or scattered throughout space, because we carry it with us.
Prepare to get it in chunks over the next month.
What, you want it now? Tough.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Science and Tech are tools - how a tool is neither a salvation or a curse to humanity. Tools only amplify what a human or society can do. To the credit of scientist and engineers - science and engineering have advanced faster than our society, our economic systems, and our politics - society seems to always be doing a band aid catch up game of adapt or die. While scientist and engineers are dominated by logic, experimental data, and math - other fields like politics are based on greed, graft, lust, hatred, and a bunch of other unsustainable destabilizing stuff. Every despot who tries to make the "perfect world" ends up killing a bunch of people to create that *perfect world.* Every religion tries to say they have the answer - ends up in a *Crusade* killing and oppressing a bunch of people. Science and Engineering can't solve problems of the human heart. The challenge of the human heart is that some of us can be mentally unstable under stress and that some humans are psychopaths and sociopaths....and humans are such a needy bunch. (9_9)