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."
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. . . .
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.
While I agree with your first point, as to the second point, I'd say the break between weapon and action began centuries ago with the development of artillery. Drones are really just part of a long chain of innovations that started with the invention of gunpowder. In fact, there were many who felt that firearms and cannon were dishonorable weapons, and a battle should be fought man to man on a field of battle, sword matched to sword.
At any rate, that robots would become our warriors was foreseen decades ago, and every advance in remote probes; whether they be in space, on land or in deep water, has always been as much about developing weapons technology as it has been about exploration. That is the way of science, discoveries that can benefit humanity greatly can also all too often be used as weapons.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Science may recognize it, but scientists rarely have a say in the actual application of new technologies. At that point we have to put our faith in our governments and commercial interests, and neither of these groups have proven all that reliable at using technology responsibly.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Advances in computing have enabled oppression that would have been unimaginable not even a few decades ago.
Yes, because slaves in ancient Egypt or early USA were not really 'oppressed'. Nobody was monitoring their tweets, nobody was invoking 'protection from terrorists' while bodypatting them before they boarded their business class flights for holiday trips, they haven't to copy with uncertainty of their routers having hardware embedded backdoors done by NSA and there was no risk of them being caught in the city because of CCTVs monitoring.
Every time I hear people claiming how bad contemporary freedoms are, I really wish them being sent to middle ages or earlier and put into non-ruling class shoes. Spending few years as serf, not being allowed to own anything, move more than few miles from your place of birth, reading anything except Bible (if you even knew how to read in first place) and having your relatives raped by local lord on the whim without any chances of going to the court would probably put things into perspective.
And every time I hear about people comparing "how good we have it now" to how bad it used to be, I really wish that they'd just admit that they've given up at being the best and that they've settled for "well, at least we're not North Korea".
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
Velcro?
Technology has not made our lives worse, but it hasn't necessarily made them better. Longer, perhaps, but longer does not always mean better.
A lot depends on what you value and your perception of the world. There are people living today who would commit suicide over having to live at a 19th Century level, let alone a 10th Century level of technology or culture. However, as we know, millions and billions of people lived in those periods over time, the great majority of which did not kill themselves.
There is nothing that describes how science does not necessarily improve our lives like the term "first world problems". People live and die, and feel miserable about not having things that 99.99999% of humans have never had or even known existed.
Ultimately, your attitude and ability to maintain perspective is probably your best chance at really feeling happy in this world. There *are* marvels and wonders out there, but we're so used to them, that you probably need to study history to really understand how good we have it.
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!