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."
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.
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 planet and in extension the universe is better off without human.
The problem is that humans compete with other life forms for food, light, warmth, moisture, etc. But computers need none of those things, and do best in a cool, dry, dark environment. So we should migrate our consciousnesses to silicon. AI is not the problem, it is the solution.
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.
Help? Have you seen his wife?
What if we aren't an intelligent species?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
To quote the late, great Bill Hicks, "We're a virus with shoes"
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
That's a HUGE assumption. Heck, picture a species virtually identical to us, except that they reproduce much more slowly. Their pharmaceutical and industrial revolutions would go VERY differently without the rapid population explosion we experienced as a result. In fact, we're seeing today that well-to-do nations tend to fall to roughly zero population growth (discounting immigration), so there's a fair chance their global population might stabilize at far below a billion, something easily sustainable without stressing the planet's carrying capacity, eliminating or at least greatly simplifying virtually all of the problems we've created for ourselves, from war, to pollution, global warming, etc.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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?
The thing is when you look past the clickbait, it's actually a reasonable opinion not on the dangers of technology, but on the dangers of trying to keep our current social models without adapting to or acknowledging disruptive technology.
for example, the "OMG Hawkins fears skynet" was just clickbait for "Hawkins is worried that if we don't do anything about current inequality trends, most of humanity will be treated as disposable garbage when automation renders human labour obsolete"
The most dangerous of them all...
Required reading for internet skeptics
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.
That's a HUGE assumption. Heck, picture a species virtually identical to us, except that they reproduce much more slowly. Their pharmaceutical and industrial revolutions would go VERY differently without the rapid population explosion we experienced as a result. In fact, we're seeing today that well-to-do nations tend to fall to roughly zero population growth (discounting immigration), so there's a fair chance their global population might stabilize at far below a billion, something easily sustainable without stressing the planet's carrying capacity, eliminating or at least greatly simplifying virtually all of the problems we've created for ourselves, from war, to pollution, global warming, etc.
The industrial revolution might play out even more differently that what you are imagining. Our rapid growth is one of the things that spurred the industrial revolution. A longer life cycle would make cultural changes much slower. Also, without a high demand on resources, it becomes unnecessary. Look at the native americans. They had plenty of resources for a small population and therefore didn't progress to the large seafaring boats necessary to get more resources from afar (among other things). We might not have arose at all as resource scarcity is responsible for the growth of intelligence. Even if we would have made it to the industrial revolution, with a small population it becomes much more difficult to fund billion dollar projects like the space program as it's harder to skim that much money off the top. Basically, although there are disadvantages of a large population, there are also certain advantages like the ability of everyone to donate $1 and have enough money to fund huge enterprises as well as other indirect advantages like forcing innovation in order to survive.
Whoa. Like, dude.
/// /// //>~~ ~
But what if being intelligent enough to realize you aren't an intelligent species makes you an intelligent species?
<//
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...
yes and of course
6. If violence wasnâ(TM)t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
8. Mockery and derision have their place. Usually, it's on the far side of the airlock.
12. A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.
14. "Mad Science" means never stopping to ask "what's the worst thing that could happen?"
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!