Hawking's Question

[Scott24x7]

Well, it's been a bit quite here lately, and since I came across this a couple days ago, thought it might be interesting to see what you all thought about this question posed by Stephen Hawking:

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

I think Hawking's choice of words here is interesting, but I can't help feel like it's just "off the cuff"... So, to get things rolling, here is my view:

1) I'm not so certain the world is in any more or less (though I would actually suggest less) political chaoses then they have been in the last oh, 3,000 years. Certainly WWI and WWII would have been abundantly more politically chaotic. The dark ages would not have been a political picnic, and let's go back to a time before that when people got nailed to trees for their political (ok, call it religious, but for the day... I would contend, same thing) views.

2) Social chaos... again, I'd have to say any of the time's I've sited in point 1 were greater social upheaval than what we have today. Take the invention of guns... for the last 800 years guns have existed. This has been an 800 year problem, not a recent development. And many countries have now largely banned guns... (Australia, Japan, UK to varying degrees, just to name a few). I'm sure this is not the only example of social chaos, but again comparing the last 80 years or so, there has been some consistent genocide taking place on the planet... Germany/Poland, Congo, Somalia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Russia, US (YES the US, see a couple of articles on Little Boy and Fat Man if you have questions about this...)... the list goes on. I don't see the world has made significant progress in this area, to be honest, but again, go back 100's of years, and still you find things like the Inquisition, Black Plague, and untold numbers of deaths through conquest. (Attila the Hun, Napoleon, Caesar, The British Empire)... these are all gross social issues (even the Plague, because it was the lack of infrastructure that caused it to be so easily spread). So again, I don't see where in the next 100 years, short of nuclear war, which has been a threat since 1945, that this has any more turbulence than the past 100 or even 3,000 years.

3) Environmentally -- now this actually has some merit, and warrants asking, "Can we sustain life on earth given environmental conditions"? As a stand alone question, this would have probably had more relevance. In any case, I'd say to this, one good smack from a large asteroid or comet, and well come on... we've all seen the movies, and have the dead carcasses of Mammoth's scattered about as a reasonable example of this kind of destruction... however, still can't help noticing that, well, here we are. I don't buy global warming as a "Human factor", though I also don't dispute that it *may* be a real issue. I find it fascinating that 25 years ago everyone's big fear was the coming of the next ice age, and now 25 years on, it's a 180 degree turn around... come on, in 25 years?!? I don't think so. Are there things happening? Quite probably. Is man contributing to it, absolutely, but are they the catalyst? Very doubtful. In any case, if the overall factors of "environment" take hold (I'm talking the volcano's and earth quakes, and planet's axis shift... that kind of thing), there is squat man can do about it. That is a worry, and to Hawking's point, that may be the difference in long term survivability, but is that likely in the next 100 years? Well, not very... in the next 30,000 years, something like 70%. So, start storing those nuts and building your ark now.

4) How can the human race sustain another 100 years? Wow... that is amazingly short sited. I think, to be honest, we can all keep plodding along as we are and 100 years from now, it will mostly all still be here... Probably even the next 1,000. Beyond that, it gets a bit hazy. My advice: Move back to the caves... hey, seems to be working for Bin Laden???


Best Regards,
Scott

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."

 

[r937]

if you americans don't stop driving those big stupid SUVs, then global warming will drown all your coastal cities and force everybody to move north to canada

so please STOP IT!!

okay, seriously...

remember that question about the bacterial culture which doubles in size every day? there's some exponential formula which shows how much it has grown over X number of days, even if it started from just a tiny, tiny spore

the question was, after some number of days, when it has grown to the point where it has consumed half the medium, and it has yet fully half of it still left, you're dead, you're cooked, you're finished, because that second half will be gone in only one more day

the icecaps are melting, people, and the coastal cities won't disappear inch by inch, they'll disappear all of a sudden (maybe not all on one last day, but you get the idea)

i think everybody has his head in the sand on the environmental issue





r937.com | rudy.ca

 

[buck2506]

If you read the research, scientist can't prove that the global warming taking place is nothing more than a normal cycle. Is the planet hotter than it was twenty years ago, yes, but can you prove without a doubt that that the planet is hotter than it was 2000 years ago?

The geologic record shows a planet that has changed over time (shifted magnetic poles, increased wobble, cooler climate and hotter climate) so how can you be absolutely positive that global warming is caused by humans?

Over population would be a greater concern. The more dense the population becomes the faster disease will spread and mutate, becoming more resistant to drugs. Look at prisons for the proof. Several strains of tuberculosis are now resistant to antibiotics as a result of the close quarters and lack of health care in prisons.

On the social front, I think that information overload has pushed far too many people into thinking they need to know what their neighbor is doing. Media organizations in the US and abroad believe that the general population needs to know and become involved in every aspect of the story of the hour. People don't need that much information. With the low literacy rates of most nations, the general population barely comprehends the information they receive.

The problem is too much information with little substance.

 

[Scott24x7]

Buck,
I like your commentary... the only thing I would say about the global warming issue is, in my view it does not matter if it is a "Man made" or "Natural" issue... the problem is the same regardless of the cause. So that is a bit of a concern if it is actually taking place, with any significant impact.



Best Regards,
Scott

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."

 

[columb]

When I was young I read Revelations in the Bible. The bit about wars, and rumours of war, struck home and I rushed to my father saying 'look, look, it's all about now (early 60's). At that point we lived very much under the shadow of the bomb; does anyone remember the Cuban missile crisis? Many people believed that the world was going to die in a nuclear holocaust at any moment.

My father pointed out that St John was actually talking about the 4th century, a time when the decline of the Roman empire would have seemed as catastrophic as nuclear war in the 60's or global warming today.

In short, the world is always just about to self destruct from the stupidity of mankind, and somehow it never does. Sure, modern technology means that we have the capability now that the Romans never had, but that capability also means we have the capability to avoid it.

I'm not saying that we should be complacent, just that the doom mongers have always been with us, and they've always been wrong!


Ceci n'est pas une signature
Columb Healy

 

[Scott24x7]

Columb,
You know, your comments/statement is exactly why I was so disappointed in this question from Hawking... someone I have followed for years, since his first edition of "A brief history of time", and this seems a rather throw-away question, that doesn't really have much substance to it... carries only on the back of his "We must colonize space" lecture, which I agree with completely, but I don't think it's justified by the "How will the human race survive another 100 years...."
Just a little disappointed in the question he has posed. I am even wondering whether someone in his office has made this up, and passed it off as his... I have seen on the internet that "It was verified as his statement", but I'm just so disappointed in it, and its wording...


Best Regards,
Scott

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> but I'm just so disappointed in it, and its wording...
What about the wording do you find disappointing? Granted that you might not have said it all, but if you had, how would you have worded it?

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[keenanbr]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5012266.stm

 

[CajunCenturion]

Let's keep in mind that this forum's focus is language. I think the climate would be an excellent topic for discussion in STC, but let's keep this thread focused on target towards the the op's comment,
"I think Hawking's choice of words here is interesting, ..."

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Lunatic]

Cajun... That may have been the intent, but 95% of Maniac's post is dealing with non-language social science implications. Or is this a 'do as I say, not as I do moment?' ;p

As for the interesting choice of words, personally I find it very interesting the way Maniac chose to break down (incorrectly in my opinion) the quotation. He broke down each word, detaching it from the surround context and the effect of combining any of them. In that manner he was able to make compeling arguements against each component and use that to try to disprove the quotation as a whole.

This happens to be my biggest pet peeve about arguementation today. That no one looks at the big picture. Instead of arguing the contextual and combined impacts of items people break things down to the single threads that make the rope strong and say by break those they are able to break the rope.

Take a car engine. Take it appart and start looking at the individual pieces. You would be able to find many reason why a car engine should never be able to run, the oil pan is designed inefficiently, the radiator doesn't have enough air-flow, etc. But when you take those pieces that individually are easy to argue against and combine them you end up with a well functioning (although most often an environmentally unfriendly) car engine.

On the language standpoint I think Maniac has done a diservice by removing the combination of the effects together. He isn't arguing against the basic premise behind the quotation, instead he attacks each element as if it were a sperate entity instead of part of a great whole.

As Maniac did point out, social and political turmoil have existed from the dawn of society and have not retarded the development of society. However by adding in the last segment, environmental concerns, Hawking changes the entire nature of the statement. Essentially Hawkings is presenting the viewpoint that the social and political problems will prevent us from addressing the environmental concerns that face us (whether human caused or not). A premise that is greater than the sum of its parts and cannot be looked at by breaking the quotation down into individual components.

***

<Environmenal discussion points removed since they're not pertinent to this forum.>

 

[SantaMufasa]

I think Hawking's choice of words here is interesting...

If Hawking was really wondering, then I would be rather concerned that "the most intelligent man alive" couldn't come up with his own hypotheses.


But has anyone considered the possibility that Hawking may be just "rattling our cages"?...That he is attempting to generate broad-based discussion amongst us, to consider our collective (versus strictly individual) futures?

I believe that his wording is beyond rhetorical...he intends it to be provacative. Does this, in fact, provoke any of us to suggest responses, beyond hopping on the "Doom and Gloom" bandwagon?

Since this is the "Love of Language" forum (versus the "Squaring the Circle", "Discussion of Ideas" forum), I propose that we take this opportunity to let our rhetorical skills flourish by our asserting visionary, "break-the-mold" ideas that could (within the realm of scientific feasibility) "Save Mankind from Itself" or from the "Road to Self-Destruction."

I'll attempt to get the ball rolling by asserting that there is one paradigm shift that might ameliorate many of our most pressing environmental, social, physical, financial, and industrial challenges that seem to be placing humans on a collision course with our future:

Clean, plentiful, renewable non-fossil energy

Look at the possible positive impacts of the availability of such a resource:

Water de-salinization/purification -- Much of the world does not have reliable access to fresh water. With reliable sources of drinking and irrigation water, much of the currently useless land area of the globe could become arable/livable.

Energy-oriented conflicts -- Would influences outside the Middle East be pressing agendas there if petroleum was no longer part of the equation?

Environmental impacts from burning fossil fuels -- If we no longer burned fossil fuels, CO₂ emissions would no longer be the issue that it is today.

90% of the world's population resides on less than 5% of the earth's land mass. If energy were no longer an issue, then mankind could "spread out" and reduce risks of the "Lemming Effect".

All of this is presuming that the Mayans were way off base when they designed their calendar to expire on December 21, 2012.









Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I can provide you with low-cost, remote Database Administration services: see our website and contact me via www.dasages.com]

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Cajun... That may have been the intent, but 95% of Maniac's post is dealing with non-language social science implications. Or is this a 'do as I say, not as I do moment?' ;p
Language and linguisitics is the intent of this forum. Yes, it's true that TheManic does delve into non-linguistic issues but between us, I think we can keep this discussion correctly focused for this forum. I appreciate your linguistic analysis of the quotation.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[CrystaLv]

I have to say I am enjoying reading posts of this nature because it shows how intelligent people are in TT.
I would like to know if there is a place where this topic could live without being critisized a lot? To me it is just joy of knowing some people are so smart. Please, direct me to the place where there is more of these type of posts.

Also if Lunatic can explain what does it mean:
Not sure I agree, but it is also more probable than I would like.


Thanks

 

[CajunCenturion]

Yes, forum1229 - Squaring The Circle - would be the right one for an environmental discussion.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[GwydionM]

How many of you would enjoy living in the year 1906? Or in a 2006 in which we had the benefits of modern technology but social values had remained unchanged?

Also the big disasters began with the 1914 war, which should have been stopped when it was clear there would be no easy victory. The last six decades haven't been especially violent and large numbers of people have got a lot of new freedoms.

------------------------------
An old man who lives in the UK

 

[IknowMe]

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

<-- Just trying to do it one day at a time.

As for the interesting choice of words, personally I find it very interesting the way Maniac chose to break down (incorrectly in my opinion) the quotation. He broke down each word, detaching it from the surround context and the effect of combining any of them. In that manner he was able to make compeling arguements against each component and use that to try to disprove the quotation as a whole.

Lunatic, although I found your argument interesting, I have to disagree, the question is addressing three issues, why then tie the hands of the answer?

In response to the 'engine' suppose yours wasn't functioning properly as a whole, wouldn't you then begin looking at individual parts for repair/replacement?

I think the question was well designed as it was intended (I'm assuming) to provoke discussion, wich appears (albeit on Cajuns terms) to be occuring.


Wow, I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time.
I think I've forgotten this before.

 

[gbaughma]

if you americans don't stop driving those big stupid SUVs, then global warming will drown all your coastal cities and force everybody to move north to canada

Northern Minnesotans for Global Warming! W00T! <LOL>

(I'm just following you around today, r937... lol)

p.s. I looked at your web page, and bookmarked it... some GREAT SQL stuff there..... even if your web page doesn't look as spiffy as mine. <ROFL>



Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

 

[Lunatic]

First, Maniac, sorry, I'm not trying to come across as confrontational, you just happened to walk into one of my hidden pet peeves.

***

Crystal, what part? The bit about the manner in which Maniac choose to disect the quotation or the moved environmental analysis? I'll assume its the quotation analysis part (correct me if I'm wrong).

The crux of the arguement is you can look at a quotation in 2 ways. Contextually/Holistically or Point-by-Point (for lack of a better descriptor).

When looking at it Point-By-Point like Maniac did you analyze the importance of each individual word and it's individual meaning first and then its importance in the phrase second. Essentially each word must be able to stand on its own.

The second way is looking at it contextually - which is to say that each word hold little individual importance, it is how the words fit together that matters. Essentially the words are used to relay an underlying premise/philosphy/idea and that you shouldn't look at the words individually because individually they mean nothing. Their significance doesn't become apparent until they are taken as a whole (essentially the idea that the sum is greater than the whole).

Both styles of analysis have times they should be used. My arguement is that most political/social theory/social science arguements/points are presented in the second manner. The individual words are not as important as the concept they convey. And I believe that far too often they are attacked by using a point-by-point analysis of them. Both sides of the political spectrum do this. Personally I despise Rush Limbaugh, but I had to stop watching Jon Stewart because he engages in the same time of intellectually deceptive attack on what people say (I'm refering more to his interviews than the skits. I simply can't watch him interview anyone he doesn't agree with because he is so dishonest in his rebutalls of their positions).

To try to explain it conceptually it goes something like this...

If you are to make sourdough bread you need 4 things, sugar, flour, milk, and yeast (I think, its been a while). If I were to argue that those ingridents don't make sourdough bread using a point-by-point analysis I would point out that the bread doesn't taste like milk, nor does it taste sweet, even though there is as much sugar added as flour in the process. And yeast? I'm eating bread, not bacteria.

However analyzing it contextual takes more effort because you have to understand (or admit in the case of politics) that other processes are involved. The sugar is used used to feed the yeast so it can go to work on the flower. The yeast is killed by the cooking, but only after its done its job. You have to take the effort to understand how everything interacts with everything else.

Essentially using a point-by-point rebutal I could make a pretty decent arguement (drawing a lot on common sense) to the uniformed why sourdough bread is not made of those ingredients. And to the uniformed it would make sense. However it would be intellectually dishonest because I'm hiding all the processes and interaction that occurs that makes the sum of the parts greater than the whole.

****

Both analysis types have their place, sometimes it is appropriate to question the use of individual colors in a painting (point-by-point). However sometimes the colors chose matter far less and you need to look at the picture as a whole (contextual).

****

When you look at Hawkings quotation "In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?"

The question you need to ask yourself is: Does Hawking intend for each word to be analyzed individually or is the manner in which he constructed the question meant to meld the individual words into something greater than its parts.

My belief is 99.9% of all political/social commentary/questions/thoughts/etc should be analyzed contextually becasue society does not exist in a vacum. However it is far easier when trying to disprove/rebut something to point out how inaccurate each individual part is. Because it is much easier to say that an engine won't run when all you are doing is trying to prove the radiator won't work by itself. It becomes much more difficult if you are forced to acknowledge how the radiator interacts all the other components of the engine.

Disproving a quotation or a point is the same way. It is far easier to disprove a single word than to disprove the premise of the quotation.

****

On an unrelated note... Why was my post the only one that was edited? Especially since I could argue that people were inaccurately only focusing on the sole association of Global Warming with 'environmental problems' and not the other issues that factor into the concept of 'evironmental' problems? Huh? Why? (sorry, I am just making up B.S. arguement... it was a tangent, even if connected)

 

[Lunatic]

Lunatic, although I found your argument interesting, I have to disagree, the question is addressing three issues, why then tie the hands of the answer?
In response to the 'engine' suppose yours wasn't functioning properly as a whole, wouldn't you then begin looking at individual parts for repair/replacement?

I think the question was well designed as it was intended (I'm assuming) to provoke discussion, wich appears (albeit on Cajuns terms) to be occuring.

To ships sail by each other in the night

1st... Tying the hands... see the above post.. but the skinny is it the words that are important or the concept they are used to present. If its the words that are important then a word-by-word analysis is appropriate, however if it is the interaction between the words (chaos, social, political, environmental) then it is inappropriate to examine them word by word because you lose the concept they were used to convey and thus lose ALL meaning. (I would argue that a word-by-word analysis is meaningless in this Hawkings quotation)

The radiator is not broken... The point behind my arguement is rather than trying to disprove a perfectly running engine, a dissentor would instead try to disprove only that the radiator, when detached from the rest of the engine, shouldn't function. And that person would be correct, because without being connected to the engine and car the Radiator doesn't function properly.

However the person would say they succeeded in proving that the engine doesn't work when if fact they only proved the obvious, that the raditor, by itself, is meaningless.

***

A better example is a stool. I can prove a one legged stool isn't effective but that doesn't mean that the concept of the stool isn't effective.

Much more difficult is proving that a 3 or 4 legged stool isn't effective. People try to disprove the leg instead of the stool and that is what really irks me.

 

[IknowMe]

@Lunatic

You have a great argument and I agree with what your saying. However, I interpreted Maniac's post a little differently than you did. I felt his (erm.. sorry if I guessed wrong) approach was more... shorten the 1st leg, throw a matchbook under the second, there's no need to touch the third after the other two are corrected, and wallah the stools ready for a few more years.

To show there's no hard feelings on my part I'm going to answer the question contextually.......ready for this

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

That's easy, SNAKE OIL. Bye the way if anyone is interested I'm currently selling it somewhere around $75/barrel.

Wow, I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time.
I think I've forgotten this before.