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]

...even if your web page doesn't look as spiffy as mine. <ROFL>

you have me at a disadvantage, sir, because i haven't seen yours, but would like to


my apologies to the rest of the people on this thread for the OT post but there is no other way for me to contact greg

greg, please let me know your email address by leaving a note on the contact page on my site

thanks

 

[Scott24x7]

All,
Well, looks like I've stirred up a hornets nest... I guess my commentary was meant to be somewhat the explanation of what about the language of the question I did not like, but I have failed to get my message across... so I'll try to bring some clarity to my issues.

I have always regarded Dr. Hawking for his ability to bring "Plane language" to very deep issues. (Hey, he got me to understand relativity, at the conceptual level...) While I appreciate his wording in this question is very Hawking-like, I find the question to feel like something a 3rd grader would ask the President in a pre-made statement.

To Lunatic's point, I have broken the question down in a point-by-point issue, and I believe this is part of the flaw of the question. It's like a questionnaire that asks you two questions on the same line with an "And", and it's impossible to answer BOTH accurately. (For example, "Is management effective and supportive?") I've had management that was very supportive and ridiculously ineffective... so how do you answer the question.

This feels like a list... "Let me tie some words together, and put the Stephen Hawking name on it, and see if we can stir the pot..." I feel ripped off by Dr. Hawking in this instance. Yes, it's causing a lot of discussion, but it is useful or productive discussion? The question is so short sited, and ambiguous, that I doubt there will be anything useful or provocative result from the discussion of it. 100 years??? You might as well have asked, "How can the human race force themselves to evolve significantly in the next 100 years." Well, in naturally occurring evolution, 100 years would not be enough time to notice anything significant.

There is no support for the question "In a world that is in turmoil politically, socially and environmentally..." That suggests that there is some significant sociopolitical turmoil, which is being driven by environmental issues???? To me, there is no basis for context in this question. How can it be answered, or even considered seriously? Is it implied that these three things are linked, or must be linked to be addressed? (Hence, why I felt the "Environmental" issue was the only part of the question that seemed to have any real relevance.)

And lastly, I'm most disturbed that our "Greatest Mind" alive thinks that this is the most important question he could pose to humanity, and that finding an answer to it would help to solve issues facing the world... Again, I note this was posed on the heels of his delivery of "We must colonize space" speech. It feels like a gratuitous plug.




Best Regards,
Scott

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

 

[snuv]

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.

I hate to disagree but a one legged stool is very effective.
I used to use one when hand-milking a cow and when she kicked, I could get out of the way in a hurry because the stool fell over as soon as I stood up.

As you say, it all depends on context.


"If it could have gone wrong earlier and it didn't, it ultimately would have been beneficial for it to have." : Murphy's Ultimate Corollary

 

[CajunCenturion]

There are many opportunties for tangential discussions, and I again want to thank everyone for staying focused on linguistics. I'm sure that Chance1234 would welcome any and all discussions on related topics in
Forum1229 - Squaring The Circle.

If you're not a member of STC and would like to join, click on the "Apply for Membership" link at the botton of thread, where "post box" normally appears.




--------------
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

 

[Scott24x7]

CC,
Sorry, I've created a monster apparently... didn't mean to throw such a wide door open... Trying to real it in.


Best Regards,
Scott

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

 

[CajunCenturion]

Not at all TheManiac. I think this thread is a great opportunity to see how words and phrases get connected and analyzed. Your post of 10 Jul 06 21:06 is excellent analysis how communication, or more to the point, interpretation takes place around the words and structure. I'm glad you started it.

I also hope that those who wish to delve into the related non-linguistic issues, such as global warming, social (dis)order, relative world violence, etc., feel free to open up those discussion in a forum more suited, such as STC, for those topics.

--------------
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]

@snuv - the exception that proves the rule

@MrMilson - The problems of text-based discussions... I'll ask you this... re-read the quotation and ask yourself which is more important, that there is social & political chaos & environmental concerns OR that there is a interaction between social chaos, political chaos, and envrionmental concerns?

 

[Lunatic]

Maniac... I'll try to explain my point a little better (I'm a far better oral communicator than written)...

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

There is only 1 question here, 'How can the human race sustain another 100 years?'. The rest, 'In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally' is the qualifer that prods you in the direction Hawking is thinking.

Further, you can't seperate the three (social, political, and environmental) because it is the interaction between the three, not the three individually, that is important.

***
Think of the stool as the next 100 years
Think of each leg as one of the qualifiers, environmental, social, and political.

The social and political chaos have existed for 1000's of years, so those two 'legs' are weak. However the environment (the third leg) has always been strong and thus we've been able to sit on the stool because the environment has supported more weight.

Now that the environmental leg has been weakened, how strong is the stool? Thats the question, with all factors playing in together, what is the overall result.

This is where your point-by-point analysis if flawed. Looking at each 'leg' individually without taking into account changes in the other legs, gives everyone a wrong/false/inaccurate/misleading (choose your favorite word) impression of the problem.

This is why I have such a problem with point-by-point break downs of contextual issues, they don't take into account how each point interacts with each other.

So in this case, yes the social and political legs have been an issue for 1000s of years, but dismissing those as awalys being a concern without bringing in the change to the environment (what ever change that may be, and whether its natural or man-made) gives a very wrong impression of the current state of things.

****

As for the question as to whether or not all three elements have to be taken into consideration together:

Yes all three parts must be taken together, you look at the world in a vacum. The social, political, and environmental elements have to be taken into account together. Social and political views/changes impact the environment, whether its increased emmissions, decreased emmissions, increased fertlizer use, decreased fertalizer use, etc, etc, etc.

None of these three elements happen in a vacum, they are constantly playing off of one another and by looking at one in a vacum you decieve yourself and others.

If you building a bridge you wouldn't look at how to mitigate earthquakes and wind and traffic volume seperately, you would have to look at how the mitigation efforts for all three interact.

It is the exact same thing in social science/politics, you can't look at each element individually, you must look at all three AND how they interact.

But it is much more difficult to disprove that an engine can run when it is completely assembled than when you are only looking at the individual pieces so people try to disprove the pieces and ignore the interaction between them.

I'll get off my pet peeve soapbox now

 

[CajunCenturion]

==&gt; There is only 1 question here, 'How can the human race sustain another 100 years?'. The rest, 'In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally' is the qualifer that prods you in the direction Hawking is thinking.
I don't think you can dismiss the parenthetical introduction because it establishes the context in which the question is interpreted. Further, it underscores several assumptions that may or may not be valid, and it is those assumptions that I think do merit point by point analysis.

Lunatic suggests that &quot;you can't seperate[sic] the three (social, political, and environmental) because it is the interaction between the three, not the three individually, that is important.&quot; However, there cannot be interaction between items that do not exist.

Has it been established that the world is in political chaos, and by whose definition of chaos?
Has it been established that the world is in social chaos, and again, by what definition of chaos?
Whereas there is sufficient data to indicate that the earth is warming, there is very little substantiation that such warming, whether natural, anthropogenic, or both, is in fact chaotic.

So I do agree that understanding the interaction of the actors is very important and in fact critical to the proper analysis of the issue, but it must first be shown that the actors exist. I'm not convinced that today, we have &quot;a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally,. The world is not perfect by any means, but that's a far cry from a three-headed chaos. Dr. Hawking's parenthetical is a very powerful context-establishing phrase, but is it establishing a valid context? If the context isn't valid, then the question is a non-sequitor.

--------------
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

 

[IknowMe]

@Lunatic

@MrMilson - The problems of text-based discussions... I'll ask you this... re-read the quotation and ask yourself which is more important, that there is social & political chaos & environmental concerns OR that there is a interaction between social chaos, political chaos, and envrionmental concerns?

I think those passing ships are a lot closer than we may thank. I wholeheartedly agree there's a huge relationship between social/political/environmental issues. I tried demonstrating that in the quote below but I'm not as good a written communication as I'd like to be. I was trying to show that by adjusting two legs of a stool the third comes into line naturally due to its relationship to the others.

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,

I re-read Maniacs post and realize I inferred the relationship as he did not directly address it. Fifty points to Lunatic (and thanks for the great posts).

p.s. while we're talking pet peeves, mine is framing eg 'Tax Relief'....but that's another topic.


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

 

[gbaughma]

you have me at a disadvantage, sir, because i haven't seen yours, but would like to

Yes you did. And you commented on me paying $25 for it.

http://parallel.tzo.com

Just my 2¢

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

 

[r937]

yeah, sorry, greg, i didn't realize that was you until after i posted in this thread

i'll contact you privately

r937.com | rudy.ca

 

[Scott24x7]

CC,

Your analysis:

So I do agree that understanding the interaction of the actors is very important and in fact critical to the proper analysis of the issue, but it must first be shown that the actors exist. I'm not convinced that today, we have "a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally,. The world is not perfect by any means, but that's a far cry from a three-headed chaos. Dr. Hawking's parenthetical is a very powerful context-establishing phrase, but is it establishing a valid context? If the context isn't valid, then the question is a non-sequitor.

Man, that's a grand-slam home run, test cricket-century, hail-Mary, slap-shot, hole-in-one, hat-trick, photo-finish, half-court, game-set-and-match point! Very well stated, and in large is exactly the point that I've been on about. If this is all disconnected, this is not a question worth asking... Looks like it was written by a 3rd grader, not one of the "Greatest Minds Alive". Ok, so he's a physics genius... maybe he got a D- in English.

(Oh, and just wanted to see how many sports analogies I could work into a single sentence...)


Best Regards,
Scott

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

 

[Lunatic]

First,

CC & Maniac - Are we arguing linguistics or arguing about what actually exists in the real world? Because my take on the real world was deleted.

Whether political, social, or environmental chaos exists in reality is irrelevent when looking at whether those elements can be seperated in the question. My arguement all along (at least the parts that were not deleted though other similar comments seem to be acceptable for some reason) has been that the elements are not stand alone elements, they be considered together.

CC: Essentially you are arguing that the premise behind the question is false, while I am arguing the manner Maniac used to rebut the premise of the question is fundementally flawed. Those really aren't connected at all because at the point I argued against the manner Maniac presented his rebutal the accuracy of the initially question became irrelevent. Instead the linguistic artifact shifted from Hawking's question to Maniac's analysis tool.

***

To directly address your attempt to dismiss the question by saying no proof is offered - No question, by itself, can ever establish the premise, it must have context surrounding it. For example, 'Given the problems of the heart, lungs, and kidneys, how can this patient live another 100 days' establishes no real world example of how severe the heart, lungs, and kidneys are.

Too attack a question because it doesn't provide every (or even one) example is foolish.

That doesn't mean that it is wrong to question the premise presented by the question, that is perferctly acceptable, although apparently better suited for the squared circle (?) forum.

What is inaccurate is dismiss the question because the premise it offers isn't the same as your world view. You may not believe the premise is true, or maybe don't believe the reality is as dark and dreary as posed by the question, but that is not a valid reason for dismissing the question out of hand because no context is given with it.

***

Too present another's question without providing any contextual support to it and then to try to dismiss it because your views don't mesh with the question's inherent premise is like playing a kid at chess. It is entire probably that you should succeed, but it is hardly a fair assessment either.

***

Either allow a discussion of the reality of the world we live in or focus on the linguistic properties because right now you are only essentially saying:

"Since the question provides no evidence to prove itself true then it must be false"

This is funadmentally flawed logic and should be rejected outright because your very same arguement can be flipped around and used in this way:

"Since the question provides no evidence but no evidence has been presented against it, then the question must be true" (and before you begin to argue that evidence has been presented, all competing evidence has been deleted and that makes the evidnece supporting the world view you present as a counter irrelevent in this discussion - you can't have one without the other).

 

[IknowMe]

Speaking of context...

you have me at a disadvantage, sir, because i haven't seen yours, but would like to

Yes you did. And you commented on me paying $25 for it.

I think I'll post this one on my wall and see what comments it brings.



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

 

[Scott24x7]

Perhaps it's all been lost... My initial point in all this was that it was a VERY poorly constructed question. My reasons for feeling it is a poorly constructed question are rooted in the ability to actually answer the question, which talks to the relevance of the question, which is was CC was deconstructing.

I would equate this question to something like this:

"Given that the world is flat, why would anyone wish to sail to the edge of it, and risk falling off the planet?"

I would suggest that Hawking's introduction "In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally" to have the same fundamental premis as "Given that the world is flat". The point here is, the question is flawed, and therefore can not have an answer that is useful. All you can do is rebut the question.

"But wait! The world is not flat... I believe it is spherical, and I intend to prove so..."

I am, as I have said, really disappointed in Hawkings choice of words in this question. I'm curious to know if others are as well, or if it's just me...


Best Regards,
Scott

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

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Are we arguing linguistics or arguing about what actually exists in the real world?
My thoughts with respect to this question, with respect to this forum, are based solely in linguistics, and how the use and structure of the language is used to direct interpretation. The question uses a parenthetical expression to establish a context which frames the subsequent question. In this case, the parenthetical context almost, (and I acknowledge that some will say 'does'), turns the question into a rhetorical, meaning it's not meant to be answered, but rather, that the answer is already provided by the parenthetical context. The fact that we can have a discussion about the validity of the parenthetical context indicates that the context of the question assumes facts not in evidence, therefore the question may not be valid.

It is not appropriate to either prove or disprove to context, regardless of how sensitive any of us feel, or which side we take, about the issue. Comments directly geared to proving or disproving the context have been deleted. However, it is a very appropriate discussion for STC, and a thread has been started just for that: (thread1229-1252752).

It is within the scope of this forum to discuss how the sentence/question structure itself can used as a tool to help drive interpretation.

--------------
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

 

[Gooser]

Given:

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

The answer is, we can't.

The reason is, we don't live in that world.

OR

The answer is, we can

The reason is, we've always lived in that world.

Regardless of your world-view, this is a stupid question from a smart guy. He is likely laughing at us now. Why a hundred years, why not two generations, or three? Or one? Why set the stage with arguable 'facts' unless you want them to be argued.

Here's a question, how could any of us ever know whether the world has survived another 100 years? We'll all be dead!

So, I think I'll stop by that other forum and support my argument that his 'facts' are bogus.

Thank you, and have a good day!



v/r

Gooser

Why do today
that which may not need to be done tomorrow --me

 

[johnwm]

It seems that the professor was asking a rhetorical question. The aim may have been to raise the questions in people's minds and promote thoughtful discussion of the issues. From the look of this thread, and the STC sister thread, he seems to have succeeded in that aim.

________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first.
'If we're supposed to work in Hex, why have we only got A fingers?'
Drive a Steam Roller

 

[Scott24x7]

Johnwm,
I can't say I agree with that... I don't know that his question was rhetorical, and in the forum in which he asked it, contextually, that would not appear to be the case. So we can't assume that it is... I am of the opinion he's specifically leading people down the "Let's explore space" path, which I don't disagree with, but I don't think this question really provokes that as a strong answer. What stops us from going to another planet, and wasting all the resource there? Moving to another planet isn't specifically likely to stop war either, on this planet, or from starting on another one.
I don't think there has been much at all meaningfull or useful arise from such a question. And from looking at responses on othere sites beyond TT, I haven't seen any evidience of that either.
I am still yet to have anyone answer my question, which was basically, am I the only one who thinks this question just doesn't measure up to what I would have expected for a "thought provoking" question? Is anyone else disappointed with the way this question has been constructed... even to the point of questioning whether it is rhetorical or not??? How obtuse.



Best Regards,
Scott

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