# Stephen Hawking: Humanity threatened by "own goal"



## Brian G Turner (Jan 19, 2016)

In a Q&A session, Professor Stephen Hawking warned that the biggest danger to humanity was scientific progress itself:
Hawking: Humans at risk of lethal 'own goal' - BBC News



> Humanity is at risk from a series of dangers of our own making, according to Prof Stephen Hawking.
> 
> Nuclear war, global warming and genetically-engineered viruses are among the scenarios which he singles out.
> 
> And he says that further progress in science and technology will create "new ways things can go wrong".


----------



## Overread (Jan 19, 2016)

To be fair we've known this for years; decades even. As science advances as does our capacity to affect things at a global scale we certainly increase the possibility for something to go wrong and cause vast amounts of damage to ourselves and the ecosystems we live in.

That said I suspect the greater threat will be something we don't even think of as a risk rather than something like a virus or nuclear war. Just look at global warming which is partly blamed on emissions which we generally hardly think about and which takes generations of suffering under before we really deal with them (for as much as we glare at China and their emissions we forgot that London was once the same).


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Jan 19, 2016)

I think he's on the right track, but his solution of going somewhere else is very much on the wrong track.


----------



## galanx (Jan 19, 2016)

Kim Robinson saying the same thing in Scientific American (via Salon)
There is no planet B: We’re not colonizing the Milky Way any time soon


----------



## REBerg (Jan 19, 2016)

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
-- Walt Kelly​
I am glad that Hawking, despite the warnings, remains optimistic that we can direct continued scientific advancements in positive directions. Technological solutions to our already existing, self-created problems are our only short-term options for survival.


----------



## Starbeast (Jan 22, 2016)

I heard a quote from Professor Hawking recently on the radio. He said that he gives the Earth roughly about a hundred years until it's doom. I smiled and thought, "I was thinking the same thing."




"The only saving grace of the present, is that it's too damned stupid to question the past very closely."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------H.P. Lovecraft


----------



## J Riff (Jan 22, 2016)

I figure it's a set-up, see.... it's ET, just waiting and watching, waiting for humans to wreck the place so badly that they can finally step in and say 'weeeel, we can help you lot out..... but only under the following conditions... * And that will save them all the work and cost of an invasion. Smart, those extraterrestrials.


----------



## Anne Spackman (Jan 24, 2016)

I think that Hawking is right about humanity being at great risk from a series of dangers of our own making: nuclear war, genetically-engineered viruses, and global warming.  Even those like me with a limited knowledge of these issues can see the present danger to our human race; denial of these issues makes it even worse as we are not united in trying to fix the problems, and they are getting worse--at least global warming is, according to many scientists.  I think a lot of people can't handle the truth, and so they bury their heads in the sand, as it were, or deny that global warming is even happening.  There seems to be a lot of ignorance out there among people denying these issues, which makes it hard to make enough people care about doing something active to help, such as buying smaller cars, using less gasoline, recycling-- especially plastic-- etc.  The impact of these private conservation measures may be small, however; it may have to be governments that have to help invest in clean, renewable energy sources as a long-term solution to curtailing global warming.

Many of the current threats to humanity didn't pose such a threat to us at the beginning of the 20th century, so it's true that technology has created dangers we couldn't even have imagined we would face 115 years ago.  But perhaps technology will find a way to protect us in the future.  Creating human colonies in space or on other planets may one day be possible, but not any time soon.  And, even if we establish colonies some day in the long-distant future, right now we must face what we have done to our planet and find a way to restore the environmental balance we have altered with our pollution.  Otherwise, global warming will continue, and temperatures will go on rising.

Moreover, we need to be united globally in our defense of the planet's environment to protect against global warming, and what about the garbage patches of plastic floating around in our oceans that are killing sea life and birds?  The 'every country for itself' mentality isn't helping protect our global resources from being all discovered, mined, processed, and used, especially our fossil fuels that are being used and burned away in a matter of decades--though it took _billions_ of years for oil and coal and gas to be created.  We need to find a way to globally ration our fossil fuels, but at present only some groups and people are trying to conserve energy--and for what, some might ask? 

In a sense, who wants to sacrifice his own comforts and needs to get from a to b and have a warm living room in winter and a cool house in summer as long as everyone else in the world who can afford to seems to be using whatever energy they want and can pay for, too?  Now I am not saying that this is the right attitude, to say who cares about global warming because I need to be happy first and foremost, and many of us out there care very much about global warming and don't want it to get any worse.  I am only saying that a lot of people don't see that we can't keep going on this way indefinitely--using anything we personally want and throwing it away, as though the garbage 'disappears' and the Earth can just adjust to whatever gases we expel into the environment through industrial production and transportation exhausts.

What we need to do is to teach people more about the environment, about how we use energy, and about the effects of pollution on the environment before it will ever be popular, or necessary, to start really conserving fossil fuel energy.  There is so much we need to do to protect the environment, but as long as people are apathetic (not scared about it enough) nothing will change.  And denying that there is a danger is the main reason why a lot of people aren't afraid enough of what will happen.

I could go on and on.


----------



## REBerg (Jan 24, 2016)

Anne Spackman said:


> I think that Hawking is right about humanity being at great risk from a series of dangers of our own making: nuclear war, genetically-engineered viruses, and global warming.  Even those like me with a limited knowledge of these issues can see the present danger to our human race; denial of these issues makes it even worse as we are not united in trying to fix the problems, and they are getting worse--at least global warming is, according to many scientists.  I think a lot of people can't handle the truth, and so they bury their heads in the sand, as it were, or deny that global warming is even happening.  There seems to be a lot of ignorance out there among people denying these issues, which makes it hard to make enough people care about doing something active to help, such as buying smaller cars, using less gasoline, recycling-- especially plastic-- etc.  The impact of these private conservation measures may be small, however; it may have to be governments that have to help invest in clean, renewable energy sources as a long-term solution to curtailing global warming.
> 
> Many of the current threats to humanity didn't pose such a threat to us at the beginning of the 20th century, so it's true that technology has created dangers we couldn't even have imagined we would face 115 years ago.  But perhaps technology will find a way to protect us in the future.  Creating human colonies in space or on other planets may one day be possible, but not any time soon.  And, even if we establish colonies some day in the long-distant future, right now we must face what we have done to our planet and find a way to restore the environmental balance we have altered with our pollution.  Otherwise, global warming will continue, and temperatures will go on rising.
> 
> ...



It's difficult to motivate people who will not experience, in their lifetimes, the full consequences of what they have done to their planet. Thirty years from now, my own children will be dealing with some of those repercussions. I can't imagine the world my grandson will face in sixty years.
Without some sort of technological salvation, every small thing we can do now will collectively delay the day when the Human Race has no choice but to abandon its home planet. Is this the sad truth learned by every race in the Universe, or are we a uniquely destructive species?


----------



## Anne Spackman (Jan 24, 2016)

REBerg said:


> It's difficult to motivate people who will not experience, in their lifetimes, the full consequences of what they have done to their planet. Thirty years from now, my own children will be dealing with some of those repercussions. I can't imagine the world my grandson will face in sixty years.
> Without some sort of technological salvation, every small thing we can do now will collectively delay the day when the Human Race has no choice but to abandon its home planet. Is this the sad truth learned by every race in the Universe, or are we a uniquely destructive species?



I think that you are right in that future generations will be wondering why we didn't care more about the environment before it was too late to stop some of the damage we've done already to it.  Obviously global warming is a major issue most people know about, whether or not they believe it is actually happening, but also a major issue that isn't being publicized enough are the plastic garbage patches in our oceans--we need to know about them and do something about recycling more plastic as well as use less plastic for the convenient throw-away beverage bottles.  So many people buy and throw away these plastic bottles without a thought as to where the plastic trash is going.  We need to have sellers charge a deposit when you buy plastic bottles that you get back when you return the plastic bottles--that might work in getting people to recycle as it did with deposits on glass beverage bottles long ago. 

Something interesting that I read recently was that global warming is destroying certain coral reefs, where fish and other ocean species live and breed.  So, in essence, we are destroying the ocean habitats we depend upon for seafood, and irresponsibly using much of the resources of both ocean and land without regulating enough who (what country) gets what and how much.  We need regulation on how much fish any nation can take from the seas so that fish and other aquatic species dependent upon the fish for food don't go extinct.  Maybe there are some international regulations already, I don't know, but if so, we are still not doing enough to stop the over-fishing of our oceans.

We also need regulation of carbon emissions in cars and factories worldwide.  Everyone must do their part, every nation, and how and when will we all cooperate in this effort?  My guess is that like you said, we are often a destructive species, even when we do not intend to be.  More so than the other animals of the Earth, who as far as I know only take what they need immediately for food, but our capacity for destruction does not seem to have been mitigated much yet by our evolved higher intelligence. We are, I think, _casually_ destructive, if only because we are often selfish and apathetic about doing things that aren't directly going to have something in it for us ourselves.  In general, we take too much from the planet, such as taking too many fish from the oceans, without considering how much we should leave there and protect for future generations.  We aren't trying to destroy the world deliberately most of us, but often we ignore whatever gets in the way of what we want.  Many people are what we might call ruthless in places where judicious use of resources and saving the world's resources for posterity are an idea only those who have means to do so can afford to do.  A poor fisherman in some places might be willing to kill endangered species for money and over-fish the seas as well, but what other choice does he have when he has to eat and live?  He can't afford to care too much about the environment and global warming until he has the education to know about it and some economic incentive to care about it.  In our busy, selfish human world, most people need a personal incentive to care about what isn't going to help them right away, and if we realize we need to care, only then will we...


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Jan 25, 2016)

Selfish is the word, alas.


----------



## K. Riehl (Feb 11, 2016)

So we have a collapse that is caused by a super-bug, asteroid, or a Coronal Mass Ejection from the sun. We could loose 99.9% of the world population and humanity would still, eventually, recover. 

The drive to reproduce is the single greatest factor in impacting nearly everything involving use of resources. Until we control/reduce our population there is only the hope that science brings in some long sought Holy Grail type of technology. Fusion, Synthetic food, Gene Engineering to head-off diseases and help replace depleted fisheries, Nano-Tech to clean up pollution.

Live every day like its your last!


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 11, 2016)

He seems really pessimistic about humanity's chances of survival.


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (Apr 29, 2016)

K. Riehl said:


> The drive to reproduce is the single greatest factor . . .


Correct. Understated actually. If exponential population growth isn't stopped we are doomed to near universal poverty, period. There is no magic technological bullet to prevent it. This is the worst thing about the green and antipoverty movements. By diverting attention from the more difficult issue, allowing people to appease their concience by recycling pop bottles and giving alms, they are making these problems worse, not better.


----------



## J Riff (Apr 29, 2016)

Pop bottles aren't recyclable for $ here, they took that away. Street types can only get a nickle for beer cans. This makes it almost impossible to raise more'n a few bucks. The rest goes to the people at the dump who cut a deal with the Govt. Petty and indicative of the state of the disunion here in the frozen north.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Apr 30, 2016)

Exponential growth is always stopped in a finite system.
See Malthus.


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (Apr 30, 2016)

Stephen Palmer said:


> Exponential growth is always stopped in a finite system.
> See Malthus.


Correct of course. I should have said "stopped in time".


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 30, 2016)

Hawking is expert in a few areas. He's not an expert on population growth, ecosystems etc.  We don't have exponential growth any longer, which anyway stops for before system failure in most domains.


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (Apr 30, 2016)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Hawking is expert in a few areas. He's not an expert on population growth, ecosystems etc.


19th century biologists weren't experts on physics but they still showed Kelvin up.  Pasteur wasn't an expert on medicine but he revolutionized the field. Pauling started out studying quantum mechanics but his contributions went way beyond that. Alvarez wasn't an expert on paleontology but he still dragged the paleontologists kicking and screaming toward the current consensus.


Ray McCarthy said:


> We don't have exponential growth any longer . . .


Strictly speaking, if you draw your graph with small enough intervals on the time axis, AT THE MOMENT, you are technically correct, in that the global human population growth RATE has been declining recently. But if you use larger intervals on the time axis, this disappears and you are back to exponential growth, and from a more long run perspective, I very much doubt that the momentary trend will stabilize and become the long term trend. All of human history, which is marginally relevant, and all of the theory of natural selection, which is totally relevant, is against it.

It is to be expected that if net reproduction rate is not rigidly constant (and absent some artificial constraint, there is no reason for it to be, and historically it hasn't been) that the curve of population against time, given a short enough interval between data points, will go through periods when the growth rate is less than, and periods when it is more than, what a constant exponential growth model would predict. But ANY long term net reproduction rate > 1, even 1.0000000000001, leads in the long run to a catastrophic increase in population that will force the net reproduction rate down through poverty, famine, warfare, disease or some equally unpleasant mechanism. I'd much rather we stop short of that so we can all afford the luxuries of biodiversity and a pleasant standard of living. If the rate fluctuates, as it naturally does, there will be intervals when the rate is less than what a constant exponential model would predict and periods when it will be more. The greater the fluctuation, the longer interval you have to look at to see the long term trend.

It is fashionable among most of the left, the religious right, and my own libertarian fellow travelers, to dismiss Malthus, but their arguments usually strike me as like the chap who has fallen out of an airplane and reasons that he has already fallen a long way and nothing bad has happened yet.

Larry Niven and Steven Barnes articulate the point very well in their novel "Saturn's Race", which I strongly recommend. I believe Eric Drexler makes a similar point in the seminal book on nanotechnology, "Engines of Creation", which I regard as one of the most important books of the past century. If net reproduction rate is lowered by arguments appealing to altruism, by rising living standards, by increased life span, by economic security, by lower childhood mortality, or any of the other influences usually touted, what traits are being selected for? Resistance to those very influences of course. Unless we very actively do something to prevent it, the future belongs to the descendants of the fecund, and it is a pretty grim future.

The Good Doctor wrote most eloquently on the subject. I regard his essays published monthly in F & SF as his finest work. He wrote that they were the thing he had the most pleasure in writing. Indeed, if you'll accept, for the moment, a broader definition of "SF" to include this sort of non-fiction, which I think of as the "penumbral literature of SF", and which I also associate also with Analog and with James Baen, I think they are among the finest things in the whole field. His essays in that series on human population growth are extremely worth reading. The intellectual quality is much higher than in the dumbed down essays he wrote for many, more pop, markets. Asimov adapted his writing to different markets more facilely than any writer I know of, and if you haven't read some of that specific essay series, I'd argue that you've never the real Asimov.

I fear we won't address this problem effectively until we are forced to, until biodiversity is reduced to people and people's crop of food yeast, possibly even until we've mined the Oort and turned all the available phosphorus into living tissue. We won't get there in giant leaps but by tiny increments, none of which will seem so obviously bad at the time, but which cumulatively lead to a dystopia fully as bad as any Huxley imagined.


Ray McCarthy said:


> exponential growth . . . anyway stops for before system failure in most domains.


That would depend on your definition of "system failure". For any definition likely to be applicable to the present issue and likely to make that a true sentence for the same issue, there are many ways the system could stabilize that any sane person would regard as far from optimal, without constituting "system failure" from some narrow technical perspective. There are all sorts of likely dystopias reachable through a Malthusian path that are short of extinction.


----------

