›

Stephen Hawking has a question for you...

dayday 9,611 Posts
edited July 2006 in Strut Central
"In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?"If one of the smartest people on the planet is asking this question, you know things can't be that good.

  Comments

  • hcrinkhcrink 8,729 Posts
    Apocalii
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    "In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?"




    If one of the smartest people on the planet is asking this question, you know things can't be that good.

    I dunno. Not to sound naive but if we didn't manage to destroy the world in the 1900s (with many people trying to actually accomplish this), I don't see the 2000s as being worse.
  • dayday 9,611 Posts
    Good point, maybe it's the massive amount of information we get now, but to me it feels like we're living at an accelerated pace. I can see the potential of what he's saying just by looking at the world around us today.

    People are too consumed with their own lives to stop and take a serious look at where we're all headed.

    It's disconcerting to think of one of the worlds foremost scientists/physicists saying "hmmm....by my calculations, humans have aproximately 100 years left on earth."

    Granted, he could just be saying that hypothetically, but this part of the article suggests otherwise:

    In a speech June 13 in Hong Kong, Hawking said the survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy Earth.

    He said that if humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth.

    I don't think I'm ready for that
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    Stephen Hawking, what a trip. I was hanging with him the other day, I said "Yo, Hawk" I always call him Hawk, I said "Yo, Hawk, man, whats up with all this time and space shitt you are always talking about, I mean, what if we're all in somebody Else's dream, and tomorrow she wakes up and it's all over and we find out that what we thought was real was just subconscious and were not really people were just quarks?

    And he says, "Well quarks are actually very small vibrating strings, which is a good thing, because if a meteor or something like that, you know, hits earth, and you know, like, mess stuff up, then we would survive, because we would be like, you know, vibrating strings, that are like really really small, and it wouldn't affect us.

    Damn, I never know what he is talking about.
  • twoplytwoply Only Built 4 Manzanita Links 2,917 Posts
    Stephen Hawking, what a trip. I was hanging with him the other day, I said "Yo, Hawk" I always call him Hawk, I said "Yo, Hawk, man, whats up with all this time and space shitt you are always talking about, I mean, what if we're all in somebody Else's dream, and tomorrow she wakes up and it's all over and we find out that what we thought was real was just subconscious and were not really people were just quarks?

    And he says, "Well quarks are actually very small vibrating strings, which is a good thing, because if a meteor or something like that, you know, hits earth, and you know, like, mess stuff up, then we would survive, because we would be like, you know, vibrating strings, that are like really really small, and it wouldn't affect us.

    Damn, I never know what he is talking about.


    DAN, ARE YOU HIGH?

    (Y/N)



  • wooshiewooshie 490 Posts
    I was talking quantum physics the other day with some homies

    we were talking about black holes, how they're everywhere around us, the whole two places in one time thing, We were talking about out of body experiences / life after death. what makes a soul? conciousness? what part of the brain is responsible for conciousness? the cells responsible for conciousness - they can be in two places at once? are their black holes in our minds? isn't he working to disprove his black hole theory? the being on both sides theory out the window?
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    Stephen Hawking, what a trip. I was hanging with him the other day, I said "Yo, Hawk" I always call him Hawk, I said "Yo, Hawk, man, whats up with all this time and space shitt you are always talking about, I mean, what if we're all in somebody Else's dream, and tomorrow she wakes up and it's all over and we find out that what we thought was real was just subconscious and were not really people were just quarks?

    And he says, "Well quarks are actually very small vibrating strings, which is a good thing, because if a meteor or something like that, you know, hits earth, and you know, like, mess stuff up, then we would survive, because we would be like, you know, vibrating strings, that are like really really small, and it wouldn't affect us.

    Damn, I never know what he is talking about.


    DAN, ARE YOU HIGH?

    (Y/N)




  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts
    I was talking quantum physics[/b] the other day with some homies.

    we were talking about black holes[/b]

    I was talking quantum physics[/b] the other day with some homies.

    we were talking about black holes[/b]

    I was talking quantum physics[/b] the other day with some homies.

    we were talking about black holes[/b]

    I don't mean to be rude, doggy, but get your science straight.

    I live this shit.

  • wooshiewooshie 490 Posts
    I know nothing about science or black holes, I was just talking to some guys i know who were blowing my mind even though I didn't understand half of what they were talking about. I realise what i said makes no sense I was just throwing 20 questions out there to see if anyone would say something. The connection between science and the idea of having a 'soul' interests the fuck out of me.

    Please educate me.
  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts
    The connection between science and the idea of having a 'soul' interests the fuck out of me.
    Please educate me.
    I'm an atheist.
  • kwalitykwality 620 Posts
    Does it really take a mind like Stephen Hawking to raise the question of our fate?
    I ask the same question in the car, in the supermarket and everytime I turn the t.v on. I think that time has increased exponentially. Think of how fast things have come since the industrial revolution... If Stephen Hawking can come up with a theory to combat apathy, then we might be onto something.

    Whoa, what a feel good thread!
  • dayday 9,611 Posts
    If Stephen Hawking can come up with a theory to combat apathy, then we might be onto something.


    (and so are we )

    For real though, I'm just bringing to light that a noted scientist is saying we're fucking up here. Not your friend who just took a pull and wants to tell you how the world works. I'm just hoping that people analyze and question things a bit more, that's all.
  • wooshiewooshie 490 Posts
    Well than please tell me what your tattoo means cus it looks fucking sickk
  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts
    I'm just hoping that people analyze and question things a bit more, that's all.
    That's a good wish and needed.

    But remember, during WWII Einstein, Bohm, Feynman, and other notable physicists (with much more fame than Hawking (IMO)) signed pacts against the use of nuclear weapons and the war in general.

    In the face of economic (read: society) reality, one great persons moral wish means nothing.
  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts
    Well than please tell me what your tattoo means cus it looks fucking sickk
    First Canonical Quantization. Discovered by Plank and rigoured by Von Neumann (thus spawning much work in Von Neumann algebras and C*-Algebras). It was the first link between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. By enforcing the condition on the Poisson algebra (read: Classical / Hamiltonian mechanics) that your measurables (real valued functions of time) are other abstract objects which do not necessarily commute and obey certain commutator laws. This lead to a greater understanding of the much celebrated, yet totally unfantastic in comparison, Schrodinger equation and Heisenberg Uncertaincy Principle (mere corollary's to Plank's discovery)

    I can stop now.
  • wooshiewooshie 490 Posts
  • MjukisMjukis 1,675 Posts
    If you want a real downer, read James Howard Kunstlers "The long emergency". It's pretty extreme and a lot of people contest the views expressed in it - I'm not really knowledgeable enough to argue about it either way. But if he's only half right, that's enough to turn anyone into Six Feet Under-George.
  • twoplytwoply Only Built 4 Manzanita Links 2,917 Posts
    Well than please tell me what your tattoo means cus it looks fucking sickk
    First Canonical Quantization. Discovered by Plank and rigoured by Von Neumann (thus spawning much work in Von Neumann algebras and C*-Algebras). It was the first link between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. By enforcing the condition on the Poisson algebra (read: Classical / Hamiltonian mechanics) that your measurables (real valued functions of time) are other abstract objects which do not necessarily commute and obey certain commutator laws. This lead to a greater understanding of the much celebrated, yet totally unfantastic in comparison, Schrodinger equation and Heisenberg Uncertaincy Principle (mere corollary's to Plank's discovery)


    I can stop now.


    And yet I still figured out that simple math puzzle before you?
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    I'm just hoping that people analyze and question things a bit more, that's all.
    That's a good wish and needed.


    But remember, during WWII Einstein, Bohm, Feynman, and other notable physicists (with much more fame than Hawking (IMO)) signed pacts against the use of nuclear weapons and the war in general.

    That happened after WWII. During WWII Bohm and Feynman were working on making the Nuclear weapons which were then used.

    Einstein went to the president and explained that the Germans were working on nuclear weapons and we should try to make some as well. Einstein was denied security clearence so he did no work on the Manhattan Project. Of course the idea that E=MC2 was his. There are no nuclear bombs with out that bit of info.
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    I have a question for Stephen Hawking...

    How the hell did you manage to pull such a hot looking woman???

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    In a speech June 13 in Hong Kong, Hawking said the survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy Earth.He said that if humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth.

    " A RAT DONE BIT MY SISTA NELL, AND WHITEY'S ON THE MOON!"
  • piedpiperpiedpiper 1,279 Posts
    "In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?"

    Hm, he??s a physicist, maybe he??s very smart in that and of course the public/press always likes to have some dude to explain absolutely everything and predict the future.
    BUT: a statement like that is crap and for a serious scientist.
    Where is the empirical evidence for the chaos situation of the whole world, except some failed states and environmentally collapsed areas?
  • LordNOLordNO 202 Posts

    Of course there's no empirical evidence that the world is going to end, I'm not saying it will but at any rate, evidence is something you collect after the fact. It's unscientific sure, but WHO IS qualified to predict the future, empirically? no one.

    He's just making the point that the way we're living now (politically, socially and environmentally) is not sustainable, it ain't good for the kids. I agree with that.
  • GnatGnat 1,183 Posts
    but WHO IS qualified to predict the future, empirically? no one.

    I disagree. We are all qualified to make hypotheses based on our observations. An empirical examination of history and present day events (i.e. North Korea, Iraq, etc.) shows that we are and have been constantly playing at the line of self destruction.

    What Stephen says is just common sense. Given the mass proliferation of weapons that could destroy the earth and the current volatile sociopolitical climate, all we need is just a little more time before we wipe ourselves out. It's kinda a miracle that we haven't accomplished this task yet.

    It's his hypothesis and nothing more. BUT, it seems to be a pretty practical hypothesis if you ask me.

    We're hanging on by tiny vibrating threads and it's just a matter of time.
  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    WHO IS qualified to predict the future, empirically?




    Apocalyptic records covers - GO!!!
  • Ian_DIan_D 120 Posts
    but WHO IS qualified to predict the future, empirically? no one.

    I disagree. We are all qualified to make hypotheses based on our observations. An empirical examination of history and present day events (i.e. North Korea, Iraq, etc.) shows that we are and have been constantly playing at the line of self destruction.

    What Stephen says is just common sense. Given the mass proliferation of weapons that could destroy the earth and the current volatile sociopolitical climate, all we need is just a little more time before we wipe ourselves out. It's kinda a miracle that we haven't accomplished this task yet.

    It's his hypothesis and nothing more. BUT, it seems to be a pretty practical hypothesis if you ask me.

    We're hanging on by tiny vibrating threads and it's just a matter of time.


    If you were to sit and whatch the news all day yes the world is chaos, but you never hear about the rest that isn't, or is just getting by without much happening, to say the world is in chaos, what does he mean by world[/b] and chaos[/b] ? if you're talking empirically you must define those words.
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    but WHO IS qualified to predict the future, empirically? no one.

    I disagree. We are all qualified to make hypotheses based on our observations. An empirical examination of history and present day events (i.e. North Korea, Iraq, etc.) shows that we are and have been constantly playing at the line of self destruction.

    What Stephen says is just common sense. Given the mass proliferation of weapons that could destroy the earth and the current volatile sociopolitical climate, all we need is just a little more time before we wipe ourselves out. It's kinda a miracle that we haven't accomplished this task yet.

    It's his hypothesis and nothing more. BUT, it seems to be a pretty practical hypothesis if you ask me.

    We're hanging on by tiny vibrating threads and it's just a matter of time.


    If you were to sit and whatch the news all day yes the world is chaos, but you never hear about the rest that isn't, or is just getting by without much happening, to say the world is in chaos, what does he mean by world[/b] and chaos[/b] ? if you're talking empirically you must define those words.

    Yeah, SH is famous for sitting and watching tv news all day.
  • Ian_DIan_D 120 Posts


    Yeah, SH is famous for sitting and watching tv news all day.

    i say he should stop belly achin' and relax and enjoy the chaos.
Sign In or Register to comment.