Stephen Hawking has a question for you...
day
9,611 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.
Comments
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.
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:
I don't think I'm ready for that
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)
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?
I don't mean to be rude, doggy, but get your science straight.
I live this shit.
Please educate me.
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!
(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.
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.
I can stop now.
And yet I still figured out that simple math puzzle before you?
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.
How the hell did you manage to pull such a hot looking woman???
" A RAT DONE BIT MY SISTA NELL, AND WHITEY'S ON THE MOON!"
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?
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.
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.
Apocalyptic records covers - GO!!!
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.
i say he should stop belly achin' and relax and enjoy the chaos.