Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Hawking reminds us technology dooms us & it's R fault + Science will judge capitalism

#1
C C Offline
Stephen Hawking reminds us technology will kill us all and it's all our fault
http://mashable.com/2017/03/07/stephen-h...ll-us-all/

EXCERPT: We are well into 2017 and the situation hasn't got any better, so here comes the routine alert from world-renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking that we're all gonna die — and it's all our fault. During an interview with The Times, Hawking repeated the concept that humanity faces existential threats from climate change, artificial intelligence and mass species extinction....

Technological advances 'may destroy us all'
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/natio.../98841862/

EXCERPT: Physicist Stephen Hawking is again raising the alarm that humankind needs to shape up if it hopes to survive....



The Most Important Idea about the Universe
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue...-universe/

EXCERPT: [...] This unique success [of disciplines coming together] means, I feel sure, that the sciences are set to invade other areas of life not traditionally associated with science: law, the arts, politics, morality, social life. Sam Harris, the American philosopher and neuroscientist, has described morality as “an undeveloped aspect of science” and believes we shall eventually be able to define “human values” satisfactorily. Patricia Churchland, the Canadian-American neuroscientist, argues that our understanding of “human nature” can be refined by neuroscience, to the benefit of all.

The latest developments are aided by the recent accumulation of big data sets and our snowballing abilities in computation. For example, mathematicians, physicists and psychologists have all examined aspects of capitalism. If there is an overriding focus it is what Science magazine, in a special issue, called “The Science of Inequality.” This stems from the realisation that under capitalism, except for a few decades following the two world wars in the twentieth century, when many industrial states were on their knees financially, the basic economic order has been a growing wealth disparity within populations.

This finding—which applies to many countries—appears solid and has emerged from a wave of big data, tax returns for the past two centuries. This richness means that, as Science put it, the “stuff of science” can be applied to it—analysis, extracting causal inferences, formulating hypotheses.

In other words, the methods of science, which have proved so successful—observation, quantification, experimental testing—are being increasingly applied in new areas....
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
(Mar 7, 2017 11:45 PM)C C Wrote: The Most Important Idea about the Universe
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue...-universe/

The latest developments are aided by the recent accumulation of big data sets and our snowballing abilities in computation. For example, mathematicians, physicists and psychologists have all examined aspects of capitalism. If there is an overriding focus it is what Science magazine, in a special issue, called “The Science of Inequality.” This stems from the realisation that under capitalism, except for a few decades following the two world wars in the twentieth century, when many industrial states were on their knees financially, the basic economic order has been a growing wealth disparity within populations.

As usual, leftist bias in academia completely fails to account for how much of the world has been brought out of poverty due to capitalism. Yes, inequality does occur, but the gains of even the most poor under capitalism is much greater than any other system. Where is this comparison? Where is anything but jealousy? What does it matter how much richer someone is? Economics is not a zero-sum game. They would realize that if science were even really brought to bear.
Reply
#3
Yazata Offline
(Mar 7, 2017 11:45 PM)C C Wrote: Stephen Hawking reminds us technology will kill us all and it's all our fault

EXCERPT: We are well into 2017 and the situation hasn't got any better, so here comes the routine alert from world-renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking that we're all gonna die — and it's all our fault.

There's a problem right there. Why does being a "theoretical physicist" supposedly make people authorities in subjects far removed from theoretical physics? (We sometimes see evolutionary biologists playing the same game.) If anything, the reverse would seem to be true, since theoretical physics is so technical and difficult, that studying it, becoming an expert in it and doing it productively during one's career would leave little time for studying or thinking deeply about anything else.

I don't think that Stephen Hawking knows any more about what the future holds than I do. All he can do is speculate, like everyone else does.

Quote:During an interview with The Times, Hawking repeated the concept that humanity faces existential threats from climate change, artificial intelligence and mass species extinction....

Climate change represents an "existential threat"? The suggestion seems to be that the earth will burn up like a cinder and end up like Venus, leaving the Earth uninhabitable by humans. But all that the alarmists can actually document are changes in mean temperature of just a few degrees. I guess that the biggest real-life threat might be catastrophic melting of the Antarctic icecap which would raise sea levels and flood coastal cities. Of course, the climate changes might lengthen the growing seasons in Russia and Canada and maybe bring rain to the Sahara which would be positives for human beings. And considering that the world might currently be in an 'interglacial period' that could be getting pretty long in the tooth, and if 'global warming' prevents the onset of the next ice-age, that would be a huge plus. But it's all just hypothetical at this point. (Everything always reduces to the accuracy of the models being used, which have never been tested in real life.)

Artificial intelligence represents an "existential threat"? Maybe, if the AI stops being designed for special purposes and becomes General AI, artificial intelligences that can form their own motives and assign their own tasks. I think that this one is slightly more credible than the climate change hysteria, but it's still a long-shot. While it's certainly possible, it's probably a long way off.

Species extinction would certainly be an "existential threat" to the species that go extinct, but not necessarily to human beings. I suppose that worldwide deforestation might change the Earth's atmosphere or something, but loss of a 100,000 species of beetle might be unnoticeable. I personally feel that human beings do owe some duty of care to protect other forms of life on this planet, but their loss doesn't seem to be an existential threat.
Reply
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Emotion analytics: a dystopian technology C C 1 168 Feb 21, 2020 01:51 PM
Last Post: Secular Sanity
  The Broken Technology of Ghost Hunting C C 17 3,208 Nov 24, 2016 06:26 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)