I thought this article, stemming from a web discussion originated by Stephen Hawking, might provide some intellectual relief from the endless Middle East crisis.
It's relatively long, so you need to follow the link. :smile:
Printable View
I thought this article, stemming from a web discussion originated by Stephen Hawking, might provide some intellectual relief from the endless Middle East crisis.
It's relatively long, so you need to follow the link. :smile:
Stephen Hawkins just thinks he's better then us because he can be customised for drag-races.
Talk about making a virtue out of a necessity...Quote:
We are mortal, both individually and as a species, and we know that we're mortal. And that makes us greater than anything in nature, and anything that Man has yet conceived.
Come on now. Even if we overlook that the boldest, most devil may care risk any of us is likely to run today is choking on our weetabix at breakfast, and we imagine that in fact our lives are filled with terrifying dangers boldly faced, are we seriously supposed to think that makes life better? Is it in some way morally superior to drive without putting your seatbelt on? Does this make you the modern heir to bold seafaring viking warriors? Please, give me a break, Mr Article writer. Get back to reading your Dungeons and Dragons manuals.
The first part of the article was bizarrely fatalistic too. Also substantially misconceived. I guess it probably is true that human beings are likely to survive any likely planetary catastrophe, but are we really supposed to be INDIFFERENT as to whether civilisation slips back to the iron age or not? What happened here, did we suddenly become unable to see that maybe life today is substantially better than it was in 0 AD? And in any case some changes that are happening now are irreversible on any conceivable lifetime of the species as a whole (ie, the current and ongoing mass extinction event being caused by humanity converting essentially all of the global to its own use). The species being wiped out will never return, and species like them will never reappear on any timescale that any human will see. So even if we take the Ice age comment seriously, so that we can regard a complete collapse of civilisation with equinamity because, chances are, in 5-10,000 years time there will be other advanced human civilisations, those civilisations will STILL not get to see the world we saw. We will still have killed the animals, chopped down the trees, burnt the oil, and so on, and their starting position will be different and worse than ours.
I think the author of the article misses part of the point. It's not that us killing outselves as a species is the only threat and that Stephen Hawkins ignores the dangers mankind has faced in the past, but the fact that we've reached the point where the human race can actively be destroyed by some bad (political) decisions that is worrying. Mother Nature is a force enough to contend with, but the thought that our own (rational) decisions can potentially lead to our destruction adds a more human factor; it's now also our responsibility not to destroy ourselves now we don't merely react to nature's forces, a factor which was not truly present until the last century.
Such a fatalistic attitude as Hawkins seems to adhere to is rather pointless in my view, however, and it does overemphasise the risks somewhat dramatically.
Article writer seems to be a colossal ignoramus to me.
Animals know they are mortal, and when they are in danger of dying. Both individually and as a species. Therefore his claim of superiority on that basis is thrown out the window.Quote:
But the deeper suggestion here, that we humans, as nature made us, are bad and stupid and should be ashamed of ourselves, is the suggestion of a colossal ignoramus.
We are mortal, both individually and as a species, and we know that we're mortal. And that makes us greater than anything in nature, and anything that Man has yet conceived. Mortality makes us superior even to the gods that we have proposed. They can't die; we can, and we do. And we know it. When we act, we know that it might be final. Nothing the gods do can't be undone; they risk nothing, but we risk everything. We have courage; the gods do not.
No one believes in "gods" these days, hence that whole "gods" rant is irrelevant and pointless. He is essentially saying that he is superior to things that do not exist.
Humans are indeed bad, stupid, and should be ashamed of themselves. To realize this is enlightenment. To deny this is pompousness, foolishness, and the dangerous pride that goes before most falls.
His "somewhereness" comments were also extremely ridiculous.
Speak for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros