|
|
Post by dividavi on Oct 17, 2018 10:58:04 GMT
www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/stephen-hawking-feared-a-rich-superhuman-species-will-end-humanity.htmlThe renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has, posthumously, released a new book. The book has revealed the physicist’s apocalyptic theory about genetic engineering. Hawking has given a stark warning about the rise of a “superhuman” species. Stephen Hawking has suggested that the advance of genetic engineering might lead to a new species of superhuman that could destroy the rest of humanity. The world-famous physicist and author, who died in March aged 76, has laid down the theory in his new book, released Tuesday. The posthumous book, titled “Brief Answers to the Big Questions,” is a collection of Hawking’s articles and essays that outline Hawking’s final thoughts on the universe. In one section, Hawking described an apocalyptic scenario should genetic engineering favor people who could afford to make themselves smarter, more disease resistant, and likely to live longer. “Once such superhumans appear, there will be significant political problems with unimproved humans, who won’t be able to compete,” Hawking wrote before adding “presumably, they will die out, or become unimportant.” The physicist said he expected laws to be put in place to prevent genetic engineering in humans but ultimately some would not be able to “resist the temptation” to improve their human capabilities. In March, it was revealed that Hawking had also made a theory outlining a separate prediction for the end of the world. Hawking’s final work when alive — titled “A Smooth Exit From Eternal Inflation” — predicted how our universe would eventually fade to darkness as the stars run out of energy. The physicist, who was perhaps best known for his work on black holes and the theory of relativity, has also previously pushed the theory that Earth will turn into a giant ball of fire by 2600.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 17, 2018 11:54:31 GMT
While I haven't read Hawking's articles, I don't fear a "superhuman" species.
We already live in a world where not all persons are equally smart, strong, or otherwise able. We have athletes like Usain Bolt, and persons in wheelchairs. We have smart persons who win Nobel Prizes, and persons with Trisomia 21.
And yet, nobody denies the "weaker" persons the right to live. It's up to all persons to decide in which kind of society we want to live.
Will it be a Randian-Libertarian wet dream, of survival of the fittest without a government keeping the eugenazis in check? Or will it be a society where all persons can coexist peacefully, even if they aren't all equally abled?
It's for us to decide.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 17, 2018 13:24:14 GMT
He was an odd duck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman 猫的主人 on Oct 17, 2018 13:28:35 GMT
Sounds like the backstory of the Deus Ex game series.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 17, 2018 13:53:58 GMT
Maybe if this was someone with an actual genetic background (Dawkins for instance) I might give this some creedence. I'm sure Hawkins was more than qualified to comment on physics, dunno about genetics/biology. I get the feeling this is just sci-fi alarmism.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 17, 2018 14:59:08 GMT
While I haven't read Hawking's articles, I don't fear a "superhuman" species. We already live in a world where not all persons are equally smart, strong, or otherwise able. We have athletes like Usain Bolt, and persons in wheelchairs. We have smart persons who win Nobel Prizes, and persons with Trisomia 21. And yet, nobody denies the "weaker" persons the right to live. It's up to all persons to decide in which kind of society we want to live. Will it be a Randian-Libertarian wet dream, of survival of the fittest without a government keeping the eugenazis in check? Or will it be a society where all persons can coexist peacefully, even if they aren't all equally abled? It's for us to decide. "And yet, nobody denies the "weaker" persons the right to live." unless you're a shareholder in a health insurance company in the united states. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 17, 2018 15:06:32 GMT
It probably would lead to enslavement rather than elimination, like the Eloi and Morlocks in H. G. Wells' The Time Machine. As long as the Morlocks are kept from seeing the true big picture it will be easy for the Eloi to keep them enslaved. Sort of like Republican voters.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 17, 2018 15:20:19 GMT
It probably would lead to enslavement rather than elimination, like the Eloi and Morlocks in H. G. Wells' The Time Machine. As long as the Morlocks are kept from seeing the true big picture it will be easy for the Eloi to keep them enslaved. Sort of like Republican voters. I think you meant that the other way around. The Morlocks ran things. The Eloi were their cattle. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 17, 2018 15:28:24 GMT
It probably would lead to enslavement rather than elimination, like the Eloi and Morlocks in H. G. Wells' The Time Machine. As long as the Morlocks are kept from seeing the true big picture it will be easy for the Eloi to keep them enslaved. Sort of like Republican voters. I think you meant that the other way around. The Morlocks ran things. The Eloi were their cattle. Ah, you're right. On closer inspection it seems that Wells has the Eloi, as the privileged class, losing their authority through ennui and becoming the food source for the Morlocks. But I think Wells underestimates the drive of the wealthy: the richest don't get bored, they simply want to get even richer (more powerful). |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 17, 2018 15:45:55 GMT
I think you meant that the other way around. The Morlocks ran things. The Eloi were their cattle. Ah, you're right. On closer inspection it seems that Wells has the Eloi, as the privileged class, losing their authority through ennui and becoming the food source for the Morlocks. But I think Wells underestimates the drive of the wealthy: the richest don't get bored, they simply want to get even richer (more powerful). I read the book years ago, and if I remember correctly the Eloi were the descendants of the feudal class, while the Morlocks were the descendants of the working class. And eventually, the Eloi became decadent. H.G.Wells was socialist/communist/leftist; but Hollywood is not. No wonder the split in the movies was not caused by natural progression in a Marxist sense, but by a man-made disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 17, 2018 15:51:25 GMT
But I think Wells underestimates the drive of the wealthy: the richest don't get bored, they simply want to get even richer (more powerful). Yep, the scenario was implausible, but still fun speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Oct 17, 2018 15:51:36 GMT
So basically, he watched X-Men.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 17, 2018 15:53:48 GMT
you picked the color
racial purging
had reached a whole new level
emerging
from centuries of the blatant
hypocrisy
ricocheting off the pleas
of all your great great grand daddies
getting busy
pouncing on the free pussy
they had no problem
with
at the time.
so
you picked the color
and
you committed the crime
and now
you want your money back
because
your idea of freedom
has white jesus chanting:
brother can you spare a dime?
sjw 10/17/18 inspired at this very moment in time by just the tip of the iceberg. just the tip.
from the ‘bigot series’ of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Oct 17, 2018 16:22:47 GMT
At this point in time, any person can claim that advanced robots, artificial intelligence and yet to come genetically superior beings all possess threats to humanity. I am sure people can give at least some reasons to support their case and they wouldn't be wrong. But at the same time, there should be a line drawn between just taking it as harmless speculation and engaging too much in the stuff. I have found that American adults have a strange fixation with comics stuff. Some of them take it too seriously. Though of course, I could be wrong about it. Or maybe the fact that they have a far developed economy and thus more resources to engage in such stuff explains my belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 17, 2018 19:10:03 GMT
At this point in time, any person can claim that advanced robots, artificial intelligence and yet to come genetically superior beings all possess threats to humanity. I am sure people can give at least some reasons to support their case and they wouldn't be wrong. But at the same time, there should be a line drawn between just taking it as harmless speculation and engaging too much in the stuff. I have found that American adults have a strange fixation with comics stuff. Some of them take it too seriously. Though of course, I could be wrong about it. Or maybe the fact that they have a far developed economy and thus more resources to engage in such stuff explains my belief. I don't quite get the comics fixation either. They're ok I guess, but there is something kind of hokey about going around in public wearing tights and a cape. In real society if anyone did that and they weren't a superhero (and it wasn't Halloween) they'd be laughed at majorly. I'm not so sure it's a particularly American obsession (even though we probably invented it), since if you look at the box office for most blockbuster superhero movies, the majority of the receipts are foreign. For example, Avengers: Infinity War domestic receipts are $678M (33.2%) while the foreign is $1367M (66.8%). |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Oct 17, 2018 19:29:45 GMT
It's something that everyone has thought of, and probably over half the people who read Darwin's book even thought of it within a year of his first book being published.
Some here have said that we already have it going on, and it makes no difference. Actually, it does. O J Simpson is above the law, and no one dares accuse him of murder. Rodney King gets beaten for being tired. Western culture already plays God by their very denial that they are playing God.
But there are a few different directions a superior species replaces humans. In fact, humans are quite inferior. A naked human on an island, with no devices or tools to work with, has no chance against most species. Some just outright kill him. Some kill him with power of numbers (like insects, mosquitos), some have superior physical senses and skills to climb up the tree and get the banana before the man does. Humans are near the bottom of the food chain in Nature. It can only be by supernatural intervention that the species survived long enough to produce the tools they need.
That brings up the new directions. One: From the species itself, or two: From outside the species. Who knows that deep underneath the Earth's crust is a mutated serpent that has achieved limbs, and even more. Maybe some plant or animal we know nothing about. Then there is the genetic engineering by feeble minded scientists who think they're smart and responsible.
Will the new species have "cognition" even? Did dinosaurs have cognition? Who knows? Having brains doesn't mean you have "cognition", that you have a meter reader reading the sensors of an organism. Brains are housing units. If simply having information made a soul (or cognition, for those of you who can't handle the reality of souls and spirits), then computers would already be a superior species.
The demon known as Cancer is already making headway. The demon behind Cancer is a formidable monster that infiltrates us and preys upon us. That doesn't mean Cancer has a soul or cognition. More likely, it is like an ant simply relaying messages to the queen Cancer. The Cancer we see in humans is only the leaf or branch of the tree of Cancer. Who knows what the root is? We do know it is a demon. Out to kill and destroy just for the right to spread evil. The modern wacko will claim it should have that right as a species, and that evil is subjective. Already, Evil preys upon the feeble minds of lunatics who buy into this sort of hate. We see it here on IMDB with maniacs refusing to admit Evil is objective. The root of Cancer is a demon there for the sole purpose of Evil. It is not doing what it has to do for survival. It acts on Evil. It's human Nature to want to "explain" Evil away. People do this out of fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 17, 2018 20:55:53 GMT
Having brains doesn't mean you have "cognition". . . Actually, it does. You don't seem to be using the word the way scientists do. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Oct 17, 2018 21:02:03 GMT
Pseudoscience.
About as likely as abiogenesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Oct 17, 2018 21:13:38 GMT
Pseudoscience. About as likely as abiogenesis. Cody's learned a new word. Too bad that, as per usual, he doesn't really know what it means, insofar as it isn't 'pseudoscience': www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2018 21:41:37 GMT
It's something that everyone has thought of, and probably over half the people who read Darwin's book even thought of it within a year of his first book being published. Some here have said that we already have it going on, and it makes no difference. Actually, it does. O J Simpson is above the law, and no one dares accuse him of murder. Rodney King gets beaten for being tired. Western culture already plays God by their very denial that they are playing God. But there are a few different directions a superior species replaces humans. In fact, humans are quite inferior. A naked human on an island, with no devices or tools to work with, has no chance against most species. Some just outright kill him. Some kill him with power of numbers (like insects, mosquitos), some have superior physical senses and skills to climb up the tree and get the banana before the man does. Humans are near the bottom of the food chain in Nature. It can only be by supernatural intervention that the species survived long enough to produce the tools they need. That brings up the new directions. One: From the species itself, or two: From outside the species. Who knows that deep underneath the Earth's crust is a mutated serpent that has achieved limbs, and even more. Maybe some plant or animal we know nothing about. Then there is the genetic engineering by feeble minded scientists who think they're smart and responsible. Will the new species have "cognition" even? Did dinosaurs have cognition? Who knows? Having brains doesn't mean you have "cognition", that you have a meter reader reading the sensors of an organism. Brains are housing units. If simply having information made a soul (or cognition, for those of you who can't handle the reality of souls and spirits), then computers would already be a superior species. The demon known as Cancer is already making headway. The demon behind Cancer is a formidable monster that infiltrates us and preys upon us. That doesn't mean Cancer has a soul or cognition. More likely, it is like an ant simply relaying messages to the queen Cancer. The Cancer we see in humans is only the leaf or branch of the tree of Cancer. Who knows what the root is? We do know it is a demon. Out to kill and destroy just for the right to spread evil. The modern wacko will claim it should have that right as a species, and that evil is subjective. Already, Evil preys upon the feeble minds of lunatics who buy into this sort of hate. We see it here on IMDB with maniacs refusing to admit Evil is objective. The root of Cancer is a demon there for the sole purpose of Evil. It is not doing what it has to do for survival. It acts on Evil. It's human Nature to want to "explain" Evil away. People do this out of fear.I love this! It is really good stuff! Total bollocks of course butt really cool! Personifying cancer however, you are starting to sound like the prose version of Stephen's free verse. |
|
