Stephen Hawking: Pollution And 'Stupidity' Biggest Threats To Mankind

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You have to admit, it's hard to argue Stephen Hawking's point when he says pollution and human “stupidity” remain the biggest threats to mankind. Hell, if we just focused on a cure for stupidity we could easily fix most of our other problems. ;)

Professor Stephen Hawking says he believes pollution and human “stupidity” remain the biggest threats to mankind, while also expressing his concerns over the use of artificial intelligence in warfare. The world’s leading theoretical physicist argued “we have certainly not become less greedy or less stupid” in our treatment of the environment over the past decade, during an interview on Larry King Now, which is hosted on Ora TV.
 
But pollution is already caused by stupidity.
 
"People are really fucking stupid." -- George Carlin, one of my fave comedians of all time and of course one of his most accurate comments.

I routinely say that "Stupid fucking people will be the death of us all..." and get some odd looks when I say it - the thing I've learned most with that statement is if I do utter it out loud, or even on a forum post or anyplace online, the stupid fucking people the statement alludes to are the very first ones that will fire back at me for having said it in the first place.

I can tolerate pollution to a point given a situation, but I have zero tolerance for stupid fucking people, I seriously just can't handle it whenever I have to deal with such a person, it just ruins my day. :(
 
Hypergreatthing said:
for such a smart guy, he's complaining that human nature hasn't evolved in the past decade? He should stick to theoretical physics.
Click to expand...

Past decade? What sheer understatement! Human stupidity and pollution have gone hand in hand as far as civilization can trace back to rue humanity.
 
Tiberian said:
"People are really fucking stupid." -- George Carlin, one of my fave comedians of all time and of course one of his most accurate comments.

I routinely say that "Stupid fucking people will be the death of us all..." and get some odd looks when I say it - the thing I've learned most with that statement is if I do utter it out loud, or even on a forum post or anyplace online, the stupid fucking people the statement alludes to are the very first ones that will fire back at me for having said it in the first place.

I can tolerate pollution to a point given a situation, but I have zero tolerance for stupid fucking people, I seriously just can't handle it whenever I have to deal with such a person, it just ruins my day. :(
Click to expand...

So much this!

Hypergreatthing said:
for such a smart guy, he's complaining that human nature hasn't evolved in the past decade? He should stick to theoretical physics.
Click to expand...

Kalabalana said:
This forum, what is it becoming.
Click to expand...

Kalabalana
AHAHAHAHA - What, somebody states something that is common sense and you seem to think it is a bad thing?
 
This is what happens when you mandate life has to be safe and death free and everything comes with safety warning and airbags. Not too long ago being stupid got you killed before you could breed, but this hurt peoples feelings so now idiocracy is our future. Make stupid lethal again and most of the worlds problems will sort themselves out naturally.
 
Tiberian said:
I can tolerate pollution to a point given a situation, but I have zero tolerance for stupid fucking people, I seriously just can't handle it whenever I have to deal with such a person, it just ruins my day. :(
Click to expand...
I like to think of it as we all have different backgrounds, experiences and strengths and there is an awful lot of targeted misinformation out there. You can't really blame people for falling for it when they don't have the right background for critical thinking. That, and I've occasionally been wrong about things as well.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
for such a smart guy, he's complaining that human nature hasn't evolved in the past decade? He should stick to theoretical physics.
Click to expand...
So he shouldn't warn us of what he see's as the greatest threat to the earth? I for one am glad he's calling out "polution, greed, and stupidity".

I don't really know why the written article left off the greed part, but the video's orator calling AI as A1 was hilarious.
 
DocSavage said:
So he shouldn't warn us of what he see's as the greatest threat to the earth? I for one am glad he's calling out "polution, greed, and stupidity".

I don't really know why the written article left off the greed part, but the video's orator calling AI as A1 was hilarious.
Click to expand...
I don't know how much he's really trying to warn us, more like a sound bite.

He's spot on with the stupidity if he thinks that anyone is going to change their view just because "Stephen Hawking said so... and he's a pretty smart guy right?? "

But just look at most any highway/freeway/park/etc in the country to see how much people just don't give a fuck... now that's littering not quite pollution, but it's the same idea.
 
Reimu said:
Past decade? What sheer understatement! Human stupidity and pollution have gone hand in hand as far as civilization can trace back to rue humanity.
Click to expand...
Lets examine the quote shall we?
Steve said:
“we have certainly not become less greedy or less stupid” in our treatment of the environment over the past decade, during an interview on Larry King Now, which is hosted on Ora TV.
Click to expand...
Do i need to explain why i posted what i did?
 
Just because he's an expert in theoretical physics we are expected to treat everything he says as irrefutable? That being said, I do feel that lately I have been running into a lot of people that make me question our direction as a race.
 
infin@ said:
Just because he's an expert in theoretical physics we are expected to treat everything he says as irrefutable? That being said, I do feel that lately I have been running into a lot of people that make me question our direction as a race.
Click to expand...
I'm also pretty damn skeptical, but his message seems irrefutable. Well ok, pollution/climate change is politically charged and up for debate.
 
DocSavage said:
So he shouldn't warn us of what he see's as the greatest threat to the earth? I for one am glad he's calling out "polution, greed, and stupidity".
Click to expand...

He's just reiterating what has been said again and again for a while. Stupid people are a huge threat to our existence on this planet. It's no secret, it doesn't take a genius to figure out. Pollution is another "no-shit" one that's been said again and again.

I love the guy, but it's just the same ol' shit, different guy saying it. I guess eventually some people will think "Well, this guy knows what he's talking about, maybe we should listen"...
 
I have learned a new level of hate over the stupid fucks. It is the self-righteous greedy fucks. Stupid people just fuck themselves up for the most part. Self-righteous greedy fucks mess it up for everyone and they get off on it.

Cleaning up ones own shit seems to be a demeaning job that nobody wants to do. Hence pollution. Add in those caring companies that use our rivers for their own dumping grounds. You show me a river you can drink straight out of and I will show you a chemical test that will prove you wrong.
 
But until we have robots to replace menial jobs, there's a need for stupid people.
Not everyone can be a scientist who's off studying the universe. They would all starve to death.
 
13934851.jpg
 
DrLobotomy said:
You do realize we ARE the extraterrestrial invaders!!
Click to expand...
At least wait until we start interstellar travel and get somewhere to find some other life form that we of course must then start killing all off (not for their resources, of course, it's to spread democracy) before you say that. If you're however referring to our arriving on planet Earth, I can't classify that as an invasion, technically. I'm in full support of the hypothesis that another coder of the multiverse was trying to throw that specific meteoroid/asteroid containing the building blocks for human life into the trash can and missed.
 
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
At least wait until we start interstellar travel and get somewhere to find some other life form that we of course must then start killing all off (not for their resources, of course, it's to spread democracy) before you say that. If you're however referring to our arriving on planet Earth, I can't classify that as an invasion, technically. I'm in full support of the hypothesis that another coder of the multiverse was trying to throw that specific meteoroid/asteroid containing the building blocks for human life into the trash can and missed.
Click to expand...

There is also the possibility that there is no other life in the universe. and that there is no multiverse.
 
Someone take away Hawkins speak n spell it's not working the guy is probably in so much pain this stuff just comes to him.
 
Monkey God said:
This is what happens when you mandate life has to be safe and death free and everything comes with safety warning and airbags. Not too long ago being stupid got you killed before you could breed, but this hurt peoples feelings so now idiocracy is our future. Make stupid lethal again and most of the worlds problems will sort themselves out naturally.
Click to expand...

In the alternate universe you propose, you made it to age 2 before you drowned in a bucket. Sorry!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
does he elaborate on what he considers a stupid person, or pollution? I mean, it's all relative (farting out the mouth is stupid and pollution) so where do you draw the line?
 
Hypergreatthing said:
for such a smart guy, he's complaining that human nature hasn't evolved in the past decade? He should stick to theoretical physics.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting human nature to change. But modifying our existing systems to ACCOUNT for overpopulation, wanton pollution, misuse of resources, psychopaths making the rules, corrupted media etc. is another thing entirely. Barring the laws of physics, we're capable of almost anything we put our minds to. But if our minds aren't in the right place, we're our own worst enemy.
 
He's wrong on both parts.


A decrease in pollution will be offset by an increase in people.

The chances of stupid people affecting you increase as the number of people around you increases.

Population density is the biggest threat to mankind.

Therefore we can either artificially limit human population, or we can give them somewhere else to go.

Balls in your car Mr. Scientist.
 
tetris42 said:
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting human nature to change. But modifying our existing systems to ACCOUNT for overpopulation, wanton pollution, misuse of resources, psychopaths making the rules, corrupted media etc. is another thing entirely. Barring the laws of physics, we're capable of almost anything we put our minds to. But if our minds aren't in the right place, we're our own worst enemy.
Click to expand...
Ok. Let me stop you right there at your first point.
How exactly do you modify our existing systems to account for overpopulation?
Do you kill off a good 6 billion and allow 1 billion humans to exist in a more sustainable population?
Do you decide who gets to procreate and who doesn't therefore vastly decline the human population in the next few generations?
How do you account for 3rd world countries having 10 children compared to modern families in 1st world countries that have 0-2 kids on average?
Or do you want to engineer an airborne virus that will eliminate the majority of humans so that a few select elite can continue on?

The problem is that on all of these issues there is no single good solution.

There is no good solution for overpopulation that doesn't including genocide. There is no good solution for pollution that doesn't include the destruction of civilization as we know it. I'm fairly sure the majority of people wouldn't want to live like the amish so that they wouldn't pollute or be responsible for creating pollution.

So it's easy to say there are problems and no one is doing anything about it. It's a lot harder to come up with sensible solutions that the majority will agree to.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Ok. Let me stop you right there at your first point.
How exactly do you modify our existing systems to account for overpopulation?
Do you kill off a good 6 billion and allow 1 billion humans to exist in a more sustainable population?
Do you decide who gets to procreate and who doesn't therefore vastly decline the human population in the next few generations?
How do you account for 3rd world countries having 10 children compared to modern families in 1st world countries that have 0-2 kids on average?
Or do you want to engineer an airborne virus that will eliminate the majority of humans so that a few select elite can continue on?

The problem is that on all of these issues there is no single good solution.

There is no good solution for overpopulation that doesn't including genocide. There is no good solution for pollution that doesn't include the destruction of civilization as we know it. I'm fairly sure the majority of people wouldn't want to live like the amish so that they wouldn't pollute or be responsible for creating pollution.

So it's easy to say there are problems and no one is doing anything about it. It's a lot harder to come up with sensible solutions that the majority will agree to.
Click to expand...
Okay, first off, you can't have an IMMEDIATE solution without killing tons of people, that should be obvious, I was never implying that. However, you can come up with solution that takes effect over time. As for deciding who populates and who doesn't, have some scientists look at what the planet can sustain and figure out what the optimal birth rate is for various regions, then go from there. So if a country has too high a birthrate, you have a legal limit it to one child per couple with sterilization as a penalty for going over. 2 or 3 could still be acceptable if the numbers work out for the given region. Start teaching how overpopulation is a bad thing in schools and having more children over the limit is selfish and something to be avoided. Have birth control education, etc. You can attack this on multiple fronts.

Now as for you how you handle 3rd world countries that either can't or refuse to abide by such laws, it may sound barbaric, but have strict immigration policy against them from the countries that do. Try to contain it as much as possible until the country either implodes or else gets its act together enough to implement similar laws. That won't solve overpopulation immediately, but it will create a precedent for the world in how we should be fixing this. There could even be more benefits from more prosperous countries towards 3rd world ones that due adopt the population standard.

There are ways of tackling the problem, yes, there's no single ONE solution, but over time, multiple approaches can get the job done. I see that as more desireable than throwing our hands saying there's nothing we can do. There's a middle ground between genocide v. doing nothing at all, same as there's a middle ground between living like the Amish v. doing nothing at all. If you frame every problem as impossible, it can certainly appear that way, even when it's not. But again, people need to actually UNDERSTAND it is is a problem and be serious about fixing it for anything to happen at all. That's really not the system we currently have.
 
I believe it's stupidity and patents that are the biggest threats to mankind.
 
Stephen so called Hawking is a member of the conspiracy of science against our freedoms.
 
tetris42 said:
Okay, first off, you can't have an IMMEDIATE solution without killing tons of people, that should be obvious, I was never implying that. However, you can come up with solution that takes effect over time. As for deciding who populates and who doesn't, have some scientists look at what the planet can sustain and figure out what the optimal birth rate is for various regions, then go from there. So if a country has too high a birthrate, you have a legal limit it to one child per couple with sterilization as a penalty for going over. 2 or 3 could still be acceptable if the numbers work out for the given region. Start teaching how overpopulation is a bad thing in schools and having more children over the limit is selfish and something to be avoided. Have birth control education, etc. You can attack this on multiple fronts.
Click to expand...

God you have shitty ideas. That's what China tried. It didn't work.

I mean at least try to come up with something original. Myself, I came up with the idea of child credits, I didn't try to come up with the ideal ratio, but roughly it goes like this. Everyone born gets 0.75 child credits. I picked 0.75, but this would be a base rate that would guarantee population shrinkage and would permit one child per couple. Child credits would be traded on an open market globally. You want more kids, you can buy more kids. If your credits drop to zero, you pay an annual fee to maintain your account on the exchange unless you are sterilized, off the cuff I'd make it the price of the sterilization procedure. If you die, your credits go on the market to be sold and distributed with your estate. If it worked too well, you could adjust the credit globally, but not regionally. For any credits forfeited to the state, it would be pooled for global distribution.

This would permit folks like the mormons to still try for their bajillion kids. They will just have to pay for it, or have non-breeding sister wives and shit to hoard credits. At the very least it might convince them to no abandon boys all over the fucking place, or at least said abandoned boys could sell off their credits to try to get a start in life.

It would financially incentivize the poor to not reproduce while poor, and possibly give them the means to raise their standard of living while offering them the ability to buy back the right to reproduce if they manage to do so.

It would offer an avenue to reduce risk of disobedience of a child limit to the wealthy by permitting them to engage at zero risk in trading credits with people who were never going to reproduce anyway rather than just buying off corrupt government officials. Additionally, they could drive up market prices to tempt those who might want kids to give up the notion.

Socially, you would try to encourage the less wealthy to group up to raise kids, because actually having a support network and people who give a shit makes raising kids and growing up a lot easier and more likely to be successful.

How you enforce it is a different matter.

It's still broken in a bunch of ways and thus shitty, but at least it is different than what has failed before
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top