Stephen Hawking: Biggest Human Failing Is Aggression 532
hypnosec writes: Aggression is the human failing that celebrity scientist Stephen Hawking would most like to correct, as it holds the potential to destroy human civilization. Hawking expressed his views while escorting Adaeze Uyanwah — London's Official Guest of Honor — around London's Science Museum. Uyanwah asked Hawking what human shortcomings he would alter, and which virtues he would enhance if this was possible. He replied, "The human failing I would most like to correct is aggression. It may have had survival advantage in caveman days, to get more food, territory, or partner with whom to reproduce, but now it threatens to destroy us all. A major nuclear war would be the end of civilization, and maybe the end of the human race."
Actually (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Actually (Score:4, Funny)
What if a drug to control aggression was developed and it was introduced into the atmosphere? It would impact everyone equally, with no opt-out.
I can't see a downside.
Re:Actually (Score:5, Funny)
I hear that worked really well on Miranda. No reavers at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I think, it was enough to introduce it into the air-ventilation system...
What could possibly go wrong?
Re:Actually (Score:5, Interesting)
Or what if testosterone levels in the developed world were reduced by almost 30% by using an insidious combination of phyto-estrogens, cholesterol-reducing statin drugs, plastic water bottles, ubiquitous soy, and birth control pills polluting recycled water.
Oh wait... We did that already.
Re: (Score:2)
how insidious!
Re: (Score:3)
there is already a marine gender imbalance caused by leaching of ridiculous amounts of oestrogens into the water table hence into the sea.
Re: (Score:2)
The progesterone based pills are supposed to be more effective anyway, why not tell them to switch?
Re:Actually (Score:5, Funny)
It makes things worse. Meddling with our precious bodily fluids is known to be one of the greatest risks for starting a nuclear war.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Actually (Score:4, Insightful)
Testosterone has nothing to do with aggression.
This has been debunked multiple times.
Re: (Score:3)
This has been debunked multiple times.
It has been both bunked and debunked: results are inconsistent. Testosterone causes aggression in some species of animals, but not in others. Some studies have found a causal link to human aggression, while others have not. It is not well understood. Citation [nature.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Seems to have worked out well. We're not cutting people's heads off and burning them alive anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems to have worked out well. We're not cutting people's heads off and burning them alive anymore.
For now. It's amazing how quick people can descend into that kind of stuff, probably just a few days of empty grocery stores and no TV ^W Internet is enough. Lots of people will get violent if they don't get their Facebook fix.
Re: (Score:2)
What if a drug to control aggression was developed and it was introduced into the atmosphere? It would impact everyone equally, with no opt-out.
Paxilon Hydrochlorate?
Re:Actually - This Perfect Day (Score:4, Interesting)
This dystopia is well played out in This Perfect Day [wikipedia.org]
As usual someone has to have totalitarian complete control to implement this. Attempting to de-nature humans has historically led to revolt every time. Even the Chinese eunuchs banded together to manipulate politics and stage revolts.
You attempt to da-nature humans, and humans will return to the roots. Our roots are nomadic hunting/gathering and agrarian famsteading - these are families and small groups of humans free to do what they need to to get to the next day.
Its the pressure cooker of modern society and the denaturing of family and repression of human nature that causes real issues.
I think video games have given rise to a generation of people raised on their butts with fingers on the keyboard where they think they can play the role of God making decisions for humanity like to drug us all so we act proper.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like an aggressive plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can prove that it effects everybody equally??? That this is no antidote for a select few? You can not ever make that happen. How do you counteract it when an aggressive alien race shows up? Native species becomes dangerous?
Humans need 2 things to thrive, near limitless power and space. Aggression will help us get there, it drives us to risk and to reach.
Look at NASA 60 years ago they strapped a chair to a rocket with less cpu umph that an arduino and made it to the moon. Now they are so worried ab
Re: (Score:3)
The human race would pretty much grind to a halt since sex would all but disappear.
If something isn't aggressive it isn't alive or soon wont be.
Re: (Score:3)
That depends on just what is meant by aggression. Mr. Hawking is talking about nuclear war, so he likely referred to the popular meaning which implies force or at least hostility. And you seem to be equating any and all "energy" with it.
Re: (Score:3)
... the downside of inducing passivity into a population. Aggression is ultimately what gets people out of bed in the morning instead of just remaining immobile and dying of thirst.
I'm waiting for the sequel, where they learn from their mistakes and directly induce passive-aggression into the population instead.
Re: Actually (Score:4, Insightful)
Hawkings, one could argue is out of his league on many topics and/or issues he has opinions about. But seems to always get the media attention he doesn't deserve. There is no exception here. Move along.
Re: (Score:2)
Your logic has a very large hole in it. If there was no aggression, there would be no aggression to fail to stand up to.
Re: (Score:3)
The obvious angle here is aggression towards one another, not aggression towards other species.
Obviously aggression toward one another is required.
errr. huh? (Score:2)
This surprise revelation comes from the most brilliant mind of our generation? In other news, the sky is still blue...
Re:errr. huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd be surprised. A major percentage of the posters here on Slashdot are openly hostile to the "non-aggression principle" and its proponents, mostly due to tribal affiliations of one sort or another. You'd think something like this would be non-controversial - but in human endeavors there is no such thing as non-controversial.
Even things like "thou shalt not kill" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" can stir up controversy. People are just a contentious lot. But then I suppose that was kinda the point, wasn't it?
Re:errr. huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
A major percentage of the posters here on Slashdot are openly hostile to the "non-aggression principle" and its proponents
In theory it sounds obvious and logical, for about 20 seconds. Once you start introducing a variety of test cases the rule either A) Fails terribly or B) Gets stacked with so many convoluted justifications, odd definitions and tortured logic that you might as well not assert it in the first place. If we must have one sentence principles then a better one is "We don't start things, but if you do we'll finish it and you won't like that."
One Simple Principle (Score:3)
We don't (usually admit that we) start things, but if you do (or if we want to make it seem like you do) we'll (drag it out until we are absolutely forced to) finish it and you won't like that (but our military industrial complex and its bought-off politicians sure will.)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Non-aggression is a principle of ethics.
From the Wikipedia:
Re:errr. huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
People fail to see the endgame of a non-aggression principle as having any equitable position for the practitioner in the face of a world that does not comply with it.
If someone kills my wife, killing them back doesn't get my wife back. Indeed, it is theoretically possible that forgiving the killer actually does less harm to me than agitating for the murderer's destruction. It is also possible that a forgiven murderer reforms and becomes a model citizen.
But even if you could mathematically prove that was the case, good luck with trying to convince me that wife's loss of life and my own pain doesn't require some sort of vengeance. How would it be acceptable that someone could walk away scot free, or with just a slap on the hand?
Non-aggression also implies a courage that even some of the people who practice it don't understand. In the end, you have to be willing to accept that you can't make an attack to proactively stop a terrible outcome that you know is going to happen.
You see that dictator across the sea subjugating people, building missiles, and spreading rhetoric to prepare their people to come attack *you*. You know you could prevent or blunt their attack on you by hitting them first.
The destruction in a war happens to the defenders. The only time an aggressor takes real damage is when they are forced on the defensive themselves. Non-aggression means you're going to be fighting a just war, but you're going to be fighting it in the rubble of your own home.
That doesn't mean non-aggression is wrong, it just means that you really, really need to understand what the cost is for that theoretically superior outcome.
Re:errr. huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, a more accurate translation is "thou shalt not murder". In ancient Hebrew, killing (harag) and murder (ratzah) are different words, and the commandment uses the latter. See? Point proven!
Generally, I don't perceive aggressiveness as an inherently negative trait, just... a dangerous one, akin to dynamite. If used properly, aggressiveness can propel civilization forward in healthy competition. Use incorrectly, it can indeed destroy civilization.
One could argue that the United States' moon shot was extremely aggressive, as it was a direct counter to the Soviet's aggressive move into space ahead of us. Yet I'd guess most would argue that the space race ultimately ended up being a positive endeavor. Likewise, the modern trend of building a world's tallest skyscraper could be viewed as aggressive. They're built not out of logical economics, but a desire to proclaim a region's or company's technical and cultural prowess to the world. I feel this is also a positive channeling of human aggression as well. It pushes us to expand our technical horizons and take enormous risks.
Obviously, we all know what the downside of aggression is: anger, violence, rape, murder, war, genocide. But part of being blessed with intelligence means that we can make a conscious choice about how we direct our inner aggression, and work to improve ourselves by harnessing it. Societal influence is a very key component in helping shape a civilization, and as we raise our children, we teach them to channel their inherent aggression into positive activities that can benefit both themselves and others.
Re: (Score:3)
Brillian minds speaking outside their realm of expertise don't impress me much. Google "Carl Sagan Kuwait Oil Fires" to see how wrong cosmologists can be when pontificating about the Earth.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's stupidity coming from a fool who has no idea what he's talking about. He's a cosmologist and a quantum physicist, not a social scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how you define aggression, I suppose.
Given his description of it as being responsible for keeping humans from extinction, however, I think he's defining in such a way that I would disagree with him.
I don't think aggression needs to be removed, but it does need to be redirected where it is helpful and least destructive. For instance, instead of fighting a duel for a mate, two suitors could work to demonstrate their superiority in other forms of competition.
However, that requires all three peop
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is aggression really survival+ for tech. society? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you think that "anyone out there that we encounter is very likely to be even more aggressive" than humans? D'you realize that a remarkable thing about people is not how aggressive people are, but rather how well people actually get along? Pretty much only colony insects are as capable of getting along as we are. It is not aggressiveness that makes humans globally dominant.
When technology has advanced to the point where an INDIVIDUAL has the power to bring down the entire planetary civilization (and I'd argue that we are at that point right now), low aggression seems like a rather key survival trait. I'd argue that a civilization that has survived longer than us is probably FAR less aggressive, FAR more willing to take the long view, and FAR more willing to work out cooperative everyone-wins solutions rather than indulging in exploitative zero-sum behavior.
--PM
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Is aggression really survival+ for tech. societ (Score:4, Insightful)
You have this zero sum mindset. Why does one have to come out on top?
How about, two space faring species meet, trade technology, form a conglomerate socieity which is greater than either of them would be alone, culturally richer, with every individual in both societies better off?
Why have conflict when there is so much to gain by cooperation?
And what makes you think that the aggressive culture will survive to get into space in the first place? The only target for their aggression is going to be themselves, and they're going to have some NASTY weaponry available.
--PM
Re:Is aggression really survival+ for tech. societ (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, the scenerio I propose of peaceful cooperation and conglomeration is utterly boring. War is so much more dramatic.
However, consider the history of the world since WWII. Lots of little conflicts, no big ones. The costs of the big powers going to war is just too high for everyone (rational) to bear. So instead we trade, more or less peacefully.
How much more so in space? It's very hard to defend a planet and easy to destroy one, or at least render it uninhabitable, for a space-faring civilization. Act aggressively and face terrible retaliation, where anything that could possibly be won via aggression would be less valuable than what would certainly be lost.
--PM
Re: (Score:2)
Ants and bees are aggressive as all fuck. Honeybees are notable for being docile, and only certain subspecies at that; honeybees, the most successful organism second only to ants, are among the most violent and aggressive motherfuckers in existence, with the Megapsis species able to quickly kill a human if annoyed, and some of the smaller African apsis species prone to violent and fatal attacks in which they chase you forever and sting you until you die. The more docile species have been propagated by hu
Re:Is aggression really survival+ for tech. societ (Score:4, Insightful)
So what about aliens? It's likely that any advanced civilization would have had to overcome or suppress inward-facing aggression in order to remove a significant threat to its own existence, and that could be done through various means such as artificial selection, genetic engineering, tyranny, changing the substrate of the mind from a biological brain to a more easily modifiable artificial information processing artifacts, etc. But such a civilization is still faced with another threat to its longevity. In a universe with accelerating expansion (such as ours), there is only a finite amount of energy and matter within a given Hubble volume that can be used to do work (in the physics sense), for things such as supporting life processes (this is because the expansion of space itself is not limited by the speed of light, and only gravitationally bound portions of the universe -- such as our local group of galaxies -- won't be blown apart; everything beyond will eventually be forever out of reach).
Given this, advanced galactic civilizations are competing for limited resources (energy usable for work). In the very distant future, that would lead to conflict as most available resources are either allocated or contested, and few are left unclaimed. At that point, immense numbers of lives would be destroyed by the losers. It's more ethical and efficient to instead destroy competitors when they're as few in number as possible. This is why sterilizer probes have been suggested as the most likely policy of any advanced spacefaring/colonizing civilization. An advanced civilization has little incentive to suppress outward aggression. Sterilizer probes are self-replicating artifacts sent out to eliminate any life they encounter other than their original creators.
The argument against us sending out sterilizer probes as soon as nanotechnology or biotechnology is advanced enough is that our civilization will be perceived as an aggressor and more likely to be punished. The problem with this argument is that cooperation in game theory problems such as prisoner's dilemma works well as a solution in general only if there are sufficiently many rounds (and even then, only in specific circumstances; see the article that was discussed on Slashdot just a few days ago: http://science.slashdot.org/st... [slashdot.org]).
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is, the bad guy gets at least a few shots by surprise, and then there's the next incident, and the next, and... Bad Guy With Gun is an enemy you can never beat by shooting.
Re:Is aggression really survival+ for tech. societ (Score:4, Insightful)
When everyone have nukes, nobody will use them.
Some nutter will.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he proposes that the people who want less aggression might want to leave the planet. Bad news - anyone out there that we encounter is very likely to be even more aggressive if they've survived longer than us. Survival of the fittest isn't just for puny earthlings.
Let's not forget about "Space Madness!" either. As soon as someone goes looney on the voyage, it's game over, man! Game over!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he proposes that the people who want less aggression might want to leave the planet. Bad news - anyone out there that we encounter is very likely to be even more aggressive if they've survived longer than us. Survival of the fittest isn't just for puny earthlings.
The possibility that intelligent aliens who are pacifistic cannot be ruled out.
Then they won't last long after meeting up with us.
Unchecked sociopathic greed is even worse. (Score:5, Interesting)
Greedy sociopaths worldwide manipulate the aggressive en masse via the media, monetary reward and punishment systems, and if necessary, brute force to further their acquisitive nature, which has no end, and ultimately, no point.
Greed kills. (Score:5, Insightful)
I fear we will need to conquer greed and corruption first.
We don't make millions of guns and bombs because it's really fun to shoot them. We make weapons of mass destruction because it's profitable for someone to do so.
And we don't make just a few nukes, or a handful of bullets. No, we make enough to destroy the entire planet several times over, and stockpile ammo for decades while watching the government claim they're running low and order a few more billion rounds on the taxpayer.
Why?
Because it's profitable for someone to do so.
Greed kills. Corruption enables it.
Re: (Score:3)
^^^ this hits the nail on the head.
the vast majority of violence doesn't come from simple aggression. it comes from getting in the way of someone's money-making venture. the cause is closer to apathy, or a lack of empathy than aggression.
war has, and always will be about money. it's usually couched as furthering a righteous cause, but that's just a way to for rich people to get poor people to die for them. the best way to eliminate the threat of nuclear war is to find an end to poverty. no easy task.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is a lot of merit in what you say, but it's not perfectly true. It's profitable to make weapons of mass destruction, true, but at least in the US, when they were first made, they were made because of a pretty rational fear of a real adversary. To large extent it's perpetuated now by greed and corruption, but there's residual fear and some real persistent external threat, and a lot of inertia.
Greed and corruption are the main factors holding Africa in the dark ages, you've nailed it there.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't make millions of guns and bombs because it's really fun to shoot them. We make weapons of mass destruction because it's profitable for someone to do so.
Nonsense, we make them because we're afraid. Of course, since we're also greedy we made WAY too many, but that's a secondary effect not a primary.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't make millions of guns and bombs because it's really fun to shoot them. We make weapons of mass destruction because it's profitable for someone to do so.
The causes of war are three: greed, ideology, and fear.
Aggression (Score:2, Insightful)
I see on Wikipedia that he supports funding universal healthcare by aggressive government action, though, as well as government aggression towards activities that are perceived to promote climate change. It's a shame he's not more rigorously consistent about this.
Re: (Score:2)
You're purposefully conflating the "assertive/proactive" and "violent" meanings of the word.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Anti-vaxxers on slashdot? Don't they revoke your geek card for that?
Re: (Score:2)
They tried to.
*Tried*. To.
Re: (Score:2)
and your qualifications are?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, so you're saying liberals are better than conservatives and conservatives are merely tolerated, after listing the atrocities committed by liberals?
You're a typical left-wing nutjob. You'll prove to everyone how superior you are even if it kills them.
Re: (Score:3)
At least you admit Stalin was a liberal. Someday soon you might realize Hitler was too. WWII was liberals fighting for control.
Thank god their day has passed.
The major cause of human advancement (Score:3)
Yup (Score:3, Interesting)
We have a stone age need to kill each other and seem to take great joy in this, but our intelligent brains have been able to come up with ways to expend great amounts of energy very rapidly.
This is a fatal combination.
Proof of the concept is how at least one Death Cult religion has adherents who actively agitate and attempt to grease the skids for their particular end of the world myth, and actually look forward to it. If that isn't batshit crazy and species eradicating, then nothing is.
Re: (Score:2)
we really enjoy killing each other.
speak for yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
http://ourworldindata.org/data... [ourworldindata.org]
http://marginalrevolution.com/... [marginalrevolution.com]
The data doesn't support your assertion. The centuries-long trend is a decline in homicide rates. It appears that, on the whole, our "intelligent brains" are quite capable of choosing to be a non-homicidal member of society. The homicidal deviants you mention are an inconsequential percentage of the total population.
http://ourworldindata.org/data... [ourworldindata.org]
I found this chart to be especially interesting. The US homicide rate was roughly constant thro
what would be his suggestion? (Score:2)
A Prozac bomb?
Re:what would be his suggestion? (Score:4, Insightful)
A Prozac bomb?
Legalized marijuana.
Re: (Score:2)
that'll never happen.
Aggression/ambition still needed (Score:3)
Yeah, they have some shitty side-effects, but without at least some drive everyone would just sit around smoking weed all day until the winter did us all in.
Could argue the exact opposite (Score:3)
Does aggression cause problems? Yes. So does complaisance. I for one am glad people have aggression, as opposed to being a bunch of complaisant, laid-back lemmings.
The problem is not excess aggression. It is insufficient self control. The inability to put off current desires in order to obtain greater rewards later on.
Yes, "aggression" is not well-defined. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Hawking meant humanity's willingness to use violence and/or deadly force to get what one wants instead of reason and persuasion.
"Aggressive in his battle to conquer cancer..." is far different from "aggressively hitting people because he enjoys other people's pain".
I think energy and determination to achieve a pro-social goal are separable from a willingness to harm or otherwise screw over other people to get what you selfisly want. And I think we can have the former without the latter.
--PM
Give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the things that really pisses me off whenever anyone comes up with something utopian is that they don't fully address the second order effects, as if that's a rounding error or some shit. Pretend that every human hears and agrees with Stephen Hawking, and actually acts to reduce their own aggressiveness. What about the standing rewards for aggressiveness? They'll just be enhanced! The job that rewards aggression now has an opening if you are one of the few who were unable to reduce your aggression as much as your peers. The woman who wants an aggressive man is now more available to you (and the mirrored sex case is also true, but much less important- and remember here, we're talking about reducing aggression as a first order, being attracted to aggressive people is a second order and NOT related). The conflicts are easier to win with aggression still.
Hawking isn't giving some utopian order, of course- the headline is based on one statement where he discusses a human failing. He's not being a fool here, but any plan to act on it as a first order would.
What you need is to increase the reward for NOT being aggressive. At EVERY level. Women in the workplace already face this problem, but so do guys who aren't pushy in the mating game. Aggression is stacked full of rewards. If you hand those rewards- NOT just financial, but security based, sexual based, and status based- to rational behaving actors, that's your solution.
In the meantime, empathy is a weakness in many cases, and aggression is the correct play in many cases. Until you change that (and not just with punishments that are selectively enforced), you won't see a bit of difference- and you'd be a fool to play along in many cases.
No thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
With all due respect to his brilliance, Hawking should stick to his own subject of expertise. Without aggression we would die, pure and simple. Aggression has been a significant factor (arguably) in making us the dominant species on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
War, Not Aggression, Is the Failing (Score:2)
Virtually all sexual species exhibit aggression. The problem is war, not mere aggression. And this problem goes beyond mere conflict between human groups. E. O. Wilson's "The Social Conquest of Earth" [longnow.org] describes how group selection dominates the environment and, in the case of human eusocial organization, degrades biodiversity.
The price of civilization is eusocial organization and the price of eusocial organization is war.
One way of addressing this failing is to turn civilization outward, away from the bi
Physicist, heal thyself.... (Score:2)
The aggressive side of Stephen Hawking: [lemonwade.com]
"He once, for example, ran over Prince Charles's toes with his wheelchair. His wife, Jane, commented that one of her husband's regrets in life was not having an opportunity to run over Margaret Thatcher's."
Predatory Optimum (Score:2)
Man is at the top of planetary food-chains (neglecting the microbial predators). So he preys upon himself (aggression).
Excessive aggression is obviously sub-optimal with too much productive resources diverted to defense. Insufficient aggression might also be sub-optimal by increasing episodic payoffs ("jackpots") to renaissant aggression (classic predator-prey population cycling).
If you cannot totally eliminate aggression, then you should find an optimum lest it return with a vengence.
Aliens (Score:3)
New chapter of History Channel: Ancient Aliens: Stephen Hawking is one of the many aliens than are converting us into docile creatures as a preparation for the invasion
Total FUD (Score:3)
But that is what you get when you ask an overly arrogant person something outside of their field of expertise.
tenacity (Score:2)
Stay in your field! (Score:2)
What is it with people coming way outside of their areas of expertise to offer advice these days? Greatest respect for Hawking as a cosmologist and theoretical physicist, but he should stop talking when it comes to topics that fall outside of those areas of expertise.
Confirmation bias (Score:2)
My pick for biggest human failing would be confirmation bias or rejecting evidence not consistent with one's preexisting beliefs. It is one of the biggest impairments to rational decision making and one of the most difficult to overcome.
People trying to using aggression to impose their beliefs may be the ultimate expression of confirmation bias.
Survival of the ... (Score:2)
Goddamit ... (Score:2)
... here you have an opportunity to ask a super scientist some philosophical questions of consequence to Hawking's field of expertise and you blow it?
Fuck.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
If we don't spend so much money on the military, we would have a lot more to spend on science. It's a pretty easy link to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:armchair evolutionary biologist (Score:5, Insightful)
the **real problem** is listening to people like Hawking
and we should listen to people like you? random guy on slashdot? i'll stick with proven genius, thanks.
Re:armchair evolutionary biologist (Score:4, Interesting)
Go read the comments on YouTube for a day and tell me that you honestly think we should pay attention to everyone who wants to share their opinion. The nice thing about Hawking's position is that if he spouts too much half-baked bullshit, people will stop listening to him. Random Slashdot guy has no such limitation (or doesn't care about it).
We should certainly keep an open mind and I'm completely disgusted by unwarranted deference to the opinions of celebrities, but go and read the illiterate ramblings that the GP responded to. What is his argument against Hawking's claims? What valuable insight does his argument present?
There's only so much time in our lives; wasting it listening to morons would be tragic.
Obligatory xkcd (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory xkcd. [xkcd.com]
I wouldn't put all the blame on him. I doubt he sees himself as an expert on computing or human behaviour, but people, especially the media, blow everything he says (even casually) out of proportion just because he is one of the few "famous smart scientists".
Just read the summary/TFA again and compare it to the xkcd comic.
What makes you such an expert? (Score:2)
Stephen Hawking needs to stick to cosmology...he doesn't know *shit* about computing and human behavior.
And what are your credentials that make you such an expert on the topic of human behavior? If you're so smart about the topic what are you doing posting here?
just like all traits of human behavior, evolutionary biologists (esp. psych) drastically oversimplify the most complex behavior we observe in the known universe
Complex behavior can arise from very simple rules. That's something I'm quite sure Hawking understands far better than you or me.
the **real problem** is listening to people like Hawking
Really? Someone arguing for peace? How horrible that we should listen to someone saying we should be less aggressive. [/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:2)
people listening to Hawking on this is the only threat
Glad you're keeping things in perspective!
Re: (Score:2)
He was asked an opinion and he gave it. If it can at least give pause and make people think about it then great. He didn't have to write a thesis on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nah, not really (Score:4, Insightful)
"It may have had survival advantage in caveman days, to get more food, territory, or partner with whom to reproduce, but now it threatens to destroy us all."
Ok, nobody reads the linked article. But at least finish reading the summary maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
News flash: 500,000 years ago was 500,000 years ago. Things change.
No (Score:2)
The way to a better world is self-improvement. Aum.