Not only is the economy bad, but now we have to get off Earth?

[Brazoo]

I would tend to agree with blaming the media more than Hawking. He certainly is entitled to his opinion on subject matters that might not be his area of expertise.

If I had a chance to ask him a follow-up question; it would be related to the comment that "man's genetic code carries selfish and aggressive instincts". I would presume an Evolusionist would say that these are hard-wired primal survivor instincts.

What is the reason for this selfish and aggressive instinct that he mentioned still exist in our genetic code rather than evolved out? Since the planet is one of finite resources, wouldn't Evolutionary suggest that humans would lose this genetic code and change to be less selfish and less aggressive? Doesn't our ultimate survival ultimately depend on this?

I agree with you - I thought that was Hawking's most confusing and sloppily phrased part and I would like to have heard some follow up questions as well!

But, I don't think your presumption about what evolutionists think is 100% correct. Selfishness is certainly one observable part of human behavior, but how much of ANY type of human behavior comes from our genetics and how much of it is learned is highly debatable - and it's certainly debated amongst evolutionary theorists and geneticists. Everyone knows the old nature vs. nurture debate from the movie "Trading Places" - right?

Either way, I personally think selfishness is a less significant part of human behavior. I think one of the biggest and most distinctive parts of human behavior is that we co-operate, we're tribal and group forming - especially in the face of danger.

Another HUGELY distinctive part of our behavior is that we use logic to calculate and predict outcomes - and we change our behavior as part of those predictions.

I agree that we have the ability to destroy our own existence - but I also think we have a prevailing drive to anticipate, solve problems as a group, and ultimately survive.

I guess that desire could also be considered to be part of our collective human selfishness - but that's precisely what I find so confusing about his opinion. As he's describing it our selfishness trumps our desire to survive- and that seems like a bit of a paradox to me. Unless he's just anticipating that we'll be to dumb to work things out effectively - but that would be our stupidity at fault, not our selfishness. Again, I don't disagree that we could be our own species worst enemy - but I personally think the phrasing of his opinion should have been clearer.

I don't want to get too much into evolution - and I'm not suggesting that you should believe in evolution theory - but just to discuss one other point you mentioned: I think you're suggesting that if evolution theory was plausible than anything in a species' genes that could possibly cause it's extinction would be removed, right? But that would mean evolution theory suggests that selective pressures can be anticipated by genes ahead of time. That isn't part of the the theory of evolution by natural selection - adaptation only reacts to pressures - and genes can't anticipate future needs.

Does that make sense - or did I screw up understanding your point?

[ctc]

>What is the reason for this selfish and aggressive instinct that he mentioned still exist in our genetic code rather than evolved out?

Time, for one. As a species we're not very old. Also, selfishness and aggression still have their uses; but are tempered against our other drives.

What is the Monkeysphere? | Cracked.com

Humans are pretty complicated, but in really simple ways.

Don C.

[Adam West]

I agree with you - I thought that was Hawking's most confusing and sloppily phrased part and I would like to have heard some follow up questions as well!

But, I don't think your presumption about what evolutionists think is 100% correct. Selfishness is certainly one observable part of human behavior, but how much of ANY type of human behavior comes from our genetics and how much of it is learned is highly debatable - and it's certainly debated amongst evolutionary theorists and geneticists. Everyone knows the old nature vs. nurture debate from the movie "Trading Places" - right?

Either way, I personally think selfishness is a less significant part of human behavior. I think one of the biggest and most distinctive parts of human behavior is that we co-operate, we're tribal and group forming - especially in the face of danger.

Another HUGELY distinctive part of our behavior is that we use logic to calculate and predict outcomes - and we change our behavior as part of those predictions.

I agree that we have the ability to destroy our own existence - but I also think we have a prevailing drive to anticipate, solve problems as a group, and ultimately survive.

I guess that desire could also be considered to be part of our collective human selfishness - but that's precisely what I find so confusing about his opinion. As he's describing it our selfishness trumps our desire to survive- and that seems like a bit of a paradox to me. Unless he's just anticipating that we'll be to dumb to work things out effectively - but that would be our stupidity at fault, not our selfishness. Again, I don't disagree that we could be our own species worst enemy - but I personally think the phrasing of his opinion should have been clearer.

I don't want to get too much into evolution - and I'm not suggesting that you should believe in evolution theory - but just to discuss one other point you mentioned: I think you're suggesting that if evolution theory was plausible than anything in a species' genes that could possibly cause it's extinction would be removed, right? But that would mean evolution theory suggests that selective pressures can be anticipated by genes ahead of time. That isn't part of the the theory of evolution by natural selection - adaptation only reacts to pressures - and genes can't anticipate future needs.

Does that make sense - or did I screw up understanding your point?

I don't have a lot of knowledge of Evolutionary Theory other than what one typically learns at the college level. I think the ony point I was trying to make is that at least my understanding of natural selection or survival of the fittest would imply that hard wiring would have evolved or is starting to evolve. I do understand the point that it takes time for these to take place over time but one would think that the genetic coding would be evolving.

I also didn't want make it sound like I do or don't believe in Evolutionary theory. I do have some issues with parts of it but also think evolution does exist.

[Brazoo]

I don't have a lot of knowledge of Evolutionary Theory other than what one typically learns at the college level. I think the ony point I was trying to make is that at least my understanding of natural selection or survival of the fittest would imply that hard wiring would have evolved or is starting to evolve. I do understand the point that it takes time for these to take place over time but one would think that the genetic coding would be evolving.

I also didn't want make it sound like I do or don't believe in Evolutionary theory. I do have some issues with parts of it but also think evolution does exist.

Well - the process and mechanics of evolution never stops. You're right that time can be one factor - we may only be able to actually notice changes over a period of 100s of years - but sometimes selective pressures act quickly and the mechanics of evolution (variation and mutation) means that adaptation can also be noticeable in a short period of time.

You'll probably remember from back in school the example of the Peppered Moths - their adaptation happened quick enough that we could actually record it - which is why it's such a good example.

The term "survival of the fittest" is not really accurate. It was never part of Darwin's theory (it's not part of modern evolution theory) and it doesn't describe evolution well - it's an economists term and I hate it because it ALWAYS causes confusion and kind of ignores one of the key mechanisms of evolution which is variation.

Let's just assume that selfishness is just part of our genetics or hard-wiring (which I don't believe, but for the sake of this example). A small segment of the population is going to rate 10 out of 10 on the selfish scale and a small segment of people is going to rate 0 out of 10 on the selfish scale. Most people are probably going to be in-between those two extremes someplace.

If we were going to evolve for less selfishness it would mean that some kind of pressure was preventing people at the top end of that scale from passing on their genes. The scale represents our genetic variation - our species is more adaptable to changes if we have a wide range of variation. If we have a smaller range - like if we're all 8 to 10 on the selfish scale, then we might lack the mechanism to adapt to a change if pressures suddenly favored UNselfishness.

What Hawking is suggesting is that we lack the variation to adapt - in other words he's saying that as a species we're all 8 to 10 - but what he's ignoring (in my opinion) is that humans have a lot of variation and are highly adaptable to change - especially as far as behavior is concerned because our behavior might be influenced by our genes, but we can also control and modify our behavior.

We're not stuck to the rails because we have evolved incredibly powerful adaptive traits just in the way our brains work.

[Adam West]

All good points...any you are right about misunderstandings. I have always been taught or at least thought I was taught that "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are basically interchangeable. I'm not googling anything on it but always understood natural selection to be the process of certain traits that lead to survival and just presumed they were interchangeable terms. Thanks for clearing that up.

Stephen Hawking isn't the first person or last person to give his opinion in areas where he may not be an expert. Warren Buffett makes headlines all the time whenever he gives his opinions on anything even if it has nothing to do with finance at all. He could say something as innocuous like Burger King's Whoppers are tastier than McDonald's Big Macs...it makes front page headlines and the funny thing is that McDonald's stock will probably drop in value when he makes a statement like this and the company that owns Burger King goes up.

[TrueDave]

Hector i am going to put words in the OP mouth and say because he's on the Mego boards he probably meant it like Han did in reference to Kenobi : " Where did you dig up that old fossil?" I think it's just a disagreement with what Hawking is saying.

If we fix health and food problems we will have more people, we need to migrate , like we always have done. If we are worthy to survive.

Do we deserve to? What are we going to do when we get somewhere else and find it occupied?

Maybe we don't deserve to leave Earth.

I'm more concerned with when I'm going to die.

Eggs in one basket. Our Culture is in one basket so is the economy with the increased communication. Every society has a life span. However since we are a global community that life span is for EVERYBODY now and there wont be any "others" to rise and have a turn at the top.

Besides. I feel bad enough having to pay for water. Paying someone for Oxygen would suck.

I just wish Hawking would write some good sci fi like Asimov did.

[Brazoo]

All good points...any you are right about misunderstandings. I have always been taught or at least thought I was taught that "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are basically interchangeable. I'm not googling anything on it but always understood natural selection to be the process of certain traits that lead to survival and just presumed they were interchangeable terms. Thanks for clearing that up.

Cool - thanks for hearing me out! You probably were taught that "survival of the fittest" was an evolutionary term - I see that in mainstream articles on evolution all the time. Honestly, I think if more people realized that "survival of the fittest" and atheism weren't part of evolution theory it would be a lot less controversial.

Just incase you are interested, here's a link to the wikipedia entry on "survival of the fittest": Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you are interested in evolution (but hate preachy atheists) Kenneth Miller is my favorite evolutionary lecturer/debater right now: Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen Hawking isn't the first person or last person to give his opinion in areas where he may not be an expert. Warren Buffett makes headlines all the time whenever he gives his opinions on anything even if it has nothing to do with finance at all. He could say something as innocuous like Burger King's Whoppers are tastier than McDonald's Big Macs...it makes front page headlines and the funny thing is that McDonald's stock will probably drop in value when he makes a statement like this and the company that owns Burger King goes up.

Too funny! I've heard that guys name before, but I didn't even really know who he was.

[Brazoo]

If we fix health and food problems we will have more people, we need to migrate , like we always have done. If we are worthy to survive.

That might be true --- but it's also true that healthier, wealthier and more educated populations have lower birth rates.

I just wish Hawking would write some good sci fi like Asimov did.

Honestly, Hawking's books are better than sci-fi in my opinion. Truth is stranger than fiction!

[TrueDave]

[QUOTE=Brazoo;595339]That might be true --- but it's also true that healthier, wealthier and more educated populations have lower birth rates.



Did you see "idiocracy" ?

[livnxxxl]

I think that you are all nuts! LOL!! j/k

[johnmiic]

If you want a good example of recent Human Evolution consider this: The Black Plague. 1/3 to 1/2 the human population of the world was killed off by the Black Death. We are decendents of the survivors. We had something inside us that helped us over-come it and since then the population has bounced back. We may not be totally immune to the plague but we likely won't be killed by it, ( tho I wouldn't want to put that to the test).