Hawking’s Doom For Mankind

Cosmologist Stephen Hawking who is considered one of the smartest men in the world, who has attempted to disprove the existence of God by using various branches of evolution but failed,  he is now claiming mankind will doom the vast majority of his or her existence because we are in a rush to develop new technologies to improve our lives.

The wording in which he puts it sounds very similar to what environmental groups have been advocating for years and apparently Stephen Hawking believes in these groups. However, his solution to the manufactured problems is living in outer space. And since he predicts this won’t be possible for the next 100 years, something bad is going to happen because of mankind’s behavior.

What exactly mankind will do to wipe itself off the face of the planet? For one, Hawking mentions bio-engineering which is…

“…a discipline that advances knowledge in engineering, biology, and medicine — and improves human health through cross-disciplinary activities that integrate the engineering sciences with the biomedical sciences and clinical practice.”

Hawking has a fear that mankind is going to invent genetically engineered viruses which will get loose among the population that it will eventually wipe out many people lives.

Second thing, Hawking suggests global warming due to mankind as the root cause will also play a part in man’s doom. His understanding on this issue is bias, the science doesn’t suggest it. Last December was the warmest on record in my locality, the record in which was broken happened in 1877, since then…emissions have increased but yet in 1877, emissions were a lot less and it still broke a record. And that record stood for a long time even with the environmental changes. You can discover this pattern of increased or decreased in emissions vs warming and cooling throughout history.

Third thing, Hawking mentions nuclear war, the last time mankind was on a possible brink of a nuclear war was the Cuban missile crisis back in the early 1960’s. Fear of nuclear war increased in the 80’s but has lost its luster after that. Dirty nukes are considered more of a threat than traditional ones. No country in the world is going to start a nuclear war with traditional weapons because you can destroy the earth many times over, there is no winner. However, having nuclear weapons means power.

This is not the first time Hawking has declared doom for mankind, he has warned the world about Al Robots massively killing humans (sounds like a Hollywood movie called, The Terminator) and aliens coming to earth in order to destroy us (sounds like a science fiction movie: War of the Worlds).

While Hawking is very smart at math, he is not that smart with evolution nor with his absurd predictions for mankind. While mankind faces major challenges; science, robots, historical warming and cooling of the earth is not one of them!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Hawking’s Doom For Mankind

  1. Your argument seems to boil down to “It’s got that bad in the past so why should I believe it could get that bad in the future?” And because that’s your position you advocate doing nothing.

    The analogy that springs to mind would be the a man standing outside his house watching the nearby river get close to bursting it’s banks and he says “this ‘ere river has never flooded my house before, why should I put in flood defences because some weather person says we’re expecting lots of rain?”

    I wonder if Noah’s contemporaries said the same thing…..

  2. Well the thing is, we have grown from having only two billion inhabitants only one hundred years ago to having seven billion now: we are up one billion since the millennium. That’s not counting the billions of livestock we feed breed and slaughter each year to feed ourselves. Our homes, cars and factories are spewing out dangerous levels of carbon, up by over one third since the industrial revolution.

  3. Climate is weather averaged over a 35 year period. There’s no point taking a single year out as an example that disproves the trend.

  4. Hello essiep,

    I read your post and my first impression, your so-called rebuttal is merely building a straw man. Let’s take a look at climategate which came out in 2009, I assume you have heard of it. Here are the team players: Michael E Mann, Brady, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Schweingruber, Cook, Crowley, and perhaps a host of others. But these guys were the main players. Michael Mann is an American climatologist and geophysicist. Phil Jones is the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences. Keith Briffa has been at the Unversity of East Anglia since 77, he specializes in in tree ring data to reconstruct the climate in the distant past. The rest I’m not going to go into at this time.

    As we know, these scientists played a role in trying to shape government policies around the world along with trying to sway public opinion that global warming is man-made. But this is how they were conducting their research: Phil Jones in his emails says and I quote, “I just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

    These well-known scientists considered experts in their fields were lying to the public. A cooling trend had emerged in the data and they were trying to hide it! Malcolm Hughes writes, “I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly that although direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature.”

    Now these scientists got caught with revising the data to fit their viewpoint that man is the cause for global warming. But why? Alarming the public about global warming is a 22 billion dollar a year venture. That’s almost 42,000 dollars per minute. And if they wanted to keep that money coming in, they better be discovering problems with the climate. The cooling trend hasn’t reversed yet. According to USCRN, from 2005-2015, shows a slight cooling trend which is interesting considering CO2 emissions have increased over that time. This is only the tip of the ice-burg sort of speak that proves it’s historical heating and cooling of the earth rather than man-made.

    Enjoy your day :)

  5. Yes, I knew about this case. Appalling as it is, this one case does not disprove all of climate science. To do so would indeed be ‘cherry picking’.
    We can take something very positive from this story. It demonstrates the self-regulating mechanisms in the scientific community.
    The fact remains that all over the world, 95% of climate scientists do support the idea that the problem is mam-made. They all acknowledge that there is a natural, cyclical warming conponant.

    Your first impression of ‘straw-man building’, does that remain in your second impression?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s