Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Scientist Stephen Hawking wants to find a way to convince people to stop voting for Trump, and to start listening to people like him again, to save the planet from climate change and national borders.
This is the most dangerous time for our planet
Stephen Hawking
We can’t go on ignoring inequality, because we have the means to destroy our world but not to escape it.
As a theoretical physicist based in Cambridge, I have lived my life in an extraordinarily privileged bubble. Cambridge is an unusual town, centred around one of the world’s great universities. Within that town, the scientific community that I became part of in my 20s is even more rarefied.
And within that scientific community, the small group of international theoretical physicists with whom I have spent my working life might sometimes be tempted to regard themselves as the pinnacle. In addition to this, with the celebrity that has come with my books, and the isolation imposed by my illness, I feel as though my ivory tower is getting taller.
So the recent apparent rejection of the elites in both America and Britain is surely aimed at me, as much as anyone. Whatever we might think about the decision by the British electorate to reject membership of the European Union and by the American public to embrace Donald Trump as their next president, there is no doubt in the minds of commentators that this was a cry of anger by people who felt they had been abandoned by their leaders.
…
What matters now, far more than the choices made by these two electorates, is how the elites react. Should we, in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.
The concerns underlying these votes about the economic consequences of globalisation and accelerating technological change are absolutely understandable. The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.
…
The consequences of this are plain to see: the rural poor flock to cities, to shanty towns, driven by hope. And then often, finding that the Instagram nirvana is not available there, they seek it overseas, joining the ever greater numbers of economic migrants in search of a better life. These migrants in turn place new demands on the infrastructures and economies of the countries in which they arrive, undermining tolerance and further fuelling political populism.
For me, the really concerning aspect of this is that now, more than at any time in our history, our species needs to work together. We face awesome environmental challenges: climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans.
…
See, if we don’t start listening to our betters again, elite globalists like Stephen Hawking, we fools will destroy the world.
I don’t know what Hawking is talking about.
My populism is highly refined. Like, 110 octane.
He is one of the most intelligent people ever but has fallen for the AGW scam just like a lot of people. Smart people are the easiest people to con just ask any scam artist.
That essay by Hawking reads more like the ravings in a junior college common room that a scientist, however, as the expression egotism at the expense of impartiality, this comment has no equal:
“So the recent apparent rejection of the elites in both America and Britain is surely aimed at me,”
On second thoughts I knew Clinton would lose a week before the elction The reason? Celebrity endorsements.
Ed Miliband at the UK general election– endorsed by Russell Brand very publicly. Result? Total failure, despite good signs BEFORE the high profile endorsement.
Remain in Europe publicly endorsed by Bob Geldoff. Result? Unexpected failure
Clinton – suddenly endorsed by Madonna, Lady Gaga.. VERY publicly. Suddenly loses majority in the polls.. Result? Trump gets in, with the added bonus of stating that he just has himself and not these celebrity endorsements.
I think left of centre makes the fatal error of accepting celebs. That’s like a brain surgeon looking to the taxi driver for advice and support in his operating theatre, and I’m afraid that’s the point where he loses credibility.
The difference with Donald Trump is that when he appears on TV for entertainment, he is very much endorsing them, than them appearing to be in the driving seat
Spot on P Wilson !
Mr. Obama also did us a big favour by telling us we would be “at the back of the queue” too !
We Brits knew full well that the folks in the U. S. A. do NOT use that expression: they say “line up” (not queue) and so we knew his visit was a “set up” by the unelected European Union Corporation.
Regards,
WL
I’m sorry if it has been discussed above, but everything Hawking says is moot. Guy McPherson says humanity will be extinct in ten years due to climate change and nothing can be done to stop it. Super! Can we stop talking about it now?
Perhaps we shouldn’t listen to Donald Trump or Stephen Hawking and put our trust in our own ability to decide right from wrong.
Hawking may be smart, but he takes me for an idiot.
Whoa! Based on an initial scan of this thread (I have only so much time) I think we are misreading Mr. Hawking. The key phrase is this:
“What matters now, far more than the choices made by these two electorates, is how the elites react. Should we, in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.”
He is commenting on how the ELITES should react, and he is saying that IT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE FOR THEM to reject the votes as bogus, and attempt to nullify “the choices they represent.”
It is a warning and a caution directed against himself his own fellow-travelers. So he accepts some of the enviro-bolshevism, so what? That is not part of his essential message. He is profoundly disabled and we should cut him some slack for not being able to scan the universe for error.
I am ambivalent toward Stephen Hawking over other matters, but please do not put words in his mouth.
Michael J. Dunn December 5, 2016 at 11:28 am
Mmmm … I think you mistake his words for his deeds. He says we should not “reject these votes” … but he truly doesn’t seem to understand what’s going on.
For example, he THINKS he understands why the proles are rioting:
But despite saying we should take them seriously, HIS SUPPORT FOR GLOBALISM REMAINS UNABATED!! All he’s doing is saying “yes, I understand your concerns, but you plebians are wrong, and besides, your betters have decided on globalization so you better get used to it.”.
Not only that, but in the US at least, the issue is NOT “automation of factories”. That’s a liberal spin on what is going on. Out in the real world, the factories still exist, but they and the jobs have been moved somewhere that a man is willing to work for a bowl of rice per day and a dry place to sleep. THAT is what people are upset about, not Hawking’s fantasies about them objecting to automation.
You think we are misreading Hawking. I think you are misreading him. He is NOT saying that the votes of the millions are correct, he’s saying the elites shouldn’t ignore them … and he also obviously thinks they are not correct.
His solution?
Why, clearly, since as you and he both say “IT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE FOR THEM to reject the votes as bogus”, the solution is for some member of the elite to tell us just why we were wrong. He’s not ignoring us, that would be a “terrible mistake”. He’s not rejecting our votes as being bogus.
Instead, he’s paying attention to us by patiently explaining to our feeble minds why we were fools to vote the way we did … I guess he figures maybe if he says it again real slow and using simple words, we’ll get it this time.
I recommend that everyone read the book “How Rich Countries Got Rich, and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor. The answer to the first part is “protective trade barriers made countries rich”, and the answer to the second part is “free trade is why poor countries stay poor”. I was a huge free-trade advocate until I read that book, and I did a 180° turn on the spot … when the fact change I change my opinions. From the blurb:
That’s the part that the elites don’t get, and yes, that includes Steven Hawking …
w.
A terrible mistake to “attempt to nullify the choices they represent.” Who doesn’t get what?
I agree with Michael Dunn. Good for Stephen Hawking. I disagree with him on some things (his atheism is baffling from someone of his intelligence) but what he is saying here is right and (in his position) courageous. He is warning the liberal elites not to dismiss Trump voters as deplorables or Brexit voters as unschooled xenophobes. Any academic with a lesser reputation would have been torn to shreds for spoiling the approved story line.
Incidence of atheism is strongly, positively correlated with intelligence.
As deemed by atheists. Been there, done that, for 40 years. A big mistake. All you need to be a sociopath is to be an atheist (cf. Ted Bundy).
After being excommunicated by the Mormons, Ted Bundy gave his religion as Methodist.
But then multiple murderer and rapist Bill Clinton, whose psychological profile and childhood experiences match Bundy’s, claims to be a Baptist.
Mao and former Georgian Orthodox choir boy Stalin were ostensibly atheists, but Hitler was a Catholic turned pagan. Their mass murders however pale in comparison with the Catholic Spanish and Portuguese in the Americas, even allowing for the time factor. Not to mention the Christian-motivated Taiping Rebellion, in which an estimated 30 million Chinese died.
It’s totalitarian belief which kills, whether motivated by religion or ideology. The true believer in any kind of belief system is a killer waiting to be set free.
Dear Chimp,
Glad to see you do not dispute my statement that the mental superiority of atheists is merely a self-aggrandizement.
As for Ted Bundy, what you say may be true (I looked up the same Wikipedia article), but trivial and irrelevant, much as he might have donned camouflage. He was never a practicing Mormon and he was a Methodist only in his childhood by insistence of his parents. Clearly, his career was based on the conviction that there is no good and evil, but only what one prefers, which is the core attraction of atheism.
But the statements about Bundy, Clinton, Hitler and Stalin are sophistic distractions, because the logic is still that atheism is adequate as a path to sociopathy. You haven’t shown otherwise. The possibility that there might be additional paths does not disprove that this path is good enough.
Mao and Stalin WERE atheists, as their history demonstrates. And also Hitler, whose life I have studied in some detail. (Himmler and his crowd were the Thule Society cultists.) Hitler killed at least 3 million Jews and non-Aryans. Stalin is credited with numbers ranging from 30 million to 100 million. Mao is thought to have killed over 100 million during the Great March. I am quite willing to add those killed by Japanese conquest prior to and during World War II.
I haven’t heard about the Taiping Rebellion or who was responsible for any deaths. So what? It does not disprove my point about atheism.
Your final paragraph is a wonderful example of mental fluff. Who can argue? But you don’t deal with what causes a person to think he can be God over another person. Atheists are strongly attracted to that position, because they are interested in filling the power vacuum (insofar as they think there is no God). Ordinary murderers also qualify, as they let their emotions or ambitions become God in place of God.
So, taking refuge in the notion there is no God (and setting yourself up for any flight of tyranny that tickles your fancy), you take the position that “belief systems” are the enemy of society. One of those “belief systems” is the conviction that there is an objective distinction between good and evil, truth and falsehood. We get that from Christianity, of course, but it is indispensable to the conduct of science. It is the absence of a belief in (and respect of) God that opens the doors to depravity, falsehood, taking advantage of one’s neighbor, and general arrogance.
This brings us to an insight attributed to G. K. Chesterton, along the lines of: “It is not that an atheist believes in nothing. It is that he is apt to believe in anything.”
John Hardy,
Please think carefully about this;
“Whatever we might think about the decision by the British electorate to reject membership of the European Union and by the American public to embrace Donald Trump as their next president, there is no doubt in the minds of commentators that this was a cry of anger by people who felt they had been abandoned by their leaders.”
How come it’s not just people, like him, who see things differently than him? What’s with the “cry of anger” crap, and why would it not apply equally well to those who voted like he did? And, who are these “commentators” that render “Whatever we might think about the decision…” moot? Same ones that totally missed the boat(s) in terms of how the public was going to vote?
I tire of my supposed betters telling me I’m not qualified to make a perfectly rational, non-angry decision, about what is best for my country. The implication seems clear to me; If you don’t vote for what the political/media establishment instructs, it must be because you see them as your perpetual “leaders”, who abandoned you. Nope, wrong, I see them as corrupt A-holes (at the top end, at least) who are not my leaders, certainly not in any permanent sense.
PS ~ I wish they would abandon me, forever ; )
“Cry of anger”? “Abandoned by their leaders”? Yep, I think so. It was for me, in part. So, don’t criticize him for getting the truth straight on this.
Your upset seems to be that he has made his lot with the liberal side of the political spectrum. It is truly a mistaken side, but what are we supposed to do? Shoot them all? Emulate their intolerance by outlawing their opinion? You have to realize that, in his position, he is totally dependent on a socialist environment. He literally cannot afford to bite the hand that feeds him. What else are we to expect? Let it go. He is trying to pay attention. This is the indispensable prerequisite to having an open mind.
Michael,
‘“Abandoned by their leaders”? Yep, I think so. It was for me, in part.”
Really? Who were you following, and when did they abandon you?
It seemed to me that it was many of our Government employees that betrayed us, and many in the “mass media” who misinformed and manipulated us.
“Your upset seems to be that he has made his lot with the liberal side of the political spectrum.”
Oh no, it makes no difference to me who thinks some special “commentators” they happen to be a follower of, for whatever reason, can grant them a sort of license to slander millions of people. This “cry of anger” stuff is extremely patronizing and insidious stuff, in my ear. It’s really the aspect Mr. Worrrall highlighted, that I find somewhat troubling.
And, the idea that I have “leaders” without my consent, like we were living in North Korea or something . . Not a good way to speak of public servants, they already have plenty of temptation along those lines, it seems to me ; )
Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoons explains why he “agrees with the scientific consensus on climate change”, and it’s not what you might think.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science
This seem to me to be relevant to this post on the venerable but fallible Stephen Hawking.
Steven Hawking: nobody is elite. This is purely a conceit. There are potential theoretical physicists downtrodden in the gutters of the third world. Your great fortune was that your corporal challenges were late arriving. Theirs arrive at birth and never leave.
Besides, you really aren’t that good. The recent black hole stuff is interesting, but it is all intuition. Intuition is good. Very good sometimes, but unless it is testable it is simply shamanism. The truly brilliant intuitions can be reduced to 3 term equations…
Ever notice that the liberals almost always choose as their pitch-men/pitch-women/pitch-persons those for whom we are supposed to feel sorry?
“Awwww…let’s give ’em a break. They’re so disadvantaged…!”
Nice work if you can get it.
I think they should just draw up a religious charter and declare AGW to be a religion. Why haven’t they done that? They certainly view the world through cultish glasses.