S. Hawking on Bush, Stemcell, Mars and the Universe
-
Hawking on a lecture speech on Oakland: When asked about his thoughts on President Bush's proposal to put a man on Mars within 10 years, Hawking simply replied: "Stupid. Robots are cheaper to send, and you don't have to bring them back." Q: What do you think of the United States' position on Stem Cell Research? S.H.: England and most of the developed world has the view that there are many opportunities in Stem Cell Research. The U.S. will fall behind. Q: If you had a chance to meet Issac Newton or Marilyn Monroe, which would you pick? S.H.: Marilyn. I heard Issac was a disagreeable sort. Q: What's your IQ? S.H.: "I have no idea." People that care about IQ's are losers. More on [Astronomy Domine](<a href=)[^]. Eduardo Diaz site | english blog | spanish blog
I can't decide what got you voted down
ediazc wrote:
Q: What do you think of the United States' position on Stem Cell Research? S.H.: England and most of the developed world has the view that there are many opportunities in Stem Cell Research. The U.S. will fall behind.
or
ediazc wrote:
Q: What's your IQ? S.H.: "I have no idea." People that care about IQ's are losers.
Mr Hawking is talking a lot of sense apart from
ediazc wrote:
Hawking simply replied: "Stupid. Robots are cheaper to send, and you don't have to bring them back."
Whilst it might make sense from a certain point of view, putting a man on Mars is a lot more exciting and fires the imagination of the world more. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
ediazc wrote:
When asked about his thoughts on President Bush's proposal to put a man on Mars within 10 years, Hawking simply replied: "Stupid. Robots are cheaper to send, and you don't have to bring them back."
That is a perfect example of why scientist, even brilliant ones, should not be put in charge of something as important as the space program. All they wish to do is satisfy their intellectual curiosity at (massive) tax payer expense and publish some papers to boost their egos and their careers. There may be no logical reason to send people rather than robots, but maybe it ain't about logic, maybe its about hope - as forlorn as it might be.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All they wish to do is satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity. Quantum mechanics, Relativity, number theory, chemistry - much of the progress made wasn't for any specific purpose, but from these we have medicine, and computers, and those very space craft that will allow men to fly to other planets in seach of hope. This is a perfect example of why non-scientists who do not understand the potential of research should not be allowed to dicate that research. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
All they wish to do is satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity. Quantum mechanics, Relativity, number theory, chemistry - much of the progress made wasn't for any specific purpose, but from these we have medicine, and computers, and those very space craft that will allow men to fly to other planets in seach of hope. This is a perfect example of why non-scientists who do not understand the potential of research should not be allowed to dicate that research. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I think science was advanced farther by sending a man to the moon than it would be if we just sent a robot. True, robots are easier but since when has science been about finding answers to the easy questions? We can send robot's now and if we continue to do just that I'm not sure what more can be gained. E=mc2 -> BOOM
-
I can't decide what got you voted down
ediazc wrote:
Q: What do you think of the United States' position on Stem Cell Research? S.H.: England and most of the developed world has the view that there are many opportunities in Stem Cell Research. The U.S. will fall behind.
or
ediazc wrote:
Q: What's your IQ? S.H.: "I have no idea." People that care about IQ's are losers.
Mr Hawking is talking a lot of sense apart from
ediazc wrote:
Hawking simply replied: "Stupid. Robots are cheaper to send, and you don't have to bring them back."
Whilst it might make sense from a certain point of view, putting a man on Mars is a lot more exciting and fires the imagination of the world more. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
Michael P Butler wrote:
Whilst it might make sense from a certain point of view, putting a man on Mars is a lot more exciting and fires the imagination of the world more.
I agree. But suppose we concentrated on robots instead. Advancing robotics to a point where a robot would be a suitable substitute for a human on Mars holds a fascination in and of itself, I'd say.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
All they wish to do is satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity. Quantum mechanics, Relativity, number theory, chemistry - much of the progress made wasn't for any specific purpose, but from these we have medicine, and computers, and those very space craft that will allow men to fly to other planets in seach of hope. This is a perfect example of why non-scientists who do not understand the potential of research should not be allowed to dicate that research. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Well,geez, thanks for the enlightenment. :rolleyes: The point remains that it isn't all about science. The science exists to serve humanity in ways that might have nothing to at all to do with scince itself. Obviously we want those active, curious minds out there answering all those important questions. But for someone like Hawkins to declare any one 'stupid' for proposing a plan that has a goal aside from pure scientific research is just self serving at best. -- modified at 14:31 Tuesday 15th November, 2005
-
Michael P Butler wrote:
Whilst it might make sense from a certain point of view, putting a man on Mars is a lot more exciting and fires the imagination of the world more.
I agree. But suppose we concentrated on robots instead. Advancing robotics to a point where a robot would be a suitable substitute for a human on Mars holds a fascination in and of itself, I'd say.
Leslie Sanford wrote:
Advancing robotics to a point where a robot would be a suitable substitute for a human on Mars holds a fascination in and of itself, I'd say.
Yeah, if you happen to be the robot, or the guy lucky enough to get to build and program it. The rest of us only get to look at all the cool pictures. :sigh:
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
All they wish to do is satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity. Quantum mechanics, Relativity, number theory, chemistry - much of the progress made wasn't for any specific purpose, but from these we have medicine, and computers, and those very space craft that will allow men to fly to other planets in seach of hope. This is a perfect example of why non-scientists who do not understand the potential of research should not be allowed to dicate that research. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
This is a perfect example of why non-scientists who do not understand the potential of research should not be allowed to dicate that research. And I'll reiterate, a perfect example of why we shouldn't let scientists without common sense shouldn't dictate all research. You do realize how upset Einstein was after helping to create a nuclear weapon when it was used by the government in ways he didn't approve of? If he was so smart, how come he continued doing what he was doing, with him knowing what kinda of entity the government is beforehand? For the potential of research? Now we have nukes. Yes I understand the good aspects of nuclear energy, but I understand the bad too. Irregardless, don't assume scientists always make the right choice simply because the research has to be done for curiosity's sake. Some people should learn, some things ought not to be fooled with -- and scientists especially tend to loose focus on that. Jeremy Falcon
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Well,geez, thanks for the enlightenment. :rolleyes: The point remains that it isn't all about science. The science exists to serve humanity in ways that might have nothing to at all to do with scince itself. Obviously we want those active, curious minds out there answering all those important questions. But for someone like Hawkins to declare any one 'stupid' for proposing a plan that has a goal aside from pure scientific research is just self serving at best. -- modified at 14:31 Tuesday 15th November, 2005
But for someone like Hawkins to declare any one 'stupid' for proposing a plan that has a goal aside from pure scientific research is just self serving at best. Tottally agree, and actually lowers my opinion of him somewhat. I think true intelligence lies in understanding knowledge and differences and not just how to use knowledge for more of it. Hawkin's only saving grace was his comment about IQ. I've been telling people for years that IQs are just a way for nerds to mentally masterbate, akin to athletes comparing their bench press. Every test I have seen has always been biased. There's no real way to measure a genius, as such "genius" does not exist. Jeremy Falcon
-
Leslie Sanford wrote:
Advancing robotics to a point where a robot would be a suitable substitute for a human on Mars holds a fascination in and of itself, I'd say.
Yeah, if you happen to be the robot, or the guy lucky enough to get to build and program it. The rest of us only get to look at all the cool pictures. :sigh:
Actually, with the exception of the astronauts (or robots as the case may be), pictures are all the rest of us have either way! :) ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
Michael P Butler wrote:
Whilst it might make sense from a certain point of view, putting a man on Mars is a lot more exciting and fires the imagination of the world more.
I agree. But suppose we concentrated on robots instead. Advancing robotics to a point where a robot would be a suitable substitute for a human on Mars holds a fascination in and of itself, I'd say.
I agree. But suppose we concentrated on robots instead. Advancing robotics to a point where a robot would be a suitable substitute for a human on Mars holds a fascination in and of itself, I'd say. Then those robots would be used to replace minimum wage jobs, and below average intelligence people will have to find employment elsewhere. Maybe they'll rebel or turn to a life of crime because they can't get an honest job -- who really knows for sure. Yeah I know robotics will replace people on many fronts one day, irregardless of the space progarm. But, if I was poisoned by a snake bite, should I get another snake bite to help speed the poison along? I don't think so. Jeremy Falcon
-
ediazc wrote:
When asked about his thoughts on President Bush's proposal to put a man on Mars within 10 years, Hawking simply replied: "Stupid. Robots are cheaper to send, and you don't have to bring them back."
That is a perfect example of why scientist, even brilliant ones, should not be put in charge of something as important as the space program. All they wish to do is satisfy their intellectual curiosity at (massive) tax payer expense and publish some papers to boost their egos and their careers. There may be no logical reason to send people rather than robots, but maybe it ain't about logic, maybe its about hope - as forlorn as it might be.
Well, considering that the man has a difficult enough time speaking, unlike the rest of us, I'm betting his "short answer" was because: Sending "men" to mars is far more difficult than a robot. While I understand the development, programming, testing of a robot is cumbersome, they don't require things like: Food, water, waste disposal ... Etc... just to get there; not including what happens once you ARE actually there; and then getting back ... because as he pointed out, the "men" have to come back. What does all that translate too? A far more complex and involved project that requires far, far more money (much more than the Space program has to "waste", frankly), the risks of sending a human over a robot are almost immeasurable and again, we're talking about having to launch an entire system capable of maintaining their lives for the course of the project, with a robot, all these risks and associated costs are greatly reduced. Yes - I know, not nearly as "exciting", but if you ask me, I'd rather spend $50 million sending robots to do the job and use the other $50 million to feed the hungry, than spend $100 million to send a bunch of space cowboys up there just so they can say "Look ma! I'm touching Mars! wo0t!" My 2 cents.
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Fold with us|Development Blogging|viksoe.dk's site -
Well, considering that the man has a difficult enough time speaking, unlike the rest of us, I'm betting his "short answer" was because: Sending "men" to mars is far more difficult than a robot. While I understand the development, programming, testing of a robot is cumbersome, they don't require things like: Food, water, waste disposal ... Etc... just to get there; not including what happens once you ARE actually there; and then getting back ... because as he pointed out, the "men" have to come back. What does all that translate too? A far more complex and involved project that requires far, far more money (much more than the Space program has to "waste", frankly), the risks of sending a human over a robot are almost immeasurable and again, we're talking about having to launch an entire system capable of maintaining their lives for the course of the project, with a robot, all these risks and associated costs are greatly reduced. Yes - I know, not nearly as "exciting", but if you ask me, I'd rather spend $50 million sending robots to do the job and use the other $50 million to feed the hungry, than spend $100 million to send a bunch of space cowboys up there just so they can say "Look ma! I'm touching Mars! wo0t!" My 2 cents.
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Fold with us|Development Blogging|viksoe.dk's siteYou're also putting words into Hawking's mouth, presumably based on an assumption on your part of what you want to believe to be true. So, let's act like a scientist then and stick to what he did say rather than make something up and go off of it. Jeremy Falcon
-
Actually, with the exception of the astronauts (or robots as the case may be), pictures are all the rest of us have either way! :) ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
Jim Crafton wrote:
Actually, with the exception of the astronauts (or robots as the case may be), pictures are all the rest of us have either way!
Obviously. But that is the 'hope' part. In my view, if humanity has no future in space, if this rock is all there is for us, than humanity has no future at all worth the name. I am not altogether in favor of the Bush plan either. I think it is the best that has yet been proposed, but I think we could do better. I think we would be much better off putting those resources into developing much more efficient means of getting off the planet in the first place. I fully support government sponsered research into ideas that currently seem 'science fiction'. Space elevators, anti-gravity, teleportation, etc. Lets just go nuts with new ideas no matter how implausible and see where it takes us. -- modified at 15:18 Tuesday 15th November, 2005
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
All they wish to do is satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity. Quantum mechanics, Relativity, number theory, chemistry - much of the progress made wasn't for any specific purpose, but from these we have medicine, and computers, and those very space craft that will allow men to fly to other planets in seach of hope. This is a perfect example of why non-scientists who do not understand the potential of research should not be allowed to dicate that research. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
My whole problem with that is that this is a space program. Not a robotics program. We, as humans, have a need to explore and discover. It is one of the things that make us human. The need to become better than we are. Yes, we can send robots to Mars and learn many things, but ultimately all we will end up learning is how to send a robot to another planet. Been there, done that, got the rocks to prove it. There is a certain benefit to being first. Yes, there are also negative aspects to it also, but in the long run being first means something. I think that America is loosing it's edge and needs to do something to get it back. We need to be seen as adventurers again. We need to be seen as explorers again. We need to be seen as a people with vision again. The part that ticks me off is this. If we had not lost our focus fro the very start we would be there already. The moon was so close and we went there. We became complacent and gave up our edge. Look where it has gotten us. When I grew up children wanted to be astronauts. Now days they want to be football players. Again, one point that shows we have lost our edge. America NEEDS to go to Mars, and they need to be the first ones to do it. Might people die along the way? Probably. No one ever said it was going to be easy. Going to the moon was not easy. People die every day doing far less important things. Why do most kinds think it is cooler to be an 'extreme athlete' than an astronaut. Tell me that I have the chance to be the first to Mars but I have to leave tomorrow. You would not even be able to see me pack. But then again that's just me. Give me the chnace to boldly go where no man has gone before and I would not give it a second thought. But then again that's just me.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
All they wish to do is satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity. Quantum mechanics, Relativity, number theory, chemistry - much of the progress made wasn't for any specific purpose, but from these we have medicine, and computers, and those very space craft that will allow men to fly to other planets in seach of hope. This is a perfect example of why non-scientists who do not understand the potential of research should not be allowed to dicate that research. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Not to downplay the role of the great theoretical scientists throughout history, but ... If you look at the actual development of many of these areas, you'll find a different agent was the primary driving force. Modern chemical engineering was developed as a real science in a large part from the need to develop the ability to refine petroleum on a large scale. This was a military need. Similarly much of the major research that laid the growndwork of modern chemistry -roughly from the early 1900s to the early 1950s was sponsored directly by the military. Ditto for materials science. I think the history of aeronautics speaks for itself. As does the development of nuclear technology.
-
ediazc wrote:
When asked about his thoughts on President Bush's proposal to put a man on Mars within 10 years, Hawking simply replied: "Stupid. Robots are cheaper to send, and you don't have to bring them back."
That is a perfect example of why scientist, even brilliant ones, should not be put in charge of something as important as the space program. All they wish to do is satisfy their intellectual curiosity at (massive) tax payer expense and publish some papers to boost their egos and their careers. There may be no logical reason to send people rather than robots, but maybe it ain't about logic, maybe its about hope - as forlorn as it might be.
And God Forbid we should ever have to LEAVE the planet. All we would not how to send into space would be robots, and what would be the point of that :rolleyes:
-
This is a perfect example of why non-scientists who do not understand the potential of research should not be allowed to dicate that research. And I'll reiterate, a perfect example of why we shouldn't let scientists without common sense shouldn't dictate all research. You do realize how upset Einstein was after helping to create a nuclear weapon when it was used by the government in ways he didn't approve of? If he was so smart, how come he continued doing what he was doing, with him knowing what kinda of entity the government is beforehand? For the potential of research? Now we have nukes. Yes I understand the good aspects of nuclear energy, but I understand the bad too. Irregardless, don't assume scientists always make the right choice simply because the research has to be done for curiosity's sake. Some people should learn, some things ought not to be fooled with -- and scientists especially tend to loose focus on that. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You do realize how upset Einstein was after helping to create a nuclear weapon when it was used by the government in ways he didn't approve of? If he was so smart, how come he continued doing what he was doing, with him knowing what kinda of entity the government is beforehand? For the potential of research? Now we have nukes.
You're picking on the wrong person. Al wasn't involved in teh actual development, his involvement was limited to getting FDRs attention, a number of the scientists who actaully made it did have similar reactions though.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Not to downplay the role of the great theoretical scientists throughout history, but ... If you look at the actual development of many of these areas, you'll find a different agent was the primary driving force. Modern chemical engineering was developed as a real science in a large part from the need to develop the ability to refine petroleum on a large scale. This was a military need. Similarly much of the major research that laid the growndwork of modern chemistry -roughly from the early 1900s to the early 1950s was sponsored directly by the military. Ditto for materials science. I think the history of aeronautics speaks for itself. As does the development of nuclear technology.
We have microwave ovens because of intent to devleop better aircraft radars. Heck, they were actually called 'radar ranges' at first.
-
You're also putting words into Hawking's mouth, presumably based on an assumption on your part of what you want to believe to be true. So, let's act like a scientist then and stick to what he did say rather than make something up and go off of it. Jeremy Falcon
Hawking's comment: "Stupid. Robots are cheaper to send, and you don't have to bring them back." Rereading what I wrote - I did speak to his point. It's far more cost effective and far less risky to send robots into space than Men. Period. Perhaps a better question is why do people feel the need to spend billions to send men to Mars? Sure, if we've done all the R&D and have determined that we want to attempt coloization of it ... but we're no where near that point, and won't be 10 years from now either ... Jermey - for the most part, our rocket technology hasn't improved much beyond the 60's and 70's when we sent men to the Moon, yet we're saying let's send Men to mars. Seems like that's putting the cart before the horse ... and yes, that's stupid.
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Fold with us|Development Blogging|viksoe.dk's site -
I agree. But suppose we concentrated on robots instead. Advancing robotics to a point where a robot would be a suitable substitute for a human on Mars holds a fascination in and of itself, I'd say. Then those robots would be used to replace minimum wage jobs, and below average intelligence people will have to find employment elsewhere. Maybe they'll rebel or turn to a life of crime because they can't get an honest job -- who really knows for sure. Yeah I know robotics will replace people on many fronts one day, irregardless of the space progarm. But, if I was poisoned by a snake bite, should I get another snake bite to help speed the poison along? I don't think so. Jeremy Falcon
I agree. But suppose we concentrated on robots instead. Advancing robotics to a point where a robot would be a suitable substitute for a human on Mars holds a fascination in and of itself, I'd say. Then those robots would be used to replace minimum wage jobs, and below average intelligence people will have to find employment elsewhere. Maybe they'll rebel or turn to a life of crime because they can't get an honest job -- who really knows for sure. Oh, wait a minute... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4413964.stm[^]