So, today he has said that within the millennia to come we’ll face the threat of creating artificial viruses and a nuclear war. This statement brings all the problems to about the same distance as that to the nearest black hole.
Do you really think that it’s Hawking’s position that at the moment there’s no threat of nuclear war?
I don’t think that he think so, I comment on what impression he translate to public, that risks are remote and space colonies will save us. He may secretly have other thoughts on the topic, but this does not matter.
I don’t think that it makes sense to give the full responsibility for a message to a person that’s distinct from the author of an article.
That said I don’t think that saying: Although the chance of a disaster on planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, becoming a near certainty in the next thousand or ten thousand years. makes any reader update to believe that the chance of nuclear war or genetically engineered viruses are lower than they previously expected.
Talking with mainstream media inherently requires simplying your message.Focuses the message compounding of risk over time doesn’t seem wrong to me.
If he write an article about his understanding of x-risks timeframe and prevention measures timeframe with all fidelity he use to describe black holes we could concentrate on it.
But now it may be wise to said that the media is wrongly interoperated his words and that he (probably) meant exactly opposite: that we must invest in x-risks prevention now. The media publications is only thing with which we could argue. Also I think that he may take more responsibility while talking to media, because he is guru and everything he said may be understood uncritically.
Even the article says we have to be extra careful with x-risk prevention in the next 100 years because we don’t have a self sustaining Mars base. I think you are misreading the article when you say it argues against investing in x-risk prevention now.
Do you really think that it’s Hawking’s position that at the moment there’s no threat of nuclear war?
I don’t think that he think so, I comment on what impression he translate to public, that risks are remote and space colonies will save us. He may secretly have other thoughts on the topic, but this does not matter.
I don’t think that it makes sense to give the full responsibility for a message to a person that’s distinct from the author of an article.
That said I don’t think that saying:
Although the chance of a disaster on planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, becoming a near certainty in the next thousand or ten thousand years.makes any reader update to believe that the chance of nuclear war or genetically engineered viruses are lower than they previously expected.Talking with mainstream media inherently requires simplying your message.Focuses the message compounding of risk over time doesn’t seem wrong to me.
If he write an article about his understanding of x-risks timeframe and prevention measures timeframe with all fidelity he use to describe black holes we could concentrate on it.
But now it may be wise to said that the media is wrongly interoperated his words and that he (probably) meant exactly opposite: that we must invest in x-risks prevention now. The media publications is only thing with which we could argue. Also I think that he may take more responsibility while talking to media, because he is guru and everything he said may be understood uncritically.
Even the article says we have to be extra careful with x-risk prevention in the next 100 years because we don’t have a self sustaining Mars base. I think you are misreading the article when you say it argues against investing in x-risk prevention now.