Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Wednesday October 17 2018, @01:28AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-call-it-a-Hawking-Chamber dept.

Essays reveal Stephen Hawking predicted race of 'superhumans'

The late physicist and author Prof Stephen Hawking has caused controversy by suggesting a new race of superhumans could develop from wealthy people choosing to edit their and their children's DNA. Hawking, the author of A Brief History of Time, who died in March, made the predictions in a collection of articles and essays.

[...] In Brief Answers to the Big Questions, Hawking's final thoughts on the universe, the physicist suggested wealthy people would soon be able to choose to edit genetic makeup to create superhumans with enhanced memory, disease resistance, intelligence and longevity. Hawking raised the prospect that breakthroughs in genetics will make it attractive for people to try to improve themselves, with implications for "unimproved humans". "Once such superhumans appear, there will be significant political problems with unimproved humans, who won't be able to compete," he wrote. "Presumably, they will die out, or become unimportant. Instead, there will be a race of self-designing beings who are improving at an ever-increasing rate."

Stephen Hawking's last paper on black holes is now online

Stephen Hawking never stopped trying to unravel the mysteries surrounding black holes -- in fact, he was still working to solve one of them shortly before his death. Now, his last research paper on the subject is finally available online through pre-publication website arXiv, thanks to his co-authors from Cambridge and Harvard. It's entitled Black Hole Entropy and Soft Hair, and it tackles the black hole paradox. According to Hawking's co-author Malcolm Perry, the paradox "is perhaps the most puzzling problem in fundamental theoretical physics today" and was the center of the late physicist's life for decades.

Black Holes and Soft Hair: why Stephen Hawking's Final Work is Important:

[Black holes] have a temperature and produce thermal radiation. The formula for this temperature, universally known as the Hawking temperature, is inscribed on the memorial to Stephen's life in Westminster Abbey. Any object that has a temperature also has an entropy. The entropy is a measure of how many different ways an object could be made from its microscopic ingredients and still look the same. So, for a particular piece of red hot metal, it would be the number of ways the atoms that make it up could be arranged so as to look like the lump of metal you were observing. Stephen's formula for the temperature of a black hole allowed him to find the entropy of a black hole.

The problem then was: how did this entropy arise? Since all black holes appear to be the same, the origin of the entropy was at the centre of the information paradox.

What we have done recently is to discover a gap in the mathematics that led to the idea that black holes are totally bald. In 2016, Stephen, Andy and I found that black holes have an infinite collection of what we call "soft hair". This discovery allows us to question the idea that black holes lead to a breakdown in the laws of physics.

Stephen kept working with us up to the end of his life, and we have now published a paper that describes our current thoughts on the matter. In this paper, we describe a way of calculating the entropy of black holes. The entropy is basically a quantitative measure of what one knows about a black hole apart from its mass or spin.

So if black holes have soft hair, is it possible to give them a hair cut?


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 17 2018, @01:56AM (12 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 17 2018, @01:56AM (#749767) Journal

    The word is eugenics. It has been around for quite a long while now. Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler were fans of eugenics, not to mention, fans of each other. The entire western world, if not the entire world, took a dim view of eugenics after Hitler's perverse actions against the Jews, the insane, Gypsies, gays, and political opponents.

    It seems we have forgotten that history now. Eugenics is alive and well.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Offtopic=1, Insightful=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:00AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:00AM (#749769)

    "The word is eugenics."

    -

    God damn, you are one stupid and simple-minded motherfucker.

    Genetic modification does not equate to eugenics.

    Tell me, does your knee hurt from all the knee-jerking you subject yourself to, son ?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:18AM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:18AM (#749778) Journal

      Genetic modification does not equate to eugenics.

      You are clearly illiterate. WTF do you think eugenics is? WTF do you think genetic modification is all about? WTF do you think "superhumans" means? If I'm stupid and simple-minded, then what of Hawking? Maybe you think he's just another crippled moron?

      Go get an education, alright? Come back when you are literate, and capable of discussing an issue.

      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17 2018, @07:14AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17 2018, @07:14AM (#749849)

        you can have gene editing without eugenics.
        my understanding is that eugenics refers to "select for breeding only those with desirable properties".
        gene editing could simply mean "some people get to select the desirable offspring (i.e. choose the best egg-sperm combination)".
        my interpretation of the summary is that Hawking predicts rich people will use gene editing, while the rest of humanity continues as usual; if the offspring of rich people continue with gene editing, then it is simply a matter of a social group choosing to breed within itself. I think this is mostly true now, as well, except that if they have gene editing capabilities then separation into a subspecies and then a different species is likely to occur faster.
        it's not eugenics until regular people are forbidden to breed.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 17 2018, @03:08PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 17 2018, @03:08PM (#749982) Journal

          Don't know who modded you flamebait - I think that was unfair. I think that you are being obtuse, but that doesn't rate a flamebait.

          Now, let us think a moment. The filthy rich don't really need a lot of physical ability. Sure, they'll select for looks, or maybe for smarts, but they can BUY all of the physical ability they'll ever need. In fact, being a muscular rich man could be unattractive to other rich people. Why have muscle, when you can buy it so cheaply?

          So, who, and what get's modified, to be stronger, faster, more enduring? Those who are just outside of the ruling class. And, maybe some middle class. There are your ubermensch. More muscle, less flab, no disease. Put them up on the auction block, let's have a look at their teeth, that little bitch has no hips, she can't be bred . . .

          We had a discussion about that universal income business just the other day. Gotta keep the livestock fed, right? If the wealthy are feeding them and housing them, the wealthy can use them however they like. You too, YES YOU!! can have the finest gene editing for your children. Just sign these papers, signing over your child's first 40 years in bond servitude, and we'll fix your baby up.

  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by deimtee on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:59AM (4 children)

    by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:59AM (#749794) Journal

    Eugenics is now a swear-word.

    Really it just means directed evolution. Select good traits, eliminate bad ones, we practice it all the time on farm animals. Doing it at the level of genes* rather than individuals simply speeds up the process and is morally better, as it reduces the pain/suffering/waste associated with normal evolution/breeding.

    The real moral problem comes in defining good and bad with respect to people.
    Some is easy, usually the bad stuff. Any gene that causes a disease, you are probably better off without.
    Selecting for 'good' traits in people though, is a much harder problem and that is where all the controversy comes in.

    *I'm not saying we yet have the technical ability to do this properly, but if we did it would be better.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday October 17 2018, @04:52AM (3 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 17 2018, @04:52AM (#749823) Journal

      Really it just means directed evolution. Select good traits, eliminate bad ones, we practice it all the time on farm animals

      If you think "good traits for farm animals" means those animals are prepared to better survive the environment, I have bridge to sell you.

      *I'm not saying we yet have the technical ability to do this properly, but if we did it would be better.

      Maybe you should ponder a bit who would you like to have a herd master: it's very likely you will belong to the herd rather than the masters.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday October 17 2018, @10:11AM (2 children)

        by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday October 17 2018, @10:11AM (#749888) Journal

        If you think "good traits for farm animals" means those animals are prepared to better survive the environment, I have bridge to sell you.

        Define environment. Certainly the traits we select for on the farm would in many cases be counterproductive in the wild, but which animals do you think get selected for breeding, as opposed to ending up on the farmer's table. The fact that the environment and selection pressures are applied by humans does not mean that it is not evolution.

        *I'm not saying we yet have the technical ability to do this properly, but if we did it would be better.

        Maybe you should ponder a bit who would you like to have a herd master: it's very likely you will belong to the herd rather than the masters.

        When I said better, I was referring to the difference between selecting in one generation all the traits you want, versus many generations of directed breeding and ruthless culling to get to the same point. Why do you like inflicting suffering?

        --
        If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 17 2018, @10:38AM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 17 2018, @10:38AM (#749897) Journal

          but which animals do you think get selected for breeding

          Here's the thing with that bridge, sweety, if you have the money for it...

          Why do you like inflicting suffering?

          I don't particularly like it, but I'm happy to serve you with if that's your desire.
          It will be much cheaper than the treatment to create the super-humans in one generation, a thing you likely cannot afford. And once it will happen, it will be heaps of pain for the progeny you bred and their descendants, competing with the improved individuals who were having until now "only" the wealth as their advantage.

          When I said better, I was referring to the difference between selecting in one generation all the traits you want, versus many generations of directed breeding and ruthless culling to get to the same point.

          Because there's a clear cut dichotomy, there's no other alternative, right? Imperfect humans do need to get culled, no?
          The non-genetically and phenotypically perfect bring no advantage to humanity, to hell with that Hawkins cripple with his radiation and hairy black holes, ain't it?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by legont on Thursday October 18 2018, @01:12AM

            by legont (4179) on Thursday October 18 2018, @01:12AM (#750252)

            Genetic hacking is a very hot topic in certain communities and people are modifying themselves right now. They are children of folks who hacked phones or did encryption at home. This is inevitable and coming fast. My bet is on penis enlargement or a drug in the bloodstream on will. Once somebody in Brooklyn lab achieves it, the whole flood will drown any resistance.

            He is right - fasten your seat-belts.

            --
            "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
  • (Score: 1) by Mainframe Bloke on Wednesday October 17 2018, @03:20AM

    by Mainframe Bloke (1665) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 17 2018, @03:20AM (#749799) Journal

    May I recommend the current series of Boyer Lectures? They are on the very subject of genetics.

    The first of the four is on the topic of eugenics, and it's quite a bit more than just that espoused by Hitler et al. I wouldn't necessarily say it's "alive and well" but of course it depends on what is meant by "eugenics", which the lecture explores in detail.

    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/boyerlectures/back-to-the-future-of-eugenics/10338816 [abc.net.au]

    The whole set of four is here: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/boyerlectures/ [abc.net.au]

    cheers,
    MB

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by jelizondo on Wednesday October 17 2018, @05:23AM

    by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 17 2018, @05:23AM (#749829) Journal

    Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus.

    Yesterday's rose endures in its name; we hold empty names. See here [umbertoeco.com]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17 2018, @09:40AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17 2018, @09:40AM (#749878)

    When you turn off natural selection, your species becomes a living fossil in an ever changing world. Less and less adapted as the time goes on. Somewhere along the way, the costs of compensating for the, multiplying, inherent deficiencies will become unsupportable; and unadapted beings will go the natural way of all things, with their civilization crumbling around them.

    You cannot win against the nature by sheer obstinacy.