something I thought to share from my website - I thought I'd answer and see what you think of it:

About a month ago Steven Hawkings posed the question:

"How can the human race survive the next hundred years?

In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years? "

Here's my take.

10,000 years ago the last ice age ended with the world, especially humans, fairly intact. Albeit that humans had taken down the mammoth to promote its own interests but that in my opinion is a minor loss. Maybe Professor Hawking is making a mistake in confusing the human race with the world, and maybe that was unintentionally ignorant (wow I feel really cheeky calling this man ignorant considering he's my intellectual superior tenfold at least) by synonomyzing the two. So I will edit the question while I am still reasonably able to question the great Professor, only slightly:

"In a society that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the huiman race sustain another hundred years?"

Simply because I really don't think the entire world is in this chaos. I hardly think the lions in Africa are wondering whether George Bush will use the diplomatic imfluence at his fingertips to end a conflict in distant Lebanon. It is, to steal something from Michael Chrichton, on the EDGE of chaos; which Chrichton rightly states is the only place where anything can prosper and move on. It is the reason for evolution and it is the reason why we flourish so much as a race. It is precisely this reason that we are on the edge that we survived the ice age, and we will survive the ironic ice age caused by global warming and it's why time and time again humans have proved able to take the heat (no pun intended) that we have created for ourselves as a specie in the world. Even internally divided we have thrown ourselves out to create harmony again.

The ironic ice age caused by global warming will be good for the species because it will test out our muscle as an animal in the wild of the world. Those who are unfit will die from the cold and those who are fittest will live on and procreate better humans and hopefully we shall learn from our mistakes. Already the environmental chaos is testing the finest minds and we are slowly coming to a solution. If we cannot find it in time that is our own doing and we will purge the human race of those who are too unfit. if that includes me so be it I deserve to die. It will greive me to lose the old if we cannot preserve their wisdom but maybe that wisdom is not so wise. Our greatest social constructs will be thrown into the trash and new ones brought in their place- we shall be brought back to our beginnings and to quote Rudyard Kipling:

" If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;

...

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And -- which is more -- you'll be a Man, my son!"

That is how we will survive the next hundred, the next thousand and the next million years. We shall go back to basics and instinct. Our gods will forsake us and those we trust shall become those we despise and the wounds attained internally will heal and we shall rebuild society without countries, without race and without religion and we shall be the truly imperial specie. I personally look forward to it.

post-script edit: I realise the contradiction between this response to Steven Hawking and the 3rd rant where I state frequently I am British (something else I posted on my website, not necessarily relevant). However I want to ammend the contradiction and voice a summary of the two opinions: whilst the United Kingdom exists as a relevant concept of nationality, I consider it part of my interests to preserve that nationality. However, should such an event described happen then nationality is irrelevant- the country should break out into anarchy and the "Union" should be a laughable concept. In order for the supremacy of the entire human specie to work out, this should ideally happen in all countries. By the end of the ice age induced, there should be an upheaval of the ideas of "us" and "them" in the sense we are seperate beings. With all countries breaking down around us, there should rise from the ashes one super-state that will be the nation and planet of Earth with an elected head of state, governors of each state within who will deal with local affairs and so forth. Again in shorter shortness- nationality is a priority until it can no longer be pheasible to maintain.

Please ask before linking to personal sites. Thanks.
-Delta
OK- sitegod

in a self response I realise that human nature might be too selfish to rebuild itselt without country, race, religion but maybe if we remind ourselves of the mistakes in their name we could get somewhere. Alright the language barrier's a problem as well but if you can live in france for a year and become fluent in french, same goes for all languages and things become a must.

Just to make things a bit relative....


One of the greatest minds is the person that posed the question. And if a person 100-times smarter than me doesn't have the answer, not sure what kind of solution you'd expect a silly hick like me to formulate to answer how to get humankind to survive a full year more from now. And I'm supposed to come up with an idea what it would take for the next 100 years!?! {asking incredulously}

Honestly though. If I did have the answers, would anyone listen? :) Imma nooooobody.

Maybe steven hawking's question was a rhetoric. Anyway I was wondering what you were thinking of my take on the question- I certainly don't expect a nobel prize for it, but wondering if you'd agree/disagree with any aspect... :)

You did hit upon something that is really key... and that's instinctual survival. And then follow that up with the realization that someone will jump into a freezing river to save a drowning man at the risk of their own life.

Asking someone to give up race, religion or nationality is like asking them to give up their identity. While maybe there is too much pride carried around because we think we'd made the better choices, some of those weren't really choices at all.

The survival will probably depend upon everyone agreeing what's really critical and prioritizing it. Is it wiping out Small Pox? Maybe finding a solution to the HIV/AID's virus? Will it be global warming or the reverse... a new ice-age spurred by the shrinking Arctic mass? Will it be starvation, war or natural disasters? Yet getting everyone on what needs to be addressed now... where the focus and especially where the money needs to be spent... no one wants to agree on that at the cost of losing the focus on what is most important to them. And bargaining away what's important for the sake of having it come up next is only part of the problem... it's a trade-off to accomplish a goal or agenda.

No one can make the altruistic goal of investing in the continued survival of humankind. While we can look beyond our differences, our own internaries and help those whom are total strangers from sinking below the river's surface... we do that without spending too much time thinking on the subject. You are right on that point, we need to let some of our most basic instincts take over in such times to really do the right thing, because we do tend to over-analyze and rationalize to what the best course would be.

If you have to think about what you are giving up to help someone else gain from it, then it's no longer about anything but selfishness.



P.S. Sorry for the delay... had to ruminate on this one a bit.

I'm glad I gave you something to ruminate over ;)

Maybe I over-exaggerated with this, it wouldn't necessarily mean giving up race religion etc but it may mean a severe weakening in their standings in today's society. It might become as influential as to how some people wash a plate or bake a cake rather than be something worth dying for when the reality is they are pretty much nothing more than words and what people feel about the words. My hope is, should such an ice age kick in, that people will feel less about the survival of Britain (for example) but the survival of themselves and the human race as a whole. Simply because the whole of the world that is covered by the ice would be brought to an equal playing field and that is what will bind people together.

This equal playing field will bring one need to the forefront of the vast majority of the world: simply survival. Nothing more, money after a time will become worthless because there will be nothing to spend it on. Land will become worthless because it will all be frozen over and whether people like it or not other people will break in for whatever warmth they can get out of it. Objects that were previously thought beyond worth will be burnt with the common crap that no-one wants and everyone will make a sacrifice for the warmth to be kept.

With the best of luck, communities will reform and accept all newcomers, the strong will go and hunt for themselves and the weak and the weak will maintain the fire with whatever strength they have. Complete return to basics :) The balance between selfish and selfless will be crucial. And I have complete faith that humanity will overcome as a new civilization.

Do you realize that the type of social structure that is relatively as close to this as possible is called tribal? And yes, when it all comes down to communal survival where the group tends to protect itself against outsiders, this will be extremely important but is almost universally less tolerant.

Individual rights are certainly going to suffer more and there will likely be less seperation of the current belief system from the community's governance. When it comes to survival though, it's not uncommon to witness giving up civil rights for the continued right of living.

You may be putting much more faith into humanity than I do. Government is created to generate and enforce laws which people are not ethically or morally obligated to follow on their own. The lack of discipline, even within the various religious communites, continues to cause wrong-doings against many laws of man, nature and their chosen divinity.

As to the idea of working together, as long as humankind sees a common enemy to combat, it does well... otherwise it uses the seperations of religion, race, nationality or other divider to 'battle' against what is considered differentially wrong.

You have a point. However there will be a common enemy: the cold