No, Stephen Hawking. Let's Save This Planet Instead of Looking for Another
Giving up on planet Earth is a cruel and destructive form of defeatism
Back in the 1970s, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist named William Shockley created quite a stir when he suggested that certain races (i.e., black people) were "genetically inferior" to whites and Asians, and that in order for the human race to have any chance of "improving" itself, people with IQs lower than 100 should submit to voluntary sterilization. Other than that, nothing he said was particularly controversial.
What made Shockley's pronouncements so outrageous, besides their obvious inflammatory nature, was their source. After all, this wasn't some hack, ex-Navy science fiction writer like L. Ron Hubbard introducing a new, screwball religion ("Scientology") to the masses. This was a brilliant scientist talking. Shockley won the 1956 Nobel Prize in physics, and now he was going on record with a profoundly radical and transformative theory.
"Just because Hawking is a genius doesn't mean everything he says is smart."
Of course, what followed was predictable. His fellow scientists pointed out that, while Shockley may have been a "genius" when it came to semiconductors and transistors, he was woefully unprepared and unqualified to speak on the topic of genetics. Indeed, he was so far out of his element, his so-called "findings" were embarrassing. Which brings us to Stephen Hawking, the world's favorite theoretical physicist.
Fearing that the Earth will one day be destroyed by a colliding asteroid, or by widespread epidemics, or by over-population, or the cumulative effects of climate change, Hawking was recently quoted as saying, "I think the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space." Moreover, he insists that we must do it--must accomplish our evacuation--within the next 100 years.
There are at least two problems with this nutty advice. (1) Hawking is talking about stuff he's not qualified to talk about--stuff that would cause a "lesser mortal" to be laughed off the podium, and (2) by trying to convince the people of Earth that future life on our planet is not worth investing in, he is guilty of the cruelest and most destructive form of defeatism.
When Hawking talks about black holes, or time-travel, or multiple universes, his remarks, while unproven and basically unprovable, are intriguing and fascinating. For one thing, very few people are "smart" enough to dare refute what he says, and for another, all that far-out stuff about worm-holes and six dimensions that Hawking is spouting is very cool--way cooler than garden variety terrestrial science.
"It goes without saying that the rich and well-connected will be the first to jump ship, and the poorest and most desolate among us will be condemned to stay."
But just because Hawking is a genius doesn't mean everything he says is smart. We don't automatically listen to a gifted shoemaker talk about making gloves, do we? Consider: What if Hawking argued that the National League should copy the American League and go to the Designated Hitter (DH) rule? Would baseball purists abandon their opposition to the DH simply because a "genius" told them they should do so?
But what Hawking seems to be suggesting is no less bizarre. Instead of focusing our resources on saving and protecting Earth, Hawking wants us to abandon it. Really, Stephen? You honestly think that pulling up stakes is going to improve morale? Surely, he has to know that you can't do both--that you can't commit yourself totally to saving the planet while simultaneously putting your resources into finding a new one.
Also, who's going to break the news to Sudan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Guatemala, et al? Who's going to tell them that, after giving the matter careful thought, we've decided to move to a better neighborhood, all because some weirdo physicist has convinced us it was time to leave.
And of course, it goes without saying that the rich and well-connected will be the first to jump ship, and the poorest and most desolate among us will be condemned to stay. Donald Trump has his own word for those unfortunate individuals who won't be allowed to make the trip. He calls them "losers."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Back in the 1970s, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist named William Shockley created quite a stir when he suggested that certain races (i.e., black people) were "genetically inferior" to whites and Asians, and that in order for the human race to have any chance of "improving" itself, people with IQs lower than 100 should submit to voluntary sterilization. Other than that, nothing he said was particularly controversial.
What made Shockley's pronouncements so outrageous, besides their obvious inflammatory nature, was their source. After all, this wasn't some hack, ex-Navy science fiction writer like L. Ron Hubbard introducing a new, screwball religion ("Scientology") to the masses. This was a brilliant scientist talking. Shockley won the 1956 Nobel Prize in physics, and now he was going on record with a profoundly radical and transformative theory.
"Just because Hawking is a genius doesn't mean everything he says is smart."
Of course, what followed was predictable. His fellow scientists pointed out that, while Shockley may have been a "genius" when it came to semiconductors and transistors, he was woefully unprepared and unqualified to speak on the topic of genetics. Indeed, he was so far out of his element, his so-called "findings" were embarrassing. Which brings us to Stephen Hawking, the world's favorite theoretical physicist.
Fearing that the Earth will one day be destroyed by a colliding asteroid, or by widespread epidemics, or by over-population, or the cumulative effects of climate change, Hawking was recently quoted as saying, "I think the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space." Moreover, he insists that we must do it--must accomplish our evacuation--within the next 100 years.
There are at least two problems with this nutty advice. (1) Hawking is talking about stuff he's not qualified to talk about--stuff that would cause a "lesser mortal" to be laughed off the podium, and (2) by trying to convince the people of Earth that future life on our planet is not worth investing in, he is guilty of the cruelest and most destructive form of defeatism.
When Hawking talks about black holes, or time-travel, or multiple universes, his remarks, while unproven and basically unprovable, are intriguing and fascinating. For one thing, very few people are "smart" enough to dare refute what he says, and for another, all that far-out stuff about worm-holes and six dimensions that Hawking is spouting is very cool--way cooler than garden variety terrestrial science.
"It goes without saying that the rich and well-connected will be the first to jump ship, and the poorest and most desolate among us will be condemned to stay."
But just because Hawking is a genius doesn't mean everything he says is smart. We don't automatically listen to a gifted shoemaker talk about making gloves, do we? Consider: What if Hawking argued that the National League should copy the American League and go to the Designated Hitter (DH) rule? Would baseball purists abandon their opposition to the DH simply because a "genius" told them they should do so?
But what Hawking seems to be suggesting is no less bizarre. Instead of focusing our resources on saving and protecting Earth, Hawking wants us to abandon it. Really, Stephen? You honestly think that pulling up stakes is going to improve morale? Surely, he has to know that you can't do both--that you can't commit yourself totally to saving the planet while simultaneously putting your resources into finding a new one.
Also, who's going to break the news to Sudan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Guatemala, et al? Who's going to tell them that, after giving the matter careful thought, we've decided to move to a better neighborhood, all because some weirdo physicist has convinced us it was time to leave.
And of course, it goes without saying that the rich and well-connected will be the first to jump ship, and the poorest and most desolate among us will be condemned to stay. Donald Trump has his own word for those unfortunate individuals who won't be allowed to make the trip. He calls them "losers."
Back in the 1970s, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist named William Shockley created quite a stir when he suggested that certain races (i.e., black people) were "genetically inferior" to whites and Asians, and that in order for the human race to have any chance of "improving" itself, people with IQs lower than 100 should submit to voluntary sterilization. Other than that, nothing he said was particularly controversial.
What made Shockley's pronouncements so outrageous, besides their obvious inflammatory nature, was their source. After all, this wasn't some hack, ex-Navy science fiction writer like L. Ron Hubbard introducing a new, screwball religion ("Scientology") to the masses. This was a brilliant scientist talking. Shockley won the 1956 Nobel Prize in physics, and now he was going on record with a profoundly radical and transformative theory.
"Just because Hawking is a genius doesn't mean everything he says is smart."
Of course, what followed was predictable. His fellow scientists pointed out that, while Shockley may have been a "genius" when it came to semiconductors and transistors, he was woefully unprepared and unqualified to speak on the topic of genetics. Indeed, he was so far out of his element, his so-called "findings" were embarrassing. Which brings us to Stephen Hawking, the world's favorite theoretical physicist.
Fearing that the Earth will one day be destroyed by a colliding asteroid, or by widespread epidemics, or by over-population, or the cumulative effects of climate change, Hawking was recently quoted as saying, "I think the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space." Moreover, he insists that we must do it--must accomplish our evacuation--within the next 100 years.
There are at least two problems with this nutty advice. (1) Hawking is talking about stuff he's not qualified to talk about--stuff that would cause a "lesser mortal" to be laughed off the podium, and (2) by trying to convince the people of Earth that future life on our planet is not worth investing in, he is guilty of the cruelest and most destructive form of defeatism.
When Hawking talks about black holes, or time-travel, or multiple universes, his remarks, while unproven and basically unprovable, are intriguing and fascinating. For one thing, very few people are "smart" enough to dare refute what he says, and for another, all that far-out stuff about worm-holes and six dimensions that Hawking is spouting is very cool--way cooler than garden variety terrestrial science.
"It goes without saying that the rich and well-connected will be the first to jump ship, and the poorest and most desolate among us will be condemned to stay."
But just because Hawking is a genius doesn't mean everything he says is smart. We don't automatically listen to a gifted shoemaker talk about making gloves, do we? Consider: What if Hawking argued that the National League should copy the American League and go to the Designated Hitter (DH) rule? Would baseball purists abandon their opposition to the DH simply because a "genius" told them they should do so?
But what Hawking seems to be suggesting is no less bizarre. Instead of focusing our resources on saving and protecting Earth, Hawking wants us to abandon it. Really, Stephen? You honestly think that pulling up stakes is going to improve morale? Surely, he has to know that you can't do both--that you can't commit yourself totally to saving the planet while simultaneously putting your resources into finding a new one.
Also, who's going to break the news to Sudan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Guatemala, et al? Who's going to tell them that, after giving the matter careful thought, we've decided to move to a better neighborhood, all because some weirdo physicist has convinced us it was time to leave.
And of course, it goes without saying that the rich and well-connected will be the first to jump ship, and the poorest and most desolate among us will be condemned to stay. Donald Trump has his own word for those unfortunate individuals who won't be allowed to make the trip. He calls them "losers."