More information on Stephen Hawking
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Michael Ragland
Published: May 10, 2008
Stephen Hawking is a world renowned theoretical physicist whose work on black holes in the universe and his discovery of “Hawking Radiation” whose ideas or observations have extended beyond theoretical physics. I first saw this on the Larry King show where he was interviewed.
Most people don’t know about it. It’s on the subject of human aggression. “According” to Hawking, aggression was imprinted on our DNA long ago; it helped fend off predators and led to survival and reproduction. Other tribes would also raid other tribes and subjugate and humiliate and kill the men and take the women.
According to Hawking, unless he has changed his position, human aggression is no longer adaptive in today’s environment. He thinks our aggressive instincts are our biggest challenge. Hawking has stated that we (the human species) can’t wait up for Darwinian evolution to make us better natured; we’ll have to use germline genetic engineering to tinker and modify aggression to the point that it doesn’t threaten the species with self extinction/self destruction. Of course, Hawking has stipulated that human beings won’t change much in one hundred years and probably long after that. He thinks, however, some scientist out there will eventually start genetically tinkering with human aggression.
Not many people are aware of this aspect of Hawking. He has stated such research may lead to a genetic dead end but if it eventually works it will be gradual and change the standard of what a human being is. One observer of this idea paints a “human society” that is sterile.
Of course, aggression is such a strong feature of us that it is hard to imagine a human being without it. Yet Stephen Hawking has the insight to. Also, most people would oppose such genetic engineering but it would be gradual; we won’t change overnight.
The world economy is not doing well; we’re in the sixth man-made extinction of mass species; there is global warming; the world is riddled with wars and conflicts; there is rising overpopulation; the list goes on. Without genetically modifying our behavior we are doomed to repeat our past “mistakes” anew with better technology and power.
MICHAEL RAGLAND
Triangle
Post a Comment
Please Log In
Comment posting requires free registration with InsideNova.com.
Already have an account? Please log in.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Ragland ) on May 15, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Correction: Francis Collins.
Michael Ragland
Posted by ( Ragland ) on May 15, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Both responders have mentioned “God’s Will” and “religious education”. I’m an atheist; I don’t think of a personal God. If I “believe” in God it would be the physical forces of the universe...little that I know. Was not brought up or followed any religious tradition. But there are religious men which are highly intelligent scientific men such as Francis Crick if memory serves me correct.
Michael
Posted by ( Ragland ) on May 15, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Of course, I agree any research should be on a small scale and I’m glad to see you support research into aggression. How it would be badly exploited there are numerous possibilities; how it could be used for beneficial uses a theoretical argument can be made but it will probably take longer to bear fruit.
Michael Ragland
Posted by ( zcxnissan ) on May 15, 2008 at 4:30 am
It is only natural to defend one’s family, one’s life, and to save others in that respect i am glad we have aggression, when you start talking about gene manipulation of this and cloning you are going against God’s will and usurping his creation and i respectfully disagree with that on religious grounds. Our environment and the people around us dictate our actions far more than our genes in respect to aggression. Very few people from a good environment end up being really bad. I have seen more people from a bad environment with good people become good. So a person with a good environment and good people around him has a tendency to be good fundamentally. Chris Cummings
Posted by ( Sam B ) on May 14, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Mr. Ragland,
I suppose my inability to fully endorse your proposal is based in the fact that we cannot fully predict what humanity without aggression will be like, plus the teaching of my religious education about the evil inclination. Still, you and Dr. Hawking are absolutely correct to endorse research on the issue. Neurochemical and even genetic contributors to aggression are probably out there to be found, and it is worth knowing about them no matter how much or how little they are exploited. I would certainly like to find out what would happen with aggression controls on a small scale before we make a decision about the large scale. I may be a bit stubborn with my philosophy, but I like to think that I am receptive to empirical evidence.
Oh, and as for your mention of nitrous oxide. From my experience at the dentist’s office, I can tell you that it is a great aggression inhibitor. However, we might not want to have all of society walking around on the stuff (although it would be a lot of fun to watch).
Posted by ( Ragland ) on May 14, 2008 at 6:09 pm
To Sam B:
Most people aren’t religious sages. As far as channeling evil inclinations into good works that happens. Firefighters and Coast Guard are but just two examples.
But the world or human race has lived through utterly stupid periods and evil periods in human history and there have always been religious sages and the majority of mankind hasn’t heeded their advice substantially.
Now that science and technonology are advancing it could only be a couple hundred years, assuming we don’t wipe ourselves out, to manipulate the human genome and aggression. What the religious sages could never get rid of advanced science and technology might.
Michael Ragland
Posted by ( Ragland ) on May 14, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Mr. Cummings:
You write “You speak of madness when you talk about genetic manipulation of aggression. Aggression can be controlled through a positive environment. Next you will tell us that cloning oneself is proper. Ozone hole according to many scientists may have been there long before satellites were in space or before scientists actually even started studying it. Is it fearmongering? Possibly?”
I don’t think stating my ideas of genetically manipulating aggression is madness. Quite the contrary; I think it means ultimately taking responsibility for our own biology.
Human aggression can’t be controlled through a positive environment. I think in terms of biology; no environment plays an overriding role. The aggression is innate and already there and socialization isn’t sufficient enough to thwart its widespread destructive effects IMHO.
Michael
Posted by ( zcxnissan ) on May 14, 2008 at 2:11 am
You speak of madness when you talk about genetic manipulation of aggression. Aggression can be controlled through a positive environment. Next you will tell us that cloning oneself is proper. Ozone hole according to many scientists may have been there long before satellites were in space or before scientists actually even started studying it. Is it fearmongering? Possibly? Chris Cummings
Posted by ( Ragland ) on May 13, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Correction: the ozone hole in the sky above anartica is as big as the continental U.S.A. Much bigger than a mile.
Michael
Posted by ( Ragland ) on May 13, 2008 at 2:15 pm
To Sam B:
The term “aggression” is an “umbrella term”. However, I think certain biological markers can define it. IMHO, aggression can be positive; channeling of aggression such as soccer teams; except when the fans engage in a riot and the stadium is partially totally torn down and at concerts people trampled to death. Somebody is always to blame.
I simply think the “spiritual” quality of aggression would be not transferred but likely eliminated if germline genetic engineering was used on “aggression”. Aggression is also thought to be “canalized, a very old heritable trait which we don’t yet know how to unravel.
We’ve done experiments on rats, voles, etc. and the results are interesting. Nitrous oxide plays a role as do other chemicals. It stands to reason scientists will experiment on aggression on those mammals most like us in terms of DNA. A rat shares over fifty percent of our DNA; probably higher. Vasopressin is another chemical involved in the regulation of aggression.
Eventually maybe in hundreds of years we will test chimpanzees.
I do also agree to disagree simply on the basis the research will take such a long time to bear fruit and even longer for humans. Time gradually passing by humans aren’t even aware or little aware of it.
Make no mistake I’m an older human model. Just as there was Homo Habilis, Neanderthal, Austraphilicus, etc. there will be continue to be evolution but this time we can’t wait up for Darwinian evolution to catch up. We will likely become a “self designing” species and no longer as at whim as natural selection although it will still operate for a long time.
In short, aggression is multifaceted; you weigh the pluses against the minuses. If you end up with a different human being then something is prone to be loss in the translation.
The world is not international but borders today our porous; nothing to technically prevent another atomic bomb blowing up or a genetically engineered virus let out of the laboratory. Such a virus was created for mice or some other little mammal and it killed all the mice.
The planet is to small and to many risks on it. There is global warming which in my view is definitely an act of aggression although I realize it is economically complex. Global warming is already causing havoc on the world; there is an hole in the ozone at least a mile wide.
It’s true; there is hardly nothing we do which doesn’t involve aggression; this from a doctor I know who agrees with my position but has no idea what a human without aggression would be like.
It’s definitely not totally science fiction because there are testing and doing research on aggression with other animals. Other animals share amazing attributes or similarities with other animals.
I respect your opinion. In any event it goes without saying many humans will oppose such an effort but it will be future generations who possibly make headway in this area.
Michael