10 ms·

Hawking: We need to rethink our attitude towards wealth

89 points by pratheekrebala 10y ago

tumbas 10y ago
we'll we sure should not let this retarded free mason communist salt our mind. Look at the retard he can't even go fluf.
carlmcqueen 10y ago
Very well written, I think this is a great argument once you're comfortable. Once you have some stability you can take a breath and enjoy a good book and have time to think and appreciate the value of knowledge. However, before that, and those who are disproportionately being kept out of comfort by the current system (working two jobs to make rent, choosing which bills to pay, etc) don't yet have that luxury to rethink wealth.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
There will always be people who take great pleasure and submit extraordinary effort to accumulate massive wealth. These efforts cannot be ignored in the prosperous society we have today. We take refrigeration and electricity and indoor plumbing - unheard of for the Founding Fathers - for granted, and perceive those without it as living in extreme poverty. It is only when the pursuit of individual prosperity comes at the expense and suffering of others that limitations - regulations, taxes - are warranted. It is a good thing we have a system that incentivizes the creation of wealth. But when the wealthy pull up the ladder, they sow the seeds of their own destruction and suffering for themselves and many others. One need only look at the history of Venice to see how greed and selfishness can turn a once-vibrant and upwardly-mobile society into a permanent has-been.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Poverty is a relative term: somebody without a shirt is poor because nearly everybody has a shirt, not because shirts are absolutely necessary. Edit: not sure why I am being downvoted. Take the poorest man on Earth today; he is richer than most men alive 20 thousand years ago. I would argue that he would conquer any ancient society.
  - Retra 10y ago
    I don't think you understand how poor the poorest man on Earth today is, nor how ineffective that wealth would be for gaining influence in other cultures.
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      Maybe I got carried away. Maybe not the poorest, but a very poor man today has resources at his disposal (via modern societies, no matter how poor) vastly greater than the resources a very rich man could get millenia ago. He can be cured of various deseases, can move around with incredible vehicles, can talk with people very far away from him, has incredible amount of knowledge at his disposal, and already knows things (“the Earth is round“) which are very valuable (as in “we invested huge amounts of resources to get to know this“). His power is enormous. Human nature is such that we feel poor because we only have a bike, while our neighbor has a Porsche, without realizing that a bike is an incredible thing.
      - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        For a remote Afghan, or even a rural Cambodian, life is pretty much the same as it has been for thousands of years. The wealth and means exist to feed and clothe and shelter all humans on earth, but those who actually have means at their disposal choose instead to spend the money on wars and opulence. Plenty of Middle-class Americans deny that the earth is round, even with all the knowledge of the world at their fingertips. Potentially, yes, the world is miraculous compared to the past. But for those who are not born into some of that gradual wealth creation (as most Westerners were), they are still very poor and very exploited. Or they are too remote to bother with and so life is hardly any different compared with 100 or 500 years ago.
        gonvaled 10y ago
        We are talking about different things: you talk about somebody alive today, but basically living in the past. His peers are those in times past, so he is as rich or poor as they were. I talk about your average “very poor guy“ in a modern society: he is just poor compared to his peers, but rich compared to a lot of people. But no matter who we are talking about: my point all along is that being poor or rich is a relative measure. To say that a person is poor, you need to state “compared to“. Usually we implicitely compare to the “average contemporary citizen“
erdevs 10y ago
The article asks "can possessions stand in the way of fulfillment?" Experience tells me the answer there is certainly yes, they can and often do. I think achieving a cultural shift away from the accumulation of possessions is achievable-- as cities get more dense, as travel becomes more regular, safe and affordable-- and in some sections of culture this is happening already. The article also asks though if we can truly ever own things vs only custodian them. Here I don't see any shift happening. The principal of property ownership, where property extends to land and to ownership of business corporations, is what largely drives the Pareto distribution of income we experience. This, in turn, defines the disparity between the rich and the poor. So, I'm not sure a truly fundamental shift can or will happen here. I'm curious to understand the forthcoming results and learnings from experiments in Universal Basic Income which are beginning to get under way. And I think that if robots and AI actually automate away most current human labor, we might be able to rebalance our economy in a manner beneficial to more people. Alternatively, if life extension becomes more and more practical, the fundaments of our economy may be ripe for change. So, over the course of decades or centuries, I can see the equilibria of our economic system and the distribution of incomes and therefore wealth accumulation changing dramatically. But I don't think it happens through any mere cultural shift in thinking nor via incremental policy changes. That may not be a bad thing, but everyone should know that the fundamental rules of the system are unlikely to change dramatically any time soon, without some major impetus to necessitate it.
- clavalle 10y ago
  >The article asks "can possessions stand in the way of fulfillment?" Experience tells me the answer there is certainly yes, they can and often do. While this can be true, and I know a few people who seem oddly compelled to accumulate more at the detriment of the rest of their lives, I find that it is far more common that the lack of wealth stands in the way of fulfillment. On a different point, I see the market as an efficient way to find the best custodians for things. Or, at least, that is the ideal. The real market is far more complicated, of course. Inequality is inevitable, and probably desirable. I only have a problem with inequality when those that have more can exploit those that have less. Contrary to common wisdom which is that people must be compelled through desperation to work (an extension of outdated history), I think it is possible for those that have less to have less command of wealth yet still not be completely desperate. Desperation and exploitation are not core features of a free market, Capitalistic system. In fact, I think they are a drag on Capitalism and the free market.
fit2rule 10y ago
As an aside, in order to distract myself from my own local decadence, particularly at night when its time to sleep, I have been entertaining myself with an investigation of literature and cultural artifacts pertaining to the lives and living of the 18th Century, or at least: any particular culture beyond the fringe of the last 100 years. Its only a trivial pursuit, nothing in particularly serious, academic, or even principled. Rather just something to think about before embarking into the nightly darkened garden, of thought and mystery. I can't help but think it is such a tragedy just how artificial it all is, and has been, for the last few centuries. We have created immense artifice; extreme transfer of responsibility and control at very mechanical, practical, energetic levels of human discourse. The cities we have created, the means we have endeavoured to make available to all, or none, or at least many, simply "to get there" in the human equation: it continues to impress a fiction upon the land. Utterly fictional. Consider the average airline passenger. How they manage to navigate the labyrinthine means by which the space was navigated, to go from New York to Tokyo. (Or any other place, perhaps Ankara to Cairo, if you like. It doesn't really matter.) How extreme we have become, we species. That we do not acknowledge our principle accomplishments, beyond all else the universe pitches against us, while follying and crippling ourselves with ghosts and fakery. Kill the fakery. If it works, sell it. Sell the hell out of it. Humans perpetuate technology first, bullshit second. Never forget the complete nature of the theorem.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Can't imagine why you were downvoted for this. You're spot on to read very old books; my godfather - a historian - insisted on reading books only written by dead people. He may have been a salty old man for the time that I knew him, but he was never unhappy. I have recently begun listening to a LOT of classical music. Every time I casually new-tab over to YouTube and load up a Tchaikovsky playlist, I think to myself: "Not even the richest kings of Renaissance Europe could instantly summon a complete orchestra and hear a composer's entire repertoire played perfectly every time - yet that can be my reality whenever I wish." Really reminds me I have so much to be grateful for.
  - sevenless 10y ago
hackaflocka 10y ago
I don't understand the reaction to Brexit. It was democracy in action! These things happen, and it's alright when they do! There are so many countries that are not in the EU. Are they all doomed?
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  [NB: Not an opinion on Brexit] To say that Brexit is democracy in action, you're suggesting that that alone makes it a good thing. Democracy in action has gotten us many terrible things as well. Democracy, in this form, is mob rule. If the mob is well-informed, it can go well. When the mob is not, it can go very badly.
  - zo1 10y ago
    >"If the mob is well-informed, it can go well. When the mob is not, it can go very badly." That only applies if you have some sort of arbiter to decide whether or not the "mob" is informed. And if you do that, you might as well have a dictatorship, as the arbiter can decide which side s/he thinks is well informed. Or rather, they could decide that groups X,Y and Z are not informed, therefore they aren't allowed to vote. I know you may not be suggesting that explicitly, but that is the type of thing that I would argue follows from your line of thinking.
    - sevenless 10y ago
      Are you saying that objective fact and truth is equivalent to a dictatorship? Are anti-vaxxers living in a dictatorship because we don't give their claims equal weight to those of doctors and scientists?
      - therealjumbo 10y ago
        Are you implying that a vote for Brexit is equivalent to being an anti-vaxxer?
        10y ago
Mendenhall 10y ago
It seems his premise is "Rethink wealth so you feel better about giving your money to others" I find it well meaning but naive to human nature. It might as well have been called "Ignore human nature". Wealth stems from "taking" resources and wanting to survive. We are in a petri dish of limited resources, with more and more people consuming. Good luck with that math.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Ideas, which can improve the amount of resources (virtually without limits, by say exploiting the asteroid belt), are not limited. That is, ideas can hugely increase the size of your petri dish. What I dont know is if human nature can be contained to avoid growing the population continously above the carrying capacity, as we have been doing for the last 200 thousand years (or was that updated to 2 million?)
- zwischenzug 10y ago
  It's also human nature to share. cf Kropotkin and studies of altruism in human beings. Wealth, as a concept is very much up for grabs. Is it accumulation of resources, the increase of security of resources, the fulfilment of psychological desires, the control of psychological desires, the stable passing on of genes?
thefastlane 10y ago
"Does money matter?" i will check with my landlord and let you know.
- zwischenzug 10y ago
  I assume this is meant as sarcasm against a supposed argument against the importance of money. Hawking argues that money very much does matter.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    I find the argument to be slightly different. Today money matters in so much as getting things that need to be done to happen. Things like quality medical care, a place to live, and 'workers' to get those things done. Money past that, money as a form of arbitrary luxury, is far too transitory. Once you reach that point you have very little marginal change in your situation, status signaling, or other measures; you have reached saturation on the 'good' money can do for you. I think that most of the people who support Universal-BIG just want to get rid of the wasteful feedback loops in the low end of that equation. Everyone should have good food, good living areas, and good healthcare as a member of society. It establishes a more level playing field for all other activities and removes a lot of the wasteful expenditures of time and energy. It also cuts down on the 'alternative' means of achieving such basic support (ending up in jail or revolving hospitalization and being a drain on society). Does this mean money should cease existing? No, but for a lot of things it would no longer be related.
elgabogringo 10y ago
He really lost me with the first two paragraphs... Oh, and the title. The Brexit? Really? He's using the Brexit to launch into a soliloquy on the meaning of life? It's not clear to me that the Brexit had to do with wealth as much as it had to do with sovereignty. It's also not clear that the Brexit will have a negative long run impact on Britain's wealth. I know this sounds crazy to all the super smart international people out there, but A) the EU's growth sucks and B) it's likely to get worse before it gets better - oh, and C) when it gets worse the Euro could very well go away, making the Brexit crowd look like geniuses. Look, if you look for fulfillment in money or possessions you are going to be disappointed. This has been a tenet of Western philosophy for millennia. Using this philosophy as a platform to trash the Brexit is disingenuous and beneath somebody as uber super smart as Hawking.
- hx87 10y ago
  You seem to be confusing the Eurozone with the EU. The latter has its problems but is a basically sound institution, whereas the former was and remains a terrible idea without a fiscal union.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    Sure, great experience traveling to Poland lately, being used to move in the Eurozone. And I give up on balancing my books with my detailed expenses (cash, credit cards, ...) there. I just have a big “Poland expenses, 1250 €“ entry.
    - mamon 10y ago
      So you are suggesting that Poland should give up its financial stability (like being pretty much only EU country which did not suffer recession during 2008 financial crisis) and join Eurozone just to help you avoid small inconvenience with reimbursing business trip in foreign currency?
      - gonvaled 10y ago
        The Eurozone is suffering. All economic areas have up and downs. Being in a shared monerary union, you sacrifize some advantages for others: we compromise - I know, strange word. We are building a stable, long term monetary union. We are learning, we are improving and we will have a strong currency going forward. Next time another economy area is in distress, as it will unavoidably happen, remember about our crisis, and how we together saw it through. Nowadays it is fashionable to attack the Euro. When the crisis is mastered, all know-it-alls will praise it. We do not need to care for the ones or the others. We do our thing. And yes, the most practical consequence for induvidual citizens is that I do not care about currencies, at all. Except when I travel to Poland.
teslaberry 10y ago
it's rare for a scientist to have any interesting opinions outside his field of expertise. it's not rare for scientists who have had success , just like anyone who has had success, to let it get to their head and then confidently pronounce their half assed opinions about matters of which they really have nothing interesting to say. neil degrasse tyson and michio kaku fit in nicely with hawking. einstein was perhaps the rare scientist with a subtle appreciation of politics and history and an acceptance of his lack of funcioning ability in fields outside his expertise ( he rejected an offer to become the first president of israel citing his political inexperience) . hawking has opined about alien life and sounded totally ridiculous, like what you'd expect from a tabloid.
xyzzy4 10y ago
The problem with the EU is it has more regulations than there are atoms in the Milky Way.
- vkou 10y ago
  And running a business that serves N countries that don't have a common regulatory framework is dealing with N times as many regulations. Observe the nightmare that are state-regulated industries in the US. (I'm looking at you, health insurance, finance, etc.) Now, imagine if each state had its own FDA...
- Noseshine 10y ago
  You have so many regulations because modern economies are extremely complex - not the other way around. Food for thought on economic complexity: https://medium.com/@kevin_ashton/what-coke-contains-221d449929ef https://medium.com/@kevin_ashton/what-coke-contains-221d4499...
hal9000xp 10y ago
I actually don't understand why Brexit should necessary be bad for UK. Switzerland is doing very well outside of EU despite it's literally surrounded by EU members. Of course, there is a risk that UK won't do as good as Switzerland does but it's only risk, it's not established fact yet. Regarding article itself ... well, it's The Guardian so it's very predictable what they will write about wealth. Regarding author, it's the same, respected and famous scientist is longstanding Labour Party supporter. With all due respect to mister Hawking, I won't buy socialism in any possible form and any interpretation even from world famous scientist. I would prefer to enjoy to read his great science books.
- chimprich 10y ago
  Switzerland does have access to the EU single market and implements many features of EU law, such as free movement of people. The UK might end up with a similar arrangement eventually, but if we adopt most of the EU principles but without any political influence I fail to see what the point was. Even if we manage to find a satisfactory solution, we will have to go through a lot of pain to get there, and we were already doing very well as a member of the EU.
  - hal9000xp 10y ago
    I understand this but there is a reason why Switzerland decided not to join EU in the first place. I don't know exact reason. I suggest they preferred to selectively accept some terms instead of taking all burden of membership in the EU. I like open-economy and globalisation but I would prefer more decentralised system instead of concentrating all power in the single place and then impose regulations across the board. In short, I would not put all eggs to one basket. Although, I understand that some people voted for Brexit just because of emotions.
    - notlefthanded 10y ago
      I guess it comes down to whether being able to pick relationship terms à la carte outweighs the benefits of discounts via a bundle deal and having some influence via a seat at the table. There's a chance that, long term, this restructuring is worth the human-effort capital.
test23428934 10y ago
Let me guess -- You support Drumpf and you call yourself a "race realist". Heh.
- blacksmith_tb 10y ago
  Ad hominem does nothing to rebut these arguments. I also disagree, but would much rather see an actual refutation.
  - test23428934 10y ago
    If you support Brexit you are either racist or make common cause with racists. drops mic
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - abiox 10y ago
      ostensibly everyone on the planet "makes common cause with racists", knowingly or unknowingly.
- sctb 10y ago
  We've detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12188235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12188235 and banned this account for violating the Hacker News guidelines. You can't comment like this here.
acd 10y ago
For anyone from United Kingdom or curious I can recommend taking a look at the Positive money movement which is about monetary reform. Posetive money http://positivemoney.org/ http://positivemoney.org/
jernfrost 10y ago
I think Hawking has said many important things about wealth and economy in the past. Many economists are very narrowly focused, not considering the bigger picture. Society and the field of economics have always had to make major changes in response to significant technological change. The industrial revolution ripped apart the old order and fundamentally changed the way people thought about economics. As Hawking has talked about, I think AI as well will make fundamental and lasting changes to the field of economics, and to how we organize our society. E.g. I don't think libertarian ideology can survive an AI world. Free market economics makes most sense for the present world but socialist economics might actually make more sense in an AI world. It depends on how things evolve. Either a rich elite will end up controlling all the means of production without needing workers, creating masses of unemployment, or we end up in a world where everybody is a capitalist. Nobody works, but everybody might own capital they invest in production. The outcome will depend largely on the marginal cost of production. If 3D printers, robots, AI etc allow production to happen at small scale with similar marginal cost to that of large scale production the capitalism might get dramatically democratized. If not instead we risk a Blande Runner like Dystopia.
jcbeard 10y ago
Will be very interesting to see if the UK economy can actually recover at all with all of the acquisitions. There's a fire sale of sorts at the moment on UK's most valuable companies. The promises of the current prime minister to prevent the few big employers in the UK from being purchased have pretty much evaporated...such is the way of the snake oil salesman. The free flow of super smart labor in the schengen zone was a net positive for most UK companies, and for the foreign labor that contributed to the UK economy. The trick, as Hawking says is to ensure the fruits of the globalized economy is shared by all. In the US we have a huge issue with churn. Industries like coal will never return, however people like Trump promise that they will. What we need is a cheaper university system that provides a means for the children of those former coal miners to move onto something else (or even the miners themselves). Right now, if you're an out of work person in an industry that is gone...there's no way to move on. You can take out massive loans, or join the military to get free education. Those are about the only two practical options for most people (I for one took the military option), and that's not good enough. The managed capitalism that we've developed works well, we just have to remember that the government's role is to manage the economy...not to run the economy. Government should foster an environment for everyone to succeed, not just those who have a more favorable starting place in life (like Trump). Right now people are upset, mad, and often without hope. While I (and just about any other person with critical thinking skills) can punch holes in just about every one of Trumps lightweight arguments, these holes are ignored by the masses because they want to believe that there is a magic cure to what ails them. Unfortunately, like the magic pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, Trump's magical cure doesn't exist...just as the pot of gold that sold brexit will never be found.

we'll we sure should not let this retarded free mason communist salt our mind. Look at the retard he can't even go fluf.

carlmcqueen 10y ago

Very well written, I think this is a great argument once you're comfortable. Once you have some stability you can take a breath and enjoy a good book and have time to think and appreciate the value of knowledge. However, before that, and those who are disproportionately being kept out of comfort by the current system (working two jobs to make rent, choosing which bills to pay, etc) don't yet have that luxury to rethink wealth.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

There will always be people who take great pleasure and submit extraordinary effort to accumulate massive wealth. These efforts cannot be ignored in the prosperous society we have today. We take refrigeration and electricity and indoor plumbing - unheard of for the Founding Fathers - for granted, and perceive those without it as living in extreme poverty. It is only when the pursuit of individual prosperity comes at the expense and suffering of others that limitations - regulations, taxes - are warranted. It is a good thing we have a system that incentivizes the creation of wealth. But when the wealthy pull up the ladder, they sow the seeds of their own destruction and suffering for themselves and many others. One need only look at the history of Venice to see how greed and selfishness can turn a once-vibrant and upwardly-mobile society into a permanent has-been.

gonvaled 10y ago
Poverty is a relative term: somebody without a shirt is poor because nearly everybody has a shirt, not because shirts are absolutely necessary. Edit: not sure why I am being downvoted. Take the poorest man on Earth today; he is richer than most men alive 20 thousand years ago. I would argue that he would conquer any ancient society.
- Retra 10y ago
  I don't think you understand how poor the poorest man on Earth today is, nor how ineffective that wealth would be for gaining influence in other cultures.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    Maybe I got carried away. Maybe not the poorest, but a very poor man today has resources at his disposal (via modern societies, no matter how poor) vastly greater than the resources a very rich man could get millenia ago. He can be cured of various deseases, can move around with incredible vehicles, can talk with people very far away from him, has incredible amount of knowledge at his disposal, and already knows things (“the Earth is round“) which are very valuable (as in “we invested huge amounts of resources to get to know this“). His power is enormous. Human nature is such that we feel poor because we only have a bike, while our neighbor has a Porsche, without realizing that a bike is an incredible thing.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      For a remote Afghan, or even a rural Cambodian, life is pretty much the same as it has been for thousands of years. The wealth and means exist to feed and clothe and shelter all humans on earth, but those who actually have means at their disposal choose instead to spend the money on wars and opulence. Plenty of Middle-class Americans deny that the earth is round, even with all the knowledge of the world at their fingertips. Potentially, yes, the world is miraculous compared to the past. But for those who are not born into some of that gradual wealth creation (as most Westerners were), they are still very poor and very exploited. Or they are too remote to bother with and so life is hardly any different compared with 100 or 500 years ago.
      - gonvaled 10y ago
        We are talking about different things: you talk about somebody alive today, but basically living in the past. His peers are those in times past, so he is as rich or poor as they were. I talk about your average “very poor guy“ in a modern society: he is just poor compared to his peers, but rich compared to a lot of people. But no matter who we are talking about: my point all along is that being poor or rich is a relative measure. To say that a person is poor, you need to state “compared to“. Usually we implicitely compare to the “average contemporary citizen“

erdevs 10y ago

The article asks "can possessions stand in the way of fulfillment?" Experience tells me the answer there is certainly yes, they can and often do. I think achieving a cultural shift away from the accumulation of possessions is achievable-- as cities get more dense, as travel becomes more regular, safe and affordable-- and in some sections of culture this is happening already. The article also asks though if we can truly ever own things vs only custodian them. Here I don't see any shift happening. The principal of property ownership, where property extends to land and to ownership of business corporations, is what largely drives the Pareto distribution of income we experience. This, in turn, defines the disparity between the rich and the poor. So, I'm not sure a truly fundamental shift can or will happen here. I'm curious to understand the forthcoming results and learnings from experiments in Universal Basic Income which are beginning to get under way. And I think that if robots and AI actually automate away most current human labor, we might be able to rebalance our economy in a manner beneficial to more people. Alternatively, if life extension becomes more and more practical, the fundaments of our economy may be ripe for change. So, over the course of decades or centuries, I can see the equilibria of our economic system and the distribution of incomes and therefore wealth accumulation changing dramatically. But I don't think it happens through any mere cultural shift in thinking nor via incremental policy changes. That may not be a bad thing, but everyone should know that the fundamental rules of the system are unlikely to change dramatically any time soon, without some major impetus to necessitate it.

clavalle 10y ago
>The article asks "can possessions stand in the way of fulfillment?" Experience tells me the answer there is certainly yes, they can and often do. While this can be true, and I know a few people who seem oddly compelled to accumulate more at the detriment of the rest of their lives, I find that it is far more common that the lack of wealth stands in the way of fulfillment. On a different point, I see the market as an efficient way to find the best custodians for things. Or, at least, that is the ideal. The real market is far more complicated, of course. Inequality is inevitable, and probably desirable. I only have a problem with inequality when those that have more can exploit those that have less. Contrary to common wisdom which is that people must be compelled through desperation to work (an extension of outdated history), I think it is possible for those that have less to have less command of wealth yet still not be completely desperate. Desperation and exploitation are not core features of a free market, Capitalistic system. In fact, I think they are a drag on Capitalism and the free market.

fit2rule 10y ago

As an aside, in order to distract myself from my own local decadence, particularly at night when its time to sleep, I have been entertaining myself with an investigation of literature and cultural artifacts pertaining to the lives and living of the 18th Century, or at least: any particular culture beyond the fringe of the last 100 years. Its only a trivial pursuit, nothing in particularly serious, academic, or even principled. Rather just something to think about before embarking into the nightly darkened garden, of thought and mystery. I can't help but think it is such a tragedy just how artificial it all is, and has been, for the last few centuries. We have created immense artifice; extreme transfer of responsibility and control at very mechanical, practical, energetic levels of human discourse. The cities we have created, the means we have endeavoured to make available to all, or none, or at least many, simply "to get there" in the human equation: it continues to impress a fiction upon the land. Utterly fictional. Consider the average airline passenger. How they manage to navigate the labyrinthine means by which the space was navigated, to go from New York to Tokyo. (Or any other place, perhaps Ankara to Cairo, if you like. It doesn't really matter.) How extreme we have become, we species. That we do not acknowledge our principle accomplishments, beyond all else the universe pitches against us, while follying and crippling ourselves with ghosts and fakery. Kill the fakery. If it works, sell it. Sell the hell out of it. Humans perpetuate technology first, bullshit second. Never forget the complete nature of the theorem.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Can't imagine why you were downvoted for this. You're spot on to read very old books; my godfather - a historian - insisted on reading books only written by dead people. He may have been a salty old man for the time that I knew him, but he was never unhappy. I have recently begun listening to a LOT of classical music. Every time I casually new-tab over to YouTube and load up a Tchaikovsky playlist, I think to myself: "Not even the richest kings of Renaissance Europe could instantly summon a complete orchestra and hear a composer's entire repertoire played perfectly every time - yet that can be my reality whenever I wish." Really reminds me I have so much to be grateful for.
- sevenless 10y ago

hackaflocka 10y ago

I don't understand the reaction to Brexit. It was democracy in action! These things happen, and it's alright when they do! There are so many countries that are not in the EU. Are they all doomed?

Jtsummers 10y ago
[NB: Not an opinion on Brexit] To say that Brexit is democracy in action, you're suggesting that that alone makes it a good thing. Democracy in action has gotten us many terrible things as well. Democracy, in this form, is mob rule. If the mob is well-informed, it can go well. When the mob is not, it can go very badly.
- zo1 10y ago
  >"If the mob is well-informed, it can go well. When the mob is not, it can go very badly." That only applies if you have some sort of arbiter to decide whether or not the "mob" is informed. And if you do that, you might as well have a dictatorship, as the arbiter can decide which side s/he thinks is well informed. Or rather, they could decide that groups X,Y and Z are not informed, therefore they aren't allowed to vote. I know you may not be suggesting that explicitly, but that is the type of thing that I would argue follows from your line of thinking.
  - sevenless 10y ago
    Are you saying that objective fact and truth is equivalent to a dictatorship? Are anti-vaxxers living in a dictatorship because we don't give their claims equal weight to those of doctors and scientists?
    - therealjumbo 10y ago
      Are you implying that a vote for Brexit is equivalent to being an anti-vaxxer?
      - 10y ago

Mendenhall 10y ago

It seems his premise is "Rethink wealth so you feel better about giving your money to others" I find it well meaning but naive to human nature. It might as well have been called "Ignore human nature". Wealth stems from "taking" resources and wanting to survive. We are in a petri dish of limited resources, with more and more people consuming. Good luck with that math.

gonvaled 10y ago
Ideas, which can improve the amount of resources (virtually without limits, by say exploiting the asteroid belt), are not limited. That is, ideas can hugely increase the size of your petri dish. What I dont know is if human nature can be contained to avoid growing the population continously above the carrying capacity, as we have been doing for the last 200 thousand years (or was that updated to 2 million?)
zwischenzug 10y ago
It's also human nature to share. cf Kropotkin and studies of altruism in human beings. Wealth, as a concept is very much up for grabs. Is it accumulation of resources, the increase of security of resources, the fulfilment of psychological desires, the control of psychological desires, the stable passing on of genes?

thefastlane 10y ago

"Does money matter?" i will check with my landlord and let you know.

zwischenzug 10y ago
I assume this is meant as sarcasm against a supposed argument against the importance of money. Hawking argues that money very much does matter.
- mjevans 10y ago
  I find the argument to be slightly different. Today money matters in so much as getting things that need to be done to happen. Things like quality medical care, a place to live, and 'workers' to get those things done. Money past that, money as a form of arbitrary luxury, is far too transitory. Once you reach that point you have very little marginal change in your situation, status signaling, or other measures; you have reached saturation on the 'good' money can do for you. I think that most of the people who support Universal-BIG just want to get rid of the wasteful feedback loops in the low end of that equation. Everyone should have good food, good living areas, and good healthcare as a member of society. It establishes a more level playing field for all other activities and removes a lot of the wasteful expenditures of time and energy. It also cuts down on the 'alternative' means of achieving such basic support (ending up in jail or revolving hospitalization and being a drain on society). Does this mean money should cease existing? No, but for a lot of things it would no longer be related.

elgabogringo 10y ago

He really lost me with the first two paragraphs... Oh, and the title. The Brexit? Really? He's using the Brexit to launch into a soliloquy on the meaning of life? It's not clear to me that the Brexit had to do with wealth as much as it had to do with sovereignty. It's also not clear that the Brexit will have a negative long run impact on Britain's wealth. I know this sounds crazy to all the super smart international people out there, but A) the EU's growth sucks and B) it's likely to get worse before it gets better - oh, and C) when it gets worse the Euro could very well go away, making the Brexit crowd look like geniuses. Look, if you look for fulfillment in money or possessions you are going to be disappointed. This has been a tenet of Western philosophy for millennia. Using this philosophy as a platform to trash the Brexit is disingenuous and beneath somebody as uber super smart as Hawking.

hx87 10y ago
You seem to be confusing the Eurozone with the EU. The latter has its problems but is a basically sound institution, whereas the former was and remains a terrible idea without a fiscal union.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Sure, great experience traveling to Poland lately, being used to move in the Eurozone. And I give up on balancing my books with my detailed expenses (cash, credit cards, ...) there. I just have a big “Poland expenses, 1250 €“ entry.
  - mamon 10y ago
    So you are suggesting that Poland should give up its financial stability (like being pretty much only EU country which did not suffer recession during 2008 financial crisis) and join Eurozone just to help you avoid small inconvenience with reimbursing business trip in foreign currency?
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      The Eurozone is suffering. All economic areas have up and downs. Being in a shared monerary union, you sacrifize some advantages for others: we compromise - I know, strange word. We are building a stable, long term monetary union. We are learning, we are improving and we will have a strong currency going forward. Next time another economy area is in distress, as it will unavoidably happen, remember about our crisis, and how we together saw it through. Nowadays it is fashionable to attack the Euro. When the crisis is mastered, all know-it-alls will praise it. We do not need to care for the ones or the others. We do our thing. And yes, the most practical consequence for induvidual citizens is that I do not care about currencies, at all. Except when I travel to Poland.

teslaberry 10y ago

it's rare for a scientist to have any interesting opinions outside his field of expertise. it's not rare for scientists who have had success , just like anyone who has had success, to let it get to their head and then confidently pronounce their half assed opinions about matters of which they really have nothing interesting to say. neil degrasse tyson and michio kaku fit in nicely with hawking. einstein was perhaps the rare scientist with a subtle appreciation of politics and history and an acceptance of his lack of funcioning ability in fields outside his expertise ( he rejected an offer to become the first president of israel citing his political inexperience) . hawking has opined about alien life and sounded totally ridiculous, like what you'd expect from a tabloid.

xyzzy4 10y ago

The problem with the EU is it has more regulations than there are atoms in the Milky Way.

vkou 10y ago
And running a business that serves N countries that don't have a common regulatory framework is dealing with N times as many regulations. Observe the nightmare that are state-regulated industries in the US. (I'm looking at you, health insurance, finance, etc.) Now, imagine if each state had its own FDA...
Noseshine 10y ago
You have so many regulations because modern economies are extremely complex - not the other way around. Food for thought on economic complexity: https://medium.com/@kevin_ashton/what-coke-contains-221d449929ef https://medium.com/@kevin_ashton/what-coke-contains-221d4499...

hal9000xp 10y ago

I actually don't understand why Brexit should necessary be bad for UK. Switzerland is doing very well outside of EU despite it's literally surrounded by EU members. Of course, there is a risk that UK won't do as good as Switzerland does but it's only risk, it's not established fact yet. Regarding article itself ... well, it's The Guardian so it's very predictable what they will write about wealth. Regarding author, it's the same, respected and famous scientist is longstanding Labour Party supporter. With all due respect to mister Hawking, I won't buy socialism in any possible form and any interpretation even from world famous scientist. I would prefer to enjoy to read his great science books.

chimprich 10y ago
Switzerland does have access to the EU single market and implements many features of EU law, such as free movement of people. The UK might end up with a similar arrangement eventually, but if we adopt most of the EU principles but without any political influence I fail to see what the point was. Even if we manage to find a satisfactory solution, we will have to go through a lot of pain to get there, and we were already doing very well as a member of the EU.
- hal9000xp 10y ago
  I understand this but there is a reason why Switzerland decided not to join EU in the first place. I don't know exact reason. I suggest they preferred to selectively accept some terms instead of taking all burden of membership in the EU. I like open-economy and globalisation but I would prefer more decentralised system instead of concentrating all power in the single place and then impose regulations across the board. In short, I would not put all eggs to one basket. Although, I understand that some people voted for Brexit just because of emotions.
  - notlefthanded 10y ago
    I guess it comes down to whether being able to pick relationship terms à la carte outweighs the benefits of discounts via a bundle deal and having some influence via a seat at the table. There's a chance that, long term, this restructuring is worth the human-effort capital.

test23428934 10y ago

Let me guess -- You support Drumpf and you call yourself a "race realist". Heh.

blacksmith_tb 10y ago
Ad hominem does nothing to rebut these arguments. I also disagree, but would much rather see an actual refutation.
- test23428934 10y ago
  If you support Brexit you are either racist or make common cause with racists. drops mic
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - abiox 10y ago
    ostensibly everyone on the planet "makes common cause with racists", knowingly or unknowingly.
sctb 10y ago
We've detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12188235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12188235 and banned this account for violating the Hacker News guidelines. You can't comment like this here.

acd 10y ago

For anyone from United Kingdom or curious I can recommend taking a look at the Positive money movement which is about monetary reform. Posetive money http://positivemoney.org/ http://positivemoney.org/

jernfrost 10y ago

I think Hawking has said many important things about wealth and economy in the past. Many economists are very narrowly focused, not considering the bigger picture. Society and the field of economics have always had to make major changes in response to significant technological change. The industrial revolution ripped apart the old order and fundamentally changed the way people thought about economics. As Hawking has talked about, I think AI as well will make fundamental and lasting changes to the field of economics, and to how we organize our society. E.g. I don't think libertarian ideology can survive an AI world. Free market economics makes most sense for the present world but socialist economics might actually make more sense in an AI world. It depends on how things evolve. Either a rich elite will end up controlling all the means of production without needing workers, creating masses of unemployment, or we end up in a world where everybody is a capitalist. Nobody works, but everybody might own capital they invest in production. The outcome will depend largely on the marginal cost of production. If 3D printers, robots, AI etc allow production to happen at small scale with similar marginal cost to that of large scale production the capitalism might get dramatically democratized. If not instead we risk a Blande Runner like Dystopia.

jcbeard 10y ago

Will be very interesting to see if the UK economy can actually recover at all with all of the acquisitions. There's a fire sale of sorts at the moment on UK's most valuable companies. The promises of the current prime minister to prevent the few big employers in the UK from being purchased have pretty much evaporated...such is the way of the snake oil salesman. The free flow of super smart labor in the schengen zone was a net positive for most UK companies, and for the foreign labor that contributed to the UK economy. The trick, as Hawking says is to ensure the fruits of the globalized economy is shared by all. In the US we have a huge issue with churn. Industries like coal will never return, however people like Trump promise that they will. What we need is a cheaper university system that provides a means for the children of those former coal miners to move onto something else (or even the miners themselves). Right now, if you're an out of work person in an industry that is gone...there's no way to move on. You can take out massive loans, or join the military to get free education. Those are about the only two practical options for most people (I for one took the military option), and that's not good enough. The managed capitalism that we've developed works well, we just have to remember that the government's role is to manage the economy...not to run the economy. Government should foster an environment for everyone to succeed, not just those who have a more favorable starting place in life (like Trump). Right now people are upset, mad, and often without hope. While I (and just about any other person with critical thinking skills) can punch holes in just about every one of Trumps lightweight arguments, these holes are ignored by the masses because they want to believe that there is a magic cure to what ails them. Unfortunately, like the magic pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, Trump's magical cure doesn't exist...just as the pot of gold that sold brexit will never be found.