So he tells the Guardian:
Our planet and the human race face multiple challenges. These challenges are global and serious – climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans. Such pressing issues will require us to collaborate, all of us, with a shared vision and cooperative endeavour to ensure that humanity can survive. We will need to adapt, rethink, refocus and change some of our fundamental assumptions about what we mean by wealth, by possessions, by mine and yours. Just like children, we will have to learn to share.
If we fail then the forces that contributed to Brexit, the envy and isolationism not just in the UK but around the world that spring from not sharing, of cultures driven by a narrow definition of wealth and a failure to divide it more fairly, both within nations and across national borders, will strengthen. If that were to happen, I would not be optimistic about the long-term outlook for our species. More.
First, do we even agree what the problems are and how to prioritize them, let alone what the solutions are? Or how to implement them?
Lacking such agreement, the more we get together, the unhappier we’ll be.
Overpopulation, for example: There are wide differences in population growth and decline in the world today. Would Hawking care to say which groups of people have too many kids? Who is going to tell them?
Brexit is simply a nation state deciding (narrowly) that there wasn’t enough agreement on key issues to justify the level of union with continental Europe that the EU created. It’s not a war and it’s not a form of social injustice, as he claims. But social elites are doubtless freaked to discover that British people have been forming private opinions on such questions.
Solution: Ban private opinion! Let Eurocrats decide everything.
See also: Brexit: Initial concerns and impacts (kairosfocus)
Celebrate the science writer as asshat
Job slaughter at Britain’s Guardian
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Hat tip: Mashable