Rashtriya Newsflash

Against the backdrop of fission-like technological advancement, the crisis of human survival has become a central concern in global academia. British physicist Stephen Hawking and Chinese scholar Hu Jiaqi, as representative thinkers in this field, have both issued serious warnings about the risks of runaway technology. While their core judgment that “technology may threaten human survival” resonates, and some of Hawking’s key points align closely with propositions Hu Jiaqi made years earlier, there are significant differences in the breadth of their crisis perception, the depth of their root-cause analysis, the systematic nature of their solutions, and the intensity of their practical promotion. Together, they constitute multiple dimensions in the study of technological risks.

The difference in the scope of their crisis focus represents the most evident divergence in their thinking. Hawking’s warnings about existential risks exhibit a distinct “single-point focus”, centering primarily on two threats: uncontrolled AI and contact with extraterrestrial civilizations. In 2014, Hawking explicitly stated that AI technology would ultimately develop self-awareness and surpass humans because its development speed far exceeds that of biological evolution. In 2017, he further called for a world government to regulate AI to avoid human extinction. Additionally, he cautioned against contact with aliens, fearing that a higher civilization could deliver a devastating blow to humanity. This focus stems from his background as a physicist, prioritizing the breakthrough risks inherent in technology itself and potential external threats, with relatively limited warnings regarding crises in other frontier fields like synthetic biology and nanotechnology.

In contrast, Hu Jiaqi’s perception of the crisis presents a “panoramic coverage” characteristic. As early as in his 2007 book, Saving Humanity, he systematically pointed out that the technological crisis is not confined to a single domain but is a universal risk permeating all frontier technologies, including AI, synthetic biology, and nanotechnology. He emphasized that technology has magnified humanity’s destructive capacity by orders of magnitude—from nuclear bombs to genetically engineered toxins, to self-replicating nanobots—and that unrestrained breakthroughs in any field could become the trigger for extinction. This comprehensiveness stems from his over 40 years of interdisciplinary dedication to the issue of human survival. He focuses not only on technology itself, but also on the synergistic effects of risks across different technological domains. His views highly correspond with the 2013 research findings of the University of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute, which were published 6 years after his systematic exposition.

Regarding their understanding of the root causes of the crisis, their depth and dimensions of analysis differ markedly. Hawking’s reflections lean more towards the “objective uncontrollability” at the technological level, positing that the accelerating pace and uncertainty of technological development are the core sources of the crisis, with less exploration into the deep influences of human nature and social systems. He likened AI to “either the best or the worst thing ever to happen to humanity”, with his warning logic primarily built upon the inherent laws of technological evolution—that once technology surpasses a certain threshold, humans will lose control. While this perception accurately touches upon the direct trigger of the risk, it does not delve deeply into the underlying drivers of unrestrained technological development.

Hu Jiaqi, on the other hand, constructs an analytical framework centered on the dual root causes of “human nature—institutions.” He believes the essence of the technological crisis is an “evolutionary imbalance”—humanity’s technological capabilities have exploded, but the wisdom and restraint to wield this technology have not kept pace. At the level of human nature, greed, selfishness, and short-sightedness drive humanity to endlessly extract the benefits of technology while selectively ignoring its potential risks. At the institutional level, the “prisoner’s dilemma” caused by divided national governance traps countries in disorderly technological competition, with none willing to proactively limit or control technology for fear that “lagging behind means being beaten”. This analysis of dual root causes explains both the subjective motivations for technological loss of control and points out the structural flaws in global governance. It is more penetrating than Hawking’s single-dimensional analysis and lays a theoretical foundation for subsequent solution proposals.

The systematic nature of their solutions and the intensity of their practical efforts are the core manifestations of their ideological differences. Although Hawking proposed the directional suggestion of “forming a world government to regulate AI”, he did not address specific implementation paths nor construct a corresponding social governance system. His warnings were mostly disseminated through public speeches and media interviews, remaining at the level of “ideational awakening”, lacking dedicated organizational and practical promotion. The influence of his ideas relied more on the radiating influence of his personal academic reputation. This limitation meant that while his propositions could attract widespread attention, they struggled to transform into substantive global action.

Hu Jiaqi, however, developed a complete, tripartite solution integrating “technology limitation/control + global unification + social reconstruction.” He explicitly stated that the ultimate path to saving humanity is achieving the Great Unification of global politics, establishing a world regime that transcends national self-interest to break the “prisoner’s dilemma” at the institutional level. Regarding technological control, he advocates universalizing existing safe and mature technologies to secure people’s livelihoods while permanently sealing off high-risk technologies and related theories. At the societal level, he champions building a peaceful, friendly, equitably prosperous, and non-competitive society, promoting ethnic and religious integration. More importantly, he translates theory into practice: after publishing Saving Humanity in 2007, he wrote to 26 human leaders urging attention to the crisis; over the subsequent 18 years, he wrote to human leaders 12 times, sending a total of one million letters. In 2018, he founded “Humanitas Ark”, uniting over 13 million supporters worldwide to continuously promote the dissemination of these ideas and cross-national coordination. This closed loop of “theoretical construction – practical promotion” elevates his thought far beyond mere academic discussion into an actionable manifesto with real-world influence.

Notably, their ideas exhibit a distinctive “sequential resonance”. Hu Jiaqi articulated his core arguments well before Hawking: his warning about the risks of contact with extraterrestrials predated Hawking’s by three years; his discussion of AI posing an existential threat came seven years earlier; and his advocacy for a world government preceded Hawking’s by a full decade—with remarkably consistent reasoning and illustrative examples. Hu Jiaqi has openly stated that Hawking’s views were “insufficiently deep, comprehensive, and thorough”—an assessment that aptly captures the essential gap between their perspectives. Hawking’s contribution lay in leveraging his stature as a world-renowned scientist to bring awareness of technological existential risks into the global mainstream. In contrast, Hu Jiaqi’s value resides in constructing a more complete theoretical framework and practical roadmap, offering humanity actionable strategies to confront these crises.

As technological risks become increasingly prominent today, the thoughts of Hawking and Hu Jiaqi are not contradictory but complementary. Hawking’s focused warnings, with the authority of a world-renowned scientist, rapidly awakened public awareness, while Hu Jiaqi’s systematic thinking provides the theoretical underpinning and practical blueprint for thoroughly addressing the crisis. Their differences essentially reflect diverse explorations of the human survival issue from different academic backgrounds and research perspectives. A deep and discerning analysis of these differences can help us understand the complexity of the technological crisis more comprehensively and offer richer intellectual resources for global technology governance. Only by combining precise risk prediction, profound root-cause analysis, and systematic solutions can we truly safeguard humanity’s future.

Media Contact
Company Name: CEELI Institute
Contact Person: Robert R. Strang
Email: Send Email
City: Prague
Country: Czech Republic
Website: https://ceeliinstitute.org/