Week 9 Memos: The future

[deholz]

Reply with your memo as a Comment. The memo should be responsive to this week's readings on The Future from Martin Rees, with 300–500 words + 1 visual element (e.g., figure, image, hand-drawn picture, art, etc. that complements or is suggestive of your argument). The memo should be tagged with one or more of the following:

origin: How did we get here? Reflection on the historical, technological, political and other origins of this existential crisis that help us better understand and place it in context.

risk: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the risk associated with this challenge. This risk analysis could be locally in a particular place and time, or globally over a much longer period, in isolation or in relation to other existential challenges (e.g., the environmental devastation that follows nuclear fallout).

policy: What individual and collective actions or policies could be (or have been) undertaken to avert the existential risk associated with this challenge? These could include a brief examination and evaluation of a historical context and policy (e.g., quarantining and plague), a comparison of existing policy options (e.g., cost-benefit analysis, ethical contrast), or design of a novel policy solution.

solutions: Suggestions of what (else) might be done. These could be personal, technical, social, artistic, or anything that might reduce existential risk.

framing: What are competing framings of this existential challenge? Are there any novel framings that could allow us to think about the challenge differently; that would make it more salient? How do different ethical, religious, political and other positions frame this challenge and its consequences (e.g., “End of the Times”).

salience: Why is it hard to think and talk about or ultimately mobilize around this existential challenge? Are there agencies in society with an interest in downplaying the risks associated with this challenge? Are there ideologies that are inconsistent with this risk that make it hard to recognize or feel responsible for?

nuclear/#climate/#bio/#cyber/#emerging: Partial list of topics of focus.

For one session over the course of the quarter, you may post a memo that reflects on a film or fictional rendering of an existential challenge. This should be tagged with:

movie / #novel: How did the film/novel represent the existential challenge? What did this highlight; what did it ignore? How realistic was the risk? How salient (or insignificant) did it make the challenge for you? For others (e.g., from reviews, box office / retail receipts, or contemporary commentary)?

[DNT21711]

origin #salience #risk #policy #solutions

The recent readings, including insights from Martin Rees and an exploration of pandemics and bio-threats, underscore the complex interplay between emerging technologies and existential risks in the context of global health security. These challenges necessitate a nuanced approach that integrates policy innovation with technological advancements to mitigate risks and enhance resilience against future pandemics. Pandemics are not novel adversaries; however, the accelerating pace of globalization, urbanization, and environmental degradation amplifies their threat. The historical lens, through past pandemics, illustrates a trajectory of increasing risk, where human activity intensifies the probability and potential impact of bio-threats. This understanding is crucial for framing our response strategies.

A robust policy framework must prioritize global health surveillance and data sharing, underpinned by international cooperation. Policies encouraging the development and equitable distribution of vaccines play a pivotal role in pandemic preparedness. Furthermore, investing in healthcare infrastructure and fostering public-private partnerships for research and development can significantly bolster our defense against bio-threats. Technological innovation offers unprecedented opportunities to combat pandemics. Advances in genomic sequencing, AI-driven predictive modeling, and synthetic biology can revolutionize our approach to early detection, vaccine development, and therapeutic interventions. Implementing these technologies within a global health surveillance network can significantly reduce the time to respond to outbreaks.

The transient salience of pandemics, often overshadowed by immediate crises, requires a strategic reframing. Viewing pandemics as a persistent global security threat can elevate their priority on the international agenda, fostering a culture of preparedness and sustained investment in health security. The confluence of policy and technological innovation represents our best strategy for navigating the complexities of pandemics and bio-threats. By fostering an environment of collaboration and innovation, we can build a more resilient global health system capable of withstanding future challenges. This endeavor requires not only the ingenuity and resources of the global community but also a commitment to equity and shared responsibility.

[timok15]

emerging, #framing, #origin

Rees’ account of the amount of mere luck that worked through various human actors to stand between the world and nuclear catastrophe is undoubtedly an important consideration for modern existential risk. What I am interested in considering in addition, though, are the future Trinity-type events. As Christopher Nolan’s recent Oppenheimer acknowledged, there was a small chance that the Trinity bomb would ignite the atmosphere (and so scorch clean the whole planet). I should be clear: the physics calculations were majorly in their favor, but there is always the possibility you discover new physics (and atmospheric ignition would be a less than ideal way of making such a discovery). The Manhattan Project’s physicists could not be absolutely sure that it would not happen until they ran the test. The Manhattan Project’s physicists did not have the technology to mitigate the worst case scenario (like testing the bomb in the Earth-like conditions of Venus’ upper atmosphere so that there would not be any human consequences to atmospheric ignition if it did occur). All the same, they went through with it and thankfully the laws of the universe agree with the math and do not in fact allow for the worst case scenario of atmospheric ignition to occur. Thus, to be clear, a Trinity-type event is an event where we as humans have one chance to be right—where the confirmation of the worst case scenario happening one way or the other involves tempting fate into it actually occurring.

Though we know more than we ever have about the workings of things in many fields (or more accurately have very good and useful theories), in just a few decades, if not a century or two, we will seem hideously ignorant. How often will our dice rolls as a species be in our favor? Nobody knows the answer to that question, but I think it is nonetheless a profoundly important one. In fiction, the scene where the proud scientists and engineers turn on the AGI that is supposed to solve all our problems that then proceeds to become humanity’s arch-enemy is a common trope indeed. I worry, however, just how much this risk of a future Trinity-type event going bad is a real possibility. When developing new technologies that have been identified to have existential risk, we must also look to identify the risk that there is a Trinity-type event that would go along with it and how we might mitigate even the “small” risks of the worst case scenario. (Though, I’m not sure we will need to go so far as to perform the equivalent of nuclear tests in Venus’ upper atmosphere like I offhandedly suggested earlier.) Moreover, something we should consider is that we will probably not always have the cold surety of physics calculations slanted in our favor to assuage our fears, like those working on the Manhattan Project did.

Essentially what this graph is showing is that the curves do not meet, so there is not enough energy for atmospheric ignition to occur. Please keep in mind, though, that I am talking about a field I have no understanding of, namely nuclear physics. I do therefore invite your rightful criticism.

[M-Hallikainen]

Fraiming #Origins #Future

I am really fascinated with the reoccurring mention of the medieval cathedral in this weeks reading and the wider question it represents about long term planning in a "doomed" world. In a way, the example highlights the paradox of existential threats. We have only recently realized the actual capacity to destroy ourselves as a species, but the idea of doomsday dates back thousands of years. End of the world narratives are nearly as numerous and diverse as creation myths, but for the cathedral building medieval masons it probably would have been some variant of the Book of Revelations; literal Armageddon. So it begs the question, why dedicate yourself to a project that will outlive you if you believe the world is going to end? Moreover, if the medieval masons could deal with it, why do we seem to have so much trouble in the modern era?

Martin Rees leans into the idea that "Medieval lives played out against a backdrop that changed little from one generation to the next" and that made building for the next generation an easier prospect than it is for the people of modernity, where existential threats seem to be knocking on the door. I believe this is true, but I also think there is an unstated embrace of the end. The medieval mason knew they were doomed, in the same way they knew the other faith based truths of their lives: religious conviction. And like those other convictions, they saw the doomed nature of the world as an innate part of the universe, and because no man could know the hour or the day, one might as well dedicate themselves to something vast and glorious, even if they will never live to see it. Like a natural disaster, its a forgone conclusion, but since you can't know when and can do little to prepare for it (particularly in medieval times) there is little sense in worrying about it.

For nonbelievers or people who subscribe to faith systems without doomsday analogs, the relationship was inversed. The world was not going to end, and therefore there is no sense in worrying about it. It is only with the advent of modern man-made existential threats and the scientific capabilities to fully understand them that for the first time in history "are we doomed" is a question with no definitive answer. The world may end, and worse yet, we need to act in order to prevent the answer from being yes. Moreover, It is unlikely that the answer will ever be a firm "no" ever again. For the rest of human history "are we doomed" will either remain an existentially anxiety inducing open question, or conclusive and terrifying "yes." Humanity has been living with the apocalypse in mind for thousands of years, but we have passed the era of forgone conclusions; the age of knowing our cathedrals will last or not. We need to build forward in a new world of uncertainty and perpetual change, and that is in many way as novel and unprecedented as the man-made existential threat.

Elgin Cathedral in Northern Scotland, now in ruins. One must imagine the masons of 1224 were intimately familiar with the idea of the world ending through the Book of Revelations and the teachings of the church.

[AnikSingh1]

framing #salience

Upon reading through Martin Rees' articles throughout this week's readings, I feel as though that I have gained a lot of perspective as to what could befall our planet in the future. Between illnesses, environmental devastation, AI, and overpopulation, it's quite clear that there holds a lot of uncertainty in how we can attempt to respond to these drastic issues. While I initially opened this class with an optimistic lens of how problems could be solved, I can't help but feel that the existence of the internet's publicity in an unequal society will lead to inevitable chaos and a lack of unity to combat these problems.

A big point of contention that Rees brought up through his reading is how the internet has impacted our perception of life's conditions. Where previous generations were unable to regularly witness information outside of their local area, the internet has offered a means for anybody to reach heaps of information with a click of a button. Learning about how other people, cultures, nations, and groups are being treated will call for social disconnections. One nation may be envious of another, one group of people may feel oppressed because of another, and one society may be called to hate their conditions because of how the internet has shaped their perspective of another. And this is all purely social theory based on how people react to one another -- when we consider economic circumstances and resources, it is clear that the internet, once thought of as a way to build connections between people, could lead to a disconnected society.

I focus a lot on the social theory because I feel that it accurately relates to problems of scale. As we experienced with COVID-19, these "end of the world" scenarios actually force unity because they are so over-encompassing that we must divert our attention to it. But in a world where perspectives vary so heavily, and social theories are broken before the world even reaches that point, how are we expected to communicate and expect to see society combat these issues? The future is uncertain as is our chance for unity to fight for the future of our livelihoods.

In the context of specifics, the additional population increase that is expected for 2050 will also create more problems. The biodiversity case is a big one and made clear; but more people also leads to more people that must be aligned under a union of thinking to fight big problems -- with AI and individual personalized content being made, everybody seems to be in their own world these days. I am hopeful that the future could push people to band together, but with how the world seems to be looking and through my experiences with these readings, I am quite doubtful.

Even with the end of the world, we still find joy in our own simple lives. The big picture only means so much in our own eyes.

[miansimmons]

solutions #salience

During his interview with Rachel Bronson, Martin Rees said, "To have a pandemic on a timescale of 10 to 20 years is something we should have, in a sense, expected. The unfamiliar is not the same as the improbable." In dealing with existential threats, experts often point to irrationality and the availability heuristic, or the human tendency to pay attention to what directly affects us rather than the bigger picture, as issues. While these are important concerns, it seems as though humans are now waking up to the impact of climate change and other existential risks, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic, onset of the Russo-Ukranian War, and increased natural disasters such as Hurricane Harvey in Houston. I believe that over indexing on human irrationality is helpful but not essential here, and we should instead focus on the redistribution of power. We have seen time and time again that even when we know how to approach a given problem, our efforts are often thwarted by the issue of human emotional attachment to power and control.

When it comes to mitigating existential risks, the minority (e.g., powerful politicians, elites, etc.) control the majority. We have known that developing more nuclear weapons is not the most effective strategy for decreasing nuclear threats, yet politicians continue to rapidly build their nuclear arsenals. We have known that rainforest deforestation leads to massive carbon emissions, yet corporations continue to engage in it for mining and development projects. The 1% are making the "rational" decision to pursue economic and personal gains over the greater good. The minority are aware of how their actions are affecting their surrounding environment, as evidenced by the increase in doomsday bunkers for the elite. This month, Mark Zuckerberg started construction on a 5,000 sq ft bunker under his ranch in Hawaii, and a bunker buying frenzy is occurring among those of similar status. People are growing worried that if billionaires are investing in bunkers so openly, maybe they know something the rest of us do not. And in a sense, these people are right - billionaires know that the current system of power will continue to favor them and that they will continue to follow self-preservation schemes.

Power and control have continuously come to the forefront for me during class discussions on existential risk (being that they are the barrier to many viable solutions and global equality), so I think it fitting that my concluding thoughts be on this subject. Moving forward, power needs to be redistributed to those who are most affected by climate change and other threats; solutions will not be effective if they are designed by those who are the least impacted and have vested interest in keeping power structures the same. For instance, leaders from developing countries should be given bigger seats at the table and more say in international policy-making. Affected communities should play a role in designing solutions because they know first-hand what is needed. As Rees suggested, nations need to give more sovereignty to organizations like the WHO and IAEA. It is no longer enough to wait around in the hopes that the top 1% will suddenly shift their outlook.

I was moved by this article written by Douglas Rushkoff: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff

[oliviaegross]

origin #risk

This week's reading had me thinking about the importance in remembering the very long history that has come before us, and the potentially large history we are a part of. In embracing the concept of our origin through four billion years of Darwinian evolution, a prevailing assumption persists — that we represent the culmination of this intricate process. However, a stark contrast emerges when we peer into the cosmic realm through the lens of astronomers. Their profound understanding of the universe's vast timeline unveils a different narrative, one that challenges our anthropocentric views. Unlike the common belief in humanity's evolutionary apex, astronomers illuminate the possibility that our future trajectory spans an equivalent or even greater expanse than our evolutionary past. This revelation invites contemplation on the scale of cosmic time, urging us to reconsider our place in the grand tapestry of existence. I find this timeline helpful when reflecting on the existential risks we presently face. Rather than resting at an endpoint, our journey unfolds across a canvas of potentiality, suggesting that we may have several billion years ahead, teeming with opportunities for further evolution, adaptation, and transformation. I wonder if such a vast timeline leaves one feeling optimistic or intimidated. I find such a cosmic perspective helpful in that it suggests a shift in our collective consciousness. It encourages us to embrace what is to come and what has been with a sense of humility. I find this perspective very much a part of the tone of these readings and wonder the impact it can have for others when approaching existential topics. On a less inspiring note, the readings additionally made me reflect on the complex nature of government investment. For example, when governments invest in preemptive measures like stocking up on influenza vaccines, criticism often arises when an epidemic doesn't materialize, deeming the expense a waste of resources when large sums of money have been deemed to be “wasted.” This scrutiny, however, neglects the fundamental principle of proactive risk management. Drawing a parallel to home insurance, spending money to prevent potential disaster is a rational and responsible decision. Just as safeguarding one's house against fire doesn't seem wasteful if it doesn't burn down, the allocation of funds for health precautions should be viewed through a similar lens. The challenge lies in communicating the value of preventive measures, emphasizing the unseen victories in averting crisis, and acknowledging that investing in preparedness is a strategic and farsighted approach to governance. How can we best communicate the importance in such strategic investment?

main-qimg-24ad24165e52d202667d99cf2132915a.webp.zip

[ldbauer1011]

solutions #policy

The future is inherently something that will remain uncertain. We, as humans, fear the unknown since it’s associated with a primal fear of things like the dark that can hide danger or predators. With this in mind, it’s easy to speculate about the dangers we face down the road, and cling to solutions that will make us feel safe: increasing the speed of technological development and rollout, strengthening local and federal regulations, empower international organizations like the WHO and the IAEA, etc. I would argue that the most effective solution we have is arguably the most uncomfortable for us to consider: tackling global income inequality.

Martin Rees makes this point in his interview with Rachel Bronson for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. “We’re in a world where the 2,000 richest people in the world have enough money to double the income of the bottom billion,” said Rees. “They’re not doing it.” Raising the standards of living across the world will give millions of people the chance to live fulfilling lives. With greater security and resources at home, people will feel a greater desire to improve the environments where they live, and independently invest in their communities. This means infrastructure, transportation, logistics, and educational improvements.

Many of the world’s worst diseases are a threat to become pandemic level threats due to a deficiency in medical services and the ample opportunity to evolve and mutate in places without infrastructure in place for effective waste management. This can really only be combated at the source, through individual investment in specific projects meant to generally improve the health standards in a given area. Additionally, citizens will seek to access the internet and electricity at higher levels, and polls show most people around the world are aware of climate change’s causes and thus want green energy instead of fossil fuels. Providing states that do not have access to reliable electricity green avenues of supplying their demand will serve to decrease the expected environmental impact these states will have using traditional fuel sources.

Diffusing the solution allows for a truly global response to many of the issues we face today and into the future. A globalized society may bring its own challenges and make us vulnerable to attacks our predecessors could never have dreamed possible, it also allows for coordination and collaboration never before available. This is only possible if the world can dynamically respond to threats and problems wherever they occur.

[lubaishao]

framing

I totally agree with Martin Rees' self-definition as a "technological optimist and political pessimist." Indeed, during the pandemic, the issue of vaccine distribution has revealed a trend of inequality and politicization of the crisis. During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, developed countries were able to obtain vaccines earlier and in larger quantities. Although the WHO spearheaded the establishment of the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access initiative, the formal distribution of vaccines to developing countries didn't commence until after the majority of the population in wealthy countries has been vaccinated.The current global governance mechanisms, to a certain extent, still operate within a hierarchical system and are influenced by national power rather than being entirely equitable. This is particularly evident in some major international organizations, such as the WHO and UN. The power of countries directly determines their influence and authority in agenda setting in international organizations.

This quarter, I took a course on global governance. There are indeed too many issues in the world waiting for international cooperation to solve, such as economic problems, global warming, and artificial intelligence. But can global governance really achieve this? I feel that global governance is difficult to truly address some of these issues. I have been thinking, in the face of challenges that threaten humanity, how should global governance play a role? There is a paradox in global governance. If global governance is to be efficient, it must be a hierarchical system, correctly reflecting distribution of power, just like UN security council. However, the existence of such a hierarchical system implies that in the event of a major crisis, top countries will survive at the cost of others.

[ghagle]

#movie

This is my movie memo.

Akira (1988) tells the story of Neo-Tokyo set in the future. In the film, Tokyo has been destroyed by a mysterious explosion, the result of a being, Akira, losing control of their psychic powers which resulted in a nuclear-esque blast. The explosion brought the onset of a world war, and Neo-Tokyo is the quintessential cyberpunk city: dirty, violent, chaotic, corrupt, and high-tech. However, the city and its problems resonate with the current era. Akira, through its themes of power and morality make plain the problems humans have with greed, ignorance, and lack of control when confronting existential threats. While the primary conflict arc of the film, a rogue psychic boy, is not a concern for us, Neo-Tokyo's condition and response to the threat provide valuable lessons.

Neo-Tokyo exists in a state of chaos. The streets are constantly the stage for violent protests. The military response to these protests leave many wounded or killed. The government cannot react: politicians are corrupt and without funds left to spare on the public. Gangs and cults dominate social and spiritual life. The city is stuck in a sluggish economic cycle. There is an aura of directionlessness about the world Neo-Tokyo inhabits. No one is guiding the people. No one can step up to organize the people. Things are bleak. Are we descending into this kind of world? Increasing populist and hyper-conservative movements proliferate mistrust of the government, engage in directing policy towards short term and internal benefits, and sometimes lead to violent protests questioning the legitimacy of government. How much of this is based off of a hopelessness, a directionlessness about society which has caused this descent into a new brand of thinking about power and society? Akira shows the audience the bottom of the pit. I think we may slowly be lowering ourselves closer to the bottom every election cycle and misleading social media post. Interestingly, the movie involves the declaration of martial law and the takeover by the military to attempt to quell to rising threat posed by the rogue psychic, Tetsuo. We haven't seen this yet in our world in the field of existential risk mitigation, I think, but it is an interesting and relevant concept. Interestingly, and perhaps forebodingly, military intervention is too little, too late, a likely reality to any intervention.

Additionally, Akira commentates on the morality of our current status quo and risk management. Plot points seem to paint a bleak picture for our ability to handle crises. There is a problem of trust. The military trusts the intent of scientists to their peril. The government wrongly fails to trust the military that is aware of the impending threats. The military rightly trusts its leader, the Colonel, in his martial law declaration. However, trust is not something that alone will save us, the movie seems to assert. Trust carries with it both drawbacks and benefits. Additionally, the movie deals with sacrifice in the face of doom. At the end of the film, three supernatural children/beings sacrifice themselves to stop an impending explosion, prompting the question: how much should we give in the face of impending doom. Risks and threats are the result of our haven of development and growth. There is a balance between giving up societal and personal development and discounting the impending threats as inevitable side-effects. In Akira, society gets off the hook at the expense of lots of death and substantial damage done to the city. Are these casualties a necessary and inevitable tradeoff or an error in cost-benefit calculus.

Akira remains one of the most significant works of anime ever produced. It is a good film. However, the success of its resonance lies more so in the themes that continue to remain, and perhaps are more so, today.

The lack of control over power is a theme that is threaded into the entire movie. It impacts Tetsuo, pictured here as an out-of-control biomass, but it also reflects the ever-developing complexity of today's world. We certainly have less control than we think.

[Hai1218]

Future #Doomed #Reflection

Reflecting on Astronomer Royal Martin Rees's insights and my journey over our course, I've grown increasingly pessimistic. This feeling deepens when considering the sheer difficulty of predicting the future, especially amid the vast existential threats facing humanity. From climate change and global pandemics to nuclear crises and the ethical quandaries of biotechnology and artificial intelligence, our discussions have consistently shown the unpredictability of our world and the “powerlessness” of our contributions to solving these crises.. Rees's perspectives remind me how challenging it is to forecast these issues and how much we might misunderstand or underestimate them until it's too late. This unpredictability, influenced by both human and natural dynamics, often clouds our anticipations.

The COVID-19 pandemic, as highlighted by Rees, illustrated the world's unpreparedness for significant crises and revealed the limits of our ability to predict such events. I remember chuckling in class when we discussed how the national guard might be deployed to protect vaccine supply chains from rioting crowds—a scenario that seemed almost absurd at our time. This event starkly demonstrated the gap between our future expectations and the reality that unfolds. I sensed an urgent need for a more adaptable and forward-thinking approach to global threats. It forced us to recognize the limitations of our foresight and the necessity of preparing for various possible futures rather than a single expected outcome.

Throughout the course, exploring the difficulties of predicting technological and ethical advancements in fields like nuclear and artificial intelligence has been real. Rees's cautious stance on these future developments served as a warning of the unpredictable consequences of progress. This discussion has reinforced the notion that, while we try to anticipate the outcomes of our technological advancements, the path forward is filled with uncertainties that challenge our predictions.

When considering global and long-term strategies to counter these existential risks, I'm constantly reminded of the inherent challenges in predicting the effectiveness of these solutions. Rees's skepticism has provided a similar perspective, pointing out the unpredictability of human cooperation and technological innovation in tackling these threats. Ending this course with a reflection on the unpredictability of the future, influenced by Martin Rees's pessimistic yet realistic viewpoints, has instilled in me a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in predicting and preparing for the future. Looking ahead, I'm equipped with the knowledge that while forecasting the future is fraught with challenges, embracing this uncertainty is vital in our efforts to confront the existential threats to humanity. This course has been a great journey through potential future dangers; it has been quite a lesson of humility.

I asked ChatGPT to generate a picture of the National Guards protecting the vaccine transportation trucks.

[lucyhorowitz]

movie (this is my media memo)

Guillermo del Toro's 2013 masterpiece Pacific Rim is not just a monster movie, nor is it just a robot movie (in which the robots are powered by love and friendship), nor is it just an alien invasion movie. It follows in the tradition of Godzilla, first released in Japan in 1954, of using kaiju or other large monsters to represent massive and seemingly insurmountable challenges to human survival. While Godzilla was a metaphor for nuclear weapons, the kaiju in Pacific Rim are metaphors for climate change.

This is first made explicit in the exposition sequence, where we meet our hero Raleigh Beckett and the history of the crisis. A kaiju (named Trespasser) emerges from the Pacific Ocean and demolishes San Francisco before it is killed by a massive exercise of force (including the use of nuclear weapons) from the US military. People dismiss it as a one-off, mourn the dead, and move on. But then another Kaiju appears a few months later and destroys Manila. As kaiju attacks keep coming, the world governments band together and develop giant robots called Jaegers, which are of comparable size to the kaiju. Raleigh and his twin brother Yancy are Jaeger pilots. Raleigh says that

"There are things you can't fight, acts of God. You see a hurricane coming, you have to get out of the way. But when you're in a Jaeger, suddenly, you can fight the hurricane. You can win."

Immediately setting up the comparison between the kaiju and the once-in-a-century storms we see happening more and more frequently. Case in point: one of the main scientist characters, Hermann Gottlieb, creates a model that suggests kaiju attacks will become more and more frequent, eventually becoming near-constant with multiple kaiju appearing at a time, if they are not stopped altogether. The other scientist character, Newton Geiszler, discovers after mind-melding with a kaiju that the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human activity actually made the earth more hospitable to the kaiju.

While this part of the metaphor ("kaiju are superstorms") is pretty heavy-handed, the more interesting part pertaining to "what can be done" is more subtle. The jaeger program is expensive to run, though it is effective. Resources are running low multiple years into the kaiju war, so many governments are abandoning cooperative tactics (i.e. participation in the Pan-Pacific Defense Corps) in favor of building the "coastal wall," which is exactly what it sounds like: a gigantic wall built all around the Pacific Rim (get it?) that is supposed to keep kaiju from making landfall. This is reminiscent of the many planned coastal walls that will aim to protect low-lying areas from being flooded due to rising sea levels. But beyond that, the wall has a more sinister connotation: that of the passive approach to climate change. It's isolationist; perhaps we'll be okay if we just move inland or learn to adapt to hotter temperatures, it says. The jaegers, on the other hand, are pure action and collaboration. Their development was an incredible feat of global innovation and cooperation. They are at their most powerful when working in teams with members from all around the globe. On top of that, they are nuclear powered, literally embodying clean energy. It seems that del Toro poses a somewhat anarchist solution to the problem he sets up: when governments decided to stop working together in favor of hunkering down with themselves, we were doomed until a rogue group of jaeger pilots and scientists decided to take action into their own hands and stop the kaiju at the source. Perhaps we shouldn't think too hard about that bit, though...

In conclusion, not only is Pacific Rim the best movie ever made, it is also a really interesting and unexpectedly subtle metaphor for climate change and government response to crises. Don't watch the sequel.

[imilbauer]

future #framing #solutions

I was drawn to how Sir Martin Rees described the ability of existential threats to "aggravate the level of inequality within and between nations" (viii). It is important to recognize how existential threats can be a paradigm shift in the economic lives of people affected by them. In recent memory, it is hard to overlook how the earthquake in Haiti and Hurricane Maria in Peurto Rico created conditions of devastating need in these places and significantly set back economic development efforts. If not for the dramatic federal stimulus efforts during COVID-19, the pandemic would have severely hindered poverty reduction efforts in the US. Still, even when some disasters are addressed through some policy approaches there are long-term economic impacts that struggle to be addressed even by the most consciousness policy-makers. For example, natural disasters and pandemics and displace children or take them out of school and the effects of these actions might be felt in economy for decades after the fact. Disasters strain the social and economic fabric of society in countless ways, and a future of more severe and compounding disasters might fray the social and economic fabric of society to the point of devastating consequences. The United States is only now emerging from the difficult inflationary period caused by COVID-19 stimulus spending--it is hard to imagine how the economy could bare a future with more intensive disaster response spending. In other words, it is not impossible to imagine that in a climate of inequality, increasingly severe existential risks may strain society past a point of manageable recovery.

Rees notes two possible explanations for societal collapse: exogenous stressors or endogenous stressors (xv). My perspective is that is a mistake to reduce to possibility of societal collapse to either one. Each possibility should be viewed as plausible. But reductionism can be found in a perspective that requests that the existential risk thinker see all exogenous stressors as a product of, or insignificant compared to, endogenous stressors or all endogenous stressors as vastly insignificant compared to exogenous stressors. My sense is that endogeny-oriented thinking favors a view of the social system as fairly stable and following of predictable patterns. What exogeneity-oriented thinking offers to this worldview is recognition that chaotic, unpredictable, or novel situations in society can arise with dramatic force, in spite of or in close relationship to pre-conceived patterns, and a jadedness to thinking about the possibility of these novel situations may betray a naivety about the ability of the planet to make and unmake itself. From AI to nuclear to climate change, I've come away from this class with the feeling that I had a somewhat unconscious complacency bias to the risks they pose.

Picture: Hurricane Maria

[AnikSingh1]

movie (Hi Oksana this is my art memo 👍 )

Upon viewing I am Legend , I found myself quite captivated with the concept of aloneness. Throughout discussions in this class, I feel as though we have focused a lot on either a stable state of the world where everything is normal, or an apocalyptic state where the world is doomed. This movie showed me the a "middle" ground through the lens of the main scientist, Robert Neville. With 90+% of the world infected to become Darkseekers (vampiric creatures that prey on the remaining available life), Neville shows us how isolation's lifestyle can be bleak. Scavenging for scraps, reaching out to any remaining life through radio calls, with his only partner being his dog. As the movie continues and Neville searches for a cure to this infection, I couldn't help but feel like hope is a draining resource. Socialization is a powerful necessity that builds stronger bonds between individuals; Neville being alone as he is pushes him to the brink of near insanity, desperate to push the world back into balance.

Visualizing the world from the lens of a survivor rather than a doomer was most prominent throughout this movie. It is quite difficult to envision a world where we are put into the position of having to fight for every little resource to succeed. Seeing small details like Neville being enraged when his dog is infected/hurt really helped to convey the impact of every small gesture. I do think the movie did a wonderful job at explaining just how easy it is for these individuals to be emotionally inclined. In a state of the world where one has lost so much, I would expect emotions to run numb and focus solely on survival -- however, I was mistaken.

If nothing else, this movie helped me envision, question, and ponder on the things that I would value if I were put into an apocalyptic situation. That concept hasn't really been on my mind this whole quarter, since the idea of the world feeling "doomed" made me feel as though I was powerless to fight against the threats. But seeing how Neville would go against the Darkseekers with proper traps and technological prowess was definitely eye-opening. For how scary things can be, having some hope goes a long way - even if you can be lost in the process.

P.S. Something I wanted to mention was the concept of alternate endings that caught my eye. In the "theatrical ending", Neville finds a cure, passes it to a survivor, and kills himself and the raiding Darkseekers in the process. In the "alternate ending", Neville apologizes for his damages to a coupled Darkseeker pair and abandons his research to live as a changed man in a survivor shelter with the remaining survivors. One ending was very explosive (pun intended!), and the other was quite standard, almost cliché. I think having alternate endings like these helped to convey how different our actions within the individual vs the society have an effect. I thought it was interesting and definitely worth mentioning.

[lucyhorowitz]

population #framing

One thing I find fascinating is the change in perception of certain existential risks over time. For example, people were rightly really freaked out about nuclear for a long time following WWII and into the cold war, then things seemed to kind of calm down. But now we must be concerned once again with the very real threat of the use of nuclear weapons in war.

The issue of overpopulation is a very old concern, perhaps dating back to antiquity. For a long time in the modern age, people were really freaked out that the growing population of the planet was going to lead to a complete collapse of the ecosystem and bring about catastrophe. This kind of thinking had massive influence. It shaped the demographics of entire nations, most notably China through its one-child policy. But hardly any of the proposed adverse effects of overpopulation have materialized despite the fact that there are more than eight billion people alive today—much higher than many estimates of what a sustainable human population would be.

In fact, many countries (but notably not the world as a whole) are now facing the reverse issue: population decline. Across the developed world, fertility rates are falling, populations are aging, and economies and governments are getting increasingly nervous about their continued existence. But this is exactly what many advocates of the overpopulation theories wanted: fewer people. Were they unable to foresee the consequences? Or did they believe that the overpopulation problem would be worse than the underpopulation problem? Did they believe that technological progress would obviate the issues that come with declining birth rates? We are, admittedly, lucky that technological progress (particularly in the agricultural realm) has enabled us to sustain this greatest-ever population on earth.

But I think it is important to keep this example in the back of our heads when talking about existential threats: we always have the potential to be wrong, and in particular to be wrong in ways that cause many other problems. (I'm not claiming that people talking about the problem of overpopulation caused declining birth rates, but it is notable that we seem to be facing the reverse problem today.

[agupta818]

movie #future

Since this week is about the future, I wanted to do my movie post this week and chose to rewatch WALL-E, something I had not watched since I was a kid. One thing I love about this movie, especially now that I am older, is that as you change and get older, the movie too changes. In a non-scary way, this movie introduces children to potential existential threats through the world of a lovable robot character. It teaches children to value the environment through the whirlwind story of saving a plant seedling found by WALL-E that eventually becomes a tree at the end, and demonstrates the restoration of an otherwise forgotten planet Earth. When you watch this movie as you get older and educate yourself on these threats, in WALL-E's case the Earth was destroyed by human impacts on and neglective behavior towards the environment, and also by mass consumerism with all that trash covering the planet, then the movie becomes more of a warning for you rather than a heart-warming animated children's movie. Even seeing the humans living essentially robot-controlled lives where they don't have to lift a finger, but rather, all of their needs and wanted are attended to by machines and they have all become obese as a result, is a warning in itself outside of the state of Earth itself. I think it is extremely important for children to appreciate the Earth from a young age and later realize that there are many factors that pose a threat to being able to live on Earth. These threats shouldn't necessarily dishearten them, but motivate them to implement change in their own lives and advocate for change on a larger level as well. The movie highlighted the fallout from a current issue regarding increasing levels of consumerism and what to do with trash. While some scientists are trying to create bacteria that can consume plastic while other companies are moving towards better degradable materials, there has yet to be a solution to this problem on a large-scale level. Additionally, many products are pollutants and only increase the damage made by humans to their environment, another threat shown in the movie since there is no environment to speak of. There are no longer any signs of green life except for the seedling WALL-E finds in a boot. Without trees we would experience an estimated 35% drop in breathable oxygen...this is a large number. The movie demonstrates that without paying attention to the environment and checking their consumer behaviors, humans were forced to relocate to space and essentially became hostages of the Buy N Large corporation. They were addicted to screens and were no longer autonomous as all of their movements and needs were from their chairs and robots built to serve them. While this may not be the most realistic future to me, people are trying to find out ways to Mars habitable in the case Earth can no longer sustain human life...but rather than finding an escape planet or building a spaceship like the movie, attention should be given to current solutions to prevent further deterioration of the Earth and our impacts on the environment. We should never get to a point where one seedling in a boot is our last hope for life on Earth.

[ghagle]

#origin #risk

We have talked lots about risk. What are the risks we face? How can we fix them? How did we get into these positions? What are the factors at play?

These discussions are extremely useful. When we talk about doom, they are required. Discussions about the existential threats that this class has covered are threats that lots of the world does think about, albeit to different degrees. However, our framing (that of human doom) as well as the quite pessimistic non-classroom discourse that permeates through the culture I think miss a potentially reassuring and perspective-widening angle. Existential threats are the result of incredible human achievement. Dipesh Chakrabarty, who at one time was on the syllabus and going to actually be having a conversation with us (I think), has a famous quote pertinent to this idea: "the mansion of modern freedoms stands on an ever-expanding base of fossil-fuel use. Most of our freedoms so far have been energy-intensive." I would add similar lines of reasoning to his: Most of our rights and legal protections are built on the bedrock of state security, security enabled by devastating weaponry with the potential to end humanity. Additionally, while it is not 100% clear yet, I buy that humanity has entered into its most productive era ever at the expense of information overload and the rise of misinformation.

We have problems, but we also have lots of things going right. How can we reconcile these two realities? Furthermore, is it ethical, let alone possible, to reevaluate the degree to which these risks should concern us? Is there a little bit of cognitive bias going on? Humans are known to hate the prospect of losing way more than they like the potential of winning. Might our thinking, even on a global scale, be too worried about the losing scenario than chasing the winning one?

I'm not sure, but I do think that it is something worth considering.

Is there a difference between humanity winning and humanity surviving? If the rhetoric changed to this "everything's good except" instead of "everything's bad" what might be different about the way we think about these challenges? What would be different about society?

Is the negative rhetoric swirling around existential threats damaging our ability to think about and solve these issues?

[tosinOO]

origin #salience

I believe one major barrier to mobilizing around these existential challenges is the human tendency to prioritize short-term gains and immediate concerns over long-term, global risks. The "unfamiliar" is often mistakenly equated with the "improbable," leading to a dangerous complacency in the face of emerging threats. Additionally, the interconnected and global nature of these challenges requires collective action that transcends national borders and interests, further complicating the implementation of effective policies because as we all know -- international cooperations can seem impossible. There are indeed vested interests in society that downplay these existential risks, ranging from political to economic entities benefiting from the status quo and even ideological beliefs that conflict with the acknowledgment and responsibility for these risks. For example, the fossil fuel industry has historically opposed climate change mitigation efforts, and certain political ideologies resist the global cooperation necessary to properly address pandemics.

I think designing the policy solutions that actually work will at the very least require people who are actively in these industries to be at the table with policy makers. Old, distant politicians who know nothing of the day to day crisis management could not possibly be expected to lead us out of any existential crisis. There are so many other priorities today's politicians have over the potential for biowarfare catastrophe that these issues will never be addressed until it is (almost) too late. The existential risks facing us demand a reevaluation of our values and a concerted effort to prioritize long-term survival over short-term gains. Of course, it will be very difficult to actually get people to change the way they think about these issues. The challenges in thinking and talking about these problems stem from a combination of factors that simply make society society. These are factors that favor the status quo. Until we can change the fundamental way we as a society educate and address the crises we face.

[jamaib]

framing #solution

Sir Martin Rees raised interesting points when reflecting on our differences with past humanity (during his interview with Rachel Bronson). Another important difference between today and the past is our goals as humanity. For lack of a better word, we have nearly “outgrown” our planet. In the past the focus of humanity was to survive in the most literal sense of the world (food and water etc.). Even once we moved past this stage (developing agriculture, etc.), the goals of tribes, nations, countries were to explore, conquer, and become a sort of “master” of our world (this of course is partly because all we knew was Earth). Now, however, as technology and nations have evolved so have our goals. Ironically as nations fought to become the “best”, our divided world became more and more interconnected. Now the larger goals of every nation are too intertwined for collaboration not to happen. Humanity now has goals of space travel, a sustainable earth, artificial intelligence, etc. Issues like climate change, pandemics, and economic instability defy national borders, demanding coordinated solutions on a planetary scale. This cannot be accomplished by one nation or even two. This needs to be done collectively as a human race. I believe the future of humanity relies in the continuation of the dissolvement of national divides. The internet has already played a hand, making the world much smaller and helping to increase the growth of humanity like never before. As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century, embracing our common humanity and working together towards common goals becomes not just a lofty ideal, but a practical imperative for securing a prosperous and sustainable future for all. So, although calling for a single unified nation on Earth may be too radical a point of view, it is possible that our future may depend on it (at least to a smaller degree!).

[briannaliu]

We’ve had no problem acknowledging the existence of existential threats, but it has proven far more difficult for governments to invest in preventative measures toward such emergent threats. But if we have such foresight, why not leverage it? What causes governments and institutions to fail to act proactively against such threats?

Many public and private institutions care greatly about saving costs and maximizing profits. Because of this, governments and politicians hesitate to invest the millions of dollars necessary to protect against massive-scale threats for fear of wasting money on a hypothetical event.

But what governments fail to realize is that such investments are cost-saving and profit-maximizing. Take the pandemic, for instance. The World Economic Forum estimates that the COVID-19 pandemic will end up costing up to $15.8 trillion globally. Some estimates present this figure for the costs to the U.S. alone (see figure below). Yet, significantly reducing the transmission of new diseases from tropical forests would cost roughly $30 billion each year globally. Thus, the pandemic is roughly 500 times as costly as what it would take to invest in proposed preventive measures. Even if the government had invested hundreds of billions of dollars into coronavirus vaccine research and other preventative measures, it still would have been worth it to alleviate the threat of the pandemic or perhaps prevent it altogether. Call it insurance, as Martin Rees says.

And it is not as if we could not have foreseen such an event. Although the pandemic was unprecedented, there were some pretty alarming warning signs. 9 years ago, in 2015, Bill Gates reflected on the Ebola virus outbreak and how it highlighted our lack of preparedness for the next epidemic. Even more, there have been multiple coronavirus outbreaks in the past two decades, with the SARS outbreak from 2002-2004 and the MERS outbreak from 2012-2014.

It is not enough to acknowledge existential threats; we must invest in actively preventing them. In doing so, we worry less about maintaining an optimistic or pessimistic posture and more about a prudent one, because that is what will set humanity on the most optimistic trajectory for the future.

[cbgravitt]

framing #solutions

This week is a pretty natural culmination of everything we've discussed so far in this class. The readings referenced every existential threat that we've covered in the last 8 weeks, and Sir Martin Rees provides the valuable insight that these problems, while different in their specific threats, are nearly identical in their solutions. We've seen this in our other weeks as well; time after time we've noted how the different issues are perpetuated by a tiny fraction of the world to the extreme detriment of the the rest of us. Then, we've discussed (and now read) how all these issues need more preplanning, funding to prepare and model for these issues even if they never end up happening, better channels of communication between scientific authorities, the public, and political authorities, more accountability for the rich and powerful who contribute the most to these issues. At the same time, we've seen OpenAI announce a new system that generates videos instead of, say, making the most powerful climate predicting system ever seen with the same technology. We've seen no new nuclear arms treaties to promote disarmament, and even in the last four years we've barely seen as much public health funding as you'd expect for a global pandemic, and the money closed off as soon as the mortality rate dropped.

We've already answered and re-answered the question of "what do we need to do", it's now time to answer "what do we need to do to get people in power to do it". This is more challenging. I think Jerry Brown was the only speaker to really go after it aggressively when he repeatedly told us all to go and be active and fight for these issues. Election day is right around the corner, but that will only do so much. One topic that came up in particular with climate change and AI is the profit incentive to either not invest in necessary technologies or recklessly invest in risky ones. If the problem is one of finances, then the solution may be through finances as well. Promoting policies the push financial incentives, both positive and negative, is a good start, but progress in the field of policy is far too slow without national or even international boycotts and protests against the companies and figures that do the most damage. It's equally important to ensure that these movements gain traction on traditional and social medias to make sure voices are heard. Sir Rees mentioned in one of his articles how concerned young people are, considering we are the ones who will have to live through the consequences of failings, and how hopeful that is for the future. Nut concerns mean nothing when they aren't voiced, and its ultimately on us to get loud.

Climate protesters with an image rather similar to the Doomsday Clock, but clearly aimed towards climate change.

[summerliu1027]

In the same vein as another post about Martin Rees' comparing building existential crisis solutions to building cathedrals, I also want to dig into why modern society has a hard time "building cathedrals." In fact, I believe humans have accomplished many tasks in recent centuries that are as astonishing and difficult as building cathedrals for the Middle Ages residents. A self-evident example would be the research and building of atomic bombs. Something as complicated as the atomic bomb was often independently completed in various countries in a matter of years; the Manhattan Project only took three years. Similarly, Covid vaccines were researched and made in a matter of months. Therefore, it is not that we have stopped building "cathedrals;" rather, from an optimistic viewpoint, we now build cathedrals much faster than before and in greater numbers, with the confidence that posterity will still appreciate the work done in previous generations (I can't imagine a whole lot of protest in the future about the invention of the Internet, for instance).

Therefore, in addition to resource constraints, I think what also deters us from mobilizing around various existential crises is modern society's expectation for rapid development and immediate results. Given a limited amount of resources and the current political climate, it makes more sense to invest in projects that exhibit immediate results and benefits; the general public is usually happier with a newly built highway than a stockpile of Influenza vaccines stored somewhere they can't see. Therefore, as always, I think it boils down to educating the public about the long-term benefits of investing in the future. I would imagine that the Medieval masons also imagined the cathedral they were building one day packed with their children and grandchildren. If we can convey the narrative that everyone might need to forgo a small part of their immediate interests to contribute to a project that transcends our lifetimes, it could prove to be more effective than a doomsday narrative. After all, fear is rarely a sustainable source of motivation. I'm currently reading a historical novel series called The Pillars of the Earth. (The protagonist is a mason and all he wants to do is build a cathedral!) The author Ken Follett: "It took at least thirty years to build a cathedral and most took longer because they would run out of money, or be attacked or invaded. So the story covers the entire lives of the main characters." Existential crisis projects will most likely cover entire generations, too, and this level of time commitment only makes them more impactful in the future.

[mibr4601]

Many of the existential threats that we face today are unprecedented. We have never had a planet this warm and we have never dealt with AI threats before. However, this does not mean that we are doomed. Yet, even with the predictable threats, we are still so unprepared. Even though the Covid pandemic was not that surprising, the damages are going to be in the trillions, and countless lives have been lost. We could have had vaccines at the ready, but obviously, if a pandemic had not happened, that could be considered wasted money. So, should we be preparing for existential threats that have not come to fruition yet?

The simple answer is yes. It would be impossible to deal with many of these threats if we allow them to come to fruition. We were unprepared for the pandemic and that was something that we could have predicted coming. The US doesn’t really fund anyone to be in charge of diseases and our response to diseases. We also have minimal tech regulations despite many people in tech fearing that it has a nonzero chance of ending humanity. The government should focus on investing in these areas that minimize these risks. We should have a person who is in charge of communicating during the time of a pandemic. We should be investing in vaccines even when there isn’t a pandemic. We should be limiting the power of tech companies whose main focus is profit. In companies as well as the government, there is a race to be the most advanced and thus make the most profit, but there is almost no concern for how these contribute to our existential threats. Even in the EU, there are more regulations as to what AI can do. However, we have less regulations in the US as we care more about being more advanced.

However, this isn’t entirely the government’s fault. If we presumed that a politician was wasting money that did not need to be wasted, then they likely would not be reelected. Similarly, the WHO is going to give warnings that some viruses could spread out of control. However, only a fraction of these will actually be as precautions are taken. This results in people not trusting these organizations as they don’t see the warnings turn into realities often. The public perception of these threats is often that they don’t exist unless they have some actual evidence that they can happen. However, we are in an unprecedented time. Many of the threats we face have not been seen on the scale that we are dealing with today. A change in the public perception of these threats would likely also lead to government changes in how we deal with them. It is crucial that we address these threats before they occur. While we don’t know how or what form these threats will take, we do know that they are real.

[madsnewton]

policy #AI

In Rachel Bronson’s interview with Martin Rees for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Rees points to charismatic individuals and demonstrations to be a driving force behind policy change. “In order for proper precautions to be taken against runaway climate change, against mass extinctions, and indeed against excessive risks of biohazards, the public has to be behind it. And here we depend far more on ensuring that the issue is kept in politicians’ inboxes and in the press, and that the public cares…If you have charismatic individuals, they will influence lots of voters, and politicians will do the long-term thing if they believe they won’t lose votes thereby, if the public’s behind them.” I think it is easy to feel pessimistic about existential threats, and even adopt a nihilist view of them. That is why, as Rees emphasizes, public opinion is so important for these issues. Further, it is also so important for those who have platforms (“charismatic individuals”) to use them to bring awareness to the threats we are facing.

For example, at the end of January, explicit, AI-generated deepfakes of Taylor Swift were spread on Twitter/X (and originated on 4chan). Days later, Senators Dick Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, Lindsey Graham, and Josh Hawley introduce the DEFIANCE Act (or the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits Act) in Congress. This act would protect victims of explicit deepfakes and give them an avenue to pursue legal action against the creators (TIME). In February, the EU passed a bill that would criminalize explicit deepfakes and revenge porn by 2027 (POLITICO). Deepfakes have been around for years at this point, and it all it took for bills to finally gain traction was a notable public figure becoming a victim of it. And, it didn’t even take a public statement from herself, only a statement from a source “close to the singer”. While these personas have no requirement to be making political statements and endorsements, I would argue that they have some type of moral obligation to bring awareness to the existential issues that threaten us all. Now imagine what Swift could do if she used her platform to support reducing CO2 emissions, instead of threatening legal action against the college student tracking her private jet.

Timeline of notable deepfakes demonstrating them becoming increasingly realistic (Homeland Security)

[AudreyPScott]

The overall framework provided in this week’s readings would have been a useful call to action at the beginning of the quarter — a guiding principle of what we learn and why we should care. That even if we are dead and gone, we leave something precious for those following us to enjoy. I was asked recently if I felt any grief about what we discuss in class- and I said no, because grief implies acceptance. Acceptance of our path, of our near-term mortality and that of the life around us. Acceptance of this form is not productive — and as we navigate ever-shifting natural, social, political, and technological worlds, uncertainty (Rees and Bronson, 11) and optimism have a necessary place in our work. If one believes that humankind can be good, that we deserve to be here and shouldn’t mandate our own extinction, then it is necessary to be a good steward and hold ourselves, and those more powerful than us, accountable. It’s easy to write off, like with climate, the insignificant individual — but the influence of art, of religion, of mass society cannot be undersold (as was discussed with the Pope, with David Attenborough, and others in regards to climate change). I was additionally particularly struck by two major points in the Snuff Out article: the discussion of the Russian Roulette of nuclear war and the timescales of the Anthropocene. To the former, Rees notes, “I would not have chosen to risk a one in three – or even a one in six – chance of a catastrophe that would have killed hundreds of millions and shattered the historic fabric of all European cities, even if the alternative were certain Soviet dominance of Western Europe.” This approach to war and deescalation reminds me in a sense of philosophies of degrowth — of having a card that one chooses not to play. I’ve been thinking about this a lot, about a scenario in which I have the nuclear football and a first strike stands to kill large swathes of the United States. I like to think that I’d have a chance to broadcast one last kindness: that we choose not to retaliate, that we choose to let the offending power bear the weight of their sin amidst nuclear winter and the anger and agony of other nations and those left behind. That the last gift we can give as a dying society is the chance at a path forward for the rest, however it may look — for a vengeful strike would aid no one. To the latter, as a scientist, I connect deeply with the warped timelines present. In my studies of each cosmology and anthropology — two vastly different timescales — I’m struck by our quick pace. The Earth which we seek to protect was forged 4.5 billion years ago, a hundred million years after the Sun and nearly 10 billion years after the Universe. The human ancestors arose as far back as 7 million years ago — they first used fire nearly 2 million years ago, first made cities 10,000 years ago, experienced localized collapse 3,000 years ago. Then, we have our Industrial Revolution in the 18th Century, forged in part by a revolution in scientific thinking itself brought in part by global connections and colonialism. We experience the devastation of continental war, then world war. We see, in the 1920s, that we are not the only galaxy in the universe — in the 30s, we see said universe expanding. We fly in 1910s, we use it to drop an atomic bomb with the power of a star in 1945. We go to the moon in 1969. A human craft reaches interstellar space carrying a record of humanity in 2012 after 35 years of travel, while on the home planet we develop new bombs, new bioengineered tools, new meanings of intelligence. Technology is rapid, our consumption is rapid, environmental decline is rapid. The space between people, nations, cultures erodes through digital life. All of this in a breath’s time in human history since we first forged fire. All of this in the firing of a neuron since our universe began.

I like to think, sometimes, that the study of existential risk far predates us. I like to imagine some Mediterranean scholar writing thinkpieces on ostracon about doomsday and what could be done to prevent it. The Bronze Age Collapse was a clock-reaches-midnight moment for some of our ancestors, somewhere, sometime ago -- the blink of an eye in geologic history.

[gabrielmoos]

film, #policy, #america

In "Vice" Dick Cheney was portrayed by Christian Bale. I think the existential crisis of the movie can be understood by looking at the Bush Cheney presidency section of the movie. Cheney is passed up for the chance to become the republican nominee and the establishment elects to run Bush as their candidate, but soon after meeting GW, Cheney realizes that he’s an imbecile and easily manipulated. In the movie Cheney is the central advocate for the invasion of Iraq and convincing other members of the cabinet that they have WMDs. Cheney was really the first VP to take power in the position, which led to private/behind the scenes actions that resulted in global political and social consequences. The film highlighted the concentration of power within the executive branch and Cheney's expansive view of the VP’s role, which became existential when his fallacy based premise to invade Iraq has profound effects on international relations and public opinion. While the film highlighted Cheney’s role in the starting of the Iraq war, it didn’t have the opportunity to explore the longer term threats of the expansion of the VP’s power in regards to the effects his policies have on everyday Americans and their consequences for the depiction of America on a global stage. I think the challenge became more salient, because as a kid I knew the Iraq War existed, however, I did not fully understand its implications. For example, the long-term instability in the Middle East and the erosion of civil liberties in the name of “defense” are real risks that were made salient in the film. The only reason why I wouldn’t classify this film as an example of an existential risk is that it is very America centric, such that it assumes the expansion of executive power in the vice-presidency of America is an existential risk, which is a bit of a stretch. However, that is not to understate the effects of Cheney, but rather just caveat the film. The film received mixed reviews; some praised it for its storytelling, performances (esp. Christian Bale as Cheney), and innovative narrative techniques, while others criticized it for its perceived “heavy-handedness” and lack of subtlety in portraying Cheney and his policies.

Not from Vice, but this scene in War Dogs is perfect.

[WPDolan]

One component of nearly every existential risk we have discussed in class is the inherent uncertainty and variety of ways in which risks may be realized.

While we are certainly better equipped to understand the impact of potential crises and how they may occur through statistical modeling and a more comprehensive understanding of history, we may never be able to fully predict exactly how a future crisis will be realized simple due to the sheer diversity of the world and the actions that can be taken by individuals. These concerns are most prominent when we consider threats from artificial intelligence or biotechnology, where small groups or individuals may leverage these technologies to unleash a global catastrophe. Even for "traditional" existential risks, like nuclear armageddon, the political landscape that may lead to their realization is constantly evolving and may never be fully understood by any single model or organization.

Blindspots in the landscape of future risk also inhibit our ability to prepare and mobilize against better-understood threats. Martin Rees in his interview with the Bulletin mentions the difficulty involved in efforts that invest in countries against major threats like pandemics. In many people's eyes, how can we justify spending time and money preparing for threats that we may never even face in the first place? Then, when a crisis does occur and existing safeguards do not comprehensively prepare against the threat, public perception of the failures of established institutions leads to their further inability to prepare for the next crisis (one concern raised in class has been that after COVID-19, we may be even less capable of dealing with future pandemics).

Even if are unable to know what exactly threats will look like when we face them, we can still develop a general framework of understanding individual existential threats and what we would need to prevent or mitigate them. Concerns about future uncertainty are not justification for passivity and should instead be a motivator for further investment. There is much more we can do besides "being 75" when faced with a messy and scary future, and a p-doom greater than zero is infinitely larger than zero. Through more effective messaging, we need to communicate and build an overall understanding that unknown risks can still be prepared for, and that this uncertainty should be the motivator for continued investment and not the reason we should give up or only rely upon palliative responses to emerging crises.

Image: A "Black Box"

The exact mechanisms of future crises may be opaque, but we can still be prepared with a general understanding of what the threat would look like.

[gabrielmoos]

origin, #policy, #solutions, #framing

“You have defined yourself as a technical optimist and a political pessimist”, I agree, but not for the same reasons as Rees. While it's true that the world is a better place today than it was during the construction of cathedrals in the Middle Ages, I disagree with Rees that this is either a political or an ethical problem, but rather a corporate lobbying issue. No singular political change would fix all of our problems, barring a severe overhaul of the economic system, which would lead to a decrease in innovative technologies, so who even knows if that’s a plausible solution, however, I believe that an end to corporate lobbying, would allow global market sentiments to realign to a more equitable solution. Rees gave a few examples of technological advancements that have vastly improved the lives of everyone (electronics, AI, and medicine), and look I don’t think these advancements are anywhere near where they are today without capitalism, in fact, I would probably be writing this on a typewriter, without it. However, it is capitalism that has both accelerated humankind to encounter all of these problems at once while simultaneously exacerbating these same issues. I’m not here to blame our problems on capitalism, and while it has its inefficiencies, I believe it works to an extent, rather I am here to blame our failures to the response of existential threats on America’s lack of campaign finance reform. We do not live in a true democracy, when the votes of our politicians can be bought from the checkbook of a corporate lobbyist. In fact, I would argue that lobbying, much like disinformation, is an amplifier of existential risk. Take for example the development and modernization of nuclear weapons, more than $140M (albeit a drop in the bucket compared to total defense spending) was spent on “defense” lobbying last year, which only leads to the continued arming of forces and heightened risks around nuclear. Rees mentioned inequity of medical access between countries, the largest lobbyist in America last year was the healthcare industry, clocking in at $750M. It is not hard to believe that laws are set to protect high drug prices in America, such that it becomes less profitable to distribute them elsewhere (more equitably). Take the COVID-19 pandemic, lobbying from vaccine manufacturers ensured the distribution of vaccines to wealthier countries earlier than lower income countries, or that some groups lobbied for specific coverage, reimbursement, and liability surrounding COVID leading to a decrease in individuals seeking care. We are scared about how we might control and regulate AI, and are scrambling to figure out plans on potential oversight strategies, meanwhile in the first 9 months of 2023, Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple collectively spent ~56M USD on AI related lobbying efforts. Look, we have no problem anticipating and responding to existential threats, the real question is will our system allow doing so in time.

[Daniela-miaut]

risk

When saying that people care about their own future or not, we seem to be assuming that all the people have a uniform way of expecting things in (or after) their lives. But the truth is, most people on the earth are already exhausted by their daily living. “Scarcity mentality” is already a widely known concept. However, for a lot of people, scarcity is more than a mentality. It is a life condition. Small businesses cannot pay the price for environmental-friendly ways of production. Workers work in the environment that will probably cause them an early death. When living itself is already a luxury, to think about the future is almost a fantasy. This is particularly widespread in a world of speeding polarization between rich and poor. I am not saying that human should solve the economic or social disparity issue before paying attention to our existential risk, but I do view promoting equality and guaranteeing the basic needs of all the people as a necessary component of coping with existential risks. Ameliorated equity and living condition has an influence on people’s feeling of future and sense of responsibility, among many other benefits for your civilization, such as shielding the vulnerable from risk, improving hope and solidarity, or empowering more people to engage in the action. After all, to achieve a collective effort, we need common condition and common interests. And, for those who are in charge of more resources, they can well avoid the risk using their money and power, but the consequence increase of inequality perhaps can only cause other people’s indignation at them. I think I have observed this collective psychology that, in hatred, people no longer think of preserving themselves, but can risk everything to let their enemy suffer. Thinking under the framework of existential risk, inequality is probably a more serious problem that the rich faction of human society should worry about.

[ejcrane]

novel

1984 was a rather transformative novel for me, not just because of the notion of obliterating agency and privacy, but because of the various existential threats that the world likely faced. On an international scale, there's Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, as well as a shifting territory between the three due to warfare. One might think that having fewer governments means it's easier to coordinate solutions on a global scale, but the only apparent agreement between the three is to remain perpetually at war, wasting industrial capacity on war in order to keep the lower social classes, such as the proles and the outer party in relatively the same or even lower standard of living for the past 40 years. The party does this to ensure that the rich and powerful stay rich and in power. The novel focuses on this social inequality and complete lack of privacy and agency, and not so much any other existential risks. That is not to say that other existential risks are nonexistent; I can very easily see scenarios where an engineered virus or climate change is dominant in the future of the book, especially in a society where the truth is bent constantly to the will of the party. It raises questions about the power of the Party in matters other than controlling people. Surely they could mobilize the people to work, but I worry that the malleability of such an information system would hamper the efficacy of a global effort, especially when the economy is focused around war efforts.

I have no doubt that this book is one of the most influential books of the 20th and 21st century--see "literally 1984." My English teacher was so impacted by the book that when he read the ending, he threw the book at the wall and it dented it, with the book still hanging in the hole in the wall (according to him, it wasn't even a hardcover).

[emersonlubke]

framing #risk

So much of this class has reminded me of a particular scene in The Big Short where Steve Carrell's character decries short term self-interested thinking and points out that, if nothing else, it never works. The beginning of the How Easy Would it be to Snuff out Humanity obviously reminded me of this. I think Martin Rees being an astronomer puts him in a good position to look at existential risks from a high-level, I think it was apparent that he looks at the problem of existential risk more broadly than other speakers we've had. The interplay of these different risks is what we should be most concerned about. I don't think that it's going to be any single one of the risks we've talked about that wipe us out, I think that it's much more likely that it's a mix of say, bio, ai, and climate that form a perfect storm to decimate humanity. Rees pointed out that politicians think in the short term and are generally incapable of acting with all of humanity at heart, and I think that that is the greatest single source of risk. In order for any of these apocalypses to play out, there needs to be failure of power individuals in government and I think the most effective way to mitigate general existential risk is to make sure that the policy makers in our government are thinking long-term. That, I have no idea how to do.

[maevemcguire]

I really enjoyed reading the work for Sir Martin Rees this week and am very excited about having such a distinguished guest lecture in our class! I thought that his article “How Easy Would it be to Snuff out Humanity?” was especially interesting. He eloquently yet urgently warns of the existential risks he predicts for our world and the future generations, as well as a call to mobilize on a societal, world-wide level. I think that his positionality in Covid provided an interesting reference point for his discussion of existential doom and a call to action – opening with: “Make no mistake, Covid-19 should not have struck us so unawares.” He articulates very powerfully how even though we know some of these existential threats – like climate change – well, we are society’s reactions are slower because “their worst impact stretches beyond the time-horizon of political and investment decisions.” I thought this was an interesting explanation/justification for society’s inaction, and an interesting perspective coming from someone who has the background of interacting with governments and politics. The Covid-19 Pandemic served as a reminder and a warning that our world is vulnerable to these existential threats. It showed just how little – though obviously Covid was a huge deal and had a huge impact – it takes to completely disrupt society’s functioning.

I thought his focus on the growing “heaviness” of humanity’s footprint was also interesting and something we surprisingly haven’t discussed much in lecture or discussion sections. It makes sense that as the population of the world grows, so would many of its challenges, but finding solutions to these specific challenges is difficult and can quickly become problematic or controversial. The fact that there are already twice as many people in the world as there was in the 1960s, and that this will peak in 2050 at 9 million is a scary thought – our problems are only going to grow, and we have “ enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed.” I think that he provided an uplifting and necessary optimistic note in his expectation and hope that the younger, more anxious, but active generations provide a source of hope for long-term global issues. I also like the proverb of the boiling frog he uses as a metaphor to describe the world’s current situation: “contented in a warming tank until it’s too late to save itself.”

[kallotey]

framing

In the “Buckle up: We are in for a bumpy ride” interview with Martin Rees, Rees brings up a great point that “the problem is that politicians tend to focus on the local and the short term, what happens before the next election and of course in their constituency in their country.” This reminded me of Wallace-Wells’ concern with humans normalizing catastrophe. He said that there are two issues, humans either have a hyper-imagination or under-imagination of threats and for the purposes of Rees’ claim here, this would better slot into the “under-imaginative” category. Framing existential challenges, such as pandemics and climate change, through the lens of short-term political priorities versus long-term global concerns underscores the fundamental tension in addressing these issues effectively. Politicians, driven by electoral cycles and localized interests, often prioritize immediate, tangible outcomes over preemptive measures that require global collaboration and long-term investments. Pandemic preparedness, for instance, necessitates global cooperation and preemptive actions, yet politicians may struggle to justify allocating resources for future risks that primarily affect other countries and future generations. Similarly, addressing climate change requires upfront investments with distant and unevenly distributed benefits, posing a challenge to short-term-focused political agendas.

If we were able to better emphasize the interconnectedness of global risks and their far-reaching consequences, I think there would be an easier time making these challenges more salient, highlighting the imperative for collective action and shared responsibility. By reframing existential threats as issues that transcend political boundaries and temporal constraints, it becomes possible to foster a sense of global solidarity and urgency in addressing them. However, I think we will also really need to hold politicians as representatives accountable if we want global cooperation. (The United States, for example, with its history of political tensions). Ethical considerations play a crucial role in this framing, underscoring the moral imperative to prioritize the well-being of future generations and vulnerable populations disproportionately affected by global risks. Religious and moral teachings may emphasize stewardship and compassion, urging politicians to transcend narrow self-interests and prioritize the common good. Moreover, ethical frameworks can provide normative guidance for decision-making, advocating for policies that prioritize long-term sustainability and intergenerational justice.