About the SA Blog Network

Guest Blog

Guest Blog

Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American
Guest Blog HomeAboutContact

The Survival of Humanity

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

An existential catastrophe would obliterate or severely limit the existence of all future humanity.

As defined by Nick Bostrom at Oxford University, an existential catastrophe is one which extinguishes Earth-originating intelligent life or permanently destroys a substantial part of its potential.  As such it must be considered a harm of unfathomable magnitude, far beyond tragedy affecting those alive at the time. Because such risks jeopardize the entire future of humankind and conscious life, even relatively small probabilities, especially when seen statistically over a long period of time, may become significant in the extreme. It would follow that if such risks are non-trivial, the importance of existential catastrophes dramatically eclipse most of the social and political issues that commonly ignite our passions and tend to get our blood boiling today.

Image: © Nevit Dilmen found at Wikimedia commons

Image: © Nevit Dilmen found at Wikimedia commons

Ignoring global risks makes sense in some situations. If there is good scientific evidence that the risks are just too remote to worry about, for example. Or if the costs of prevention were just too absurd. But too often denial is based on ideological blinders (God will provide, the free market will provide, nature will provide), fatalism (“what will be will be”), apathy, or narrow-minded ignorance of the history of life on our planet. 99.9% of all species on Earth that ever lived are extinct. Earth has encountered repeated mass extinctions. The Permian-Triassic extinction event destroyed over 90% of all species. After the volcanic super-eruption in Toba, Indonesia about 70,000 years ago, the human species literally teetered on the brink of extinction with, according to some estimates, only about five hundred reproducing human females remaining in the world. We cannot extrapolate from our very narrow time frame perspective and conclude that future risks are negligible.

One would think that if we are mobilized to fight for issues that affect a relatively small number of people, we would have an even stronger moral and social emotional motivation to prevent potential catastrophes that could kill or incapacitate the entire human population. But there are significant psychological barriers to overcome. People who would be emotionally crushed just hearing about a tortured child or animal may not register even the slightest emotional response when contemplating the idea that all human life may one day become extinct. As Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote, “The challenge of existential risks to rationality is that, the catastrophes being so huge, people snap into a different mode of thinking.”

There are psychological barrier of perceived powerlessness. Avoidance of difficult issues may be an understandable psychological defense mechanism. But the results can be maladaptive and catastrophic. There are also significant ideological barriers to overcome. For some, a belief in an afterlife of any sort may provide false reassurance. Millennialism — the belief that the world as we know it will be destroyed and replaced with a perfect world — takes various forms, from Christian movements based on the Book of Revelations to Al Qaeda beliefs rooted in Islamic thought involving Jihad. From certain theological perspectives global catastrophes are brought about by divine agency as just punishment for our sins. A believer of apocalyptic visions might judge such an event as, on balance, good.

On the whole, our evolved minds do not appear naturally predisposed to think long-term about risks on a global scale. From what we know about evolutionary history and mechanisms, this is completely understandable. In the early Cenozoic years, those better able to dodge the lion were more likely to pass on their genes, while those focused on contemplating probabilities and defense against gamma-ray bursts from outer space might have represented good news for the continuation of the lion’s genetic line, but not their own. The fact that sustained global planning and action might not come naturally does not, by itself, make ignoring global risks the right thing to do. Perhaps ironically (since after all survival is biologically adaptive) it will take more than our evolved behavioral inclinations to confront potential catastrophic risks and make informed decisions. Obviously we need objective factual information and analyses. But to do the job, to overcome maladaptive cognitive biases and blinders, we’ll need much more. We’ll need a motivating deep-felt sense of connection, value, and responsibility toward other conscious beings and the future of life.

Catastrophic risks

Risks to existence include both natural catastrophes and human-caused catastrophes. These include risks such as infectious pandemic disease, asteroid impact, climate change catastrophe, global nuclear war, volcanic super-eruptions, potential risks from molecular manufacturing, and bioterrorism.

The risks of global pandemics should not be underestimated. “The Black Death” plague during the 13th till 15th century devastated Europe, killing 1/3 of the entire population. The consequences of large asteroid impact on the course of life on Earth are also well established. 65 million years ago a six mile wide asteroid plunged into Earth and exploded. Shock waves, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and dust blocking out the Sun resulted in mass extinctions, including the dinosaurs. Less commonly known is that the frequency of volcanic super-eruptions causing climactic disaster on Earth is even greater than that of asteroid disasters. There have been multiple volcanic super-eruptions over the last two million years. Another volcanic super-eruption could devastate world agriculture and lead to mass starvation. It seems almost all of the known 15 cataclysmic mass extinction events in Earth’s history were mediated by changes to the Earth’s climate and atmosphere, historical  evidence  that should make modern skeptics of climate change impact at least be careful.

What can we do?

Here is a partial list of suggestion worthy of consideration. The idea here is not to advocate for some extreme survivalist or “Chicken Little” mentality, but rather to use reason, foresight, and judgment about how best to protect our future.

  • Create a larger worldwide stockpile of grains and other food reserves.
  • Support and prioritize global measures to detect, prevent, and halt emerging pandemic infectious diseases, such as the WHO’s The Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network.
  • Invest in technologies to discover and deflect large asteroids and comets on a deadly collision course with our planet.
  • Consider banning the synthesis and public publication of the genome sequences of deadly microorganisms such as smallpox and the 1918 influenza virus, thereby reducing the risks of bioterrorism or accidental release.
  • Maintain stores in multiple locations of wild plant species, seed banks, and gene banks to safeguard genetic diversity.
  • Invest in space station research. Because of the Sun’s ultimate expansion heating up the planet, Earth will become uninhabitable for humans in about 1-1.5 billion years (it will become uninhabitable for all life on Earth several billion years after that). This is, understandably, almost too long from now to contemplate. Nonetheless, our best (and possibly only) chance for survival in the very distant future may be to live in space or to colonize other planets or moons.
  • Create strains of agricultural species better able to withstand major environmental change and threats.
  • Continue to strive towards scientific accuracy in predicting climate change effects, and work towards renewable energy sources, sustainable use, technological solutions, and other measures to prevent potential climate catastrophes. Human-caused environmental changes that increase the risk of global pandemics deserve particular attention.
  • Develop appropriate oversight of new molecular manufacturing technologies.
  • Prioritize international cooperation to reduce nuclear proliferation, secure existing nuclear weapons, develop systems to minimize technological mishaps, and decrease the world’s nuclear armamentarium.
  • Maintain a well-chosen small number of people in a deep, well protected refugee sanctuary, with adequate supplies to last for years to buffer against human extinction from a range of causes. Genetically diverse international volunteers who live in such a bunker could be rotated, say, every two months. A similar Noah’s ark refuge could be established on a space station.
  • Work towards changing the social conditions that foster ideological absolutism.
  • Promote evidence-based thinking and reason at all levels of society.
  • Plan in detail to quickly produce and administer vaccines and other medical interventions during a pandemic.

The idea is not that we should do all these, but that the issue deserves our very highest consideration. When considering how much social, political, and economic priority to place on preventing a negative consequence, here is an idealized equation:

Extent of harm  x  Risk

Cost of effective prevention (in dollars and in wellbeing)

The higher the result of this idealized equation, calculated as best we can at a given time in history, the greater the priority should be for real action. The actual decisions of what to do and whether to do it depends on all three components of the equation. For global existential catastrophes, the “extent of harm” part of this equation would be astronomical. One can in this way question the relative amount of ink space, dollars, and time spent on comparatively trivial priorities.  Of course, the other parts of the equation — the statistical likelihood of specific events and the costs of specific effective preventive actions — need to be taken into account before determining the idealized priority. Many of the above suggestions represent a small investment relative to the world’s GNP or total federal outlay. It would be frankly irresponsible from a societal perspective to not reduce preventable non-trivial risks that threaten existence itself.

Those from all sides of the political spectrum can probably agree that self-defense is a legitimate goal for a government; preventing global catastrophe is self defense.

Technological progress is not inherently all-good or all-bad — technology in some of these scenarios might lead to unprecedented mass destruction, but in other scenarios technology might be humanity’s savior.

Apathy, absolutism, and fatalism must be avoided when considering whether it makes sense to prioritize global catastrophe prevention. Instead we should strive to apply our best evidence, judgment, and moral values. Whether or not our current set-point of concern and attention towards global catastrophic risks is appropriate is a question worthy of significant consideration. This is a social issue, whose goal is to prevent suffering and allow for life to flourish on the grandest scale. In short, the goal is to apply rationality and compassion to the deepest of human concerns.

We accept health insurance, car insurance, property insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, and dental insurance as societally appropriate and often worthwhile. Let’s add existence insurance to the mix.

The prevention of existential catastrophe may not be receiving enough attention, and should be one of human civilizations highest priorities. Consideration of risks in the form of the above equation and similar analyses is not cold rationality. It is rationality melded with the deepest possible morality and genuine compassion — a deeply felt concern for people, life, and the future of humanity. The total sum of all present and future conscious experience is what potentially is at stake. We owe our existence to chains of generations that have survived, and we now alive ought not to abandon the future great epic that our ancestors have struggled for millions of years with their lives to maintain.

Lawrence Rifkin About the Author: Lawrence Rifkin is a physician and a writer. Links to his writings on science, meaning, humanism, and medicine are at Follow on Twitter @LSRifkin.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Comments 12 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Jerzy v. 3.0. 9:49 am 09/13/2013

    I hope readers put their own thoughts.

    But I guess investing in stability and development in poor countries is the best way to reduce the threats of a global war, terrorism and unexpected pandemic.

    Link to this
  2. 2. M Tucker 1:19 pm 09/13/2013

    Maintain a well-chosen small number of people in a deep, well protected refugee sanctuary, with adequate supplies to last for years to buffer against human extinction from a range of causes. Genetically diverse international volunteers who live in such a bunker could be rotated, say, every two months. A similar Noah’s ark refuge could be established on a space station.

    Lawrence, who would do the choosing? A small number of people will provide a sufficient buffer against human extinction? So you take seriously the Noah story? You think we are all the descendants of Noah?

    This is just some of the questions I have for just one of your suggestions; several of them are equally absurd.

    Humans exiting for billions of years? You can’t take seriously the stuff you see and read in science fiction.

    I think you ought to research the history of some of your suggestions and then come up with another list.

    Link to this
  3. 3. Noone 5:10 pm 09/13/2013

    I think Dr. Strangelove decides which 10,000 men and 100,000 nubile women go into the caves…He will read up on Himmler first of course.

    Link to this
  4. 4. lynnoc 7:52 pm 09/13/2013

    While the idea of having “well chosen” people in some kind of –immune from danger– situation may be disturbing, or even absurd, it took courage to spell out and list in a blog post the potential major catastrophic events that would threaten the entire planet. These are things many of us think about in passing. But we let those thoughts go almost as quickly as they came to mind. I’m certainly not sure about the list of things to “protect” us –and I suspect it is counter an evolutionary perspective. Species arise, and species die out, however that happens. We have to accept this as part of “mother earth” functioning. I have long thought that major pandemics are simply our earth finding a way to cut down population, so as to preserve the earth itself. Overpopulation in any animal group is dealt with by one or another way to cut down population. It may not be wise to try to “out-think” the planet, as it may indeed be “Gaia” –a planet-wise ecology. That said, again, it seemed courageous to clearly list out the many possible planet wise eco-disasters.

    Link to this
  5. 5. Geopelia 10:12 pm 09/13/2013

    How do we stop a supervolcano erupting? That is probably more likely than an asteroid from space.
    When Yellowstone goes off, what on earth will America do?
    When Ruapehu (New Zealand)was erupting some years ago, a helpful talkback caller asked “Why don’t they dowse it with monsoon buckets?”
    Have we really got any better ideas for dealing with something like the Toba eruption?
    We use the steam from Wairakei to generate power. Perhaps drawing off steam from other fields around the world could take off some of the pressure.
    But that wouldn’t stop another Taupo eruption. Look at that huge beautiful lake and remember it is a volcanic crater,and the volcanoes just to the South are still live.
    And they say with the Auckland volcanoes,”it’s not If but When”. Not for hundreds of years, we hope!

    Link to this
  6. 6. savvov 8:38 am 09/14/2013

    The static model of the globe (working) – shows total changes on a planet which have taken place from the moment of occurrence of the Earth in Solar system. Static and Dynamic models of the globe – have proved specificity of changes on a planet, on (an environment of a planet) from the moment of occurrence of the Earth in an orbit of the Sun accordingly stages II, III, IV. Article The Survival of Humanity takes up problem questions the unilateral order, for the reason, that the author does not know about Dynamic model of the globe. But from a position of two models of the globe this clause puts a number of very important problems which have the direct attitude to the future of this civilization (it in general), to the future of the countries which have the advanced infrastructure of a coastal zone (it particularly), and are located in a zone max linear displacement Ms.

    Link to this
  7. 7. Jerzy v. 3.0. 9:04 am 09/14/2013

    As a long-time reader of science fiction, I foresee that such a Noah’s Ark would be immediately attacked and plundered by desperate survivors from outside.

    Nice that somebody is thinking about a big picture, but some of the author’s ideas are not well thought of.

    BTW, during the Cold War, USA and Soviet Union both made rather detailed plans on how to recover civilization if a global nuclear war happened and was lost. These papers should be declassified and might be an interesting read. There could be even some actual caches of technology, knowledge and supplies.

    Link to this
  8. 8. Jerzy v. 3.0. 9:11 am 09/14/2013

    There is no Gaia. This is simply untrue. Ecosystems above the level of one organism or one species are not usually self-regulating. They are prone to natural imbalances like outbreaks of insects or succession to different ecosystems.

    Link to this
  9. 9. sault 4:48 pm 09/14/2013

    With just a fraction of the money we spend actively destabilizing our future (military spending, fossil fuel subsidies, etc.), we could do a lot of things on this list. Heck, just exploring space and setting up outposts on the Moon, asteroids, Mars, etc. would go a long way towards hedging our bets against extinction. How many Mars missions could the bank bailouts in 2008 have bought, anyway?

    Link to this
  10. 10. collettedesmaris 5:38 am 09/18/2013

    Suggestions like “creating a worldwide stockpile of grains and other food reserves” infers that the
    entire world is getting along well; and solving conflicts through peaceful communication; that sort of
    thing. What kind of dream world are you living in, pal; to think that everyone will have an equal share
    of this stockpile? Countries will be blowing other ones to smithereens, just to hog the stockpile for
    themselves. I venture to say that this world has never been a place where people co-exist peaceably;
    sadly. In a crisis event (which is what your plan is for), people will behave badly; in an “every man
    for himself” type mindset. Although your ideas are noble, they are not well-suited to the world we
    live in now – much less a world caught up in a crisis event.

    You state that apathy must be avoided, and that we should strive to apply our best moral values, etc. Although I agree that it should have been that way all along, I’ve got news for you, in case you haven’t noticed: the American populous is well-ensconced in apathy and complacency. You’ll have your hands full making most of them care; because many of them never learned how. You
    cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping your fingers and thinking you can engage them. And the moral values? You’ll find them firmly
    rooted in the Baby-Boomer generation … but when they all die off, so will the moral values.

    I dislike being the purveyor of such negativity but the reality is: our world is screwed up – it’s too late; they’ve gone too far. I commend you for the spirit you demonstrate in wanting to make the world a better place, but people just won’t cooperate to help you make it happen.

    Link to this
  11. 11. badnursie 8:06 pm 09/18/2013

    The typical species-centric thinking that pervades certain intellectual circles…humanity as the summit of evolution. Suppose we are wiped out? Big deal. Nature will repopulate the planet with lots of other things. Perhaps intelligence is over-rated, survival-wise. After all, we would have to last some 100 million years to match the dinosaurs…and they evolved over time, replacing earlier forms of the species with later ones. (I might point out that the dinosaurs didn’t eliminate other members of their species, like good old homo sapiens did to his cousin, neanderthalis. Just because they’re microbes, should we disdain them? Ask you infectious disease specialist if bacteria don’t deserve some respect.

    Get off it, Mr. Rifkin. Your ideas might fund a bunch of other academics who will write nobel papers on how to save us that no one but their buddies and families will read, but you ain’t savin’ humanity with that list of do-gooder projects you came up with. So the universe will eventually lose US. I would suppose that there are, given the odds, millions of intellectually sophisticated hyper-worriers on many other planets in many other galaxies that won’t give a gnat’s ass. As for me, I for getting humanity out of the way (eventually) and giving the cephalopods a chance.

    Link to this
  12. 12. blachance 12:05 pm 09/19/2013

    I am quite pleased to see human extinction risks seeping into the mainstream. Aside from those psychologically damaged either through defective physiology or an inability to cope with personally difficult, perhaps even traumatic circumstances who *think* they would like to see the species die out, it is in fact a biological, innate imperative to survive. We humans possess it as does every other living thing. As humans become increasingly aware of the power of technology, these thoughts of mitigating extinction risks, as the author alludes to, are awakening in those who recognize that technology can empower us to control and ensure our own evolutionary journey- survival being the most fundamental stepping stone. Web search “future human evolution” for a range of diverse visions and speculation on our collective future. It is encouraging. Excellent article, certainly in the spirit of ensuring a positive future.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article