Existential Risks: A Common Concern

The famous physicist Dr. Stephen Hawking recently asked a question on Yahoo Answers. The question was, "In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?" http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060704195516AAnrdOD

I am also interested, as we all should be, in what is being done and what needs to be done in regard to such existential risks to humanity. The most probable threats are man-made and include: bio-terrorism, global warming, self-replicating nanotech weapons, and global nuclear warfare.

Dr Nick Bostrom, of the Oxford Future of Humanity Institute, has been discussing this topic in-depth, and outlined many of the possible risks and possible methods for reducing them. He has come to the conclusion that "...the objective of reducing existential risks should be a dominant consideration when acting out of concern for humankind as a whole" http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html

In that spirit, Ray Kurzweil, one of the most prominent inventors in the US, has made a proposal for a new type of Manhattan Project in which we would spend 100 billion dollars to defend against such threats. This proposal has been endorsed by Bill Frist, the senate Majority Leader, but I am surprised there is not more interest in this.

We spent about half a trillion dollars on the imperialistic War in Iraq, I think we can afford to spend a fifth of that amount to reduce the chance of humanity being annihilated.


"AFTER a decade of painstaking research, federal and university scientists have reconstructed the 1918 influenza virus that killed 50 million people worldwide. Like the flu viruses now raising alarm bells in Asia, the 1918 virus was a bird flu that jumped directly to humans, the scientists reported. To shed light on how the virus evolved, the United States Department of Health and Human Services published the full genome of the 1918 influenza virus on the Internet in the GenBank database.

This is extremely foolish. The genome is essentially the design of a weapon of mass destruction. No responsible scientist would advocate publishing precise designs for an atomic bomb, and in two ways revealing the sequence for the flu virus is even more dangerous." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/17/opinion/...

This shows just how easy it is to get information on pathogens that could possibly used for terrorism. It only takes one lunatic in this day and age to wreak havoc on the entire world. Imagine if someone such as Ted Kaczynski or an extremist Deep Ecologist eco-terrorist or just some random misanthrope got a hold of one of these deadly airborne viruses. Because of air and sea travel, the virus could make its way around the globe in no time causing millions or even billions of deaths.

This is not something that tracking down every member of Al Qaeda can fix. There is no single enemy or organization. It could be done by one person in a garage. There is no way to locate every fringe group in the world, and often times our counter-terrorism operations create more terrorists than they kill.

Furthermore, banning technologies never works, so that is not the answer. When technologies are banned in one county, state, or country, people either go elsewhere or go underground. There is no point in slowing down technological progress when it is not going to produce the intended result of making us more secure. In fact, I would argue that it would make us less secure.

We need safeguards in case a global pandemic or nanotech outbreak occurs! I would advise everyone to be more politically active on this issue: join the Lifeboat Foundation, write your congressmen and senators, call in to radio programs, send letters to the editor. This is one of the most important issues in the history of mankind.

Reducing existential risks is one issue on which everyone can unite, no matter what one's opinions are with regard to religion, life extension, the singularity, the ethics of biotech, etc.

This is what makes it possible for the two opposing intellectuals, Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy, to write an article in the New York Times together.

In my discussions with various people, I am certain that this is the one issue on which we can all help to make a difference. In fact, I think it is particularly important for TechnoProgressives and Transhumanists to be the leading advocates on this issue, as opposed to reactionary and/or fundamentalist bioconservatives.

If we are the ones to guide the discussions, we will be able to make sure that rational thought is used instead of irrational technophobia that could lead to the bannings of multiple scientific fields.

I was pleased to see that Ray Kurzweil, Nick Bostrom, groups such as the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology and the Lifeboat Foundation, and other prominent TechnoProgressives and Transhumanists have taken such an active interest in this matter. It is vital that we continue to be the voice of reason in this often unreasonable world.

We must continue to provide this priceless public service!