Slashdot Mirror
Global Catastrophe, Even Human Extinction, Isn't All That Unlikely (theatlantic.com)
HughPickens.com writes: Robinson Meyer writes in The Atlantic that in its annual report on "global catastrophic risk," the Global Challenges Foundation estimates the risk of human extinction due to climate change -- or an accidental nuclear war at 0.1 percent every year. That may sound low, but when extrapolated to century-scale it comes to a 9.5 percent chance of human extinction within the next hundred years. The report holds catastrophic climate change and nuclear war far above other potential causes, and for good reason citing multiple occasions when the world stood on the brink of atomic annihilation. While most of these occurred during the Cold War, another took place during the 1990s, the most peaceful decade in recent memory. The closest may have been on September 26, 1983, when a bug in the U.S.S.R. early-warning system reported that five NATO nuclear missiles had been launched and were bound for Russian targets. The officer watching the system, Stanislav Petrov, had also designed the system, and he decided that any real NATO first-strike would involve hundreds of I.C.B.M.s. Therefore, he resolved the computers must be malfunctioning. He did not fire a response.
Climate change also poses its own risks. [PDF] According to Meyer, serious veterans of climate science now suggest that global warming will spawn continent-sized superstorms by the end of the century. Sebastian Farquhar says that even more conservative estimates can be alarming: UN-approved climate models estimate that the risk of six to ten degrees Celsius of warming exceeds 3 percent, even if the world tamps down carbon emissions at a fast pace... Any year, there's always some chance of a super-volcano erupting or an asteroid careening into the planet. Both would of course devastate the areas around ground zero -- but they would also kick up dust into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and sending global temperatures plunging.
Natural pandemics may pose the most serious risks of all. In fact, in the past two millennia, the only two events that experts can certify as global catastrophes of this scale were plagues. The Black Death of the 1340s felled more than 10 percent of the world population. Another epidemic of the Yersinia pestis bacterium -- the "Great Plague of Justinian" in 541 and 542 -- killed between 25 and 33 million people, or between 13 and 17 percent of the global population at that time. The report briefly explores other possible risks: a genetically engineered pandemic, geo-engineering gone awry, an all-seeing artificial intelligence. "We do not expect these risks to materialize tomorrow, or even this year, but we should not ignore them," says Farquhar. "Although many risks are addressed by specific groups, we need to build a community around global catastrophic risk. Cooperation is the only way for global leaders to manage the risks that threaten humanity."
Climate change also poses its own risks. [PDF] According to Meyer, serious veterans of climate science now suggest that global warming will spawn continent-sized superstorms by the end of the century. Sebastian Farquhar says that even more conservative estimates can be alarming: UN-approved climate models estimate that the risk of six to ten degrees Celsius of warming exceeds 3 percent, even if the world tamps down carbon emissions at a fast pace... Any year, there's always some chance of a super-volcano erupting or an asteroid careening into the planet. Both would of course devastate the areas around ground zero -- but they would also kick up dust into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and sending global temperatures plunging.
Natural pandemics may pose the most serious risks of all. In fact, in the past two millennia, the only two events that experts can certify as global catastrophes of this scale were plagues. The Black Death of the 1340s felled more than 10 percent of the world population. Another epidemic of the Yersinia pestis bacterium -- the "Great Plague of Justinian" in 541 and 542 -- killed between 25 and 33 million people, or between 13 and 17 percent of the global population at that time. The report briefly explores other possible risks: a genetically engineered pandemic, geo-engineering gone awry, an all-seeing artificial intelligence. "We do not expect these risks to materialize tomorrow, or even this year, but we should not ignore them," says Farquhar. "Although many risks are addressed by specific groups, we need to build a community around global catastrophic risk. Cooperation is the only way for global leaders to manage the risks that threaten humanity."
There were many close calls during the cold war, roughly 10 to 20 serious ones, depending on how you score them.
I suspect we are still here out of a kind of anthropic principle luck: if those close calls triggered WW3, the vast majority of us wouldn't be here pondering our good luck. Dead people don't ponder.
Table-ized A.I.
I have heard either indirectly or from the horse's mouth about all kinds of close calls. Birds appearing like a hailstorm of missiles, errors, flights off course, etc.
Then there are the scarier stories about Stalin in his last days 100% sure that the US was going to order a first strike, and thus he should beat them to the punch. I would also not be surprised if some US military advisors over the years thought that a US first strike would somehow have been a good idea. Assuming this to be true, how few people did they have to convince to make it so?
Then we have the classics like the Cuban missile crisis.
Importantly many military analysts have pointed out that if the NATO and the Soviets had ever started to go toe to toe in some actual conflict, such as NATO stepping in for Hungary that it would have resulted in one side or the other beginning to lose, this might have escalated to local tactical battlefield nukes, which might have escalated to strategic nukes.
Because of modern sanitation, and the understanding of how to deal with quarantine, the chances of a catastrophic pandemic are really low. For comparison, think how we've eliminated malaria from most places, without actually curing it.
In fact, most of these scenarios are more of the type, "imagine the worst thing that could happen" instead of rationally estimating the probabilities.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
All Intelligent life is doomed, not just humans.
Given the size and age of the galaxy, there should be intelligent life on many planets and it should have been there for a very long time. Long enough that we should have detected evidence of it. But that hasn't happened. Unless estimates of the age, size, or number of planets in the Milky Way are vastly overstated, and no new knowledge suggests anything of the kind, then there really is one other likely cause: Advanced intelligent civilizations don't last for millions of years.
If it was possible, then it would have happened, and it hasn't.
Which really isn't all that surprising. The last few thousand years have been an exponential orgy of consumption. Not just fossil fuels, but phosphate deposits for fertilizers, reachable metal ores, ocean fish stocks, forest products, etc. It's all going to run out, and then what? And what happens if any disaster, including the inevitable and unavoidable ones like a meteor impact or super-volcanism, sets our technology back even a few hundred years? How do you frack for oil with 1700s technology? How do you build a nuclear reactor with no copper? How do you made food production efficient enough that everyone isn't dedicated to it without phosphates?
Human technological advancement was a one time deal. Once it's stops, that's it for this planet, never again.
a mere 15 million years ago CO2 levels were 4 times higher, average temperature was several degrees warmer, and seas were 200 feet higher.
200 foot sea level rise (your words, not mine) would probably count as a global catastrophe.
I'm not sure the extinction of the human race would be a catastrophe for the rest of the earth ecosystem.
The summary is misleading. No article mentions extinctions due to climate change. A huge temperature change would cause migration towards the poles, and may cut food supply and kill some people, but not all.
The article that mentions the 10% figure (The Atlantic article) says that a pandemic is the most likely to cause extinction, eg. the 521AD plague killed 13 to 17% of the world's population. But that didn't make it into the sensational summary.
And this is the problem with climate change. How can we take this very serious issue to heart when you get garbage like this predicting global extinction and the end of the human race.
Humans are the most resilient species in the world. We live in Siberia. We live in the Sahara. The notion that we'll go extinct due to climate change is laughable. Unless "extinct" in this context means a few hundred million displaced simply because they want to keep the lifestyle they are accustomed to (i.e. move because of weather, move because their water front property is now an under water property etc).
I rate the chance of human extinction this century at zero percent. 9% chance of humans being greatly impacted due to their own activity is believable, but that doesn't make for a very exciting headline.
It rose over 300 feet at the end of the last ice age, humanity thrived. Sucks if you own beachfront property but not a problem for most of humanity, let alone an extinction level event. Ignorance of natural history is required to believe this scaremongering.
Somehow this post misses the point. Yes, the species Homo sapiens sapiens L. can survive in an environment with 4 times the CO2 levels. No problem with that. What won't survive is the civilisation we built ourselves that eases the survival, and that allows us to be 7 billions and counting. No other animal of more than 10 pound body weight has 7 billion specimens out there with the possible exception of animals we grow for ourselves. What global warming means are large migratory movements of people fleeing higher sea levels and deserts that change their size and location. What global warming means is new distribution fights for ressources. Even small, local climate changes by moving trade wind patterns caused civilisations to collapse, accompagnied by war, pandemics and devastation of large regions. With today's technology and the fast moving climate change globally, we face a global war, and we still have overkill capacity -- even if we don't use the nuclear arsenal.
Yes, a nice example is to look at a hi-resolution photo of Earth from space. Much of humanity lives along coastlines and rivers, especially where a river meets the sea, as you get ocean access and river access to both global and inland trade, along with fresh water and a convenient way to get rid of waste.
/CDSServlet?status=ND0xODc3JjY9ZW4mMzM9KiYzNz1rb3M~
Civilization settled where trade was convenient, with few exceptions. Before flight, water was the best, fastest way to trade. Once we mastered the sea, and were no longer confined to rivers and coastlines, civilization flourished with increasing speed. A few centuries back
According to Harvard University,* in this era: " More than 2 billion people, an estimated 37 percent of the world's population, live within 60 miles of the coast and would be affected, directly or indirectly, by incursions of the sea."
If we increase that to about 93 miles,** then the number jumps to approximately 44 percent.
The Harvard article is talking about a 3 to 5 foot increase in sea levels wiping out much of the coastal infrastructure worldwide, as much of it is built on flood plains frequently no more than 3 feet or so above sea level.
I would think it a safe bet that a 300 foot rise in sea level would affect a great many more, likely much more than 50 percent.
*Harvard:
http://environment.harvard.edu/node/3272
http://www.oceansatlas.org/servlet
**UN atlas of the oceans:
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
It's puzzling that people think that aspect would be a catastrophe. We're not trees. We can, you know, move. I've mentioned this before and they go on to tell me that it is expensive. Yeah? It's not like we have a choice in the matter and it's going to happen no matter how much shit we stuff in the air. No, really, it's going to happen and there's nothing we can do to stop it. All we can do is slow it down.
No, don't misinterpret that as me saying things I did not say. No, I don't think we should spew crap into the atmosphere at the rates we do and I've taken many steps to reduce my own emissions. It's just not a huge catastrophe if we accept that it's going to happen and start making preparations to move people as the water levels rise.
All these people running around like they're doing something meaningful would actually be doing something meaningful if they'd sponsor the moves for a few people at a time off some of the Pacific Ocean islands that only rise to a few feet above current levels. Yeah, it's great that they spent an extra twenty cents buying green power this month but they could just keep their old beater car and help some of them move.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
This. The sea level isn't going to up 300 feet overnight. Even if the most ridiculous of climate models it will take 100s of years for the sea level to rise 10s of feet. Most of the major cities along the coast line literally did not exist 500 years ago, and until the last 100 years didn't even have tall buildings. The flatiron building was the crown jewel of the Manhattan skyline 100 years ago. All of the rest was built in less than a century, and with much less technology than we have today. There will be plenty of time to move. The human species is remarkably adaptable. The idea that any climate change can wipe out a large portion of the human population is ignorant of the history of life and humanity on the planet.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Yes, but the sea level isn't just going to rise 200-300 feet. It's also going to get warmer... The landmass that gets covered by water will be offset by huge tracts of Russia, Canada, Alaska, Greenland, and maybe even Antarctica that will become warm enough to be populated.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Look, we are going outside of the borders of recorded climate. That means nobody knows what is actually going to happen. That alone should scare the living fuck out of everyone, because of the very regularity of the cycle we are perturbing. Since CO2 levels haven't been this high since the last mass extinction, we have little to no idea what to expect. Nobody knows if the methane clathrate gun is a real possibility or not. We have simply literally never seen the climate in this condition while there have been humans on this mudball, and that means we don't know what is going to happen. Maybe the system will self-regulate and fix itself. Or maybe we've unbalanced it sufficiently that we're going to have unprecedented weather that really will more or less end us.
In addition, the probability of a comet or other large impactor striking the planet is non-zero, but we don't know what the risk actually is.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When has human extinction ever seemed unlikely? It wouldn't take much more than what causes other species to go extinct. Climate change, over consumption of resources, or a major disruption in our source of food. We can even add something no animal is capable of doing to itself: nuclear holocaust. We're not as wonderful as we think we are sometimes.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It rose over 300 feet at the end of the last ice age, ... Sucks if you own beachfront property but not a problem for most of humanity,
New York city is beach front property. Miami is beach front property. How much of humanity lives near the coast? - https://coastalchallenges.com/...
As I said, not an extinction event, but global catastrophe? Could be.
Or are you seriously suggesting that given the choice of drowning or spending money in moving we as a civilization will choose to drown?
Who is this 'we'?
I think the elite will choose for you and I to drown, if they can arrange it. If the land area is reduced, the carrying capacity will be reduced.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There won't be much in the way of soil in those newly populated areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Really, the vast forests and tundra of Russia, Alaska, and Canada don't have soil?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
The fact that our climate models are incapable of proving whether or not this is true, or even whether or not it comes true at some point, should give you pause when considering the veracity of our current models.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.