For methodological challenges quantifying and mitigating the risk, proposed mitigation measures, and related organizations, see Global catastrophic risk.
Nuclear war is an often-predicted cause of the extinction of humankind.
The scientific consensus is that there is a relatively low risk of near-term human extinction due to natural causes.[2][3] The likelihood of human extinction through humankind's own activities, however, is a current area of research and debate.
History of thought
Early history
Before the 18th and 19th centuries, the possibility that humans or other organisms could become extinct was viewed with scepticism.[4] It contradicted the principle of plenitude, a doctrine that all possible things exist.[4] The principle traces back to Aristotle, and was an important tenet of Christian theology.[5] Ancient philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Lucretius wrote of the end of humankind only as part of a cycle of renewal. Marcion of Sinope was a proto-protestant who advocated for antinatalism that could lead to human extinction.[6][7] Later philosophers such as Al-Ghazali, William of Ockham, and Gerolamo Cardano expanded the study of logic and probability and began wondering if abstract worlds existed, including a world without humans. Physicist Edmond Halley stated that the extinction of the human race may be beneficial to the future of the world.[8]
The notion that species can become extinct gained scientific acceptance during the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries, and by 1800 Georges Cuvier had identified 23 extinct prehistoric species.[4] The doctrine was further gradually undermined by evidence from the natural sciences, particularly the discovery of fossil evidence of species that appeared to no longer exist, and the development of theories of evolution.[5] In On the Origin of Species, Darwin discussed the extinction of species as a natural process and a core component of natural selection.[9] Notably, Darwin was skeptical of the possibility of sudden extinction, viewing it as a gradual process. He held that the abrupt disappearances of species from the fossil record were not evidence of catastrophic extinctions, but rather represented unrecognised gaps[clarification needed] in the record.[9]
The invention of the atomic bomb prompted a wave of discussion among scientists, intellectuals, and the public at large about the risk of human extinction.[4] In a 1945 essay, Bertrand Russell wrote that "[T]he prospect for the human race is sombre beyond all precedent. Mankind are faced with a clear-cut alternative: either we shall all perish, or we shall have to acquire some slight degree of common sense."[10] In 1950, Leo Szilard suggested it was technologically feasible to build a cobalt bomb that could render the planet unlivable. A 1950 Gallup poll found that 19% of Americans believed that another world war would mean "an end to mankind".[11]Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring raised awareness of environmental catastrophe. In 1983, Brandon Carter proposed the Doomsday argument, which used Bayesian probability to predict the total number of humans that will ever exist.
The discovery of "nuclear winter" in the early 1980s, a specific mechanism by which nuclear war could result in human extinction, again raised the issue to prominence. Writing about these findings in 1983, Carl Sagan argued that measuring the severity of extinction solely in terms of those who die "conceals its full impact", and that nuclear war "imperils all of our descendants, for as long as there will be humans."[12]
Post-Cold War
John Leslie's 1996 book The End of The World was an academic treatment of the science and ethics of human extinction. In it, Leslie considered a range of threats to humanity and what they have in common. In 2003, British Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees published Our Final Hour, in which he argues that advances in certain technologies create new threats to the survival of humankind and that the 21st century may be a critical moment in history when humanity's fate is decided.[13] Edited by Nick Bostrom and Milan M. Ćirković, Global Catastrophic Risks was published in 2008, a collection of essays from 26 academics on various global catastrophic and existential risks.[14]Toby Ord's 2020 book The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity argues that preventing existential risks is one of the most important moral issues of our time. The book discusses, quantifies, and compares different existential risks, concluding that the greatest risks are presented by unaligned artificial intelligence and biotechnology.[15]
Humans (e.g. Homo sapiens sapiens) as a species may also be considered to have "gone extinct" simply by being replaced with distant descendants whose continued evolution may produce new species or subspecies Homo or of hominids.
Without intervention by unexpected forces, the stellar evolution of the Sun is expected to make Earth uninhabitable, then destroy it. Depending on its ultimate fate, the entire universe may eventually become uninhabitable.
Probability
Natural vs. anthropogenic
Experts generally agree that anthropogenic existential risks are (much) more likely than natural risks.[16][13][17][2][18] A key difference between these risk types is that empirical evidence can place an upper bound on the level of natural risk.[2] Humanity has existed for at least 200,000 years, over which it has been subject to a roughly constant level of natural risk. If the natural risk were sufficiently high, then it would be highly unlikely that humanity would have survived as long as it has. Based on a formalization of this argument, researchers have concluded that we can be confident that natural risk is lower than 1 in 14,000 per year (equivalent to 1 in 140 per century, on average).[2]
Another empirical method to study the likelihood of certain natural risks is to investigate the geological record.[16] For example, a comet or asteroid impact event sufficient in scale to cause an impact winter that would cause human extinction before the year 2100 has been estimated at one-in-a-million.[19][20] Moreover, large supervolcano eruptions may cause a volcanic winter that could endanger the survival of humanity.[21] The geological record suggests that supervolcanic eruptions are estimated to occur on average about once every 50,000 years, though most such eruptions would not reach the scale required to cause human extinction.[21] Famously, the supervolcano Mt. Toba may have almost wiped out humanity at the time of its last eruption (though this is contentious).[21][22]
Since anthropogenic risk is a relatively recent phenomenon, humanity's track record of survival cannot provide similar assurances.[2] Humanity has only survived 79 years since the creation of nuclear weapons, and for future technologies, there is no track record. This has led thinkers like Carl Sagan to conclude that humanity is currently in a "time of perils"[23] – a uniquely dangerous period in human history, where it is subject to unprecedented levels of risk, beginning from when humans first started posing risk to themselves through their actions.[16][24] Paleobiologist Olev Vinn has suggested that humans presumably have a number of inherited behavior patterns (IBPs) that are not fine-tuned for conditions prevailing in technological civilization. Indeed, some IBPs may be highly incompatible with such conditions and have a high potential to induce self-destruction. These patterns may include responses of individuals seeking power over conspecifics in relation to harvesting and consuming energy. [25]
Risk estimates
Given the limitations of ordinary observation and modeling, expert elicitation is frequently used instead to obtain probability estimates.[26]
Humanity has a 95% probability of being extinct in 7,800,000 years, according to J. Richard Gott's formulation of the controversial doomsday argument, which argues that we have probably already lived through half the duration of human history.[27]
In 1996, John A. Leslie estimated a 30% risk over the next five centuries (equivalent to around 6% per century, on average).[28]
In 2003, Martin Rees estimated a 50% chance of collapse of civilisation in the twenty-first century.[29]
A 2008 survey by the Future of Humanity Institute estimated a 5% probability of extinction by super-intelligence by 2100.[17]
The Global Challenges Foundation's 2016 annual report estimates an annual probability of human extinction of at least 0.05% per year (equivalent to 5% per century, on average).[30]
A 2016 survey of AI experts found a median estimate of 5% that human-level AI would cause an outcome that was "extremely bad (e.g. human extinction)".[31] In 2019, the risk was lowered to 2%, but in 2022, it was increased back to 5%. In 2023, the risk doubled to 10%.[32]
According to the July 10, 2023 article of The Economist, scientists estimated a 12% chance of AI-caused catastrophe and a 3% chance of AI-caused extinction by 2100. They also estimate an 8% chance of Nuclear War causing global catastrophe and a 0.5625% chance of Nuclear War causing human extinction.[34]
In May 1, 2023, The Treaty on Artificial Intelligence Safety and Cooperation (TAISC) estimated a 30.5% risk of an AI-caused catastrophe by 2200, although they also estimated a 32.2% risk of an AI-caused catastrophe by 2026, if there is no 6 month moratorium.[35]
As of March 26, 2024, Metaculus users estimate a 1% probability of human extinction by 2100.[36]
In November 13, 2024, American Enterprise Institute estimated a probability of nuclear war during the 21st century between 0% to 80% (median average - 40%). They estimate a 1 in 100,000 odds of a 3km wide asteroid impact within the next 100 years. They estimate a 0.0067% annual chance of supervolcanic eruption (VEI-8), yet scheduled for the supervolcanic eruption by May 1, 16940 AD.[37]
According to a 2020 study published in Scientific Reports, if deforestation and resource consumption continue at current rates, they could culminate in a "catastrophic collapse in human population" and possibly "an irreversible collapse of our civilization" in the next 20 to 40 years. According to the most optimistic scenario provided by the study, the chances that human civilization survives are smaller than 10%. To avoid this collapse, the study says, humanity should pass from a civilization dominated by the economy to a "cultural society" that "privileges the interest of the ecosystem above the individual interest of its components, but eventually in accordance with the overall communal interest."[39][40]
Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford known for his work on existential risk, argues that it would be "misguided"[41] to assume that the probability of near-term extinction is less than 25% and that it will be "a tall order" for the human race to "get our precautions sufficiently right the first time", given that an existential risk provides no opportunity to learn from failure.[3][19]
Philosopher John A. Leslie assigns a 70% chance of humanity surviving the next five centuries, based partly on the controversial philosophical doomsday argument that Leslie champions. Leslie's argument is somewhat frequentist, based on the observation that human extinction has never been observed, but requires subjective anthropic arguments.[42] Leslie also discusses the anthropic survivorship bias (which he calls an "observational selection" effect on page 139) and states that the a priori certainty of observing an "undisastrous past" could make it difficult to argue that we must be safe because nothing terrible has yet occurred. He quotes Holger Bech Nielsen's formulation: "We do not even know if there should exist some extremely dangerous decay of say the proton which caused the eradication of the earth, because if it happens we would no longer be there to observe it and if it does not happen there is nothing to observe."[43]
Jean-Marc Salotti calculated the probability of human extinction caused by a giant asteroid impact.[44] It is between 0.03 and 0.3 for the next billion years, if there is no colonization of other planets. According to that study, the most frightening object is a giant long-period comet with a warning time of a few years only and therefore no time for any intervention in space or settlement on the Moon or Mars. The probability of a giant comet impact in the next hundred years is 2.2×10−12.[44]
Although existential risks are less manageable by individuals than, for example, health risks, according to Ken Olum, Joshua Knobe, and Alexander Vilenkin, the possibility of human extinction does have practical implications. For instance, if the "universal" doomsday argument is accepted, it changes the most likely source of disasters, and hence the most efficient means of preventing them. They write: "...you should be more concerned that a large number of asteroids have not yet been detected than about the particular orbit of each one. You should not worry especially about the chance that some specific nearby star will become a supernova, but more about the chance that supernovas are more deadly to nearby life than we believe."[45]
Difficulty
Some scholars argue that certain scenarios such as global thermonuclear war would have difficulty eradicating every last settlement on Earth. Physicist Willard Wells points out that any credible extinction scenario would have to reach into a diverse set of areas, including the underground subways of major cities, the mountains of Tibet, the remotest islands of the South Pacific, and even to McMurdo Station in Antarctica, which has contingency plans and supplies for long isolation.[46] In addition, elaborate bunkers exist for government leaders to occupy during a nuclear war.[19] The existence of nuclear submarines, which can stay hundreds of meters deep in the ocean for potentially years at a time, should also be considered. Any number of events could lead to a massive loss of human life, but if the last few (see minimum viable population) most resilient humans are unlikely to also die off, then that particular human extinction scenario may not seem credible.[47]
"Existential risks" are risks that threaten the entire future of humanity, whether by causing human extinction or by otherwise permanently crippling human progress.[3] Multiple scholars have argued based on the size of the "cosmic endowment" that because of the inconceivably large number of potential future lives that are at stake, even small reductions of existential risk have great value.
In one of the earliest discussions of ethics of human extinction, Derek Parfit offers the following thought experiment:[48]
I believe that if we destroy mankind, as we now can, this outcome will be much worse than most people think. Compare three outcomes:
(1) Peace. (2) A nuclear war that kills 99% of the world's existing population. (3) A nuclear war that kills 100%.
(2) would be worse than (1), and (3) would be worse than (2). Which is the greater of these two differences? Most people believe that the greater difference is between (1) and (2). I believe that the difference between (2) and (3) is very much greater.
—Derek Parfit
The scale of what is lost in an existential catastrophe is determined by humanity's long-term potential – what humanity could expect to achieve if it survived.[16] From a utilitarian perspective, the value of protecting humanity is the product of its duration (how long humanity survives), its size (how many humans there are over time), and its quality (on average, how good is life for future people).[16]:273[49] On average, species survive for around a million years before going extinct. Parfit points out that the Earth will remain habitable for around a billion years.[48] And these might be lower bounds on our potential: if humanity is able to expand beyond Earth, it could greatly increase the human population and survive for trillions of years.[50][16]:21 The size of the foregone potential that would be lost, were humanity to become extinct, is very large. Therefore, reducing existential risk by even a small amount would have a very significant moral value.[3][51]
Carl Sagan wrote in 1983: "If we are required to calibrate extinction in numerical terms, I would be sure to include the number of people in future generations who would not be born.... (By one calculation), the stakes are one million times greater for extinction than for the more modest nuclear wars that kill "only" hundreds of millions of people. There are many other possible measures of the potential loss – including culture and science, the evolutionary history of the planet, and the significance of the lives of all of our ancestors who contributed to the future of their descendants. Extinction is the undoing of the human enterprise."[52]
Philosopher Robert Adams in 1989 rejected Parfit's "impersonal" views but spoke instead of a moral imperative for loyalty and commitment to "the future of humanity as a vast project... The aspiration for a better society – more just, more rewarding, and more peaceful... our interest in the lives of our children and grandchildren, and the hopes that they will be able, in turn, to have the lives of their children and grandchildren as projects."[53]
Philosopher Nick Bostrom argues in 2013 that preference-satisfactionist, democratic, custodial, and intuitionist arguments all converge on the common-sense view that preventing existential risk is a high moral priority, even if the exact "degree of badness" of human extinction varies between these philosophies.[54]
Parfit argues that the size of the "cosmic endowment" can be calculated from the following argument: If Earth remains habitable for a billion more years and can sustainably support a population of more than a billion humans, then there is a potential for 1016 (or 10,000,000,000,000,000) human lives of normal duration.[55] Bostrom goes further, stating that if the universe is empty, then the accessible universe can support at least 1034 biological human life-years; and, if some humans were uploaded onto computers, could even support the equivalent of 1054 cybernetic human life-years.[3]
Some economists and philosophers have defended views, including exponential discounting and person-affecting views of population ethics, on which future people do not matter (or matter much less), morally speaking.[56] While these views are controversial,[19][57][58] they would agree that an existential catastrophe would be among the worst things imaginable. It would cut short the lives of eight billion presently existing people, destroying all of what makes their lives valuable, and most likely subjecting many of them to profound suffering. So even setting aside the value of future generations, there may be strong reasons to reduce existential risk, grounded in concern for presently existing people.[59]
Beyond utilitarianism, other moral perspectives lend support to the importance of reducing existential risk. An existential catastrophe would destroy more than just humanity – it would destroy all cultural artifacts, languages, and traditions, and many of the things we value.[16][60] So moral viewpoints on which we have duties to protect and cherish things of value would see this as a huge loss that should be avoided.[16] One can also consider reasons grounded in duties to past generations. For instance, Edmund Burke writes of a "partnership...between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born".[61] If one takes seriously the debt humanity owes to past generations, Ord argues the best way of repaying it might be to "pay it forward", and ensure that humanity's inheritance is passed down to future generations.[16]:49–51
There are several economists who have discussed the importance of global catastrophic risks. For example, Martin Weitzman argues that most of the expected economic damage from climate change may come from the small chance that warming greatly exceeds the mid-range expectations, resulting in catastrophic damage.[62]Richard Posner has argued that humanity is doing far too little, in general, about small, hard-to-estimate risks of large-scale catastrophes.[63]
Some philosophers adopt the antinatalist position that human extinction would not be a bad thing, but a good thing. David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always serious harm, and therefore it is better that people do not come into existence in the future.[64] Further, David Benatar, animal rights activist Steven Best, and anarchist Todd May, posit that human extinction would be a positive thing for the other organisms on the planet, and the planet itself, citing, for example, the omnicidal nature of human civilization.[65][66][67] The environmental view in favor of human extinction is shared by the members of Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and the Church of Euthanasia who call for refraining from reproduction and allowing the human species to go peacefully extinct, thus stopping further environmental degradation.[68]
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky is an American artificial intelligence researcher and writer on decision theory and ethics, best known for popularizing ideas related to friendly artificial intelligence. He is the founder of and a research fellow at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), a private research nonprofit based in Berkeley, California. His work on the prospect of a runaway intelligence explosion influenced philosopher Nick Bostrom's 2014 book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies.
Friendly artificial intelligence is hypothetical artificial general intelligence (AGI) that would have a positive (benign) effect on humanity or at least align with human interests or contribute to fostering the improvement of the human species. It is a part of the ethics of artificial intelligence and is closely related to machine ethics. While machine ethics is concerned with how an artificially intelligent agent should behave, friendly artificial intelligence research is focused on how to practically bring about this behavior and ensuring it is adequately constrained.
Nick Bostrom is a philosopher known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, whole brain emulation, superintelligence risks, and the reversal test. He was the founding director of the now dissolved Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford and is now Principal Researcher at the Macrostrategy Research Initiative.
A superintelligence is a hypothetical agent that possesses intelligence surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. "Superintelligence" may also refer to a property of problem-solving systems whether or not these high-level intellectual competencies are embodied in agents that act in the world. A superintelligence may or may not be created by an intelligence explosion and associated with a technological singularity.
An AI takeover is an imagined scenario in which artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as the dominant form of intelligence on Earth and computer programs or robots effectively take control of the planet away from the human species, which relies on human intelligence. Possible scenarios include replacement of the entire human workforce due to automation, takeover by a superintelligent AI (ASI), and the notion of a robot uprising. Stories of AI takeovers have been popular throughout science fiction, but recent advancements have made the threat more real. Some public figures, such as Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk, have advocated research into precautionary measures to ensure future superintelligent machines remain under human control.
Space and survival is the idea that the long-term survival of the human species and technological civilization requires the building of a spacefaring civilization that utilizes the resources of outer space, and that not doing this might lead to human extinction. A related observation is that the window of opportunity for doing this may be limited due to the decreasing amount of surplus resources that will be available over time as a result of an ever-growing population.
The Great Filter is the idea that, in the development of life from the earliest stages of abiogenesis to reaching the highest levels of development on the Kardashev scale, there is a barrier to development that makes detectable extraterrestrial life exceedingly rare. The Great Filter is one possible resolution of the Fermi paradox.
The Future of Humanity Institute (FHI) was an interdisciplinary research centre at the University of Oxford investigating big-picture questions about humanity and its prospects. It was founded in 2005 as part of the Faculty of Philosophy and the Oxford Martin School. Its director was philosopher Nick Bostrom, and its research staff included futurist Anders Sandberg and Giving What We Can founder Toby Ord.
A nuclear holocaust, also known as a nuclear apocalypse, nuclear annihilation, nuclear armageddon, or atomic holocaust, is a theoretical scenario where the mass detonation of nuclear weapons causes widespread destruction and radioactive fallout. Such a scenario envisages large parts of the Earth becoming uninhabitable due to the effects of nuclear warfare, potentially causing the collapse of civilization, the extinction of humanity, and/or the termination of most biological life on Earth.
A global catastrophic risk or a doomsday scenario is a hypothetical event that could damage human well-being on a global scale, even endangering or destroying modern civilization. An event that could cause human extinction or permanently and drastically curtail humanity's existence or potential is known as an "existential risk".
In futurology, a singleton is a hypothetical world order in which there is a single decision-making agency at the highest level, capable of exerting effective control over its domain, and permanently preventing both internal and external threats to its supremacy. The term was first defined by Nick Bostrom.
The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) is a research centre at the University of Cambridge, intended to study possible extinction-level threats posed by present or future technology. The co-founders of the centre are Huw Price, Martin Rees and Jaan Tallinn.
Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies is a 2014 book by the philosopher Nick Bostrom. It explores how superintelligence could be created and what its features and motivations might be. It argues that superintelligence, if created, would be difficult to control, and that it could take over the world in order to accomplish its goals. The book also presents strategies to help make superintelligences whose goals benefit humanity. It was particularly influential for raising concerns about existential risk from artificial intelligence.
Existential risk from artificial intelligence refers to the idea that substantial progress in artificial general intelligence (AGI) could lead to human extinction or an irreversible global catastrophe.
Global Catastrophic Risks is a 2008 non-fiction book edited by philosopher Nick Bostrom and astronomer Milan M. Ćirković. The book is a collection of essays from 26 academics written about various global catastrophic and existential risks.
The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity is a 2020 non-fiction book by the Australian philosopher Toby Ord, a senior research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute in Oxford. It argues that humanity faces unprecedented risks over the next few centuries and examines the moral significance of safeguarding humanity's future.
End Times: A Brief Guide to the End of the World is a 2019 non-fiction book by journalist Bryan Walsh. The book discusses various risks of human extinction, including asteroids, volcanoes, nuclear war, global warming, pathogens, biotech, AI, and extraterrestrial intelligence. The book includes interviews with astronomers, anthropologists, biologists, climatologists, geologists, and other scholars. The book advocates strongly for greater action.
Longtermism is the ethical view that positively influencing the long-term future is a key moral priority of our time. It is an important concept in effective altruism and a primary motivation for efforts that aim to reduce existential risks to humanity.
Scenarios in which a global catastrophic risk creates harm have been widely discussed. Some sources of catastrophic risk are anthropogenic, such as global warming, environmental degradation, and nuclear war. Others are non-anthropogenic or natural, such as meteor impacts or supervolcanoes. The impact of these scenarios can vary widely, depending on the cause and the severity of the event, ranging from temporary economic disruption to human extinction. Many societal collapses have already happened throughout human history.
Existential risk studies (ERS) is a field of studies focused on the definition and theorization of "existential risks", its ethical implications and the related strategies of long-term survival. Existential risks are diversely defined as global kinds of calamity that have the capacity of inducing the extinction of intelligent earthling life, such as humans, or, at least, a severe limitation of their potential, as defined by ERS theorists. The field development and expansion can be divided in waves according to its conceptual changes as well as its evolving relationship with related fields and theories, such as futures studies, disaster studies, AI safety, effective altruism and longtermism.
References
↑ Di Mardi (October 15, 2020). "The grim fate that could be 'worse than extinction'". BBC News. Retrieved November 11, 2020. When we think of existential risks, events like nuclear war or asteroid impacts often come to mind.
1 2 Raup, David M. (1995). "The Role of Extinction in Evolution". In Fitch, W. M.; Ayala, F. J. (eds.). Tempo And Mode in Evolution: Genetics And Paleontology 50 Years After Simpson. National Academies Press (US).
1 2 Reese, Martin (2003). Our Final Hour: A Scientist's Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind's Future In This Century – On Earth and Beyond. Basic Books. ISBN0-465-06863-4.
↑ Ord, Toby (2020). The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. New York: Hachette. 4:15–31. ISBN9780316484916. This is an equivalent, though crisper statement of Nick Bostrom's definition: "An existential risk is one that threatens the premature extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the permanent and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future development." Source: Bostrom, Nick (2013). "Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority". Global Policy.
↑ Sagan, Carl (1994). Pale Blue Dot. Random House. pp.305–6. ISBN0-679-43841-6. Some planetary civilizations see their way through, place limits on what may and what must not be done, and safely pass through the time of perils. Others are not so lucky or so prudent, perish.
↑ Parfit, Derek (2011). On What Matters Vol. 2. Oxford University Press. p.616. ISBN9780199681044. We live during the hinge of history ... If we act wisely in the next few centuries, humanity will survive its most dangerous and decisive period.
↑ Grace, Katja; Salvatier, John; Dafoe, Allen; Zhang, Baobao; Evans, Owain (May 3, 2018). "When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts". arXiv:1705.08807 [cs.AI].
↑ Bostrom, Nick (2002), "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards", Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol.9, My subjective opinion is that setting this probability lower than 25% would be misguided, and the best estimate may be considerably higher.
↑ Adams, Robert Merrihew (October 1989). "Should Ethics be More Impersonal? a Critical Notice of Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons". The Philosophical Review. 98 (4): 439–484. doi:10.2307/2185115. JSTOR2185115.
↑ Best, Steven (2014). "Conclusion: Reflections on Activism and Hope in a Dying World and Suicidal Culture". The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan. p.165. doi:10.1057/9781137440723_7. ISBN978-1137471116. In an era of catastrophe and crisis, the continuation of the human species in a viable or desirable form, is obviously contingent and not a given or necessary good. But considered from the standpoint of animals and the earth, the demise of humanity would be the best imaginable event possible, and the sooner the better. The extinction of Homo sapiens would remove the malignancy ravaging the planet, destroy a parasite consuming its host, shut down the killing machines, and allow the earth to regenerate while permitting new species to evolve.
↑ May, Todd (December 17, 2018). "Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?". The New York Times. Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it. This is happening through at least three means. First, human contribution to climate change is devastating ecosystems ... Second, the increasing human population is encroaching on ecosystems that would otherwise be intact. Third, factory farming fosters the creation of millions upon millions of animals for whom it offers nothing but suffering and misery before slaughtering them in often barbaric ways. There is no reason to think that those practices are going to diminish any time soon. Quite the opposite.
↑ Barcella, Laura (2012). The end: 50 apocalyptic visions from pop culture that you should know about – before it's too late. San Francisco, California: Zest Books. ISBN978-0982732250.
↑ Dinello, Daniel (2005). Technophobia!: science fiction visions of posthuman technology (1sted.). Austin, Texas: University of Texas press. ISBN978-0-292-70986-7.
de Bellaigue, Christopher, "A World Off the Hinges" (review of Peter Frankopan, The Earth Transformed: An Untold History, Knopf, 2023, 695 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXX, no. 18 (23 November 2023), pp.40–42. De Bellaigue writes: "Like the Maya and the Akkadians we have learned that a broken environment aggravates political and economic dysfunction and that the inverse is also true. Like the Qing we rue the deterioration of our soils. But the lesson is never learned. [...] Denialism [...] is one of the most fundamental of human traits and helps explain our current inability to come up with a response commensurate with the perils we face." (p.41.)
Holt, Jim, "The Power of Catastrophic Thinking" (review of Toby Ord, The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity, Hachette, 2020, 468 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXVIII, no. 3 (February 25, 2021), pp.26–29. Jim Holt writes (p.28): "Whether you are searching for a cure for cancer, or pursuing a scholarly or artistic career, or engaged in establishing more just institutions, a threat to the future of humanity is also a threat to the significance of what you do."
Torres, Phil. (2017). Morality, Foresight, and Human Flourishing: An Introduction to Existential Risks. Pitchstone Publishing. ISBN978-1634311427.
Michel Weber, "Book Review: Walking Away from Empire", Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 10, no. 2, 2014, pp.329–336.
"Treading Thin Air: Geoff Mann on Uncertainty and Climate Change", London Review of Books, vol. 45, no. 17 (7 September 2023), pp.17–19. "[W]e are in desperate need of a politics that looks [the] catastrophic uncertainty [of global warming and climate change] square in the face. That would mean taking much bigger and more transformative steps: all but eliminating fossil fuels... and prioritizing democratic institutions over markets. The burden of this effort must fall almost entirely on the richest people and richest parts of the world, because it is they who continue to gamble with everyone else's fate." (p.19.)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
