Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Anthropogenic Existential Risk  (Read 20583 times)

Ninebelowzero

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #50 on: November 21, 2016, 05:19:43 PM »
"Let them eat cake."   :o


How about a double Carrington with fries?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVQ0J0sTrTM

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12774
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #52 on: January 05, 2017, 08:24:59 PM »
Pleasant dreams:

The first linked article is entitled: "Thinking About A U.S.-China War".
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thinking-about-a-us-china-war_us_586d1b2fe4b014e7c72ee536

&

The second linked article is entitled: "2.5 billion people, nukes and missiles. What could go wrong?"

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/asia/china-india-icbm/

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12774
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2017, 04:47:01 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "It is now two and a half minutes to midnight", this is not good news.

http://thebulletin.org/press-release/it-now-two-and-half-minutes-midnight10432

Extract: "In the statement about the Doomsday Clock, the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board notes: “Over the course of 2016, the global security landscape darkened as the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity’s most pressing existential threats, nuclear weapons and climate change … This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a US presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change …The board’s decision to move the clock less than a full minute — something it has never before done — reflects a simple reality: As this statement is issued, Donald Trump has been the US president only a matter of days …”

The statement continues: “Just the same, words matter, and President Trump has had plenty to say over the last year. Both his statements and his actions as President-elect have broken with historical precedent in unsettling ways. He has made ill-considered comments about expanding the US nuclear arsenal. He has shown a troubling propensity to discount or outright reject expert advice related to international security, including the conclusions of intelligence experts. And his nominees to head the Energy Department, and the Environmental Protection Agency dispute the basics of climate science. In short, even though he has just now taken office, the president’s intemperate statements, lack of openness to expert advice, and questionable cabinet nominations have already made a bad international security situation worse.”"
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 802
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2017, 05:57:29 PM »
Things are finally looking up!!!  :o :o
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12774
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #55 on: February 21, 2017, 03:22:48 AM »
The link leads to eight TED talks on: “What is the Anthropocene?”.  It begins by pointing out that we are stealing nature from our children & ends with a discussion of existential risks:

https://www.ted.com/playlists/439/what_is_the_anthropocene
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1988
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #56 on: February 27, 2017, 07:23:57 AM »
Not sure if this is the right thread for this.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/25/half-all-species-extinct-end-century-vatican-conference

Biologists say half of all species could be extinct by end of century

Scientists at Vatican conference are searching for a solution to the manmade ‘major extinction event’


"The living fabric of the world is slipping through our fingers without our showing much sign of caring,” say the organisers of the Biological Extinction conference held at the Vatican this week. ……………….

“Rich western countries are now siphoning up the planet’s resources and destroying its ecosystems at an unprecedented rate,” said biologist Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford University in California. “We want to build highways across the Serengeti to get more rare earth minerals for our cellphones. We grab all the fish from the sea, wreck the coral reefs and put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We have triggered a major extinction event. The question is: how do we stop it?”

(Thanks to COBob at rs's site for this link and text)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12774
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #57 on: February 27, 2017, 10:05:13 AM »
Not sure if this is the right thread for this.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/25/half-all-species-extinct-end-century-vatican-conference

Biologists say half of all species could be extinct by end of century

Scientists at Vatican conference are searching for a solution to the manmade ‘major extinction event’


"The living fabric of the world is slipping through our fingers without our showing much sign of caring,” say the organisers of the Biological Extinction conference held at the Vatican this week. ……………….

“Rich western countries are now siphoning up the planet’s resources and destroying its ecosystems at an unprecedented rate,” said biologist Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford University in California. “We want to build highways across the Serengeti to get more rare earth minerals for our cellphones. We grab all the fish from the sea, wreck the coral reefs and put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We have triggered a major extinction event. The question is: how do we stop it?”


(Thanks to COBob at rs's site for this link and text)


The associated linked article is entitled: "Economic Growth — A Primer"; and it argues for planned degrowth as a solution (alternately Darwin will award a different solution):

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-02-22/economic-growth-a-primer/

Extract: "True, economic growth does provide some short-term benefits and gains, and recessions are legitimately painful and destructive.  But economic growth is nevertheless the greatest threat to humanity today, and those most devoted to economic growth will, as its consistent performance begins to wane in the future, perhaps be the greatest political threat to ordinary people of the world.  There is no issue, I would argue, that is more important than ending economic growth, and doing so in a just and equitable way, whether from the perspective of long term social-justice, political stability and, most acutely, the ecology of the planet and life on Earth.

But there is also a chance that we can evolve with the onset of crises, both economic and ecological—a chance that we may, as a global population, find our way to a system of commerce and production suited to a finite planet through some combination of evolution, redesign, experimentation, and plain good luck.  But this cannot happen until people begin to understand what economic growth really means and what it really does.  There may be no short-term constituency for degrowth; but maybe, just maybe, there are enough people willing to take a moral stand, sacrifice immediate self-interest, build other systems of plentidude for the long term good of our children, grandchildren, and all those who may–or may not–be able to call the blue planet home."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 619
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #58 on: February 27, 2017, 01:52:30 PM »
Organisations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party have been saying for years that the current economic system will at some time lead to collapse of the web of life. In the last 40 years, the average vertebrate species has declined in population by more than 50 percent. (I.e. fish, birds, amphibians, lizards, mammals)

Or as John Wayne might have (not) said " If the cowboys don't get us, the Native Americans will, and the Cavalry are out to lunch".
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #59 on: February 27, 2017, 02:14:36 PM »
Depressing chart.

Pmt111500

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1035
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #60 on: February 27, 2017, 04:45:43 PM »
Organisations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party have been saying for years that the current economic system will at some time lead to collapse of the web of life. In the last 40 years, the average vertebrate species has declined in population by more than 50 percent. (I.e. fish, birds, amphibians, lizards, mammals)

Or as John Wayne might have (not) said " If the cowboys don't get us, the jNative Americans will, and the Cavalry are out to lunch".

Diversity of insects is also in decline on many places. wasn't just recently (a) bumblebee declared endagered somewhere in USA? I know Trumpistani scheissentists do not approve many insect species, though. The stinging insect, the biting insect, crickets, and pests i think are the ones approved and despised but i don't know of others. Are there some?

(to name the species, rusty backed bumblebee is the species in question.)
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 05:37:29 PM by Pmt111500 »
A quantity relates to a quantum like camel's back relates to camel's _______ ? (back, vertebra, vertebral tendon, spinal disc, paralysis)

Hefaistos

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #61 on: February 27, 2017, 05:35:54 PM »
Depressing chart.

It looks more depressing than it should. Long term accumulative developments should be illustrated with a logarithmic scale plot, not linear scale.
The linear plot is impossible to read, it's just confusing because it obscures what it purports to illustrate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-log_plot#Microbial_growth

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #62 on: February 27, 2017, 08:08:36 PM »
The chart is not the least bit confusing and it is appropriately depressing.

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1212
    • View Profile
    • Nexpaq Modular ARA iOS Software Mobile Computing Phones Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multipelsklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgie
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #63 on: February 27, 2017, 09:15:25 PM »
The chart is not the least bit confusing and it is appropriately depressing.

+1
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 619
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #64 on: February 27, 2017, 09:40:07 PM »
Organisations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party have been saying for years that the current economic system will at some time lead to collapse of the web of life. In the last 40 years, the average vertebrate species has declined in population by more than 50 percent. (I.e. fish, birds, amphibians, lizards, mammals)

Or as John Wayne might have (not) said " If the cowboys don't get us, the jNative Americans will, and the Cavalry are out to lunch".
65

Diversity of insects is also in decline on many places. wasn't just recently (a) bumblebee declared endagered somewhere in USA? I know Trumpistani scheissentists do not approve many insect species, though. The stinging insect, the biting insect, crickets, and pests i think are the ones approved and despised but i don't know of others. Are there some?

(to name the species, rusty backed bumblebee is the species in question.)

They say 40 percent of our food depends on fertisation by bees. They are in trouble in the USA and Europe (new types of pesticides).
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1945
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #65 on: March 01, 2017, 06:50:05 AM »
As a child in the village of Blair, the monarch butterflies would darken the skies when startled. There has been very little growth in Blair, but the most recent butterfly count found 14 monarchs extant.


Thanks Monsanto
Terry

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12774
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #66 on: March 08, 2017, 02:19:21 AM »
The linked article is entitled: "Stephen Hawking: Technological advances 'may destroy us all'", and it elaborates on Hawking's previous warnings of existential risks.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/nation-now/2017/03/07/stephen-hawking-technological-advances-may-destroy-us-all/98841862/

Extract: "In an interview with The Times, Hawking reiterated that humankind faces a slew of threats ranging from climate change to mass species extinction. He noted that technological advances have helped humans achieve seemingly insurmountable feats, but may also lead to our demise.

“Since civilization began, aggression has been useful inasmuch as it has definite survival advantages,” he told The Times. “It is hard-wired into our genes by Darwinian evolution. Now, however, technology has advanced at such a pace that this aggression may destroy us all by nuclear or biological war. We need to control this inherited instinct by our logic and reason.”
But despite the issues facing humankind, there may be hope for our survival, according to Hawking, but only if we all work together.

“We need to be quicker to identify such threats and act before they get out of control. This might mean some form of world government," he said."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Pmt111500

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1035
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #67 on: March 15, 2017, 09:45:24 AM »
PETM Tropical Dinoflagellate story here, I think. Thoughts? http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1600891
A quantity relates to a quantum like camel's back relates to camel's _______ ? (back, vertebra, vertebral tendon, spinal disc, paralysis)

Cid_Yama

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #68 on: March 15, 2017, 05:10:32 PM »
No Tropical Thermostat during PETM

Extreme warmth and heat-stressed plankton in the tropics during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum
Abstract

Global ocean temperatures rapidly warmed by ~5°C during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM; ~56 million years ago). Extratropical sea surface temperatures (SSTs) met or exceeded modern subtropical values. With these warm extratropical temperatures, climate models predict tropical SSTs >35°C—near upper physiological temperature limits for many organisms. However, few data are available to test these projected extreme tropical temperatures or their potential lethality. We identify the PETM in a shallow marine sedimentary section deposited in Nigeria. On the basis of planktonic foraminiferal Mg/Ca and oxygen isotope ratios and the molecular proxy Embedded Image, latest Paleocene equatorial SSTs were ~33°C, and Embedded Image indicates that SSTs rose to >36°C during the PETM. This confirms model predictions on the magnitude of polar amplification and refutes the tropical thermostat theory. We attribute a massive drop in dinoflagellate abundance and diversity at peak warmth to thermal stress, showing that the base of tropical food webs is vulnerable to rapid warming.

...we surmise that conditions became too hot for most dinoflagellate taxa during the body of the PETM, when SSTs rose to values >36°C. Such temperatures are considered uninhabitable for most marine eukaryotic organisms today (48) even for hardy dinoflagellates, which are among the most temperature-resilient eukaryote plankton groups (49). Apart from often displaying narrow temperature tolerance ranges (9), many modern thermophilic organisms show a sharp decline in productivity and, consequently, survival above optimum temperatures (50). A similar absence of mixed-layer planktonic foraminifera was observed in Tanzania (12), suggesting that heat stress may have been more widespread in tropical marginal marine settings during the PETM.

link


Longstanding theories dating to the 1980s suggest that as the rest of the earth warms, the tropical temperatures would be strictly limited, or regulated by an internal 'thermostat.' These theories are controversial, but the debate is of great importance because the tropics and subtropics comprise half of the earth's surface area, greater than half of the earth's biodiversity, as well as over half the earth's human population. But new geological and climate-based research indicates the tropics may have reached a temperature 56 million years ago that was, indeed, too hot for living organisms to survive in parts of the tropics.

"The records produced in this study indicate that when the tropics warmed that last little bit, a threshold was passed and parts of the tropical biosphere seems to have died," Huber said. "This is the first time that we've found really good information, in a very detailed way, where we saw major changes in the tropics directly associated with warming past a key threshold in the past 60 million years."

If you say there's no tropical thermostat, then half of the world's biodiversity -- over half of the world's population, the tropical rainforests, the reefs, India, Brazil -- these populous and very important countries have nothing to prevent them from warming up substantially above conditions that humans can survive.



Did they really believe in some homeostatic salvation for the tropics, or was it just too inconvenient to speak the truth? 
« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 05:19:04 PM by Cid_Yama »

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 802
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #69 on: March 15, 2017, 06:03:21 PM »
They actually did.  Devine intervention. You will be surprised what mental blinders and cognitive bias can do to the interpretation of data
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

Pmt111500

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1035
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #70 on: March 15, 2017, 06:29:44 PM »
They actually did.  Devine intervention. You will be surprised what mental blinders and cognitive bias can do to the interpretation of data
Well yes. Ultimtely. Humanity, in this projection has the capability of killing everything (outside bacteria and cyanobacteria inside 20S°-25°N. About. Maybe this is not a clear and present danger the like US/Russian nukes are but it's a possibility and a reaso  to plan for a novel in which humanity has divided in five subspecies.
A quantity relates to a quantum like camel's back relates to camel's _______ ? (back, vertebra, vertebral tendon, spinal disc, paralysis)

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 802
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #71 on: March 15, 2017, 06:56:10 PM »
On a planet killing scale, what is worse- nukes or hyperthermal?
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12774
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #72 on: March 15, 2017, 07:48:10 PM »
On a planet killing scale, what is worse- nukes or hyperthermal?

Who is to say that approaching hyperthermal conditions won't trigger a nuclear war; which could then trigger a nuclear winter.

Just saying ...
« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 07:57:01 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1945
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #73 on: March 15, 2017, 09:28:17 PM »
On a planet killing scale, what is worse- nukes or hyperthermal?


I don't think the planet dies, just it's inhabitants.


Anything that delays what seems more and more to be our inevitable demise gets my vote. If however this comes down to the Russians dying a month sooner than we, I don't see that as advantageous.


It does seem as though the Anthropocene, for whatever reason, will be by far the shortest of eras.


Terry

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12774
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #74 on: August 20, 2017, 05:48:29 PM »
The linked MAHB website offers numerous & multi-disciplinary articles regarding the reality of the challenges that mankind and the biosphere are currently facing in the Anthropocene.  In this regards, I also provide a link to the MAHB archive on extinction as well as three links to the most recent articles on the website:

The Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere: connecting activists, scientists, humanists and civil society to foster global change.

https://mahb.stanford.edu/

https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-category/extinction/


Title: "When optimism spells disaster…"

https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/optimism/

Extract: "One of the most dangerous threats to the human future in this, the Age of Perils, is … optimism.

Nowadays, if you tell the tested truth about climate science, weapons of mass destruction, global pollution, extinction or, indeed, any of the ten existential threats now closing in on humanity, you are likely to provoke one of two responses.

The first is a sober “Shit. I never knew it was that bad. What’s the evidence?” followed by “What can we do about it?”

The second ranges from polite dismissal to “I don’t want to hear all that bad news”, to outright, hysterical abuse, in which you are labelled everything from a “doomsayer” and a “Malthusian” to a spreader of lies, a “greenie nutcase” or even a socialist, a Marxist or a contemptible liberal!

Human society neatly divides into folk who can handle bad news – and those who can’t. Those who put their hands over their ears and demand you shut up. Or, as Charles Darwin might have observed, those who are fit for survival – and those who ain’t.

Optimism can be a useful attribute in a general, a politician or a business manager, providing it is based on fact, not mere belief. It nurtures the resilience to endure tough times. But remaining stubbornly “optimistic” when the weight of evidence points to imminent dangers to civilization and maybe even our species is a formula for disaster, that spells inaction and, consequently, an increase in the scale of the risk. It decreases our fitness for survival. It is, in short, extremely unwise.

Many “optimists” insist that humans are so smart we will come up with technical solutions to all the leading threats we face (though how we can do this with nuclear weapons is a moot question). And it is true that technical solutions exist to most of them. However, this ignores the fact that many of our greatest institutions – governments, corporations, faiths – are unable or unwilling to take action until the threats become so vast as to be unstoppable. The technical solutions will not develop unless society sees a need for them.

In this case it is the blind optimists, rather than the realistic pessimists, who imperil our future.
..
To overcome them humanity doesn’t need optimism or pessimism. It needs to exercise a singular attribute that has stood us in good stead for over a million years: wisdom."

&

Title: "When and How Will Growth Cease?"

https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/when-how-growth-cease/

&

Title: "Contraceptual Art"

https://mahb.stanford.edu/creative-expressions/contraceptual-art/

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12774
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #75 on: August 30, 2017, 02:40:37 AM »
Human extinction may well result from transhumanism leading to posthuman beings as a result of the 4th Industrial Revolution circa 2050:

Title: "Transhumanism"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

Extract: "Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international and intellectual movement that aims to transform the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellect and physiology.

Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human as well as ethical limitations of using such technologies. The most common transhumanist thesis is that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into different beings with abilities so greatly expanded from the natural condition as to merit the label of posthuman beings."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12774
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #76 on: September 02, 2017, 04:17:01 PM »
The spread of antibiotic-resistant genes via animal feed worldwide is accelerating the risks from superbugs.  Remember that 10 million death per year by superbugs by 2050 assumes that society has not collapsed, so just imagine the existential risks of these superbugs in world with high climate impacts and collapsed socio-economic systems:

Title: "Superbugs are on track to kill 10 million people by 2050 if things don’t change—fast"

https://qz.com/657514/superbugs-could-kill-10-million-people-by-2050-if-a-lot-of-things-dont-change-fast/

Extract: "By 2050, 10 million people globally will die each year, as the potent diseases of previous centuries return to their old force."

See also:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/antibiotic-resistant-genes-spread-in-animal-feed-across-world-bacteria-germs-scientists-discover-a7920016.html
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12774
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #77 on: September 05, 2017, 12:40:22 AM »
Musk believes that the international race for AI superiority could lead to WW III.

Title: "Elon Musk predicts World War III"

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/04/technology/culture/elon-musk-ai-world-war/index.html

Extract: " North Korea "should be low on our list of concerns for civilizational existential risk," Musk said in one of a series of posts on Twitter (TWTR, Tech30) early Monday.

"Competition for AI superiority at national level most likely cause of WW3 imo," Musk said in another tweet, using the Internet short-hand for "in my opinion."

At the moment, the United States, China and India are the three countries leading the AI race, according to one top tech industry executive.

But Musk believes others will try to catch up by any means possible. "Govts don't need to follow normal laws," he said in one tweet. "They will obtain AI developed by companies at gunpoint, if necessary.""
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

6roucho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 286
  • Finance geek
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #78 on: September 05, 2017, 09:39:41 AM »
I wouldn't disagree with Musk on this. Prudent risk management says we should stringently mitigate this risk, because it *is* existential, but at the moment, its in the hands of individual scientists, and more worryingly, of government labs.

There's a great deal of head-in-the-sand denial from technology businesspeople who say this isn't a risk, because, like, it isn't. Methinks their eye is on the size of the prize, not on the chance of collecting it. When we finally crack the problem of inventing a species more intelligent than we are, there's no good reason to think it'll be well-disposed towards us, apart from optimism, and some lame first-directive-style sci-fi tropes.

As a risk analyst, I throw my tentacles in the air in despair.

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1393
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #79 on: September 20, 2017, 10:45:12 PM »
A paper by Rothman discusses  thresholds for large extinction events in terms of carbon loading of the oceans. He finds a simple rule for the threshold which translates to about 300 gigatonne presently.  He does discuss possible exceptions to the rule also.

Concludes with:
"The upshot is that an unstable trajectory would reach its maximum extent roughly 1e4 years after the threshold is breached. But how that process plays out remains unknown."

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1700906

Nice paper, open access. Read all about it.

sidd

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12774
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #80 on: September 23, 2017, 12:59:34 AM »
The linked reference indicates that we are at least halfway to global catastrophe due to climate change:

Daniel H. Rothman (20 Sep 2017), "Thresholds of catastrophe in the Earth system", Science Advances,  Vol. 3, no. 9, e1700906, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1700906

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1700906.full

Abstract: "The history of the Earth system is a story of change. Some changes are gradual and benign, but others, especially those associated with catastrophic mass extinction, are relatively abrupt and destructive. What sets one group apart from the other? Here, I hypothesize that perturbations of Earth’s carbon cycle lead to mass extinction if they exceed either a critical rate at long time scales or a critical size at short time scales. By analyzing 31 carbon isotopic events during the past 542 million years, I identify the critical rate with a limit imposed by mass conservation. Identification of the crossover time scale separating fast from slow events then yields the critical size. The modern critical size for the marine carbon cycle is roughly similar to the mass of carbon that human activities will likely have added to the oceans by the year 2100."

See also the associated Scribbler article entitled: "Half-way to Catastrophe — Global Hothouse Extinction to be Triggered by or Before 2100 Without Rapid Emissions Cuts"

https://robertscribbler.com/2017/09/22/half-way-to-catastrophe-sixth-global-mass-extinction-to-be-triggered-by-or-before-2100-without-rapid-emissions-cuts/

Extract; "Now a new scientific study reveals that we are have already emitted 50 percent of the carbon needed to set off such a major global catastrophe."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 619
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Existential Risk
« Reply #81 on: September 24, 2017, 03:24:49 PM »
Who needs Climate Change to implement the 6th Mass Extinction ?
Homo (not very) Sapiens does not.

Robertscribbler.com has just put this up:-

Half-way to Catastrophe — Global Hothouse Extinction to be Triggered by or Before 2100 Without Rapid Emissions Cuts

Fossil Fuel Burning = Race Toward a 6th Mass Extinction

Trouble is, the 6th Mass Extinction is well underway without much help from climate change. The following links give a clue:-
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089.full  -
"Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vertebrate-populations-plummet-in-4-decades/
Vertebrate Populations Plummet in 4 Decades
Deforestation and other human actions have cut the populations of mammals, birds, amphibians and fish by 58 percent since 1970

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/27/world-on-track-to-lose-two-thirds-of-wild-animals-by-2020-major-report-warns
World on track to lose two-thirds of wild animals by 2020, major report warns
Living Planet Index shows vertebrate populations are set to decline by 67% on 1970 levels unless urgent action is taken to reduce humanity’s impact

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/49/14079.full
Large numbers of vertebrates began rapid population decline in the late 19th century
"Significance
The current rate of species extinction is ∼1,000 times the background rate of extinction and is attributable to human impact, ecological and demographic fluctuations, and inbreeding due to small population sizes. The rate and the initiation date of rapid population decline (RPD) can provide important clues about the driving forces of population decline in threatened species, but they are generally unknown. We analyzed the genetic diversity data in 2,764 vertebrate species. Our population genetics modeling suggests that in many threatened vertebrate species the RPD on average began in the late 19th century, and the mean current size of threatened vertebrates is only 5% of their ancestral size. We estimated a ∼25% population decline every 10 y in threatened vertebrate species."

I wish scientists (and humans in general) recognised that there is usually more than one cause to make an effect.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"