Matus1976 - Philosophy, Science, Politics,Art,History

Global Warming Primer, Solutions and Complications, and My Position.

I haven’t been too vocal on my opinions on Global Warming and the politics surrounding it but I’ve been watching some excellent videos from Berkeley professor Richard Muller on the topic and find them one of the best all around rational primers on the topic I’ve yet seen. A brilliant professor, Muller’s “Physics for Future Presidents” lectures have been skyrocketing in popularity even leading to the publication of a mainstream book. Those who are admirers of Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson, Isaac Asimov, or Carl Sagan would find a kindred spirit in Muller where his brilliant conceptual presentations of complex topics and routine reduction into concrete examples are on par with those great popularizes of science.

You can download his full course, which I highly recommend, at Berkeley’s web cast site http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978373

With my near lifelong affair with science, philosophy, and skepticism I think I’ve come to a peculiar opinion on Global Warming. Muller makes every explicit effort to avoid directing your conclusions or barraging you with appeals to authority and instead takes great pains in clearly showing the science and physics and allowing you to form your own informed opinions on the matter, exposing misconceptions and lies from both sides of the debate. Muller’s credentials are impeccable, and his explicit desire to weed through the vagarious interpretations and try to pull out the real, accurate understanding of exactly what’s going on in the world is admirable and precisely what resonates most with me.

I urge everyone to watch through Muller’s videos, which are recorded presentations from his Berkeley class. They are engaging, entertaining, and extremely informative and will give you a great deal of confidence when forming your judgments on such a complex topic.

Part 1 of 12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyuKOtIryis

With that, there is a great deal of skewing on all sides of this issue. The stop global warming advocacy groups have committed their fair share of moral frauds. They have routinely exaggerated temperature increase as explicitly outlined by the IPCC reports and exaggerated the certainty of those reports. Activists routinely cherry pick data, selecting isolated data points that support their hypothesis but ignoring numerous ones that do not, a tactic not readily identifiable to non scientifically trained persons. Egregiously mainstream science has now more than ever come to accept anecdotal evidence in support of a tentative conclusion. We are routinely barraged with observations that there seem to be more armadillos this far north than ever before or there are fewer salmon then in the last 30 years as actual evidence proving drastic climatic consequences, even though the consensus agrees to only a 1 degree Fahrenheit temperature difference which is only discernable from exhaustive statistical studies. A definite publication bias has arisen exploiting the public concern about global warming, publishing a paper on the mating habits of ground squirrels is iffy, but link it to global warming and you get published. The original hockey stick graph which most modern concern about global warming was build on was not just flawed but fraudulent and has exposed the terrible weakness that reliance on computer models brought about. Too often models are used AS evidence, not as tools to find evidence in the real world, the height of hubris. Historically, CO2 increases tend to follow temperature increases, so the global correlation to CO2 and temperature rise is not so clear cut, even though CO2 is a green house gas, it also promotes plant growth and cloud formation, as the entire climate and life cycles are complex enough that centuries more of study will be required to understand it. The presumption that there is ‘state’ which the planet should be in as optimal temperature is ludicrous, and to think that we humans know and can choose what that state ought to be (especially given our terrible track record managing wildlife preserves) is frightening. Give someone a computer and a physics book and he thinks he has the entire world and every complex interaction in it all ready figured out.

Conversely though, the global warming skeptics or deniers (as a skeptic, which merely means a reliance on clear objective data before embracing an interpretation, I am hesitant to use it in this way) have had their fair share of disingenuous or fraudulent assertions. Suggesting that solar output is the sole mechanism for temperature changes is overly simplistic. Suggesting that methane is 25x more potent than co2 ignores the fact that methane cycles through the atmosphere in a few years before it is removed, while CO2 remains virtually indefinitely. Similarly, while ater vapor is some 100 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, it cycles through the atmosphere in a few weeks and it is only an increase in average air temperatures that could sustain an increase in both H20 and Methane over the long run. The deniers asserting that change is natural and temperatures fluctuate all the time ignore the difference between fluctuations over geographical time scales (thousands of years) and fluctuations over human times scales, and whether it is ultimately a good idea to be creating such fluctuations over short time periods.

With that acknowledgement of issues on both sides (I am sure there are many more) I’d like to point to some of the complexities that arise.

There is a great deal of difficulty weeding out variables in science. The “factoring out variables” stage is complex and factoring has it’s own succession of controversy surrounding it. Consider as an example (there are thousands) that many temperature readings have come from population centers, and these suffer from a natural ‘heat island’ effect, where sunlight heats man made structures more so than the average surrounding area. Scientists try to make reasonable adjustments for these kinds of factors, making educated guesses about what the data would be if it could have been collected in a perfect setting. The problem with this is that even the degree to which variables should be factored out is highly contentious. In a situation like the heat island effect, because of the small real increase in temperatures, different interpretations of factoring can basically make that temperature change disappear and global warming a non-issue. Most papers and graphs presented have already has this ‘factoring’ done on it, a unfair representation at it’s onset.

When we start talking about ways to mitigate CO2 emissions, things are not clear cut at all. For example, most recycling is actually WORSE from a global warming perspective because recycling focuses on conserving material resources, NOT Energy. With the possible exception of aluminum (whose processing is extremely energy intensive) it usually takes more energy re collect material resources like paper and glass, re process them, and then redistribute them then it does to collect them from a centralized location and manufacture / process them in a large centralized plant. In manufacturing, scale typically associates with efficiency, the more you make of something the more efficiently each individual component was made. This is borne out in the fact that most recycling programs are huge money pits and must be subsidized. The utilization of material resources (other than fossil fuels) is an entirely different use than creating greenhouse gases yet they are routinely lumped together.

Further, building more dams for instance actually creates a very large short term increase in the green house effect, because submerged vegetation decays quickly into methane, the long term reduction in CO2 emissions from hydroelectric power might never offset the short term increase because of the methane emissions from decaying vegetation.

Counter intuitively, a large increase in coal burning plants will actually delay the increase in global warming in the near term because of the reflective and cloud precipitating nature of the particulate matter, possibly giving us a chance to implement newer better technologies before those particulates precipitate out. Some scientist have proposed seeding the upper atmosphere with harmless nano particles to precipitate more cloud cover to reflect more incoming lite which will stay suspended indefinitely, putting us on the road to literal climate control.

Environmental Scientists David Keith presents this in his TED Lecture “A surprising idea for "solving" climate change” - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html

The bigger question which arises is that if global warming is occurring and is anthropogenic, what should be done about it and how much should we spend doing it.

In that, a person I admire greatly Bjorn Lomborg (a gay atheist vegetarian and so certainly no right wing flunky) assembled a conference of economists to weight this question. Climatologists are appropriate people to appeal to when trying to ascertain a scientific understanding of the climate and where it’s going, but they are not the people who ought to decide how much is spent and on what. You can watch his presentation on the Copenhagen conference at TED here http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html where he asks us to rationally prioritize the threats to the world and what should be done about them, and even by the worst IPCC estimates, global warming will be inconvenient and expensive, but pales in comparison to the damage done by malaria or dysentery.

Beyond that though, Lomborg and the Copenhagen conference stopped short of actually identifying existential threats to humanity, civilization, and indeed all life on Earth and instead focused on the general well fare of humanity.

For a summary of all the threats we face see Discover Magazine’s managing editor Stephen Petranek TED Conference presentation on “10 ways the world could end” http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/stephen_petranek_counts_down_to_armageddon.html

Those of you familiar with me know I am intimately involved with the Lifeboat Foundation, as one of it’s earliest members and current staff member, I spoke on their behalf in front of the Navy War College’s Strategic Studies group. The Lifeboat Foundation seeks to identify, prioritize, and work to mitigate all the existential threats we face. Cumulatively, global warming, even if anthropogenic, barely makes the radar. Yet global warming is almost exclusively the existential threat people are concerned about, and virtually everything proposed to combat global warming will make mitigating all of the other existential threats we face fare more difficult, and expending tremendous resources combating a not so serious problem might very well doom us to a sudden catastrophe from something that was not political expedient to parade around and had no vice presidential candidate building his reputation on scaring people about it. It is my firm opinion that if you are not explicitly aware of the most commonly identified existential threats we face, and make a compelling case as to how they should be prioritized and mitigated; you have no business holding such a series of opinions about global warming.

With all that, my opinion on global warming is currently as follows:

I am no fan of ‘consensus’ science, historically, some of the worst things in the world have come from appeals to a consensus, science is not something which progresses by a popular vote or a consensus. Almost all great scientific and technological advancements have come specifically from disregarding the consensus. When an issue is complex enough that it requires appeals to consensus, then the data is not clear enough to make policy pronouncements on. Conversely, a reasonable scientific investigation does seem to suggest that the Earth has warmed, on average, globally, about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 30 years. What’s not clear is that this is explicitly anthropogenic in nature, BUT, we certainly are producing a large quantity of CO2 from previously sequestered sources and CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, so it is reasonable to suspect that if such a warming is occurring, and a large quantity of a gas known to be responsible for a warming like that has been released, that they could be casually related. The reliance however on computer models, the lack of peer review of the data and the programs, and the track record of forgery from these within the advocates of anthropogenic global warming, are something that should cause concern in any rationally minded person and skepticism toward their results.

The solutions usually proposed to alleviate global warming and cut CO2 emissions almost always deal with a curtailment of industrial and economic growth. Global warming, even by it the worst estimates of the IPCC, does not pose a threat to life on earth or human civilization, but the expensive current solutions proposed to delay it (which ultimately will have little effect) might very well doom us to one of the other numerous existential threats we face, which most people are neither aware of nor care to learn about. That asteroid heading toward Earth ready to extinguish all life won’t give a damn what your ‘carbon footprint’ was.

My philosophy of science skepticism and libertarian streaks find many disturbing trends in the modern stop global warming advocacy groups. Global warming is simultaneously tapping into our penchant for original sin, environmentalist scare mongering and an almost religious indoctrination and devotion to some profound ‘purpose’ in life so many people strive for, (especially in the purpose vacuum of modern secular materialistic determinism) all in the name of the ‘greater good’ and for functionally promulgating the centralization of power. This original sin is the nagging guilt many people feel for existing on the planet and consuming resources. Moral parasites are drawn to this penchant ready to try to alleviate you of that guilt by convincing you to do things to ‘earn’ the right to exist, either by giving them money or working toward ‘their’ case, and people are all too ready to expend a little bit of effort in something someone has convinced them will make them feel really good. Often no care is paid to whether they actually DO any good, it is only the intention and attempt that matters. The scare mongering of environmentalist is simply atrocious, from banning effective safe pesticides like DDT, and scaring everyone about nuclear power, their atrocious track record should hang like an ominous black cloud over everything they say, far overshadowing the slight objective good that has come from environmentalism. People in rich western nations, especially ‘educated’ ones, have moved beyond the explicit recognition of classical religious doctrines they consider low brow, but still contain the strong psychological compulsion to adopt a religious form of thought which grants an easy moral righteousness to them, gives them a clear and easily understandable ‘purpose’ in life, promises a heaven for them (or their children - sustainability) and allows them to atone for the guilt of existing which comes from having no clear objective standard of assessing their own self worth. Those moral parasites are all too familiar with these and the modern environmentalism movement has gone through great pains to essentially establish itself as a modern religion filling that vacuum of the educated secular westerner.

The accumulation of power for the greater good that environmentalist so strongly advocate has historically killed almost ten times as many people this century as all wars this century combined. Everyone is well aware that Hitler killed 6 million Jews and probably about 10 – 12 million Germans total. Few know that Stalin intentionally starved to death more than 60 million people, almost 10 times the number of Jews that Hitler killed. The murderously disastrous policies of Mao in China killed nearly 35 million Chinese peasants, forcing most of them to work themselves to death, starving, on their own farms. Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos killed nearly 5 million people intentionally. All of these deaths came at the hands of government officials who had centralized power, removed the liberties of their subjects, and did so in the name of the ‘greater good’. Don’t appeal to global warming skeptics or deniers being stooges of the ‘big energy’ without acknowledging that politicians vying for controls and regulations will put hundreds of billions of dollars into the pockets of regulators and those politicians and pass arbitrary whims as laws which effect the livelihood, and lives, of untold millions. People who, like Ralph Nader, get to be rich and famous not from inventing great new power generating technologies or efficient safe transportations systems, but merely by attacking everything else productive and good and becoming famous by scaring everyone.

Any centralization of power is dangerous, centralizing control and regulation over all industry is just about the most dangerous thing we can do. The disastrous ethanol subsidies policies all ready fore shadow this in the US, where half of the worlds food supply is produced but industry is forced to use food as fuel which has subsequently raised global food prices and probably caused many hundreds of thousands of people to starve to death. The nations which are freest, both economically and politically, are the ones with the best environmental track records. Yet environmentalist and advocates for acting to stop global warming almost unanimously propose government intervention as the solution. Riding to power on scaring people and a superficial religious like moral certainty, for ‘their own good’ has never turned out well. Where there are those demanding sacrifice, there are always other standing by to collect the proceeds of that sacrifice, be it labor, wealth, or spiritual servitude. These people come off to me as fustrated social tyrants riding on the coat tails of environmentalism, the secular remnants of original sin, and the drive for purpose in all to stagger around clamoring for power any power they can reach.

If Global Warming is a problem, and if it is indeed caused by human activities, then it was caused by environmentalist scare mongering which hijacked that natural technological energy progression trend away from cleaner fuels and ultimately nuclear power and forced societies to rely on coal plants. Many prominent members of the environmental community are now major advocates of Nuclear Power. The only nation which produces less CO2 today than it did 30 years ago is France, and only because 80% of their power is generated by Nuclear Power. Global Warming debates have been hijacked for political purposes by people clamoring for control and power over other people under the most superficial guises. Worldwide focus on it has come only at the expense of ignorance of all other threats we face and solutions proposed for it put us in much more dangerous situations with regard to those threats.

Without an exhaustive study I can’t say for sure that the Earth’s temperature has increased 1 degree Fahrenheit and that this increase was caused by our industries burning fossil fuels but I do think it pretty likely to be the case. Ultimately, it may just have to be the price we pay for industrial civilization until wide scale nuclear or solar power is available. However, global warming is a minor issue on the list of existential threats to humanity and life on earth, and the irrational single minded focus on it at the expense off all other real threats is dangerous and misguided, the proposed solutions are borne not from deep rational investigation but appeals to feelings of guilt and fear in the cowardly populace, and will drive the wealth and power of the world into an ever smaller portion of people who ultimately have control over men’s lives and property and create a dangerous recipe for cataclysmic incompetence. The problem of global warming is best left to the greatest problem solver of all time, the free minds and free exchanges of free people.

www.matus1976.com - Philosophy, Science, Politics, Art
www.ergoslope.com - Ergonomic Add On Desktop
www.Lifeboat.com - Lifeboat Foundation - Safeguarding Humanity

For many years I have been an active and staff member of the Lifeboat Foundation, from the time it consisted of only a few members.  I have always had a strong affinity to technology and as the potential became more obvious of technologies like nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, computer technology, and biotechnology, to make the human condition better, I have since come to consider myself an extropian or transhumanist.   An Extropian embraces the opposite of entropy, which in physics term is the progression into useless disorder that any system without intelligent input tends toward, so the opposite, extropy, is a continual progression into new patterns, order, more information, and general growth and progress.   

 

The coming age of nanotechnology, AI, and biotechnology may prove to be little different than our current age, or it may prove to be so profoundly different that it is almost impossible for us to even conceptualize it (referred to as the ‘singularity’ by advocates)  The end of aging, disease, and possibly even death, and certainly starvation, war, and poverty, are all seemingly within the realm of the physical possible.  Introduced to the Extropy institute by Skeptic Magazine and always embroiled in scientific skepticism, I always kept in mind that it’s all too easy for a secular humanist and technophobe to extrapolate the possible benefits into actual with fervent certainty, based on merely wishful thinking, leading one to essentially have an attitude about life, death, and immortality with religious tones but disguised in techno babble.   Many members of these technophile groups seem guilty of this to me, often ready, like good theists, to sit back and wait for the salvation singularity to come and save us all.  The collapse of civilization into the Dark Ages demonstrates clearly enough to me that technological optimism is not guaranteed.  

 

After a long involvement in these organizations, coupled with my skeptical attitude, I became more concerned with the potential threat that some of these technologies could pose.  So I soon became an active early supporter, and later employee and staff member, of the Lifeboat Foundation.  Rising with the great benefits that may come are some obvious and ominous dangers.  Could a runaway self replicating nanotechnological device consume the Earths biosphere and destroy all life on Earth?  Could an extremely deadly virus be genetically engineered to target specific ethnic groups with equipment found in any university?  Many advocates of technological growth are absolute optimists, seeing no possible way any harm could come from any of these technologies.  Others are on the other end of the spectrum, luddites seeking an outright curtailment of all technological growth in these potentially harmful areas.  As I have seen the membership grow and hostility to the Lifeboat Foundation decline over the years by active members of these technophilic groups, (in my own small anecdotal assessment) I see a pattern of a more rational caution emerging.  While optimistic, it wouldn’t hurt to have a deep understanding of all the possible implementations of potentially harmful technology, and in some cases obvious and simple mechanisms may be put in place to mitigate the chances of any dangerous technology being either intentionally or accidentally released.  

 

As a corollary to this understanding of the risk that these technologies may pose, one can not help but come to an understanding of the entirely natural threats to civilization, and indeed all life on Earth, also face and the dire need to identify these and work to mitigate them.  Consider that the last time a caldera volcano erupted on Earth, it likely brought the entire adult human population on the planet down to about 1,000 individuals, the closest humanity has ever come to complete extinction.  Everyone is very familiar with asteroid or comet impacts, but little attention is actually paid to identifying these threats and working to mitigate them.  Other threats, like a nearby supernovae or a rogue planet or black hole pose very serious threats, as do both natural and unnatural radical climate change (if you think a few feet of water from global warming would be bad, consider over a mile of ice covering most of the cities on Earth)   A recent informal poll of Lifeboat Foundation supporters, which now includes over 500 accomplished scientists, authors, futurists, and leading thinkers in their fields, ranked the threat from global warming next to last, just above “Alien Invasion”.  Even by the worst estimates made, Global Warming simply is not a civilization killer.  Indeed, as far as I am concerned, you have no business holding an opinion about Global Warming and what ought to be done about it without a very clear understanding of ALL the existential threats humanity and life on Earth face and a cohesive prioritization of those threats.  The ‘consensus’ from these informed individuals experienced in all existential threats was that the greatest threat we face is a sudden and catastrophic pandemic which wipes our enough life to collapse industrial civilization, leading us into a new dark age which we may never recover from, not global warming. 

 

The most vocal advocates of catastrophic climate change from global warming are very similarly minded to the group I mentioned above, the luddites, which would essentially seek a curtailment of technological growth and ultimately industrial civilization, in order to prevent the threats which might come from new technologies.  But such a path of local sustainability and small global populations, while stopping global warming and possibly stopping the threat of new technologies (organizations in secret will still likely pursue these technologies though, but now without oversight)  will essentially sentence all life on Earth to certain death.  While the threats that new technologies may pose are still unclear, it is VERY clear that the natural environment, from the Earth to the solar system and local area of the galaxy, pose very serious threats which routinely wipe out huge portions of life on Earth (there have been a handful off mass extinctions which typically saw >60% of all species killed in a geological instant)  Stopping technological and industrial growth will mean that we can do essentially nothing in the face of the next great cosmic threat - that giant asteroid won’t give a damn what your carbon footprint it.  What we need is rapid, rational, industrial and technological growth across the globe, in order to afford and achieve the dispersement of intelligent life throughout the galaxy.  Technological optimists, including myself, envision a future in which humanity and intelligent life have spread (seriously reducing the threat that any particular risk poses) and the Earth is essentially cultivated as a giant national park always honored and revered homage as the birthplace of life in the galaxy.  

 

Three principles create much of my strong support the Lifeboat Foundation, you can read about how I argue the Fermi Paradox, Drake Equation and Doomsday curve relate to the Lifeboat Foundation in my post

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/137048/humanity_needs_an_insurance_policy.html

 

In recent years the Lifeboat Foundation has experienced tremendous growth and a strong momentum.  Where other organizations are tackling specific threats, such as the Singularity Institute (examining the threat that Artificial Intelligence may pose) or the Foresight Institute (to examine the threats that nanotechnology could pose)  we work in concert with them, where little attention is being paid to a particular threat, the LF seeks to develop an in depth understanding of those and in all cases work to mitigate the over all threats these things pose.  These mitigation strategies may be as simple as ensuring oversight by a free, representative organization over the use of particular technologies, may include manufacturing particular containment facilities to do some of the most dangerous work in, restricting critical information to only the scientists and technical staff that have a legitimate need for it, etc, or as complex as creating vast information archives, underground storage facilities, genetic repositories, or ultimately self contained self sustaining space stations which house an ‘emergency’ population.  Ultimately, simple dispersement, decentralization of critical life sustaining systems, and a general robustness (such as multiple independent colonies spread throughout the solar system) would create the most durable civilization possible and should be the ultimate long term goal of anyone concerned with life.  In the short term, rational mitigation strategies need to be identified and implemented in response to the threats we face.  The Lifeboat Foundation is the only organization with the explicit goal to identify all existential threats, natural or artificial, that humanity, civilization, and life on Earth face and work to mitigate those threats, as such it is one of the most important organizations anyone could support in their own long term rational self interest.  

 

The Lifeboat Foundation has recently sponsored it’s first conference, organized with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, entitled “GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS: Building a Resilient Civilization” It will be hosted in Mountain View California on November 14^th.  We are looking to raise $2,500 to support this conference, which all ready includes a stellar lineup.  Consider supporting the Lifeboat Foundation.

 

Support the Lifeboat Foundation “Global Catastrophic Risks: Building a Resilient Civilization” conference

https://lifeboat.com/ex/global.catastrophic.risks

 

The Lifeboat Foundation – Safeguarding Humanity

http://lifeboat.com/ex/main

 

Official Conference Page

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/eventinfo/ieet20081114/

 

My previous post on Existential Threats

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&pop=1

 

www.matus1976.com - Philosophy, Science, Politics, Art, History

www.ergoslope.com - Ergonomic Add On Desktop

There are over 400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy and the galaxy is over 10 billion years old.  If at any time in the last 1 billion years one single civilization arose in this galaxy and it took 10,000 years to spread to a mere 2 other star systems, and repeated the cycle, it would cover every star in the galaxy within 400,000 years.  This could have happened more than a million times all ready.  So where are they?  This is the Fermi Paradox, and the startling observation that no intelligent life seems to have spread throughout the galaxy in all this time could be a disturbing omen.  Is life so rare that it never arises and spreads? Or is it perhaps that life once it becomes intelligent almost always destroys itself?  We don’t know, but just as any rational person mitigates risk and takes out insurance policies, so should all humans adopt an insurance policy for humanity, and attempt to mitigate the ultimate existential threats posted by natural or man made catastrophes - many of which are well outside the realm of public consciousness. The Lifeboat Foundation seeks to raise awareness on these threats and develop strategies to mitigate, and ultimately eliminate, the threats they pose to humanity. Below are some of the commonly recognized possibly existential threats that Humanity, civilization, and life on Earth face.

Anthropogenic Global Warming  

Man made carbon dioxide and other green house gases are argued to be causing a run away greenhouse effect, ultimately disrupting the global climate and ecological balance to such a degree that massive extinctions and general disruption make human life impossible.  Could accelerating climate change in the 21st century become so severe that it leads to the end of human civilization?

Grey Goo or Ecophage

Scientists are just beginning to look seriously at a potential future risk caused by self-replicating nanotechnological devices, also known as nanites.  The machines, like mechanical cells, are built atom and by atom, and copy themselves like small factories by taking material and energy from the environment.  Is it feasible that within the next 100 years, biomass or sunlight-fueled autonomous nanites will be created, and their deliberate or accidental release could directly or indirectly result in destruction of the Earth’s biosphere and the end of civilization, and possibly life on Earth.  It is also possible that ‘wet wear’ is the only feasible manner to physically make a self replicating machine, thus limited the strength and potential of nanotechnological self replicating devices to ones similar of natural cells, and vulnerable to toxins and radiation.  

Global pandemic, either bio engineered or natural

The 1918 Spanish flu killed 2.5 – 5% of the human population in under a year, recently the US Government published the Genome for the Spanish Flu virus a mere year after the first complete artificial life form was assembled in a laboratory from component molecules.  The two could be combined to that a resourceful intelligent group could create from harmless chemicals their own supply of custom made deadly pathogens.  Mosquitoes have been estimated to be responsible for the deaths of approximately half of all humans who have ever lived as these self replicating flying used needles are the primary vector of 10 of the 12 worst diseases humans can contract.  Advances in biotechnology and materials science will soon allow scientists to create synthetic life forms based on chemistry foreign to traditional life.  In the modern age of globalization and transcontinental flights, could a pandemenic, natural or artificial, so severe arise that it kills the majority of the human population?

Comet or Asteroid Impact

Asteroids with a diameter of 1km or larger hit the Earth a few times every million years, and mass extinctions appear to be routinely caused by asteroid impacts.  There is a serious chance that a major asteroid could hit the Earth directly or indirectly and resulting in the death of all life on earth.  Current estimates of the number and frequency of asteroid impacts are probably lower than reality because asteroids impacting the oceanic basin leave no evidence of their destruction, and the massive tsunamis that result are often more damaging than the impact itself, and in the modern age could easily destroy half the worlds major population centers, which
are almost always on coast lines, thrusting the rest of civilization into a new dark age through massive political and economic disruption.

Caldera Volcanic Eruption

About 70,000 years ago, a supervolcano in Sumatra, Indonesia erupted, releasing 2,800 cubic kilometers of magma and pyroclastic material.  Some scientists have argued that the entire human population was reduced to a mere 1,000 adults because of the resulting global climate changes and ash cover.  The supervolcanoes are not like typical volcanoes, where a small chimney of magma breaks through the Earths crust and builds a mountainous cone, but instead are actually bulges of huge sections of the Earths mantle into the crust. An eruption results when the mantle itself breaks through the crust, creating a devastating explosion Tens of thousands of times more powerful than convention volcanoes.  Yellowstone national park in the western United States is one of these supervolcanos as well, and has erupted, on average, every 600,000 years for the last 15 million years, leaving a pock marked path of scars across the north western United States as the continental crust drifts slowly over the volcanic spot in the mantle.  It is now 60,000 years over due, and no one is sure if it is settling down or warming up.  The last time it erupted Yellowstone covered almost the whole North American Continent under a meter of ash.  Such an eruption today would destroy America’s agriculture heart, which creates by many estimates half of the world’s food supply and most of the world’s grain supply.  Another such eruption could cause through global climate change and civilization collapses a new dark age.  When these volcanoes erupt in the oceanic basins, they leave no long lasting geological evidence, so again we are unsure of how common these kinds of volcanoes are and how often they erupt.

Other Cosmic threat (runaway star, black hole, gamma ray burst, massive solar flare)

Recent Astronomical evidence is suggesting that we face some existential threats from our Galactic neighborhood.  A rogue or runaway star could disrupt our planets orbit or even remove it from the orbit of our star.  A rogue black hole could tear apart the solar system, or a massive solar flare could wipe out a huge portion of the Earths population through radiation exposure.  These events could kill billions and lead to the extinction of the human population.

Runaway Ice Age

Life on earth exists in a precipitous razor’s edge balance between the frigid desert of airless Mars and the runaway greenhouse oven of Venus.  Numerous Ice Ages have been experienced in the past, with on particular era referred to as the "Snow Ball Earth" where it is suspected that the whole of the Earths surface was covered with ice, and the only refuge of life was near thermal volcanic vents.  While it is known that periodic cycles in the Earths orbit are the primary cause of ice ages, changes in cloud cover, general climate, or orbital disturbances could initiate another ice age with devastating consequences.

Terrorist attack

Launched by malevolent individuals or groups, any event having global economic or environmental consequences, for example a major coordinated attack or one utilizing nuclear, nano, or bio technology.  Such an attack could be a major threat to humanity through destroying most of the industrial infrastructure of modern civilization or causing an economic collapse leading to a new dark age which me may never recover from.  

Nuclear War

One of the only existential threats common in the popular mindset is that posed by a nuclear war, which scientists of the 70’s and 80’s argued would launch enough dust into the atmosphere to reflect enough sunlight to cause a winter spanning decades.  This also led many people to suspect that the growth of technology and the subsequent tendency for civilizations to destroy themselves as a possible answer to the Fermi Paradox.  Could the use of part of the huge stockpile of existing nuclear weapons ultimately lead to the end of civilization?

High Energy Particle Physics mishap

During the Manhattan project, physicist Edward Teller was charged with calculating whether the first nuclear blast would be strong enough to cause major damage to the planet.  At this time, it was unclear how much of an explosion would occur, once the fissionable fuel reached it’s critical mass, an immensely rapid exchange of neutrons instigating further fissioning ensued, but as this exchange and atomic splitting progressed, heat was added to the material physically expanding it, and reducing the exchange of protons.  Would the fissioning exceed the rate of expansion, cause an explosion a thousand or ten thousand times more powerful, or would the expansion from the heat cause the explosive wave to quickly fizzle?  The calculation was difficult, but ultimately Teller was confident of the rate which the explosive wave would diminish and predictions were reasonable accurate.  Today, particle physicist seek to make microscopic black holes in particle accelerators.  Physicists abate fears by pointing out that cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere routinely occur with higher energies than our accelerators use.  Physicists, like Teller at the Manhattan project, calculated that these microscopic black holes also will instantly evaporate.  While we have every reason to be confident in rational scientific assessments like these, we must be careful to not let hubris cloud our judgment.  In all likelihood, calculations like this will be ever more common in high energy physics, so one can not help but ask if one time we might be wrong.  Particle accelerator mishaps including long lived microscopic black holes or the formation of a stable stranglet, may trigger cataclysmic chains of events which could destroy all life on Earth and even the planet itself.

Malicious AI

In science fiction, a takeover by artificially intelligent robots or computers is a common theme.  In The Matrix, humans were used as batteries by computers that did not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  In the Terminator series, a super intelligent computer waged war with human kind.  But could it happen in the real world?  In the real world our computers become ever more complex and intelligent, robots ever more agile, and mankind ever more reliant on automated computer controlled systems – which might be a recipe for disaster.    Will a super intelligent and malicious Artificial Intelligence overpower humanity and wipe out humanity and civilization?  Advocates of extropianism and tranushumanists counter that human modification and enhancements will rival the capacities of computers, neither outpacing other to too much of an extent.  Technological progressions suggest that within a few decades single individual computers will surpass the intelligence of individual people.  A short time there after, they will surpass the intelligence of all humans.  Conversely, it may be that biological wet ware is the only way to achieve the complexity necessary for sentient life.

Nihilism / Mental Disorders

A significant threat that I think humanity faces which is barely on the register of people worried about significant threats, is the growth of a nihilistic attitude toward existence.  For 90,000 years humans lived short, difficult, busy lives, and never really had the time to fret about existence or ponder existential dilemmas while their families were perpetually on the verge of starvation.  Even through the growth of civilization, it was only the wealthiest that ever had free time enough to ponder these things. But in our modern age, this scenario has changed significantly, people, especially those in industrialized nations, have more free time than ever before and their lives longer and easier to live than ever before.  Coupled with the rise of secularism and later determinism, many people find themselves at a very subtle level wondering about the purpose of life, or through avenues like Buddhism or materialism removing any value in life whatsoever.  Today, mental illness such as depression are the leading cause of debilitation in people over 65 in the industrialized nations, while health professionals try to gain attention to this startling phenomena and try to treat it with medication, the overwhelming cause of this is probably the lack of a decent humanistic philosophical attitude.  Following these trends out, it can be expected that modern ‘western’ ideas of religious tolerance and even secularism will probably permeate educated people to the same degree it has in western nations, this will only seem to get worse.  Should future technological advances significantly extend the human life span, the problem might only be exasperated.  Today, without even facing these difficulties, a small minority of individuals think that all sentient life and human life is a blemish on the earth, as manifested through things like the Voluntary Human Extinction project and in more extreme forms through radical environmental terrorism or people like Ted Kaczysnki.  These groups see all humans, even themselves, as vile creatures.  As a corollary, a large portion of the modern western world also find little value in life and feels guilty for their own existence.  As this attitude grows in popularity because of the mentioned cultural / philosophical influences, it will pose a serious threat to humanity, as any civilization which no longer desires to exist has little future.

 
Humanity and civilization face a serious set of existential threats, including both man made technological threats and natural threats.  In man made threats, most people are familiar only with the possibility of anthropogenic global warming modifying the climate to such an extent that the planet is uninhabitable, other, probably more likely threats, are an out of control self replication machine which consumes all of the material surface of the planet, a terrorist attack causing a global economic collapse and new dark age, a nuclear war or winter rendering the world uninhabitable or causing another dark age, a high energy physics mishap, or a malicious artificial intelligence destroying humanity.  From nature we face the ominous perils of an asteroid or comet impact with resultant fires and floods, the eruption of a caldera supervolcano covering whole continents with ash and destroying world food supplies and economies, random cosmic events like rogue planets or massive solar flares.  We may face another ice age from unexpected climate change or a global pathogen which wipes out huge swaths of the population.  Lastly, humanity is facing an ever more obvious threat in it’s growing unwillingness to want to survive.

Because of all of these threats, Humanity needs an insurance policy.  The simple fact is that for intelligent sentient life to ultimately survive, humanity must spread out among the stars. This is something recognized by many prominent members of the scientific community, including most recently Stephen Hawking, Freeman Dyson, and Martin Rees.  To answer this need is the Lifeboat Foundation, which is an organization I am a strong supporter of and actively involved with.  In the long term the Lifeboat Foundation would like to actually see self-sustaining space stations created and built, with humanity spreading among our solar system and eventually to neighboring solar systems.  In the near term a strong focus on mitigation strategies such as bunkers, information archives and the necessary technological checks and balances on innovation related threats are being pursued.  Ultimately the fate of humanity and indeed all life on earth depends on this.  

www.lifeboat.com