Luke Kemp, a research associate at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom, noted that an existential risk is distinct from what we may think of as a “normal” danger or threat. Kemp focuses on the risk that climate change poses now as well as the downfall of ancient civilizations. He explained to WebTrustReview that “a risk in the traditional nomenclature is intended to be made of a hazard, a vulnerability, and an exposure.” “You might see this as an asteroid hit. Therefore, the asteroid itself is the threat. Our incapacity to prevent it from happening—the absence of an intervention system—is the vulnerability. Additionally, the fact that it really collides with the Earth in.
Consider nuclear conflict, which history and popular culture have portrayed as one of the greatest threats to human survival. As states generate highly enriched uranium and when international tensions rise, we become more vulnerable to this threat. Our exposure is determined by that vulnerability.
There are no precise figures on how much of Earth’s population a nuclear firestorm may wipe out, as is the case with other existential hazards. However, it is anticipated that the impacts of a large-scale nuclear winter, which would result from a conflict and generate a hazy radioactive smog that blocked sunlight from reaching the Earth, would be significant. “I’ve seen a lot of modeling, and the most of it is horrible. Numerous people might perish as a result of it. But it is doubtful that it would cause extinction on its own.” said Kemp.