A bleak, gloomy landscape with a gnarled tree in the front and ash gently settling from the sky make up the scene’s first shot. A few forlorn folks might be seen stumbling into the gloomy future on the horizon. If this seems familiar, it’s likely because it is a frequent visual cliche in post-apocalyptic movies. Typically, these movies depict a disaster that wipes out mankind, such as an asteroid impact or nuclear war, and then follow the difficulties that the survivors must overcome in order to prevent the extinction of their species.
These movies capture people’s attention. But what if the extinction of humans were a genuine threat rather than just a sci-fi plot? This may sound like a thrilling issue, but in reality, hundreds of scientists worldwide spend their days debating the likelihood of a mass extinction and how to prevent it.
Their work is difficult. Numerous hypotheses exist on what may ultimately result in the extinction of humans, ranging from extraterrestrial incursions to catastrophic asteroid impacts. However, there is broad agreement among those looking into this issue that some threats to human life are more likely to occur than others. These are referred to as “existential dangers” by experts in the subject. Here is only a sample of the hazards that come to mind for researchers; there are many more.
Nuclear war
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.
Pandemics
Another existential peril that keeps researchers up at night is the abuse of biotechnology. By using biology, this technology creates new goods. Cassidy Nelson is particularly concerned about one of these: the misuse of biotechnology to create harmful, contagious viruses. “There are many distinct pandemic possibilities that frighten me. However, I do believe that the ones that could be created by humans pose maybe the biggest threat from biology this century “She said.
Nelson does research on biosecurity challenges, such as emerging infectious illnesses, pandemics, and biological weapons, at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. She understands that a disease that has been deliberately created to spread quickly and kill many people might do far more harm than a pathogen that naturally occurs and could conceivably wipe out vast portions of Earth’s population in a short period of time. “Nature’s ability to create infections through natural selection is really amazing. The worst part is when it does. However, it lacks this type of overt ‘purpose,’ Nelson said. “If you had a terrible actor who actively sought to build a disease to have as much detrimental influence as possible, by how infectious it was, and how lethal it was, my worry would be,” the author said.
But despite the potential for anxiety, especially in our present pandemic-affected world, she thinks the likelihood that this would happen is remote. (It’s also important to note that all available data indicates that COVID-19 was not produced in a lab.) While the bar for doing so is continually being lowered by scientific and technical developments, she added, “it also means that our skills for doing something about it are gradually growing.” “That gives me optimism the if we could truly handle [it], that risk balance may move in our favor,” the speaker said. The size of the possible threat, though, keeps academics focused on this concern.
From climate change to AI
Climate change, a global phenomena that is already causing the loss and extinction of numerous species, cannot be excluded from a list of the dangers to human survival. Could it push mankind in the same direction?
At a local level, the accompanying effects of climate change—food insecurity, water shortages, and severe weather—are expected to pose a growing threat to human life. Looking ahead, though, Kemp also noted that climate change acts as what he called a “existential risk multiplier” at the global level, amplifying other dangers to humanity’s existence. The world is now much more perilous to live in because it does seem to have all these connections to political upheaval and violence. Imagine if a lack of food or water would increase international tensions and lead to nuclear conflicts with possibly very high human casualties.
This perspective on extinction emphasizes how intertwined existential concerns are. As Kemp has said, it’s improbable that a single catastrophe like a nuclear war or pandemic will cause a global extinction event. The majority of civilizational collapses, history teaches us, are actually caused by a number of interrelated events. And one possible outcome is extinction, as we generally see it: the quick eradication of all life on Earth.
Only a few hundred or thousand people may survive a catastrophic disaster, raising concerns about the future of mankind as a species. Alternately, a collapse may eliminate only a portion of mankind, but as a result, it would cause widespread unrest and strife, weaken our resistance to other dangers, and start a more slow decline. “There isn’t a single preconceived notion of how or what an extinction may look like. That’s not really how it works, “Kemp said.
Another perspective on this is that an existential danger to mankind need not necessarily be one that jeopardizes our ability to survive. A danger might be something that limits the potential of our species, such as our ability to advance technologically or become a spacefaring race. In some respects, Nelson added, “that’s nearly as big of a threat to our survival.” In other words, it undermines our conception of humanity’s ultimate goal, which some could say is to advance. Artificial intelligence is one significant concern that falls under this category. According to academics, if intelligent robots were mistakenly released into the world, they would impose extensive human monitoring or even outperform us intellectually and physically. That might drastically change people’s perceptions of what it means to be a human, usurping our position as the dominant species on the globe.
Humanity itself?
No matter how diverse these hazards may be, they all share the fact that people have a significant impact on how serious they are. Who cares if the greatest threat to human extinction is ourselves?
That is one of Sabin Roman’s research interests. He simulates society growth and collapse at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, focusing at earlier civilizations like the Roman Empire and Easter Island. According to Roman, most existential dangers are “self-created,” having their roots in civilizations and the institutions they establish. According to him, humanity’s need for unrelenting progress results in exploitation, the ruin of the world, and war. Ironically, that just makes us more vulnerable to some of the largest challenges we currently face. “Too much is dependent on constant economic expansion. It would be beneficial if we tried to optimize anything else “added he.
He compares our civilisation to a row of dominoes, where the risk is more susceptibility to the threat than the push that triggers the cascade. The domino line is extremely susceptible to disruption, according to Roman. “There is very little realistic effect we can have on outside circumstances even if we really want to alter something. More than anything else, our society’s internal dynamics are changeable.”
Kemp concurs with this reasoning: “When people inquire about the greatest existential threat to humanity, I respond, I often aim to throw a curveball in response: [bad] global collaboration.” Despite how absurd it may sound, examining mankind’s probable extinction is a useful endeavor since it may shed light on how humanity is contributing to the threat and how it might be reduced. Nelson thinks that because of how significant this issue is, we should intensify our study of existential dangers. There should be more individuals working on this and more institutions with greater funding.
Is the future that humanity faces depicted in the post-apocalyptic movie? Regarding our future on Earth, neither precise forecasts nor straightforward solutions exist. Roman is certain, however, that we are now more prepared to defend themselves than ever before after looking back on past cultures that have crumbled. Roman stated, “The thing that makes us distinct is we can truly learn from all those prior lessons.” “There is a tremendous chance to learn.”