On inspection, this article turns out to be based on a "report" [1] containing 11 pages of wide-spaced text, which break down as follows: p. 1: Title. p. 2: L

On inspection, this article turns out to be based on a "report" [1] containing 11 pages of wide-spaced text, which break down as follows: p. 1: Title. p. 2: List of contents, blurbs about the authours. p. 3: Foreword by retired admiral endorsing "this policy paper", same text as in [2]. p. 4: Overview and introduction (half page empty). p. 5: Complaint about "scientific reticence" (2/3 empty). p. 6: Explanation of the term "existential risk". p. 7: Rumination about existential risk management. p. 8-9: The "2050 Scenario" justifying the title. Turns out to be nothing more than the kind of synopsis a writer might jot down while planning a short story. No new research results are presented. It's just a story. p. 10: Discussion and policy recommendations, and the obvious reason for the retired admiral's endorsement: the last point is "Urgently examine the role that the national security sector can play in providing leadership and capacity for a near-term, society-wide, emergency mobilization of labour and resources". p. 11: Empty, except for a "BreakThrough" footer. So what we have here is two elderly gentlemen suggesting that the task of leading Australia should be turned over to the military, a retired admiral enthusiastically endorsing this as a great idea (shocking, I know), and a chorus of (I'm willing to bet) mostly liberal, progressive young people chiming in on the basis of a "report" which they haven't read. [1] https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/papers https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/papers [2] http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/05/can-we-think-in-new-ways-about.html http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/05/can-we-think-in-new-wa...