6 ms·

Do you think there is a "real" (>1% over the next century) risk for humanity to wipe itself out, or just that the hostile-alien risk is way beyond negligible in

Do you think there is a "real" (>1% over the next century) risk for humanity to wipe itself out, or just that the hostile-alien risk is way beyond negligible in comparison? Because all current climate doom-erism notwithstanding-- humanity extinction seems impossible to achieve to me via climate change or nuclear war; rogue autonomous self-replicating systems might be a danger, but are too far beyound current tech to estimate risk IMO... Very curious if/how/why you disagree on this!

hnbad 5y ago
We don't need to go extinct. Our global economy is very fragile, relatively speaking and it's not at all clear we could sustain the economy necessary to perform space exploration if bad things happen. To avoid an extended argument about all the ways in which climate change will screw things up, let's focus on nuclear war: a nuclear war between, say, India and China would not only wipe out huge swaths of the human population but also ruin the global economy because industries in Europe and the US depend on these countries. And that's without going into the ecological effects of a nuclear war. The economy relies on layers and layers of extremely convoluted supply chains and can't sustain a loss of even 1% of the human population, let alone 10% or more. The US has only seen a death of around 0.2% of its population due to COVID and is already facing labor shortages in retail. The blockade of the Suez canal was a big concern but imagine the Suez canal is simply gone.
- pharke 5y ago
  Those convoluted supply chains are a recent phenomena. Some international trade is necessary but large countries like the United States are capable of producing almost everything they require domestically. Trade is only preferable if you can import something for less money than you can manufacture it locally.
- joshuahedlund 5y ago
  > The economy relies on layers and layers of extremely convoluted supply chains and can't sustain a loss of even 1% of the human population I think you are underestimating the ability of humanity to adjust and innovate, especially over time. I mean we literally essentially lose 1% of the human population to old age every year.
- heavenlyblue 5y ago
  > The US has only seen a death of around 0.2% of its population due to COVID and is already facing labor shortages in retail. Pretty certain these two metrics are absolutely unrelated, given the fact that people who would have died were probably quite old in the first place.
NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
Just a feeling or rather educated guess is: That general AI going rogue if it gets conscious is small, more probable is narrow AI that has mistake in setting goals, given too much power by either military or corporations. Global Warming is highly probable but we still have chance if we find energy to cooperate around mutual goal. Key points: - Siberian permafrost and releasing huge amount of CH4 topping up all efforts. - Amazon forest now release more CO2 than sequester (this week news) - Species are being extinct on a rapid rate - Wildfires/droughts continue to increase devastation - Floods and heatwaves are stronger (losing ice caps will increase this to Equatorial heats once planet albedo of caps is lost ) Now, critical is next 10 years That does not mean that humanity will be wipe out in 10 years, but will set course for final destination. As no technology or amount of money will help us past that point, weather pastern and issues will be out of our hands. In bad scenario 99% reduction of population till 2100. Again guess. Underground pocket of sparse scientific communities could survive bit longer past this point, using geothermal energy and nuclear power. Nuclear war is quite probable, I think critical is next 20 years: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41421/pentagon-warns-of-an-increased-potential-for-nuclear-conflict-in-newly-disclosed-manual https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41421/pentagon-warns-o... If all weapons are fired, simply put, some people may survive, but they would wish they are dead. Let me put this way, we all have romantic dreams of surviving, go to Hiroshima, ground zero, then straight to museum, and then imagine something 2000 times more powerful multiplied by 16000. And of course everyone forgets Nuclear power plants, ~450 with similar yield. If you do not have Cheyenne Mountain complex at your disposal, your life expectancy is between 0 and 3 years. (acid rains, nuclear winter, no food, no medications, no drinking water, no animals ...). Even if someone survives it would be back to stone age - killing each other for basic necessities (even human meat), as there is nothing else to eat. China vs US, US vs Russia, India vs Pakistan, rogues nation getting a weapon on some black market ... Anyhow, if our civilization was cooperative society with higher goals, it would be fine, but from my experience, and from what I saw during my life, all governments are nothing but aristocratic mafia organisation sponsored by big business having one goal to increase wealth of their share holders justifying all means by what ever ends they have. But regardless what I wrote or how many arguments I give as Friedrich Nietzsche "Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man." many especially those in power to do something, will have tendency not to believe in the final outcome until it happens, so instead of taking actions they will continue business as usual. When I was young I lived in different country there one post WW2 leader used to say "Work and enjoy like we will live in peace 100 of years, and at the same time prepare like there will be a war tomorrow", personally I think it is a good policy for Global Warming or WW3, we should imagine the worst and then work as hard as possible so it never happens, employing all possible strategies at our disposal to save all life on planet, (DNA bank, 5d crystals, space travel, multi-planet, multi-suns ... whatever). Similar like in IT we protect systems, for me who ever uses "doom-erisam" and similar shaming terms is nothing better than those person. Ostrich burying head in the sand like will not save you from the lion. In IT good network security guys imagine all possible scenarios, and they are not afraid that by the so called "new-age quantum vibration field" if they imagine bad scenarios they will attract it just by the power of thought. Admins/devs frequently must imagine and test all bad scenarios, even play roles of bad actors, so they can employ protective techniques. In the similar way we should explore bad scenarios and see is it possible to do anything, but unfortunately, we who talk about it and comment a lot, our circle of concern is significantly bigger then our influence, and those who have huge circle of influence (money) the do not give two dimes about our concerns, and that is the reason my friend I am not optimist about our future in next 10 years...
colinmhayes 5y ago
If civilization as we know it ends but humanity survives it would be very difficult for future generations to reestablish because we've used up all the easy to access hydrocarbons. Without easy to reach coal there won't be another industrial revolution and humanity would be stuck for millions of years until the hydrocarbons reform.
- NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
  That is some kind of Oil centric thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. Renewables and fusion can do the much better better job at any point. By the way coal will not form ever again, only reason why coal/oil formed is because bacteria has not learned how to decompose cellulose at the time. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-fantastically-strange-origin-of-most-coal-on-earth https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-fanta...
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    I don't think renewables and fusion will be an option in a post apocalyptic society. After a few generations of anarchy the knowledge will be lost.
    - NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
      True, solar and nuclear need a bit more tech, but wind and hydro are quite simple they need a bit of wire, magnet and something to spin.
  - pharke 5y ago
    I believe that theory is no longer valid. It was supposedly fungus that feeds on woody plants that resulted in a drop in lignin rich coal but that doesn't seem to quite work out. Coal is formed when there's a lot of organic matter that gets trapped in an oxygen poor environment and then buried and compressed over time. That process is certainly still happening though not at the same rate it has in the past. This article has some good details https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-was-most-of-the-earths-coal-made-all-at-once/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-was-most-of-the-... There's still quite a lot of coal though.

hnbad 5y ago

We don't need to go extinct. Our global economy is very fragile, relatively speaking and it's not at all clear we could sustain the economy necessary to perform space exploration if bad things happen. To avoid an extended argument about all the ways in which climate change will screw things up, let's focus on nuclear war: a nuclear war between, say, India and China would not only wipe out huge swaths of the human population but also ruin the global economy because industries in Europe and the US depend on these countries. And that's without going into the ecological effects of a nuclear war. The economy relies on layers and layers of extremely convoluted supply chains and can't sustain a loss of even 1% of the human population, let alone 10% or more. The US has only seen a death of around 0.2% of its population due to COVID and is already facing labor shortages in retail. The blockade of the Suez canal was a big concern but imagine the Suez canal is simply gone.

pharke 5y ago
Those convoluted supply chains are a recent phenomena. Some international trade is necessary but large countries like the United States are capable of producing almost everything they require domestically. Trade is only preferable if you can import something for less money than you can manufacture it locally.
joshuahedlund 5y ago
> The economy relies on layers and layers of extremely convoluted supply chains and can't sustain a loss of even 1% of the human population I think you are underestimating the ability of humanity to adjust and innovate, especially over time. I mean we literally essentially lose 1% of the human population to old age every year.
heavenlyblue 5y ago
> The US has only seen a death of around 0.2% of its population due to COVID and is already facing labor shortages in retail. Pretty certain these two metrics are absolutely unrelated, given the fact that people who would have died were probably quite old in the first place.

NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago

Just a feeling or rather educated guess is: That general AI going rogue if it gets conscious is small, more probable is narrow AI that has mistake in setting goals, given too much power by either military or corporations. Global Warming is highly probable but we still have chance if we find energy to cooperate around mutual goal. Key points: - Siberian permafrost and releasing huge amount of CH4 topping up all efforts. - Amazon forest now release more CO2 than sequester (this week news) - Species are being extinct on a rapid rate - Wildfires/droughts continue to increase devastation - Floods and heatwaves are stronger (losing ice caps will increase this to Equatorial heats once planet albedo of caps is lost ) Now, critical is next 10 years That does not mean that humanity will be wipe out in 10 years, but will set course for final destination. As no technology or amount of money will help us past that point, weather pastern and issues will be out of our hands. In bad scenario 99% reduction of population till 2100. Again guess. Underground pocket of sparse scientific communities could survive bit longer past this point, using geothermal energy and nuclear power. Nuclear war is quite probable, I think critical is next 20 years: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41421/pentagon-warns-of-an-increased-potential-for-nuclear-conflict-in-newly-disclosed-manual https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41421/pentagon-warns-o... If all weapons are fired, simply put, some people may survive, but they would wish they are dead. Let me put this way, we all have romantic dreams of surviving, go to Hiroshima, ground zero, then straight to museum, and then imagine something 2000 times more powerful multiplied by 16000. And of course everyone forgets Nuclear power plants, ~450 with similar yield. If you do not have Cheyenne Mountain complex at your disposal, your life expectancy is between 0 and 3 years. (acid rains, nuclear winter, no food, no medications, no drinking water, no animals ...). Even if someone survives it would be back to stone age - killing each other for basic necessities (even human meat), as there is nothing else to eat. China vs US, US vs Russia, India vs Pakistan, rogues nation getting a weapon on some black market ... Anyhow, if our civilization was cooperative society with higher goals, it would be fine, but from my experience, and from what I saw during my life, all governments are nothing but aristocratic mafia organisation sponsored by big business having one goal to increase wealth of their share holders justifying all means by what ever ends they have. But regardless what I wrote or how many arguments I give as Friedrich Nietzsche "Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man." many especially those in power to do something, will have tendency not to believe in the final outcome until it happens, so instead of taking actions they will continue business as usual. When I was young I lived in different country there one post WW2 leader used to say "Work and enjoy like we will live in peace 100 of years, and at the same time prepare like there will be a war tomorrow", personally I think it is a good policy for Global Warming or WW3, we should imagine the worst and then work as hard as possible so it never happens, employing all possible strategies at our disposal to save all life on planet, (DNA bank, 5d crystals, space travel, multi-planet, multi-suns ... whatever). Similar like in IT we protect systems, for me who ever uses "doom-erisam" and similar shaming terms is nothing better than those person. Ostrich burying head in the sand like will not save you from the lion. In IT good network security guys imagine all possible scenarios, and they are not afraid that by the so called "new-age quantum vibration field" if they imagine bad scenarios they will attract it just by the power of thought. Admins/devs frequently must imagine and test all bad scenarios, even play roles of bad actors, so they can employ protective techniques. In the similar way we should explore bad scenarios and see is it possible to do anything, but unfortunately, we who talk about it and comment a lot, our circle of concern is significantly bigger then our influence, and those who have huge circle of influence (money) the do not give two dimes about our concerns, and that is the reason my friend I am not optimist about our future in next 10 years...

colinmhayes 5y ago

If civilization as we know it ends but humanity survives it would be very difficult for future generations to reestablish because we've used up all the easy to access hydrocarbons. Without easy to reach coal there won't be another industrial revolution and humanity would be stuck for millions of years until the hydrocarbons reform.

NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
That is some kind of Oil centric thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. Renewables and fusion can do the much better better job at any point. By the way coal will not form ever again, only reason why coal/oil formed is because bacteria has not learned how to decompose cellulose at the time. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-fantastically-strange-origin-of-most-coal-on-earth https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-fanta...
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  I don't think renewables and fusion will be an option in a post apocalyptic society. After a few generations of anarchy the knowledge will be lost.
  - NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
    True, solar and nuclear need a bit more tech, but wind and hydro are quite simple they need a bit of wire, magnet and something to spin.
- pharke 5y ago
  I believe that theory is no longer valid. It was supposedly fungus that feeds on woody plants that resulted in a drop in lignin rich coal but that doesn't seem to quite work out. Coal is formed when there's a lot of organic matter that gets trapped in an oxygen poor environment and then buried and compressed over time. That process is certainly still happening though not at the same rate it has in the past. This article has some good details https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-was-most-of-the-earths-coal-made-all-at-once/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-was-most-of-the-... There's still quite a lot of coal though.