4 Anthropogenic Risks
Last updated
Last updated
This week introduces anthropogenic risks that we’re more familiar with, particularly nuclear, climate, and environmental risks.
What types of anthropogenic risks are there?
How could they cause an existential catastrophe?
In the case of not causing a existential catastrophe, how could this cause us to be more vulnerable for future x-risks i.e., a risk factor?
Exercise - Reality of X-Risk
Divide your group in two parties
Representing a existential risk causing an x-risk
Representing humanity defending against the x-risk
Do you consider some x-risks more important than others?
e.g,. 'How much of resources should go into X, Y or Z?'
How do natural x-risks compare to anthropogenic x-risks in regards to probability this century, as well as their scale?
What do you suggest could be cost-effective interventions to reduce the likelihood of a existential catastrophe?
What do you agree or disagree with, about the current approaches to solving it?
Exercise - Team developing Unkonwn Powerful Technology
Imagine you are the team developing a transformative technology - Nuclear Bomb. How would you operate so to reduce the existential risks?
Whom to inform? Everyone, a few?
What risks are acceptable to take?
Who makes the decisions to go forward despite risks? You, your government, world government, the people?
What else to consider?
Exercise - Global Conference
How has 'X' improved or worsened our capacity to deal well with natural x-risks?
X e.g., globalization, technology, government forms, etc.
What does this imply for strategies to deal with x-risks?
Is technological advancement the cause for ever-increasing existential risks?
What does this mean for our relationship to future technological advancement?
Do you think Nuclear War is less likely or more likely than during the Cold War period - why?
What can we learn from dealing with natural x-risks, for anthropogenic x-risks?
Discussion 1
“And while some of the best minds in the world were devoted to the physics problems involved, the same cannot be said for the wider problems of how to handle the risk, who to inform, what level of risk would be acceptable and so forth. It is not clear whether even a single elected representative was told about the potential risk. The scientists and military appear to have assumed full responsibility for an act that threatened all life on Earth. Was this a responsibility that was theirs to assume?”
Imagine (or maybe you don’t need to imagine) you’re one of the few scientists/engineers/etc developing a transformative technology with immense potential for harm. How would you do things differently than those working on the (development of the atomic bomb)? What checks and balances should exist, and what should government involvement/regulation look like?
What are some potential analogies between Manhattan Project members’ concerns about Nazis and race dynamics with AGI and other transformative technology development? What parallels can be drawn, and how might things be different?
The discussion of threats from nuclear war did not include as concrete numbers as the section on natural risks, but Ord estimates the likelihood of existential catastrophe via nuclear war to be 1 in 1000, or 0.1%, per century. How much more effort should go into reducing existential risks from nuclear war, and what work is already being done?
Ord states that work aimed at reducing the likelihood of nuclear war seems most promising on this front. How much work is already going into this, and how relatively neglected is it?
Discussion 2
“A central problem with geoengineering is that the cure may be worse than the disease. For the very scale of what it is attempting to achieve could create a risk of massive unintended consequences over the entire Earth’s surface, possibly posing a greater existential risk than climate change itself. Geoengineering thus needs to be very carefully governed—especially when it comes to radical techniques that are cheap enough for a country or research group to implement unilaterally—and we shouldn’t rely on it as an alternative to emissions reductions. But it may well have a useful role to play as a last resort, or as a means for the eventual restoration of our planet’s climate”
When will we know it’s time to start employing geoengineering if it is a ‘last resort’?
What are some concrete examples of how geoengineering might be an existential risk?
How important will convincing the public/key stakeholders that geo-engineering is a viable option be?
How much will the naturalistic fallacy hinder geoengineering as a potential solution to climate change?
Ord focuses on the direct risks posed by nuclear war and climate change. Is this overlooking a big part of the picture? How significant are the indirect risks they pose: the risks that these may cause or exacerbate other risks (such as engineered pandemics)? How will these risks interact, and which interactions are most dangerous?