By various measures, the fate of humanity has become more threatened in the last decade. Whether it's a new plague, climate change, planet-killing asteroids, artificial intelligence's (AI) takeover, World War III, or something else, humans are feeling increasingly more insecure.
Despite this, far too little is being done to stop existential threat for humanity. A recent study found the world's wealth increasing by almost $50 trillion in the last few years. Yet just a small portion of that new money is going to protecting the world in a potential crisis.
Both politicians and citizens are turning a blind eye, despite obvious existential worries that keep scientists up at night.
Consider the fact that despite asteroids once wiping out the dinosaurs, little more than $90 million by the U.S. government was put into asteroid detection in 2023. And the militaries of the world still have about 12,500 nuclear weapons, ready to kill millions at any moment.
So what can be done? To begin with, we need politicians who can stand up for the greater existential insurance needs of society, even if it doesn't bring immediate benefits to their constituents. This is difficult, as many countries like the United States are a democracy accustomed to seeking instant gratification—and not worrying much about potential future risks.
Another thing that can be done is the consideration of a constitutional amendment, or executive order that forces governments to dedicate a specific amount of its GDP to addressing existential risk. While running for office long ago, I advocated for the creation of the secretary of existential risk, a cabinet position.
Some will call this too dramatic of an approach. But Earth is all we have; the only planet we can currently survive on en masse in our solar system. We shouldn't overestimate our importance on it, or our ability to avoid extinction.
In the last few years, there's been an increase of academics saying the Doomsday Clock is far too close to midnight—a clock run by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that theoretically shows how much time humans have before a global catastrophe. University of Cambridge's famous cosmologist Martin Rees wrote he believes we only have a 50-50 chance of survival in the 21st century.
If governments don't want to do anything, then maybe billionaires can step in. It's to their credit that Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, and Elon Musk are recreating the space industry, and potentially one day giving our species a chance to get off planet quickly to survive if needed. But this isn't enough. We could use billionaires' incredible wealth to fund other grand projects that could help us survive in an epic disaster.
I've long been a member of various boards of the nonprofit Lifeboat Foundation. They advocate for finding methods to safeguard life on Earth for people and other biological life should a worse-case existential threat occur. But few other organizations like them exist. When it comes to organizations that help in natural disasters, like the Red Cross and Salvation Army, there are numerous nonprofits that offer aid. And some of them have billion dollar budgets and tens of thousands of employees.
Little like this exists yet for most existential risk, despite the growing evidence that humanity may be on the brink of many catastrophic events. COVID-19 was a big wake-up call to how quickly the world can change within weeks. And yet, little seems to remain of that fear that everyone on planet Earth can be so dramatically affected so quickly.
We need to remember that universal distress we all had when the world started to shut down in March 2020: when not enough ventilators and hospital beds could be found; when food shelves and supplies were scarce; when no COVID-19 vaccines existed. We need to remember because COVID is just one of many different existential risks that can appear out of nowhere, and halt our lives as we know it.
Naturally, I'm glad that the world has carried on with its head high after the pandemic, but I'm also worried that more people didn't take to heart a longer-term philosophical view that human and earthly life is highly tentative. The best, most practical way to protect ourselves from more existential risks is to try to protect ourselves ahead of time.
That means creating vaccines for diseases even when no dire need is imminent. That means trying to continue to denuclearize the military regardless of social conflicts. That means granting astronomers billions of dollars to scan the skies for planet-killer asteroids. That means spending time to build safeguards into AI, and keeping it far from military munitions.
If we don't take these steps now, either via government or private action, it could be far too late when a global threat emerges. We must treat existential risk as the threat it is: a human species and planet killer—the potential end of everything we know.
Zoltan Istvan writes and speaks on transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and the future. He is the author of The Transhumanist Wager, and is the subject of the forthcoming biography by Dr. Ben Murnane and Changemakers Books titled, Transhuman Citizen: Zoltan Istvan's Hunt for Immortality.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
We Need a Far Better Plan for Dealing With Existential Threat
154
0
12.02.2024
By various measures, the fate of humanity has become more threatened in the last decade. Whether it's a new plague, climate change, planet-killing asteroids, artificial intelligence's (AI) takeover, World War III, or something else, humans are feeling increasingly more insecure.
Despite this, far too little is being done to stop existential threat for humanity. A recent study found the world's wealth increasing by almost $50 trillion in the last few years. Yet just a small portion of that new money is going to protecting the world in a potential crisis.
Both politicians and citizens are turning a blind eye, despite obvious existential worries that keep scientists up at night.
Consider the fact that despite asteroids once wiping out the dinosaurs, little more than $90 million by the U.S. government was put into asteroid detection in 2023. And the militaries of the world still have about 12,500 nuclear weapons, ready to kill millions at any moment.
So what can be done? To begin with, we need politicians who can stand up for the greater existential insurance needs of society, even if it doesn't bring immediate benefits to their constituents. This is difficult, as many countries like the United States are a democracy accustomed to seeking instant gratification—and not worrying much about potential future risks.
Another thing that can be done........
© Newsweek
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
