sign in sign up
<<
Home , Climate change, Extinction event, Future of Life Institute, Global catastrophic risk, Human extinction, Max Tegmark

Global Challenges Foundation

Executive summary Global Catastrophic 2016

© Global Challenges Foundation/Global Priorities Project 2016 GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS 2016 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors. Their statements are not necessarily endorsed by the affiliated organisations.

Authors: Owen Cotton-Barratt*† Sebastian Farquhar* John Halstead* Stefan Schubert* Andrew Snyder-Beattie†

* = The Global Priorities Project † = The Future of Humanity Institute,

Graphic design: Accomplice/Elinor Hägg

Global Challenges Foundation in association with

2 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 THE GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOUNDATION works to raise awareness of the Global Catastrophic Risks. Primarily focused on change, other en- vironmental degradation and politically motivated violence as well as how these threats are linked to and rapid growth. Against this background, the Foundation also works to both identify and stimulate the development of good proposals for a management model – a global gover- nance – able to decrease – and at best eliminate – these risks.

THE GLOBAL PRIORITIES PROJECT helps decision-makers effectively prior- itise ways to do good. We achieve his both by advising decision-makers on programme evaluation methodology and by encouraging specific . We are a collaboration between the Centre for and the Future of Humanity Institute, part of the University of Oxford.

Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 3 4 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 Definition: Global Catastrophic – risk of events or processes that would lead to the deaths of approximately a tenth of the ’s population, or have a comparable impact.

Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 5 FOREWORD

Dear Reader!

early four ago when the Global Challenges Foundation was established, we decided on a direction Nwith two parallel strategies. The first is increasing the knowledge about Global Catastrophic Risks (GCRs), which with our terminology means threats that can eliminate at least 10% of the global population. This knowl- edge is an important prerequisite for the Foundation’s second strategy: to encourage debates and proposals as to how we can effectively and fairly reduce – and preferably eliminate – these catastrophic risks. This publication, the Foundation’s Annual Report for 2016, is the re- this. In addition to the risks involved sult of a collaboration between the in the Annual Report for 2016, the Foundation and the Future of Hu- Foundation actively works with envi- manity Institute (FHI) and the Global ronmental degradation, weapons of Priorities Project at Oxford University mass destruction, in the U.K., which has now lasted for (that exacerbates several risks), and over two years. A big group of re- political violence which is behind searchers at the FHI, commissioned many of the world’s current problems. by the Foundation, summarized Political violence comes in many where research, focused on charting forms. Various kinds of weapons of some of the greatest global risks, cur- mass destruction represent poten- rently stands. tially devastating weaponry. Further, In addition to describing the risks, political violence creates uncon- their effects and their likelihood of trolled migration and we receive occurring, this ’s Annual Report repeated reminders that there is takes one step further and try’s to also “digital violence” in the form of show how different risks relate to one cyber-attacks. Together, this takes up another, what can be done to combat a significant amount of space on the the risks and who can and should do political agenda, thus stealing atten-

6 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 tion from other important risks. And in favor of one or more organizations above all, the defense against various that have a mandate to decide on how forms of political violence requires to mitigate GCRs. a grotesquely large share of public Would this be ? My count- resources. Each day, the world spends er question is whether there are any over SEK 40 billion on defence alternatives? To continue relying on expenditure – money that would be multilateral negotiations increases needed to fight poverty and prevent the that decisions and catastrophic risks. actions are insufficient and executed My personal opinion is that in order too late. This means that the likeli- to drastically minimize GCRs we hood of GCRs continues to escalate. must develop a model where a major- I hope that this publication can ity of the world’s nations, with strong deepen the understanding of GCRs support from leading nations, can and that these insights provide a make binding decisions which can fertile ground for both debates and be enforced in an effective and fair proposals on how we can develop a way. This would imply that individ- better way of managing and address- ual nations waive their sovereignty ing these risks.

Stockholm, April 2016

Laszlo Szombatfalvy Founder of Global Challenges Foundation

Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 7 INTRODUCTION

Global catastrophic risks pose a pressing challenge

his report addresses one of the most important issues of our age – glob- al catastrophic risk. Over the last decades, Tbehavioural psychology has taught us that, as a , we are bad at assessing scope. Issues that affect ten people do not intuitively seem ten times more important than those that affect one person. Global catastrophic risks are one area where our scope insensitivity might prove the most dangerous. These risks can’t just be treated as problem for the future, even though we might well expect them not to ma- terialise this year or the next. At the of our itself – the beauty Future of Institute, my team and of which has inspired my own deep I have been calling for global leaders curiosity in . to address critical global risk issues This technological power is an including nuclear weapons, biotech- enormous force for good, but carries nology and . This its own risks. Although consuming builds on existing risk reduction work was critical in creating the led by institutions such as the United thriving and wonderful Nations. we live in today, we’ve come to learn Over the last centuries, humanity that there are potentially catastroph- has achieved incredible things. New ic long-term consequences from medical technologies save millions of . Other technologies, every year. Agricultural more powerful than combustion en- allows billions to be fed who might gines, might also offer huge benefits otherwise not exist. And we have and carry unforeseen risks. If we fail begun to explore the very foundations to manage this risk well, we might be

8 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 caught out by consequences that fol- some risks. Smart risk management low from the technology more rapidly means being realistic in weighing than climate change has. these factors against each other. This As a global community, we need report offers an excellent background to win the race between the growing to the underlying issues of global power of our technology and the catastrophic risks, and is an outstand- wisdom with which we manage it. ing starting point for -makers This requires a nuanced approach developing an interest in the area or towards technological developments, researchers considering how their acknowledging both that technol- own work might be brought into the ogy carries huge potential to make study of global catastrophic risks. lives better and also that it carries

Max Tegmark Co-founder of the Professor of at MIT

Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary

ost generations generations. Reducing these risks is never experience a therefore both a global and an inter- global catastrophe. generational public good. However, the idea of The ever-evolving landscape of such catastrophes compounds Mis not fanciful: plagues have killed these challenges. Technological over 10% of world’s population and and economic forces can create new we came close to nuclear several global catastrophic risks, such as times in the . anthropogenic climate change and Despite their scale, the risks of the 20th century’s nuclear arms race. global catastrophes receive limited But technology can also reduce risk, attention. One reason is that many for example through better vaccines of these risks are unlikely in any or clean energy. given decade. But even when the We believe the global community probability is low, the sheer magni- should work together to harness new tude of an adverse outcome warrants tools to address global catastrophic taking these risks seriously. A global risks. It is possible that, collectively, catastrophic risk not only threatens we significantly under-invest in glob- everyone alive today, but also future al catastrophic risk reduction.

10 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 We believe the global community should work together to harness new tools to address global catastrophic risks.

Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What are the biggest threats?

he global catastrophic risks in this report can be divided into T two categories. Some are on- going and could potentially occur in any given year. Others are emerging and may be very unlikely today but will become significantly more likely in the coming decades. The most significant ongoing risks are natural and nuclear war, whereas the most significant emerging risks are catastrophic climate change and risks stemming from emerging tech- nologies. Even where risks remain in the future, there are things we can do today to address them. The Spanish influenza of 1918 may have killed as much as 5% of the . Some outbreaks since then infected over a third of the world’s population (e.g., pandemic influenza), whereas others killed over half of people infected (e.g., Ebola or SARS). If a disease were to emerge that was as transmis- sible as the flu and as lethal as Ebola, the results could be catastrophic. Fortunately, this rarely transpires, but it is possible that it could, for ex- ample with the H5N1 influenza . The invention of nuclear weap- ons ushered in a new era of risks created by action. A large nuclear war between major powers would likely kill tens or hundreds of millions in the initial conflict, and perhaps many more if a nuclear win- ter were to follow. During the Cuban

12 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Missile Crisis, President Kennedy is expected or if positive environ- estimated the chance of nuclear mental loops occur. conflict as “between one in three and Catastrophic risks from emerging even”. Tensions have eased some- technology are less well understood. what since the Cold War, but could promise sig- recur. Moreover, accidents or mis- nificant benefits, but a handful could calculation with nuclear weapons also create unprecedented risks to continue to pose a risk. civilisation and the alike. Climate change is a well-known an- could enable the thropogenic risk. Even if we succeed creation of far more - in limiting emissions, scientists ex- aging than those found in , pect significant climate change to oc- while in the longer run, artificial cur. This could bring a host of global intelligence could cause massive challenges including environmental disruption. degradation, migration, and the The relative likelihood and urgency possibility of resource conflict. But of the different risks matters when de- this is not the worst-case scenario. ciding how to respond. Even though Although it receives far less atten- the level of is extreme, tion, scientists also acknowledge the rational action requires explicit as- possibility of catastrophic climate sessments of how much attention the change. There is a small likelihood different risks deserve, and how likely that warming could even exceed 6 °C, they are. The views of the authors on leaving large swathes of the planet these vexed questions, based on our dramatically less habitable. This reading of the scientific evidence, are could occur if emissions are not cut summarised in the following table. sufficiently, if the sensitivity of the More information can be found in the is different from what full version of this report.

14 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 FIGURE 1. OUR ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS

Natural pandemic

Unknown risks Nuclear war

Engineered pandemic Higher likelihood over next 5 years

Catastrophic Asteroid impact climate change

Supervolcanic Catastrophic eruption disruption from AI

Failure of geo-engineering Lower likelihood over next 5 years Low High APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF ATTENTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Humanity can respond to these risks

or each of the risks in this To reduce the risk of global ca- report, we consider actions tastrophe caused by nuclear war: F available to avoid or mitigate • The international community the risk, and which actors are best- should continue the policy of placed or responsible for taking that nuclear non-proliferation, and nu- action. For the most significant risks, clear states can continue to reduce some of the most promising opportu- stockpiles. nities are listed here. The full version • Nuclear-weapon states should con- of this report lists further recom- tinue to work to reduce the chance mendations which might apply to of accidental launch or escalation. these and other domains. To reduce the risk of global ca- To reduce the risk of global ca- tastrophe caused by emerging tastrophe caused by pandemic: technologies: • The World Health Organisation, • Research communities should nation states, and other bodies further investigate the possible should increase their planning for risks from emerging capabilities in extremely bad pandemics. biotechnology and artificial intel- • The community ligence, and possible solutions. should improve developing world • Policymakers could work with capacity for response, for example researchers to understand the by ensuring that vaccine produc- issues that may arise with these tion facilities are well-distributed new technologies, and start to lay around the world. groundwork for planned adaptive risk . To reduce the risk of global catastro- phe caused by climate change: To reduce • Research communities should in- in a cross-cutting way: crease their focus on understand- • Research communities should fo- ing the pathways to and likelihood cus greater attention on strategies of catastrophic climate change, and technologies for resilience to and possible ways to respond. and recovery from global catastro- • Nations should continue to imple- phe, for example by developing ment and improve mechanisms alternate sources. for emissions abatement such as • Nations should work to incorpo- carbon taxes or tradable emissions rate the interests of future gener- quotas, as for non-catastrophic ations into their decision-making climate change. frameworks.

16 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 Research communities should further investigate the possible risks from emerging capabilities in biotechnology and artificial intelligence, and possible solutions. CHAPTER 1 – AN INTRODUCTION TO GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS

Chapter 1 An Introduction to Global Catastrophic Risks

ver the course of history, times been uncomfortably high. the world has suffered Throughout the Cold War, the of such mag- threat of loomed nitude that human civ- large. The and the So- ilisation itself has been viet Union possessed tens of thou- Othreatened. Warfare and pandem- sands of high yield nuclear warheads, ics have caused especially significant and their retaliatory strike systems damage. Originating in 541-542, the were programmed to respond to any initial outbreak of the ‘Great Plague of attack within minutes. The world has Justinian’ killed 25-33 million people come close to the nightmare scenar- – between 13% and 17% of the world io on a number of occasions. Perhaps population at the time.1 The plague the narrowest escape came on 27th had trans-generational consequenc- October 1962. Two Russian B-59 sub- es: many historians believe that it marine commanders off the weakened the Byzantine Empire at of Cuba gave the order to launch a a crucial time, undermining its at- nuclear strike against the United tempts to reconquer .2 States, on the mistaken assump- In recent times, humanity tion that war had already start- has not endured catastroph- ed. The launch of a nuclear ic events on the propor- As torpedo required the con- tionate scale of Plague of many sent of all three officers Justinian. However, the as on board; the second risk of global catastro- in command, Vasili phe, which is deter- Arkhipov, was alone mined by the po- in refusing permis- 17% 3 tential damage of sion. of the world’s population was the event and While the nu- killed in the initial outbreak of the its probabili- ‘Great Plague of Justinian’. That equals clear threat ty of occur- 25-33 million people has receded ring, has at since the

18 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 The most deadly event of the 20th century was probably the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918-1920 which killed between 2.5% and 5% of the world population… Our focus here is on even more extreme possibilities which receive less attention.

end of the Cold War, the risk remains. machine intelligence which could be- In addition, ongoing economic and have in a manner incompatible with technological developments bring, human values. alongside their benefits, a range of However, our governments and in- new unprecedented anthropogen- stitutions, whose primary focus is ic risks: for example, catastrophic understandably on more day-to-day climate change, pandemics of glob- concerns, may systematically be ne- al proportions, and the potential for glecting global catastrophic risks.

Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 19 CHAPTER 1 – AN INTRODUCTION TO GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS

1.1. Defining Global Catastrophic Risk

lobal catastrophes are events None of the various humanitarian or processes that would inflict disasters of the 20th century killed G serious damage to humanity more than 10% of the world popula- on a global scale, such as all-out nu- tion. Around 1% of the world popu- clear war or a pandemic killing hun- lation died in the First , dreds of millions. The severity of a while up to 3% died in the Second risk is a function of its scope (the size World War.5 The most deadly event of the population at risk), intensity of the 20th century was probably the (how badly this population would be Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918- affected), and probability (how likely 1920 which killed 50 - 100 million the is to occur).4 people – between 2.5% and 5% of the A fatal crash is a personal ca- world population.6 Although these tastrophe: a small number of unfor- were huge tragedies, our focus here tunate victims suffer a severe harm. is on even more extreme possibilities Most are examples of local which receive less attention. In Chap- catastrophes: thousands or millions ter 2 we give an overview of the ma- of people within a country or region jor risks of global catastrophe, and in lose their lives. The focus of this re- Chapter 3 we look at the factors which is catastrophic risks with global may increase or decrease these risks. scope. We define a global catastrophe Limited historical evidence makes as a possible event or process that, it very difficult to provide a definitive were it to occur, would end the lives list of past global catastrophes. There of approximately 10% or more of the have been at least two in the past two global population, or do comparable millennia – the Plague of Justinian damage. risks are a sub- and the . Some scholars set of global catastrophic risks, which have argued that more than 10% of would end the human race. the world population lost their lives It is important to put the scale of in pre-industrial , though this is global catastrophic risks in context. heavily disputed.7

20 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 SCOPE FIGURE 1.1.QUALITATIVERISKCATEGORIES Personal Local Global in regionalairpollution Minute increase Loss ofonehair Global warming Imperceptible by 0.001C°

Recession inone Depletion ofthe Loss ofonearm layer Damaging country

8 Fatal carcrash Catastrophic Nuclear war National

SEVERITY CHAPTER 1 – AN INTRODUCTION TO GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS

1.2. Why Global Catastrophic Risks matter

lthough the chance of dy- Now let’s suppose that the chance ing in a car crash is small, we of extinction were 0.1% per year and A each take steps to mitigate consider the consequences. It may the risk such as wearing seat belts and seem at first glance that this would driving safely. National governments be an acceptable level of risk. How- take steps to mitigate the risk of rare ever, that would mean an individu- natural disasters, such as al would be more than five times as and hurricanes. Similarly, it is impor- likely to die in an tant that the global community works than a car crash.11 Moreover, these to reduce the risk of catastroph- small annual add up, so ic events which would have a global that the chance of extinction within scope. the next century under this scenario The probabilities of these cat- is 9.5%.12 A global catastrophe, which astrophic events are low but not involves the death of 10% of the glob- negligible. Moreover, small annual al population, is more likely than an probabilities compound significantly event that involves human extinc- over the long term. tion. As a result, even if 0.1% were We do not know of a robust estimate on the high side for extinction risk, of the annual probability of global it might be of the appropriate order catastrophic risk. Nor do we believe of magnitude for global catastroph- that we are able to create a robust ic risk. estimate because the in Reducing these risks has obvious key parameters are so large. However, humanitarian benefits for those alive for extinction risks some experts have today. But we should also consider suggested that a 0.1% annual chance the welfare of future generations. A of extinction is within the range of global catastrophe could reduce the plausible orders of magnitude. A 2008 standards of living for many genera- Oxford survey of expert judgement on tions to come, while outright human the topic implied an average annual extinction denies existence to all fu- extinction risk over the next centu- ture generations. Many leading mor- ry of around 0.2%.9 The UK’s Stern al philosophers have argued that the Review on the of Climate welfare of these future generations is Change used 0.1% as an upper bound of utmost importance.13 modeling assumption for annual Global catastrophic risks are also extinction risk.10 likely to be politically neglected, for

22 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 The probabilities of these catastrophic events are low but not negligible. Moreover, small annual probabilities compound significantly over the long term.

several reasons. First, global cata- sult, our descendants may be exposed strophic risk mitigation is a glob- to unnecessarily high levels of global al public good. Governments pursu- catastrophic risk, or be too likely to ing the national interest are therefore have to live in the aftermath of one. likely to attempt to free ride on the Special interests are likely to work efforts of others to reduce global cata- against global catastrophic risk miti- strophic risk, which means that glob- gation because many will al catastrophic risk reduction is likely impose concentrated costs on specific to be undersupplied. Global cata- industries, whereas the beneficiaries strophic risk reduction is also an in- are dispersed. Finally, because most tergenerational public good, so even global catastrophic risks are unprece- if there is effective international co- dented, they are not salient to voters operation, mitigation policy will tend or policymakers, and our regulato- to pay insufficient attention to the -in ry response cannot rely on learning terests of future generations. As a re- from experience.

Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 23 CHAPTER 1 – AN INTRODUCTION TO GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS

1.3. Why Global Catastrophic Risks are especially relevant today

ow more than ever before, most important future risks may be at global catastrophic risks de- present unknown. Just as in the early N serve attention. Prior to the 20th century it would have been im- 20th century, the main global cata- possible to predict nuclear weapons, strophic risks that humankind faced catastrophic climate change, or bio- were natural pandemics and conven- technology risks, it may be that many tional warfare. However, economic of the future leading global cata- and technological development have strophic risks are not yet within sight. brought a range of new anthropogen- Moreover, to reduce these new an- ic risks. thropogenic risks we may need lev- The first of these new risks was nu- els of international coordination that clear weapons, which gave states un- existing institutions are not designed precedented destructive power and to produce, something we discuss in emerged very rapidly: the bombings Chapter 4. A good illustration of this of Hiroshima and Nagasaki came only is the threat of catastrophic climate six years after Einstein’s letter to Roo- change. Atmospheric concentrations sevelt warning of the dangers of nu- of greenhouses gases are now at their clear fission.14 Other anthropogenic highest level for hundreds of thou- risks might also mature quickly giv- sands of years,17 and if the interna- ing us little time to prepare. Advances tional community fails to take strong in certain kinds of biotechnology, for action soon there is a worryingly high example, might at some point in the chance of warming in excess of 6°C next few decades give states, or even (compared to pre-industrial levels) terrorist groups, the capacity to cre- by the end of the century.18 But be- ate devastating designer pathogens.15 cause unilateral action is costly for Likewise, experts warn of the longer- any state, and the benefits are felt by term risks associated with power- everyone regardless of their contribu- ful machine intelligence, which may tion, action on emis- prove hard to control safely.16 sions has been slow in coming. Indeed, experience over the last century suggests that many of the

24 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 1.4. What can be done?

hen dealing with global policy-makers, industries, research catastrophic risks we can- communities, and citizens can take W not generally rely on his- preemptive steps to limit global cat- torical experience or trial and error. astrophic risks. This report outlines Given the severity of global catastro- the key features of the world’s most phes, learning from experience would significant global catastrophic risks be extremely costly or, in the event and identifies, in Chapter 5, some of , impossible. But strategies for limiting them.

1.5. How to read this report

hese ideas, and the current are and in terms of how much atten- state of the science underlying tion we ought to pay them at present. T them, are explored in signifi- Chapter 3 discusses the causes of cantly more detail in the full version global catastrophic risks. These in- of this report. Chapter 2 gives a com- clude both factors that increase the prehensive overview over the main likelihood or impact of individual global catastrophic risks, from cata- risks, as well as factors that affect mul- strophic climate change and nuclear tiple risks, such as poor governance. war to risks associated with emerging Chapter 4 discusses why we cur- technologies such as biotechnology, rently collectively underinvest in artificial intelligence and geo-engi- global catastrophic risk. It also dis- neering. We discuss the potential im- cusses what actors are best placed to pact and the likelihood of each risk, overcome this neglect. as well as the main actions to limit Finally, in Chapter 5 we briefly dis- them. Finally, we attempt to compare cuss a number of concrete steps to re- the risks in terms of how likely they duce global catastrophic risk.19

Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 25 ENDNOTES

Endnotes 1. William Rosen, Justinian’s Flea : Plague, Empire, and the Birth Risks Survey”, Technical. Report #2008-1, Future of of Europe (: Viking, 2007), 3, 209. Percentages Humanity Institute, Oxford University: pp. 1-5. deduced from Demographic Internet Staff US Census 10. N. H. Stern, The Economics of Climate Change : The Stern Bureau, “International Programs, World Population,” Review (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 47. accessed February 12, 2016, https://www.census.gov/ population/international/data/worldpop/table_history. 11. “Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). GBD php. Some earlier estimates put the death toll as high Compare. Seattle, WA: IHME, University of Washington, as 100 million. See B. Lee Ligon, “Plague: A Review of Its 2015. Available from http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd- History and Potential as a Biological Weapon,” Seminars compare” from ‘ibid.’ in Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Return of the Gram- 12. Adapted from , “Existential Risk Prevention Positives, 17, no. 3 (July 2006): 161–70. as Global Priority,” Global Policy 4, no. 1 (February 1, 2. Rosen, Justinian’s Flea, 3–5, 321–324. 2013): 15–31, doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12002. 3. Edward Wilson, “Thank You Vasili Arkhipov, the Man Who 13. , Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Oxford Stopped Nuclear War,” , October 27, 2012, University Press, 1984); Nick Bostrom, “Astronomical http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/ : The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological oct/27/vasili-arkhipov-stopped-nuclear-war. Development,” Utilitas 15, no. 03 (November 2003): 308–14; Nick Bostrom, “Existential Risk Prevention as 4. This is adapted from Nick Bostrom, “Existential Risk Global Priority”. Prevention as Global Priority,” Global Policy 4, no. 1 (February 1, 2013): 16. 14. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Begin/Einstein. shtml 5. Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature : A History of Violence and Humanity (London: Penguin, 2012),195. Note 15. Ali Nouri and Christopher F. Chyba, “Biotechnology that although the fatalities are too low, the non-fatality and ,” in Global Catastrophic Risks, ed. Nick impacts mean it could be argued that the Second World Bostrom and Milan M. Ćirković (, War was just about large enough to count as a global 2008). catastrophe in our sense. 16. Future of Life Institute, “AI Open Letter,” accessed 6. Niall Johnson and Juergen Mueller, “Updating the February 3, 2016, http://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/. Accounts: Global Mortality of the 1918-1920 ‘Spanish’ 17. NASA, “The Relentless Rise of ,” Climate Influenza Pandemic,” Bulletin of the 76, Change: Vital Signs of the Planet, accessed February 2, no. 1 (2002): 105–15. 2016, http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/. 7. For further discussion see the sections on natural 18. Gernot Wagner and Martin L. Weitzman, Climate Shock : pandemics, nuclear war and super-volcanic eruptions in The Economic Consequences of a Hotter Planet (Princeton: Chapter 2. Press, 2015). 8. Adapted from Nick Bostrom, “Existential Risk Prevention 19. Clearly, enormous literatures exist in each of these as Global Priority,” Global Policy 4, no. 1 (February 1, areas which can inform policy. We suggest only a small 2013): 15–31, doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12002. selection of the policy options which are available. 9. Sandberg, A. & Bostrom, N. (2008): “Global Catastrophic

26 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 ENDNOTES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements his report has greatly For very helpful advice on indi- benefited from the advice vidual risks, we would like to thank and feedback of many Dan Bernie, Sean Brocklebank, Clark people. For detailed com- Chapman, Daniel Dewey, Simon ments on a large portion Driscoll, Marius Gilbert, David Graff, Tof the report, we are very grateful Marc Lipsitch, , Piers to Niel Bowerman, Martina Kunz, Millet, Oliver Morton, Andrew Parker, Catherine Rhodes. For their sugges- , Jonathan Skaff, Ste- tions and comments we are grateful phen Sparks, and Naomi Standen. to Seán Ó’heigeartaigh, Shahar Avin, and .

CONTACT INFO Authors: Global Priorities Project 16-17 St. Ebbes Street Oxford, OX1 1PT United Kingdom

[email protected]

The Global Challenges Foundation: Strandvägen 7A 114 56 Stockholm

info@ globalchallenges.org +46 (0) 709 98 97 97

Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 27 28 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016