sign in sign up
<<
Home , Volcanic winter

Framing – Recent and Future Research

Wolfgang Ehringer, Henrik Söderström

Master Students, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden

*Correspondence: [email protected], [email protected]

Submitted 23 February 2017

ABSTRACT This article is a literature review about global catastrophic risks. Its contribution is to give an overview of the research field in general and highlight the main potential catastrophic areas linked with recent studies. In many movies and TV shows, we can see our civilization collapse in various ways: Gigantic asteroids hit the earth and obliterate all life, nuclear wars emerge, evolves and starts wars with humans, spread, and other kinds of catastrophic events with mass death or of all life happen. Thus, even if these are extreme events and fiction, we should raise the question how likely it is that one or more of these events can occur in the near and far future. Although calculated probabilities of impact are low for the future such as tomorrow, in 10, 100 or a million years from now, this could actually be reality. Nevertheless, why should we care about the risks of these global catastrophic events today and what could be done to prevent or reduce the risk of a global catastrophe? In this paper we will discuss core content, such as different risks and ways to reduce them internationally, as well as the scientific context of the field. In fact, there are events that can be catastrophic on a global scale and happen in the near future, even if we do not know exactly when. Hence, specific risk assessment and proper mitigation strategies are necessary in order to maintain the human population. This article states that serious research is a basis for decision makers in particular, who invest funds in countermeasures.

KEYWORDS Global catastrophic risk, literature review, catastrophic , nuclear war, natural pandemics, exogenous risks, emerging risks, risk assessment

1. INTRODUCTION affect future generations. Though, there is a higher motivation to reduce GCRs which Global catastrophic risks (GCRs) are events could become relevant in the near future. which cause mass death or extinction in the Baum (2015a) additionally states that there future, affecting over 10 per cent of the are benefits of reducing near and far-future population. Furthermore, the worst events GCRs: Near future to save lives, and far- are called existential risks since they would future to save our civilization. The risks are end all human life (Cotton-Barratt et al., divided into different areas that will be 2016). It is important to highlight the GCRs, described in detail in this paper. With so that politicians and governments can start respect to Cotton-Barratt et al. (2016), the discussing and work together across the following areas will be highlighted: globe to reduce these risks. If GCRs can kill . Catastrophic climate change millions of people, why is it not a more . Nuclear war/ discussed topic? A reason for that is, . Natural pandemics according to Baum (2015a), that we humans . Exogenous risks have a lack of motivation when we talk . Emerging risks about the far-away future. There are no . Other/unknown risks obvious benefits for reducing risks that may

1 Basically, what is risk? In this paper, risk to other solar systems; in the far future, such as the risk of catastrophic events is every star will run out of energy. It is mentioned several times. Kaplan and assumed that the long-term survival rate of Garrick (1981) define risk and uncertainty our is not very high (Matheny, with a clear difference. For example, 2007). Considering above, there are also uncertainty is when a man is running and benefits of investing in countermeasures does not know the distance he will run. It that can help future generations. In fact, turns out he ran 3 miles, but during the time some are already active to reduce existential of running, he was in state of uncertainty risks. The National Aeronautics and Space about the distance, not exposed to any Administration (NASA) of America spends damage though, so without special risk. 4 million dollars per year to locate and This means that risk is uncertainty defend near earth asteroids. 1.7 billion combined with some kind of damage. So, dollars are invested in research about GCRs in this sense can be seen as uncertain climate change and how carbon emissions events that would cause damage. can be reduced. Also is investment done in We have stated global catastrophic events order to prevent bioweapons as well as for are events that would affect more than 10 enabling space colonization in the future per cent of the population. Posner (2004, p. (Matheny, 2007). Additionally, Tonn and 6) defined catastrophe in his book as Stiefel (2014) address different strategies following: and ways how humans could organize the “A momentous tragic usually sudden event reduction of risks. marked by effects ranging from extreme Concerning the structure of this paper, misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin.” we will state our method for this Therefore, catastrophic is something that contribution in the next chapter. will cause large damage. Some events will Afterwards, the specific risks are covered do more damage than others. How likely is and a discussion is provided. This article is a global catastrophic event, how high or low finalized by suggestions on future studies is the risk? Toby et al. (2010) argue that and a conclusion. there are many problems at calculating the 2. METHOD probability of an extreme event, because the events are determined by specific Conducting plausible research in a notional conditions. Especially regarding the high and interdisciplinary field, as it is global stake risks such as asteroids, pandemics and catastrophic risk, can be very challenging. nuclear wars. With respect to the given Contributions are associated with conditions, it is important to know that the economics, philosophy, astronomy, risk smallest error can dramatically change the analysis and with other disciplines of predictions. specific risks (Baum and Tonn, 2015). The most extreme events, as mentioned, Scientists face several difficulties at their are existential risks. Risks that have the description and methods may not be ability to wipe out all life as we know it. adequate for risks with low probabilities According to Matheny (2007), there could and high-stakes. Ord et al. (2010) state that be an extreme event this century, but the there must be more attention on the risk for that is fairly low. In addition, one argument which is a foundation for existential risk has almost happened not that calculating probabilities. Conventional risk long ago during the Cuban missile crisis: assessment tools may be insufficient for this Never before in modern history were distinct type of risks. When reviewing humans closer to a nuclear war that literature in an area that is wide of practice, probably would have led to the extinction of we must be aware of the fact that empirical our modern civilization. Even if we would findings are very rarely obtainable and succeed to survive for millions of years, our missing. Hence, we mainly find analytical will eventually die and we must move and speculative contributions that may rely

2 on specific models in science. Although a Economics. Nevertheless, as there is a lack of testable explanations or variety of topics in this field, many different experiments, which is a reasonable journals contain contributions in the broad necessity of science, is apparent, we field of global catastrophic risk. conclude about the interest of our humanity to do research in this area. In addition, 3. HISTORICAL SETTING global catastrophic risk is an issue that Placing the research field of global cannot be solved by individuals or certain catastrophic risk into a historical setting, countries. Hence, global concernment and such as Schools of Thought, is rather ramifications justify broad scientific challenging due to its independency of interest in this field of study. economic doctrines and strong This article is a literature review of the interdisciplinarity, what we described in the field of global catastrophic risk. The aim is previous section. Since schools of political to provide a comprehensive overview about economy, neoclassical schools and addressed research areas, according to the alternative schools are commonly state of the art. By now, a variety of topics explaining the nature of economic is covered within the subject of global development, global catastrophic risks are catastrophic risk. In chapter 4, we are not necessarily connected to these reviewing these specific topics after approaches. addressing the theoretical setting. For this Nevertheless, costs is an economic term paper, we attempt to evaluate the methods that is both integrated in later schools of and contents of specific risks, so that the thought as well as global catastrophic risk research progress can be compared and when it comes to the impact and its further research, such as interesting prevention. Additionally, the French problems, suggested. It may also help the Engineering Tradition of the classical field in the progress of a hypothetic- school of political economy may suit for deductive approach so that scientific claims technical approaches such as building can be emphasized. nuclear weapons or defense shields for With respect to the actual scientific cosmic explosions. As there is a variety of content, necessary contributions were made risks with different shapes, it is also not by a few, such as Bostrom and Cirkovic fitting for the whole subject. (2008), Leslie (1996), Posner (2004), Rees In contrast to these two access points (2003) and Sunstein (2007), and in many primarily on the consequences of risks, we journal articles. Whereas these books are looking for a school which has a clear address global catastrophic risk rather affiliation to the methods of the field of generally, journal articles are describing study. We consider the thematic school of specific forms of the topic mostly in a much Uncertainty and Information as a valuable more detailed way. connection to global catastrophic risk. This, Considering numerous databases, we can because every category of risk and the find 107 academic articles that are directly single risks themselves, are uncertain with related to the term “global catastrophic respect to its occurrence and extent of risks”. With 16 references, Academic damage. Hence, the risks must be calculated OneFile is a significant provider of these with specific models in order to gain sources. Although there is a large variety of justification as a risk in the field of research. different subjects in the field of global Whether it is by models for climate change catastrophic risk, artificial intelligence is or asteroids. Beside the formal addressed in more than 10 articles, incorporation of risk and uncertainty into reflecting a strong research interest. Some economics in 1944, it has its roots in the exemplary journals for the topic of global distinction of risk and uncertainty, done by catastrophic risk and its sub-categories are Knight (1921), which is still very Risk Analysis, Futures and Ecological established but not finally discussed in

3 Figure 1: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide (NASA, n.d.) science (Fonseca, n.d.). In his view, a “risk” 4.1 Catastrophic climate change is defined as a situation where mathematical probabilities can be assigned. This is the Climate change is one of our most important case at global catastrophic risks, although GCRs at the moment and is already we must keep in mind that some phenomena happening on earth. According to NASA, are easily labelled as a risk instead of an never before in modern history have the uncertainty. In addition to this levels of carbon dioxide been higher than differentiation, Keynes (1937), who was today (Figure 1). one of the pioneers on uncertainty and The level of carbon dioxide started to information in economics, exemplified increase dramatically during the industrial uncertainty by the prospect of a European revolution and has led to a warmer climate war or the price of copper. Hence, he has on earth. Main contributor to climate signaled a broader access to the term of change is the emission of carbon dioxide uncertainty. Nevertheless, post Keynesian from burning coal and other fossil fuels. contributors in this theory, such as Shackle Huge changes in the climate can have a (1949, 1961, 1979) and Davidson (1982, catastrophic effect on all living. For 1991), stand in line with the initial example, it can cause natural ecosystems to distinction from Knight. collapse and make areas around the globe In conclusion, as uncertainty or risk is unable for producing food. To prevent a significantly attached to global catastrophic catastrophic climate change, different risk metrics and therefore the field as such, countermeasures should be taken. The first we state, that this historical framework has logical tactic would be to reduce the its justification for this literature review. emissions of carbon dioxide, but it faces many challenges, both technical and 4. LITERATURE REVIEW political. Other countermeasures would be In order to foster a good understanding of geoengineering, to reduce the level of the topic global catastrophic risk and its carbon dioxide by technological advances. areas, this section is divided into different Another action, that could force the change, parts. Each part will give an overview of a is to increase the global tax on emissions, selected risk type, including recent which is now 4 dollars per ton. A price of contributions and its relevance for the 40 dollars at least would be needed to force overall objective of survivability of human companies and governments for change population. (Cotton-Barratt et al., 2016). Tsur and

4 Withagen (2011) argue that since climate good accessible for scientists and others. As change affects the whole planet, there is much interest about this topic, many international efforts will be needed to aspects are emphasized. reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide. The Cirincione (2007) does provide a Paris Agreement, which was established on comprehensive study about nuclear bombs November 4, 2016, is an international effort in the past and in the future, considering the to reduce emissions by humans that cause United States (U.S.) in detail. Indeed, since climate change (United Nations, n.d.). the U.S. and Russia do have the largest Additionally, Tsur and Withagen (2011) nuclear arsenals, this conflict is reflected write that it would be benefiting for growing also in literature (Barrett et al., 2013; economies to adapt to an environmental Mosher et al., 2003), outlining particular friendly policy, because the damage of risks and consequences of a high-yield catastrophic climate change would be more nuclear war between these countries. expensive in the long-run. Additionally, the problem of an accidental Permafrost carbon nuclear use is covered earlier by Blair According to Schuur et al. (2015), there is (1993), Blejer and Kendall (1991), Wallace large amount of organic carbon in the arctic et al. (1986), and Forrow (1998) from a permafrost, namely in form of dioxide and medical perspective. An additional book, methane. Warmer climate on the globe will edited by Solomon and Marston (1986), lead to a release of the organic carbon stored provides a comprehensive overview about within the permafrost, which will result in a the medical implications of nuclear wars tremendous increase of carbon dioxide and including short- and long-term accelerate global warming to catastrophic consequences for humanity, health, temperatures. During the last 30 years, the environment and providing two views for temperature has already increased by 0.6 its recovery. In addition to this, Toon et al. degrees per decade on higher latitude, (2008) state to which extent a nuclear war double of the speed comparing to the rest of would be catastrophic for the environment the globe. Countermeasures need to be and humanity, and suggest policy taken now before we reach the tipping implications for political actions. point, the point when it will be too late to In contrast to high-yield nuclear wars, reverse the trend. regional or low-yield weapons are Catastrophic climate change will have considered as a global catastrophic risk, negative impact on human health. Poverty although nuclear missiles are much less will increase and the access to fresh water powerful. Nevertheless, since low-yield around the world will be more problematic. weapons are easier to build, more countries Without access to fresh water, further health stockpile them in their armories. Kristensen and McKinzie (2015, p. 563) provide a problems will arise. Nevertheless, we may be better prepared in the future with future recent paper about nuclear arsenals and technology to meet catastrophic climate state that eight nations are known to have change (Papworth et al., 2015). nuclear weapons in 2015. Beside the U.S. and Russia, Great Britain, France, China, 4.2 Nuclear war/winter Pakistan, India, Israel, and additionally North Korea, are expected to command As nuclear weapons seem to perceive nuclear weapons. Figure 2 shows that the international authority and military strength total number of nuclear warheads is for moderate costs (Toon et al., 2007, p. decreasing since 1986. By now, both Russia 1224), countries are interested in building and the U.S. are maintaining more than 90 this instrument of self-determination. With per cent of worldwide nuclear warheads respect to its political relevance, nuclear (ibid, p. 566). Hence, it is also important to issues are highly discussed in the literature discuss their political relationship, and on open platforms so that information is especially with respect to risk prevention.

5 Figure 2: Estimated global nuclear warhead inventories, 1945–2017 (Kristensen and Norris, n.d.)

Several authors address the variety of concerned countries. Hence, several authors consequences in the case of a regional in science recommend the prevention of nuclear conflict. Whereas Toon et al. (2007) damage that may stem from nuclear provide an unspecific contribution, Robock weapons. Krieger (1984) has made early et al. (2007) focus on climatic consequences contributions to avoid nuclear incidents, and Helfand (2007) addresses the extent of whereas Wright et al. (2016, p. 15) point out projected global . Toon et al. (2007a) in a recent report that the U.S. government have created a comprehensive paper about must reduce the risk of mistaken launch of atmospheric effects and social nuclear missiles by taking them off high consequences which includes also alert and removing rapid-launch options numerical modeling of potential casualties from nuclear war plans. This would raise that stem from regional scale nuclear the security level within the U.S. and also conflicts. As noted in the Method section, internationally. Considering the fact that predicting quantitative results in an entire nuclear wars are hardly accidental in a theoretical framework bears many technical perspective, the book of White uncertainties that the authors are aware of. (1986) becomes highly important as it Well covered are also the threat and analytically describes a variety of consequences of which psychological aspects at preventing nuclear refers to a temperature decrease due to wars. rising smoke into the stratosphere after a nuclear war (Baum, 2015, p. 69). Baum 4.3 Natural pandemics (ibid) considers this phenomenon and provided recently a compact article about Natural pandemics is a GCR that can occur the wide range of global environmental at any time. Diseases such as plague, HIV consequences. Robock et al. (2007a) and or smallpox has killed millions of people. In Mills et al. (2008) build on the the last 300 years, there were about 10 consequences of a nuclear winter and global pandemics. The frequency of events review the quantitative effects with climate is high, comparing to other GCRs. For models. example, in 1918, the Spanish influenza As there is great potential damage in killed 2.5 to 5 per cent of the human combination with an existing possibility of population (Cotton-Barratt et al., 2016). accidental use of nuclear weapons, its According to Wraith and Stephenson disarmament must be a priority for (2009) and Cotton-Barratt et al. (2016), the

6 biggest risk in the foreseeable activity. There is sufficient consensus future is the avian influenza which has the among scientists that this kind of volcanoes potential to become a global catastrophe. is expelling magma volume on more than Yen et al. (2015) write about the preparation 1,000 km² by a super-eruption, which is for catastrophic pandemics by global expected to happen every 10,000 to 100,000 vaccine stockpiles. The objective about years (Miller and Wark, 2008, p. 12). An global stockpiles is just to be prepare for important general contribution to super- global disasters. Today, there are five global volcanism is done by Rampino (2008), vaccine stockpiles for different diseases, the comprehensively covering, among other latest for the avian influenza solely. The things, the atmospheric impact, several stockpiles need to be maintained in order to effects on the environment and human reduce the devastation by a global pandemic population, and the phenomenon of a in the future (Yen et al., 2015). Fouchier et volcanic winter that is basically comparable al. (2012, p. 258) explain why the avian to the nuclear winter. virus can be so deadly and state the possible In order to measure explosive catastrophe below: magnitudes, Newhall and Self (1982) “It is a virus that is capable of killing half provided with the volcanic explosivity its victims, a proportion greater than that index (VEI) a solid foundation for for any other epidemic disease. Were that measuring eruptions. Since the authors coupled with the transmissibility of a considered more than 8,000 eruptions in pandemic flu virus, it would have their work, it is established as a tool for characteristics of an ultimate biological comparing the relative explosivity of weapon unknown even in science fiction.” eruptions and much-cited. Nevertheless, We cannot expect when or if such a there is a very limited number of catastrophe will occur, but preparation observations about super-volcanic should be done to prevent the extinction or eruptions (point 8 in VEI) in the past. mass death of humans. As super-volcanoes are not influenceable by human population, but 4.4 Exogenous risks very devastating owing to a and a layer of ash (Sparks et al., 2005), its Exogenous risks are considered as monitoring becomes crucial. Lowenstern et independent of human behavior. Even al. (2006) focus on monitoring super- natural pandemics, described in the section volcanoes, exemplified by a potential super- before, are linked to human activity. In eruption at Yellowstone in . particular, exogenous includes risks such as Additionally, Christiansen et al. (2007) super-volcanic eruptions and large asteroid provide a comprehensive report on the and comet impacts on earth. The extent of assessment of volcanic and further hazards the consequences is seen as global, so it is in Yellowstone National Park, which is an existential risk as described by us considered as an episodically erupting previously (Dar, 2008). Since the dynamic super-. of non-anthropogenic risks is not changing, Another exogenous risk, that is well research has a better chance to understand covered in science, stems from asteroids and evaluate the probability of impact. It is and comets. Similar to super-volcanoes, argued that exogenous global catastrophic asteroids or comets are a risk that cannot be risks are less likely than anthropogenic risks influenced by humans and may cause (Solberg Søilen and Baback Alipour, 2011), tremendous damage depending on the size because their frequency is significantly of the object. Those with a diameter greater lower (Cotton-Barratt et al., 2016, p. 46). than 1.5 km are considered to cause damage Super-volcanoes are an exogenous risk on a global scale (National Research that is addressed in research quite regularly, Council, 2010). Logically, larger objects also due to research on regular volcanic will cause higher impact, up to an

7 existential risk for human population. above. ASI is also defined as a technology Chapman and Morrison (1994) expect that which is superior to humans. Thus, Barrett there is a 1 in 10,000 chance that an object, and Baum (2017) write about several larger than 2 km in diameter, will hit the models to reduce the risk of future AI and earth within this century, causing high death ASI. The most important strategy for future of human people. Related to this, Reinhardt generations is to find a balance between et al. (2016) provide a solid model for technology and society. assessing probabilities of asteroid impacts Geoengineering, or so called climate on a global and non-global-scale. The manipulation, has become an important authors state a higher probability of up to 1 topic in the last decade, raising the in 1,250 that an object will hit the earth and questioning, if it is okay to manipulate our cause a globally significant effect. They climate (Corner and Pidgeon, 2010). refer to the calculations from Chapman and According to Clingerman (2014), Morrison (1994) and explain the differences geoengineering emerged due to our failure by odd definitions of the term global. to deal with climate change. Thus, with the Finally, whereas Napier (2008) provides new technology emerging from a general overview about the topic and geoengineering, new types of terror may hazards that stem from asteroids and occur, such as engineered pandemics. comets, Morrison (2006) emphasized in his Furthermore, other GCRs can occur, but article the impact of asteroids and comets, since we are in a pre-research and speculating about very high damage and development phase of geoengineering, the stating how to prevent it. He evaluates these consequences are difficult to predict. The disasters as amenable to precise prediction main part of it is to prevent climate change. and good to avoid by appropriate There are two main techniques emphasized: application of space technology. This, in Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar combination with policy-making aspects, radiation management (SRM) results in a valuable contribution for global (Corner and Pidgeon, 2010). Considering catastrophic risk. geoengineering as an unpredictable new technology which is a result of human 4.5 Emerging risks failure, what will happen on a global scale when humans start to modify nature earth? The emerging risks are, according to CDR involves techniques as ocean Cotton-Barratt et al. (2016), artificial fertilization, enhanced weathering and intelligence (AI), geoengineering and afforestation. SRM, on the other hand, engineered pandemics. These emerging involves techniques as space-based risks are hard to prepare for and very reflection, enhanced surface and uncertain, if they will ever occur. enhanced cloud albedo. It is both a moral Gill (2016) raises questions regarding and political question, if geoengineering is artificial intelligence and the social the right path to follow. concerns that comes with it. AI machines entering the world would not just raise 4.6 Other/unknown risks social concerns, but fundamentally change the social and political system. It would Previously, we have already outlined five bring benefits to humans, but also risks as a categories of global catastrophic risks that potential new weapon of mass destruction. possess a substantial likelihood of Additionally, Barrett and Baum (2017) occurrence and high potential impact which mention risks that can emerge with AI: Self- makes it worth to be discussed. Other risks improvement, more AI and artificial that are not covered in more detail may be superintelligence (ASI), world domination supernovas and gamma-ray bursts, global and the extinction of humans. ASI does not totalitarian state and conventional or exist yet, but it may come with the risks chemical wars.

8 As supernovas and gamma-ray bursts are risks should be of concern, as Cotton- in science undoubtedly considered as a Barratt et al. (2016) states that all of them global catastrophic risk due to its impact, have the ability to affect at least 10 per cent we will briefly review a paper that reflects of the human population. The global the status quo in this field. In contrast, risks, catastrophic risks have different chances to based on a global totalitarian state or become reality, some have a higher risk conventional/chemical wars, are not than others. But when considering the risk it focused due to its improbability that these is important to keep in mind what Toby et phenomena reach the extent of a global al. (2010) suggest, namely that there are catastrophic risk. Nevertheless, Caplan problems calculating the exact risk. To be (2008) is giving a good overview on able to calculate global catastrophic risks, totalitarian threat including risk factors. some given conditions are required. We Cirkovic and Vukotic (2016) have think that this should be highlighted, since provided a recent paper about mitigation of even the smallest error can lead to major supernova and gamma-ray burst threat to percentage deviations of the risk. This intelligent beings. They compactly linked should be considered by politicians and this type of risk, that is related to cosmic other decision makers when planning and explosions, to a global scale and the impact implementing strategies about on human population. In conclusion, it is countermeasures. The conditions need to be seen as existential risk with low probability understood well to make the correct of impact and high potential damage. estimation of the risk. Useful mitigation strategies are desirable, Furthermore, the main focus today, as we but not developable in the near future. can see in politics and social contexts, is the Nevertheless, the authors suggest local catastrophic climate change. This is the construction of shielding swarms to get case, because it is the risk which is most prepared for cosmic explosions. plausible for us to relate to and, as Baum Since anthropogenic risks, such as (2015a) writes in his report, we humans nuclear war, climate change or artificial have more motivation to act and reduce the intelligence, emerge because of fast risk of events that can happen in our economic and technological development, lifetime. The climate change has still it is logical that some future risks are not uncertain consequences on a global scale, exposed and covered yet by humans but according to Tsur and Withagen (2011) (Cotton-Barratt et al., 2016, p. 64). We can it has already started to show a devastating observe an established scientific effect on our planet and since it is affecting community within global catastrophic risk the earth in general, international efforts that includes several disciplines and must be taken to reduce the negative trend. contributors. Hence, in combination with We have to act fast, as Schuur et al. (2015) the interest of the society that these risks mention, when the permafrost in the arctic will not occur, researchers will probably starts to melt in huge scales, because then react quickly on new emerging global-scale the point of no return for catastrophic global risks. risk will be achieved. At this time, it will no longer be a risk, it will be reality. Global 5. DISCUSSION catastrophic climate change will not solely In this paper, we have touched several areas affect the planet, it will also be catastrophic that are associated with the topic global for human health, since the access to fresh water will be reduced around the world catastrophic risk. Catastrophic climate change, nuclear war/winter, natural (Papworth et al., 2015). pandemics, exogenous risks, emerging risks Another GCR that is discussed and a and other/unknown risks. They all have in relevant topic for our generation is nuclear common that they are a threat to the earth war. Ever since the end of World War 2 the and all living species on it. These global moral questions about nuclear technology

9 have been a hot topic around the globe. If proper vaccine ready for an outburst. The we just look at the history, we have already frequency of pandemics is high and since seen what catastrophic impact nuclear we are becoming a more global world, the technology can have on our planet. Toon et spread of a huge pandemic could have al. (2008) write in their paper what devastating consequences. Possibly, we consequences nuclear technology can have could observe a spread in a way that we on the environment and humanity, but they have never seen before in history. additionally mention implications for According to Wraith and Stephenson political actions that could be done to (2009) and Cotton-Barratt et al. (2016), the prevent a catastrophe. The important point next pandemic event could be the avian to highlight is that there are influenza which has the potential to spread countermeasures which should be across the globe in more rapid speed, implemented by politicians. In many ways, compared to events in the past. If the reader nuclear technology is a political factor, to wants to know more about the avian show strength in form of army power. As a influenza, we recommend the article by consequence to the cold war between the Fouchier et al. (2012). Since it is that hard U.S. and Russia, the number of nuclear to exactly know how the next pandemic will weapons in the world increased, a way for rise, the best way to reduce the impact is the countries to emphasize strength (Figure progress in healthcare technology. 2). Even if this is only between two Moving on to something that is countries and no nuclear rockets were fired, completely independent from humans and it could have gone wrong for the entire often difficult to fully understand, the world. According to Barrett et al. (2013) exogenous risks. This includes super- and Mosher et al. (2003), a nuclear war volcanic eruptions, large asteroid and comet between the U.S. and Russia would be impacts on earth. This risk is an existential devastating for the entire planet. Several risk with high level of uncertainty. It is authors mention consequences about what nearly impossible to predict or know when nuclear technology can result in. One of the the next event will occur. Additionally, if consequences of a nuclear war is nuclear this happens, most of us will not survive winter, which is a side effect of a nuclear probably. The impact from super-volcanic war. This should not be forgotten, although eruptions may have similar effects, politicians often talk primarily about the compared to a nuclear war (Rampino, direct impact of nuclear war and not about 2008). One of the most well-known the other consequences that will follow potential super-volcanoes is in many years after. We think, in the future it Yellowstone, North America. Christiansen will be important to include education about et al. (2007) explains the hazards of nuclear technology in the regular school Yellowstone in more detail and Lowenstern education for example. Hence, the next et al. (2006) focus on how to monitor super- generation will grow up with a deeper volcanoes. This will give an overview of the understanding about the impacts and how a potential risk that stem from super- sustainable future without weapons of mass volcanoes, and what impact an eruption in destruction can be built. Yellowstone can have for the planet. It is Nuclear war/winter is a risk that humans not very likely that an eruption will happen have created themselves. Not as the natural during our generation. Additionally, it is pandemics, that is a part of nature, it is hard to do anything to reduce the risk. linked to human activity but not fully Regarding large asteroid and comet created by humans. Natural pandemics will impacts, there is a small chance that the always involve high uncertainty and can earth will be affected during this century occur at any time. Since pandemics are (Chapman and Morrison, 1994). So, it is a complex and often hard for scientists to topic which may not be focused until understand, we may not be able to have a asteroids or comets closely miss or even hit

10 the earth. Napier (2008) and Morrison therefore also include reasons to motivate (2006) give a good overview on the risk the society and politicians for investing from asteroids and comets and what could money in countermeasures. be done to prevent a potential disaster. By looking at our planet history, we already 6. FUTURE STUDIES know what damage asteroids and comets As the general topic of GCR is studied quite can do. This is a GCR that is in many ways fragmented, depending on the type of risk, hard to understand, because the universe is we suggest to integrate specific extremely large and we do not know what contributions in the context of global space objects will be exposed and a threat catastrophic risk as a field of research, for the earth in the future. aiming to understand the risks in order to Emerging risks, that grow slowly and prevent its occurrence and/or to reduce the may be a GCR in the future, are artificial damage of impact. Hence, research should (super-) intelligence and geoengineering. always refer to a sustainable protection of We can call them modern risks, since humanity under the umbrella term and humans are creating them (anthropogenic). context of GCR. This, not only to strengthen With these merging risks, new political and the field of research, but also to foster the social questions will come up. How will the progress of developing material for experts, civilization adapt to artificial intelligence politicians, regulators, the society and and is it ethically wrong to change our others. Bostrom and Cirkovic (2008), for climate with geoengineering? The artificial example, provide a good collective volume intelligence question is raised by Gill about GCR, including research of many (2016) and Barrett and Baum (2017) who different risks. Although there is a bit of a mention pros and cons as well as describing lack in response strategies, it is a good book a model that should be used to reduce the for raising awareness among people and risk of artificial intelligence in the future. decision makers. In fact, the development of The geoengineering question is addressed adequate mitigation strategies is one of the by Corner and Pidgeon (2010) and most important points for future studies in Clingerman (2014), they conclude that order to benefit from all the contributions, geoengineering has started to emerge that were made in the past, to protect the because humans have failed at reducing the human population when a global impact that our population has on the catastrophic event takes place. environment. The uncertainty of the risks in Research and action on the matter of this area is high. We do not know what GCR may also unite different societies on consequences follow, if humans start to earth, because collective effort is necessary manipulate the climate on a global scale. to act accordingly to the risks that Certainly, there will be many discussions on presumably harm the whole population on how to approach artificial intelligence and earth. This is especially the case when it geoengineering in order to be able to build comes to existential risks. a sustainable future. Beside previous notes on global Considering other and unknown risks, catastrophic risk in general, we recommend such as supernovas and gamma-ray bursts, further investigation within the following Cirkovic and Vukotic (2016) suggest some areas: future possibilities to reduce or handle the Catastrophic climate change: Future risk of cosmic explosions, even though the studies should focus more on the natural risk for an impact on earth is assumed to be carbon dioxide that is frozen within the low. This risk is hard to understand, since a arctic permafrost, because it is the largest cosmic explosion would happen far away in trigger at the moment that could increase deep space. How can we motivate ourselves global warming rapidly which results in to reduce GCRs that seem so notional and catastrophic effects (Schuur et al., 2015). almost as a part of fiction? Research should

11 Nuclear war/winter: Connecting the topic specific models for risk assessment, so that of with measures on predictions become even more accurate, prevention as the probability is still which should be a basis for every further relatively high that an (accidental) incident research. This will also help to facilitate will occur. Additionally, we suggest to long- and short-term survivability for include political sciences in order to prevent humans. Solberg Søilen and Baback a war, because if nuclear missiles are Alipour (2011), for example, developed a activated, it is primarily a political decision. surveillance model to classify emerging Natural pandemics: In this area, research risks, limited to a present time horizon. As should focus on how fast potential a result, an average probability for pandemics will spread over the globe and anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic what strategies may be useful to limit this events is calculated, stating that human- spread. Not surprisingly, international made catastrophes are more likely by now strategies will be necessary. than others. With this contribution, which Exogenous risks: Although there is some includes data from relevant private and specific research on the monitoring of public organizations such as NASA, both super-volcanoes, it is important to continue scientists react to the large demand for emphasizing this in future studies, because accurate models on GCR in order to it is a risk which is not influenceable by emphasize potential macro factors. This is human population. Although opportunities important, because in a very final of preventing eruptions are low, studies in perspective, decision makers must invest in geology may find a way to do it, or find effective mitigation strategies, that root in proper metrics for precise measuring accurate research. volcanic activity at least. Mitigation strategies should also be more on the 7. CONCLUSION asteroid and comet risk, considering This paper gives an overview on the topic technical perspectives. global catastrophic risk (GCR). The five Emerging risks: Investigations on how outlined risk categories, that have been international agreements can be established highlighted in this paper, are areas with a to protect the planet from future misusage high potential to become catastrophic on a of AI/ASI and geoengineering. Also, how global scale. The assigned risk probabilities humans can integrate AI/ASI in the of these events are different though. Events civilization in a safe way must be a priority as nuclear wars, climate change, artificial for further research. intelligence, etc. have emerged because of a Other future studies: What will happen to developing civilization. Both the speed of the modern civilization, if the internet is economic growth and technical failing? Since everything is built on this development on earth have never been kind of system today, we also become faster than today. In contrast, exogenous dependent on it and its functionality. We risks, such as super-volcanic eruptions and consider this topic as an emerging global asteroid/comet impacts, are not catastrophic risk. anthropogenic and therefore with separate Despite the necessity of integrating conditions to address. According to Cotton- subtopics into one, we are certainly aware Barratt et al. (2016) there may be risks that of the need for different disciplines, as the we have not discovered yet. Nevertheless, various risks stem from several starting they will emerge in the future due to a points. Furthermore, this interdisciplinarity developing civilization. should also be considered as a unique Since GCR is a field that stems from strength of the study field, which should be many different disciplines, there is still enhanced. effort needed to combine all contributions Lastly, with respect to the theory of risk into one context. This should be done with and uncertainty, we have to improve maintaining several perspectives from

12 every research field, because diversity will these risks. Furthermore, we need to change improve the substance and importance of how our political and social system works GCR. in order to become a more united world. But Calculating risks, when events do not as we can see today, we have a divided occur on a regular basis, is another essential planet: Religion, beliefs, corruption and challenge for researchers which makes it political problems are hindering difficult to provide plausible results on international agreements to reduce global probability and impact. Particularly risks. We have to remember that we are all referring to existential risks. Therefore, the humans who have just one planet to live on. scientific community should focus studies Thus, if we cannot reduce these risks or on risk assessment on the one hand, and also other political problems, we will have no be aware of the distinction of risk and planet to live on in the future. uncertainty to suit conducted research in a theoretical framework on the other hand. 8. REFERENCES For example, supernovas and gamma-ray Barrett, A. M., & Baum, S. D. (2017). A bursts, that are outlined briefly in chapter model of pathways to artificial 4.6, may have a lack of defining these superintelligence catastrophe for risk phenomena as a risk. There is sometimes no and decision analysis. Journal of sufficient argument for assigning Experimental & Theoretical Artificial mathematical probabilities according to the Intelligence, 29(2), 397-414. school of thought. Hence, this may be more Barrett, A. M., Baum, S. D., & Hostetler, K. an uncertainty than a risk yet. Despite these (2013). Analyzing and reducing the risks detailed terminology, we argue that of inadvertent nuclear war between the research must basically result in United States and Russia. Science & recommendations for action, received by Global Security, 21(2), 106-133. politicians and decision makers mainly. We Baum, S. D. (2015). Confronting the threat value collections which support the general of nuclear winter. Futures, 72, 69-79. and particular understanding on GCR, so Baum, S. D. (2015a). The far future that awareness is increased and actions can argument for confronting catastrophic be taken. threats to humanity: Practical In a nutshell, contributions on GCR are significance and alternatives. Futures, increasing since the past 10 to 15 years. 72, 86-96. Especially, artificial intelligence is covered Baum, S. D., & Tonn, B. E. (2015). quite often in literature. We state that Confronting future catastrophic threats research in this area must finally refer to to humanity. Futures, 72, 1-3. effective countermeasures, taken by human Blair, B. G. (1993). The logic of accidental population to survive for all future nuclear war. Washington, D.C.: generations. When we cannot reduce the Brookings Institution Press. risk of these potential disasters, it does not Blejer, B. G., & Kendall, G. U. (1991). matter in the long-run, if we reduce other Accidental nuclear war. V Mire Nauki, risks. Matheny (2007) points out that if we (24)10, 6-12. all die, it is not just our generation that dies, Bostrom, N., & Cirkovic, M. M. (2008). also all future generations including billions Global catastrophic risks. Oxford: of humans. The contribution therefore helps Oxford University Press. to get a deeper understanding why each Caplan, B. (2008). The totalitarian threat. generation is important. It would be enough In. Bostrom, N. & Cirkovic, M. M. for one generation to make mistakes; as a (Eds.), Global Catastrophic Risks (pp. consequence, our species would end to exist 504-519). Oxford: Oxford University forever. Therefore, we must change the way Press. how humans think about the future and Chapman, C. R., & Morrison, D. (1994). come together internationally to work on Impacts on the Earth by asteroids and

13 comets: assessing the hazard. Nature, Accidental nuclear war—A post–Cold 367(6458), 33-40. War assessment. New England Journal Christiansen, R. L., Lowenstern, J. B., of Medicine, 338(18), 1326-1332. Smith, R. B., Heasler, H., Morgan, L. A., Fouchier, R., Osterhaus, A. B., Steinbruner, Nathenson, M., Mastin, L. G., Muffler, J., Yuen, K., Henderson, D. A., Klotz, L., L. J. P., & Robinson, J. E., (2007). Sylvester, E., Taubenberger, J. K., Preliminary assessment of volcanic and Ebright, R. H., & Heymann, D. L. hydrothermal hazards in Yellowstone (2012). Preventing pandemics: The fight National Park and vicinity. U.S. over flu. Nature, 481(7381), 257-259. Geological Survey Open-file Report Gill, K. S. (2016). Artificial super 2007-1071. intelligence: beyond rhetoric. AI & Cirincione, J. (2007). Bomb scare: the Society, 31(2), 137-143. history and future of nuclear weapons. Helfand, I. (2007). An Assessment of the New York: Columbia University Press. Extent of Projected Global Famine Clingerman, F. (2014). Geoengineering, Resulting from Limited, Regional Theology, and the Meaning of Being Nuclear War. London: Royal Society of Human. Journal of Religion & Science, Medicine. 49(1), 6-21. Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the Corner, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Quantitative Definition of Risk. Risk Geoengineering the Climate: The Social Analysis, 1(1), 11-27. and Ethical Implications. Environment, Keynes, J. M. (1937). The general theory of 52(1), 24-37. employment. The quarterly journal of Cotton-Barratt, O., Farquhar, S., Halstead, economics, 51(2), 209-223. J., Schubert, S., & Snyder-Beattie, A. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and (2016). Global Catastrophic Risks 2016. profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Global Challenges Foundation/Global Krieger, D. (1984). Preventing Accidental Priorities Project. Nuclear War. Santa Barbara: Nuclear Dar, A. (2008). Influence of Supernovae, Age Peace Foundation. Gamma-Ray Bursts, Solar Flares, and Kristensen, H. M., & McKinzie, M. G. Cosmic Rays on the Terrestrial (2015). Nuclear arsenals: Current Environment. In. Bostrom, N., & developments, trends and capabilities. Cirkovic, M. M. (Eds.), Global International Review of the Red Cross, Catastrophic Risks (pp. 238-262). 97(899), 563–599. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kristensen, H. M., & Norris, R. S. (n.d.). Davidson, P. (1982). Rational expectations: Status of World Nuclear Forces. a fallacious foundation for studying Retrieved February 20, 2017, from crucial decision-making processes. http://fas.org/issues/nuclear- Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/. 5(2), 182-198. Leslie, J. (1996). The end of the world: The Davidson, P. (1991). Is probability theory science and ethics of human extinction. relevant for uncertainty? A post London: Routledge. Keynesian perspective. The Journal of Lowenstern, J. B., Smith, R. B., & Hill, D. Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 129-143. P. (2006). Monitoring Super-Volcanoes: Fonseca, G. L. (n.d.). Choice under Risk Geophysical and Geochemical Signals at and Uncertainty. General Introduction. Yellowstone and Other Large Retrieved February 7, 2017, from Systems. Philosophical Transactions: http://www.hetwebsite.net/het/essays/un Mathematical, Physical and cert/intrisk.htm. Engineering Sciences, 364(1845), 2055- Forrow, L., Blair, B. G., Helfand, I., Lewis, 2072. G., Postol, T., Sidel, V., Levy, B. S., Matheny, J. G. (2007) . Reducing the Risk Abrams, H., & Cassel, C. (1998). of Human Extinction. Risk Analysis: An

14 Official Publication of the Society for threat to global health? Geographical Risk Analysis, 27(5), 1335-1344. Journal, 181(4), 413-422. Miller, C. F., & Wark, D. A. (2008). Posner, R. A. (2004). Catastrophe: Risk and Supervolcanoes and their explosive Response. Oxford: Oxford University supereruptions. Elements, 4(1), 11-16. Press. Mills, M. J., Toon, O. B., Turco, R. P., Rampino, M. R. (2008). Super-volcanism Kinnison, D. E., & Garcia, R. R. (2008). and other geophysical processes of Massive global ozone loss predicted catastrophic import. In. Bostrom, N., & following regional nuclear conflict. Cirkovic, M. M. (Eds.), Global Proceedings of the National Academy of Catastrophic Risks (pp. 205-221). Sciences, 105(14), 5307-5312. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morrison, D. (2006). Asteroid and Comet Rees, M. (2003). Our Final Century: Will Impacts: The Ultimate Environmental the human race survive the 21st century? Catastrophe. Philosophical London: Heinemann. Transactions: Mathematical, Physical Reinhardt, J. C., Chen, X., Liu, W., and Engineering Sciences, 364(1845), Manchev, P., & Paté‐Cornell, M. E. 2041-2054. (2016). Asteroid Risk Assessment: A Mosher, D. E., Howell, D. R., Schwartz, L. Probabilistic Approach. Risk Analysis, H., & Davis, L. E. (2003). Beyond the 36(2), 244-261. Nuclear Shadow. A Phased Approach Robock, A., Oman, L., Stenchikov, G. L., for Improving Nuclear Safety and U.S.- Toon, O. B., Bardeen, C., & Turco, R. P. Russian Relations. Santa Monica: (2007). Climatic consequences of RAND. regional nuclear conflicts. Atmospheric Napier, W. (2008). Hazards from comets Chemistry and Physics, 7(8), 2003-2012. and asteroids. In. Bostrom, N., & Robock, A., Oman, L., & Stenchikov, G. L. Cirkovic, M. M. (Eds.), Global (2007a). Nuclear winter revisited with a Catastrophic Risks (pp. 222-237). modern climate model and current Oxford: Oxford University Press. nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic NASA (Ed.) (n.d.). Graphic: The relentless consequences. Journal of Geophysical rise of carbon dioxide. Retrieved Research, 112(D13107), 1-14. February 3, 2017, from Schuur, E. G., McGuire, A. D., Schädel, C., http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resource Grosse, G., Harden, J. W., Hayes, D. J., s/24/. Hugelius, G., Koven, C. D., Kuhry, P., National Research Council (Ed.) (2010). Lawrece. D. M., Natali, S. M., Olefeldt., Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard D., Romanovsky. V. E., Schaefer, K., Mitigation Strategies. Washington, Turetsky, R. M., Teat, C. C., & Vonk, J. D.C.: National Academy Press. E. (2015). Climate change and the Newhall, C. G., & Self, S. (1982). The permafrost carbon feedback. Nature, volcanic explosivity index (VEI): An 520(7546), 171-179. estimate of explosive magnitude for Shackle, G. L. S. (1949). Expectation in historical volcanism. Journal of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge Geophysical Research, 87(C2), 1231- University Press. 1238. Shackle, G. L. S. (1961). Decision order Ord, T., Hillerbrand, R., & Sandberg, A. and time in human affairs. London: (2010). Probing the improbable: Cambridge University Press. methodological challenges for risks with Shackle, G. L. S. (1979). Imagination and low probabilities and high stakes. the nature of choice. Edinburgh: Journal of Risk Research, 13(2), 191- Edinburgh University Press. 205. Solberg Søilen, K., & Baback Alipour, P. Papworth, A., Maslin, M., & Randalls, S. (2011). Semantics, Classifications and (2015). Is climate change the greatest Evidence in a Model for Global

15 Catastrophic Risks. Knowledge Wraith, C., & Stephenson, N. (2009). Risk, organization, 38(5), 438-454. insurance, preparedness and the Solomon, F. & Marston, R. Q. (1986). The disappearance of the population: The Medical Implications of Nuclear War. case of pandemic influenza. Health Washington, D.C.: National Academy Sociology Review, 18(3), 220-223. Press. Wright, D., MacDonald, E., & Gronlund, L. Sparks, S., Self, S., Grattan, J., (2016). Reducing the Risk of Nuclear Oppenheimer, C., Pyle, D., & Rymer, H. War. Cambridge: Union of Concerned (2005). Super-eruptions: Global Effects Scientists. and Future Threats. Report of a Yen, C., Hyde, T. B., Costa, A. J., Geological Society of London Working Fernandez, K., Tam, J. S., Hugonnet, S., Group. London: The Geological Society. Huvos, A. M., Duclos, P., Dietz, V. J., & Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Worst-case Burkholder, B. T. (2015). Review: The scenarios. Cambridge: Harvard development of global vaccine University Press. stockpiles. The Lancet Infectious Tonn, B., & Stiefel, D. (2014). Human Diseases, 15(3), 340-347. extinction risk and uncertainty: Assessing conditions for action. Futures, 63, 134-144. Toon, O. B., Robock, A., & Turco, R. P. (2008). Environmental consequences of nuclear war. Physics Today, 61(12), 37- 42. Toon, O. B., Robock, A., Turco, R. P., Bardeen, C., Oman, L., & Stenchikov, G. L. (2007). Consequences of regional- scale nuclear conflicts. Science, 315(5816), 1224-1225. Toon, O. B., Turco, R. P., Robock, A., Bardeen, C., Oman, L., & Stenchikov, G. L. (2007a). Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(8), 1973-2002. Tsur, Y., & Withagen, C. (2011). Preparing for catastrophic climate change. Journal of Economics, 110(3), 225–239. United Nations (Ed.) (n.d.). The Paris Agreement. Retrieved February 3, 2017, from http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/ 9485.php. Wallace, M. D., Crissey, B. L., & Sennott, L. I. (1986). Accidental nuclear war: a risk assessment. Journal of Peace Research, 23(1), 9-27. White, R. K. (1986). Psychology and the prevention of nuclear war. New York: New York University Press.

16