DOCSLIB.ORG

Future Proof the Opportunity to Transform the Uk’S Resilience to Extreme Risks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Future Proof the Opportunity to Transform the Uk’S Resilience to Extreme Risks FUTURE PROOF THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSFORM THE UK’S RESILIENCE TO EXTREME RISKS June 2021 Lead Authors Toby Ord Toby is an expert in extreme risks, Senior Research Fellow at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute, and author of The Precipice. He focuses on the big-picture questions facing humanity: what are the most important issues of our time, and how can we best address them? Toby has advised the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the UK Prime Minister’s Office, Cabinet Office, and Government Office for Science. Angus Mercer Angus is Chief Executive of the Centre for Long-Term Resilience and a Research Affiliate at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at University of Cambridge. He is a former Policy Adviser in the Secretary of State’s Office at the UK Department for International Development. Sophie Dannreuther Sophie is Director of the Centre for Long-Term Resilience and a Research Affiliate at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at University of Cambridge. She is a former Strategy Consultant in the Cabinet Office. Cover photo credit — NASA Please cite this report as ‘Future Proof, The Centre for Long-Term Resilience (2021)’ “This report offers significant “Extreme risks present a significant recommendations about how the UK security threat to both current and can enhance its resilience to extreme future generations. I hope that risks — one of the most important the risk management community challenges of our time. It should be in government makes use of the required reading for policymakers at expertise that this report, and its all levels.” contributors, have to offer.” Sir Oliver Letwin, former Chancellor of Lord Des Browne, Visiting Researcher the Duchy of Lancaster and author of at the Centre for the Study of Existential ‘Apocalypse How?’ Risk at the University of Cambridge, and Former Secretary of State for Defence “Upgrading our risk management system to include extreme risks “Adopting these recommendations is both crucial to our national would be like taking out an insurance resilience and a financial no-brainer. policy against some of the biggest The cost of implementing many of threats we face. It is an idea whose these proposed changes would be time has come.” a rounding error in any Spending Wera Hobhouse, MP Review, but highly beneficial to the UK’s national security. As Covid-19 “This report’s key observation — that has shown, it is a false economy not our national resilience is all-too- to spend millions now to save billions vulnerable to a range of extreme risks later.” — is spot on. It is encouraging to see Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones, such focus on this critically important Member of the Joint Committee on issue.” National Security Strategy Lord Toby Harris, Chair of the National Preparedness Commission “In its response to Covid-19, the “It is heartening — and timely — to see UK has a once-in-a-generation experts set out a research agenda for opportunity to become a world improved UK resilience to the extreme leader in its resilience to biosecurity threats we face, and offer their and other extreme risks. This report support to the Government. This is an provides an excellent roadmap for offer that policymakers should seize doing so.” with open arms.” Andrew Weber, Senior Fellow, Council Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal on Strategic Risks and Former U.S. and co-founder of the Centre for Assistant Secretary for Nuclear, the Study of Existential Risk at the Chemical and Biological Defence University of Cambridge Programs “The prevention of the supreme catastrophe ought to be the paramount object of all endeavour.” — Winston Churchill, 1924 CONTENTS Executive Summary 6 1. Introduction 8 Extreme risks — the defining challenge of our time 9 The post-Covid-19 opportunity 10 2. Overview 12 3. The Extreme Risks — Overview and Recommendations 14 Issue-specific policy recommendations 15 Biosecurity 16 Artificial intelligence 23 Cross-cutting policy recommendations 30 Improving the UK Government’s risk management processes 31 Increasing funding for research into extreme risks 44 4. Further Information and Acknowledgements 50 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Out of the wreckage of the Second World War, the UK transformed itself. It rebuilt its shattered economy. It founded the NHS. It created national insurance. And it helped establish international institutions like the United Nations so that the world would never endure a tragedy on this scale again. Human progress doesn’t come in straight lines. Instead, there are rare moments where transformative change is possible — where decades’ worth of progress can be achieved in a matter of months. Such an opportunity for transformative change may now be upon us. As the UK begins to emerge from Covid-19, which has cost tens of thousands of lives and over £300 billion in 2020 alone,1 we have a similar opportunity to that which existed in 1945. While the scale of national tragedy is alive in our minds, the Government must seize this opportunity, and ensure we are much better prepared for the next extreme risk event that will devastate lives and economies on a global scale. The UK must become a global leader in ensuring long-term resilience to extreme risks, and keep pace with the significant steps the United States is taking in this area. We do not know which extreme risk event will come next — it might be another pandemic, or it might be something completely different. But we do know what many of the most extreme risks are, and how best to prepare for them. This report offers a roadmap for how to do just that — it provides an insurance policy for Britain against the biggest threats we face. In this report, leading experts set out the key extreme risks we face, analyse the UK’s current level of focus on each of them, and provide recommended actions for the Government to take over the next 12 months. Estimated costs of implementing these recommendations in the upcoming Comprehensive Spending Review are included in this report where possible, and further information is available on request. A great deal of progress can be made with Government investment in the tens of millions — an insignificant sum in the context of any Spending Review. Contact us to meet the experts, discuss their recommendations, or schedule a policy workshop. 1 The Office for Budgetary Responsibility’s forecast for the 2020/21 UK deficit changed dramatically in the wake of Covid-19, increasing from £55 billion in March 2020 to £394 billion in November 2020. The Institute for Government describes this £339 billion difference as a way of calculating the UK’s “cost of coronavirus so far.” https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/cost-coronavirus A ROADMAP FOR LONG-TERM RESILIENCE TO EXTREME RISKS Current Government Policy area Focus2 Recommended actions and estimated costs We are highly vulnerable to biological threats 1. Task one body with ensuring preparedness for from bioweapons and accidental laboratory the full range of biological threats the UK faces leaks, which risk even worse consequences (£1 million annually). than naturally occurring pandemics like 2. Launch a prize to incentivise development of Covid-19. clinical metagenomic (£3 million one-off cost). 3. Establish a Biosecurity Leadership Council and Rapid developments are being made in appoint a liaison officer to improve coordination synthetic biology and biotechnology. These between the biosciences and security bring great benefits, but also offer harrowing Amber/ Red communities (£1 million annually). prospects of misuse. 4. Ensure that all DNA synthesis is screened BIOSECURITY for dangerous pathogens, and regulate DNA synthesis machines. The capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) 1. Improve foresight and progress tracking in AI systems have increased significantly in research (£600k annually). recent years. Though there is still widespread 2. Bring more technical AI expertise into debate and uncertainty, some AI experts Government through a scheme equivalent to have estimated that there is a significant TechCongress (£1.5 million annually). chance that AI ultimately achieves human- 3. Ensure that the UK Government does not level intelligence in the coming decades. incorporate AI systems into NC3 (nuclear command, control, communications), and lead on A human-level artificial intelligence that is Amber establishing this norm internationally. not aligned with the objectives and values 4. Set up throughout-lifetime stress-testing of ARTIFICIAL of humans poses extreme risk, as does computer and AI system security (£200k INTELLIGENCE widespread deployment of today’s existing annually). capabilities. 5. Update the Ministry of Defence’s definition of “lethal autonomous weapons systems”. The UK does reasonably well at risk 1. Improve extreme risk assessment and ownership identification compared to other countries. across government by updating the NSRA, Nevertheless, there remain a number of applying ‘three lines of defence’ model to risk technical flaws in the National Security management and installing a Chief Risk Officer Risk Assessment and the National Risk (£8.3 million annually). Register which must be addressed, including 2. Lead the way to ensure global resilience to all difficulties with capturing extreme risks. extreme risks, not just pandemics, post-Covid-19. 3. Normalise red-teaming in Government, including There also needs to be greater cross- creating a dedicated red team to conduct government accountability to ensure that frequent scenario exercises (£800k annually). these risks are addressed, that adequate 4. Revise the Green Book’s discount rate and ensure RISK plans are drawn up and that the latest Amber the Treasury adopts key recommendations on science and research leads to changes in intergenerational fairness. risk policy. 5. Establish a new Defence Software Safety MANAGEMENT Authority as a sub-agency of the Defence Safety Authority, to protect UK defence systems from emerging threats (£5 million annually).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effective Altruism William Macaskill and Theron Pummer
    1 Effective Altruism William MacAskill and Theron Pummer Climate change is on course to cause millions of deaths and cost the world economy trillions of dollars. Nearly a billion people live in extreme poverty, millions of them dying each year of easily preventable diseases. Just a small fraction of the thousands of nuclear weapons on hair‐trigger alert could easily bring about global catastrophe. New technologies like synthetic biology and artificial intelligence bring unprece­ dented risks. Meanwhile, year after year billions and billions of factory‐farmed ani­ mals live and die in misery. Given the number of severe problems facing the world today, and the resources required to solve them, we may feel at a loss as to where to even begin. The good news is that we can improve things with the right use of money, time, talent, and effort. These resources can bring about a great deal of improvement, or very little, depending on how they are allocated. The effective altruism movement consists of a growing global community of peo­ ple who use reason and evidence to assess how to do as much good as possible, and who take action on this basis. Launched in 2011, the movement now has thousands of members, as well as influence over billions of dollars. The movement has substan­ tially increased awareness of the fact that some altruistic activities are much more cost‐effective than others, in the sense that they do much more good than others per unit of resource expended. According to the nonprofit organization GiveWell, it costs around $3,500 to prevent someone from dying of malaria by distributing bed­ nets.
    [Show full text]
  • Apocalypse Now? Initial Lessons from the Covid-19 Pandemic for the Governance of Existential and Global Catastrophic Risks
    journal of international humanitarian legal studies 11 (2020) 295-310 brill.com/ihls Apocalypse Now? Initial Lessons from the Covid-19 Pandemic for the Governance of Existential and Global Catastrophic Risks Hin-Yan Liu, Kristian Lauta and Matthijs Maas Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract This paper explores the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic through the framework of exis- tential risks – a class of extreme risks that threaten the entire future of humanity. In doing so, we tease out three lessons: (1) possible reasons underlying the limits and shortfalls of international law, international institutions and other actors which Covid-19 has revealed, and what they reveal about the resilience or fragility of institu- tional frameworks in the face of existential risks; (2) using Covid-19 to test and refine our prior ‘Boring Apocalypses’ model for understanding the interplay of hazards, vul- nerabilities and exposures in facilitating a particular disaster, or magnifying its effects; and (3) to extrapolate some possible futures for existential risk scholarship and governance. Keywords Covid-19 – pandemics – existential risks – global catastrophic risks – boring apocalypses 1 Introduction: Our First ‘Brush’ with Existential Risk? All too suddenly, yesterday’s ‘impossibilities’ have turned into today’s ‘condi- tions’. The impossible has already happened, and quickly. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, both directly and as manifested through the far-reaching global societal responses to it, signal a jarring departure away from even the © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/18781527-01102004Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 12:13:00AM via free access <UN> 296 Liu, Lauta and Maas recent past, and suggest that our futures will be profoundly different in its af- termath.
    [Show full text]
  • Existential Risk and Existential Hope: Definitions
    Future of Humanity Institute – Technical Report #2015-1 Existential Risk and Existential Hope: Definitions Owen Cotton-Barratt* & Toby Ord† We look at the strengths and weaknesses of two existing definitions of existential risk, and suggest a new definition based on expected value. This leads to a parallel concept: ‘existential hope’, the chance of something extremely good happening. An existential risk is a chance of a terrible event occurring, such as an asteroid striking the earth and wiping out intelligent life – we could call such events existential catastrophes. In order to understand what should be thought of as an existential risk, it is necessary to understand what should be thought of as an existential catastrophe. This is harder than it first seems to pin down. 1. The simple definition One fairly crisp approach is to draw the line at extinction: Definition (i): An existential catastrophe is an event which causes the end of existence of our descendants. This has the virtue that it is a natural division and is easy to understand. And we certainly want to include all extinction events. But perhaps it doesn’t cast a wide enough net. Example A: A totalitarian regime takes control of earth. It uses mass surveillance to prevent any rebellion, and there is no chance for escape. This regime persists for thousands of years, eventually collapsing when a supervolcano throws up enough ash that agriculture is prevented for decades, and no humans survive. In Example A, clearly the eruption was bad, but the worst of the damage was done earlier. After the totalitarian regime was locked in, it was only a matter of time until something or other finished things off.
    [Show full text]
  • Whether and Where to Give1 (Forthcoming in Philosophy and Public Affairs)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by St Andrews Research Repository 1 Whether and Where to Give1 (Forthcoming in Philosophy and Public Affairs) Theron Pummer University of St Andrews 1. The Ethics of Giving and Effective Altruism The ethics of giving has traditionally focused on whether, and how much, to give to charities helping people in extreme poverty.2 In more recent years, the discussion has increasingly focused on where to give, spurred by an appreciation of the substantial differences in cost- effectiveness between charities. According to a commonly cited example, $40,000 can be used either to help 1 blind person by training a seeing-eye dog in the United States or to help 2,000 blind people by providing surgeries reversing the effects of trachoma in Africa.3 Effective altruists recommend that we give large sums to charity, but by far their more central message is that we give effectively, i.e., to whatever charities would do the most good per dollar donated.4 In this paper, I’ll assume that it’s not wrong not to give bigger, but will explore to what extent it may well nonetheless be wrong not to give better. The main claim I’ll argue for here is that in many cases it would be wrong of you to give a sum of money to charities that do less good than others you could have given to instead, even if 1 I am extremely grateful to Derek Parfit, Roger Crisp, Jeff McMahan, and Peter Singer for extremely helpful feedback and encouragement.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Maximize Expected Choice-Worthiness?1 WILLIAM MACASKILL and TOBY ORD University of Oxford
    NOUSˆ 00:00 (2018) 1–27 doi: 10.1111/nous.12264 Why Maximize Expected Choice-Worthiness?1 WILLIAM MACASKILL AND TOBY ORD University of Oxford This paper argues in favor of a particular account of decision-making under nor- mative uncertainty: that, when it is possible to do so, one should maximize expected choice-worthiness. Though this position has been often suggested in the literature and is often taken to be the ‘default’ view, it has so far received little in the way of positive argument in its favor. After dealing with some preliminaries and giving the basic motivation for taking normative uncertainty into account in our decision- making, we consider and provide new arguments against two rival accounts that have been offered—the accounts that we call ‘My Favorite Theory’ and ‘My Fa- vorite Option’. We then give a novel argument for comparativism—the view that, under normative uncertainty, one should take into account both probabilities of different theories and magnitudes of choice-worthiness. Finally, we further argue in favor of maximizing expected choice-worthiness and consider and respond to five objections. Introduction Normative uncertainty is a fact of life. Suppose that Michael has £20 to spend. With that money, he could eat out at a nice restaurant. Alternatively, he could eat at home and pay for four long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets that would protect eight children against malaria. Let’s suppose that Michael knows all the morally relevant empirical facts about what that £20 could do. Even so, it might be that he still doesn’t know whether he’s obligated to donate that money or whether it’s permissible for him to pay for the meal out, because he just doesn’t know how strong his moral obligations to distant strangers are.
    [Show full text]
  • The Definition of Effective Altruism
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/08/19, SPi 1 The Definition of Effective Altruism William MacAskill There are many problems in the world today. Over 750 million people live on less than $1.90 per day (at purchasing power parity).1 Around 6 million children die each year of easily preventable causes such as malaria, diarrhea, or pneumonia.2 Climate change is set to wreak environmental havoc and cost the economy tril- lions of dollars.3 A third of women worldwide have suffered from sexual or other physical violence in their lives.4 More than 3,000 nuclear warheads are in high-alert ready-to-launch status around the globe.5 Bacteria are becoming antibiotic- resistant.6 Partisanship is increasing, and democracy may be in decline.7 Given that the world has so many problems, and that these problems are so severe, surely we have a responsibility to do something about them. But what? There are countless problems that we could be addressing, and many different ways of addressing each of those problems. Moreover, our resources are scarce, so as individuals and even as a globe we can’t solve all these problems at once. So we must make decisions about how to allocate the resources we have. But on what basis should we make such decisions? The effective altruism movement has pioneered one approach. Those in this movement try to figure out, of all the different uses of our resources, which uses will do the most good, impartially considered. This movement is gathering con- siderable steam. There are now thousands of people around the world who have chosen
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Imperative Toward Cost-Effectiveness in Global Health Toby Ord March 2013
    center for global development essay The Moral Imperative toward Cost-Effectiveness in Global Health Toby Ord March 2013 www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1427016 abstract Getting good value for the money with scarce resources is a substantial moral issue for global health. This claim may be surprising to some, since conversations on the ethics of global health often focus on moral concerns about justice, fairness, and freedom. But outcomes and consequences are also of central moral importance in setting priorities. In this essay, Toby Ord explores the moral relevance of cost-effectiveness, a major tool for capturing the relationship between resources and outcomes, by illustrating what is lost in moral terms for global health when cost-effectiveness is ignored. For example, the least effective HIV/AIDS intervention produces less than 0.1 percent of the value of the most effective. In practical terms, this can mean hundreds, thousands, or millions of additional deaths due to a failure to prioritize. Ultimately, the author suggests that creating an active process of reviewing and analyzing global health interventions to deliver the bulk of global health funds to the very best. Toby Ord is the founder of Giving What We Can and a James Martin Fellow in the Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, Oxford University. The Center for Global Development is an independent, nonprofit policy research organization that is dedicated to reducing global poverty and inequality and to making globalization work for the poor. CGD is grateful for contributions from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in support of this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Risks of Space Colonization
    Risks of space colonization Marko Kovic∗ July 2020 Abstract Space colonization is humankind's best bet for long-term survival. This makes the expected moral value of space colonization immense. However, colonizing space also creates risks | risks whose potential harm could easily overshadow all the benefits of humankind's long- term future. In this article, I present a preliminary overview of some major risks of space colonization: Prioritization risks, aberration risks, and conflict risks. Each of these risk types contains risks that can create enormous disvalue; in some cases orders of magnitude more disvalue than all the potential positive value humankind could have. From a (weakly) negative, suffering-focused utilitarian view, we there- fore have the obligation to mitigate space colonization-related risks and make space colonization as safe as possible. In order to do so, we need to start working on real-world space colonization governance. Given the near total lack of progress in the domain of space gover- nance in recent decades, however, it is uncertain whether meaningful space colonization governance can be established in the near future, and before it is too late. ∗[email protected] 1 1 Introduction: The value of colonizing space Space colonization, the establishment of permanent human habitats beyond Earth, has been the object of both popular speculation and scientific inquiry for decades. The idea of space colonization has an almost poetic quality: Space is the next great frontier, the next great leap for humankind, that we hope to eventually conquer through our force of will and our ingenuity. From a more prosaic point of view, space colonization is important because it represents a long-term survival strategy for humankind1.
    [Show full text]
  • Existential Risk Diplomacy and Governance Table of Contents Authors/Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary 4 Section 1
    GLOBAL PRIORITIES PROJECT 2017 Existential Risk Diplomacy and Governance Table of contents Authors/acknowledgements 3 Executive summary 4 Section 1. An introduction to existential risks 6 1.1. An overview of leading existential risks 6 Box: Examples of risks categorised according to scope and severity 7 1.1.1 Nuclear war 7 1.1.2 Extreme climate change and geoengineering 8 1.1.3 Engineered pandemics 9 1.1.4 Artificial intelligence 9 1.1.5 Global totalitarianism 9 1.1.6 Natural processes 10 1.1.7 Unknown unknowns 10 1.2. The ethics of existential risk 11 1.3. Why existential risks may be systematically underinvested in, and the role of the international community 11 1.3.1. Why existential risks are likely to be underinvested in 11 1.3.2. The role of the international community 12 Section 2. Recommendations 16 2.1. Develop governance of Solar Radiation Management research 16 2.1.1 Current context 16 2.1.2 Proposed intervention 16 Box: Types of interventions to reduce existential risk 17 2.1.3 Impact of the intervention 18 2.1.4 Ease of making progress 19 2.2. Establish scenario plans and exercises for severe engineered pandemics at the international level 19 2.2.1 Current context 19 2.2.2 Proposed intervention 20 2.2.3 Impact of the intervention 21 2.2.4 Ease of making progress 21 Box: World bank pandemic emergency financing facility 22 2.3. Build international attention to and support for existential risk reduction 23 2.3.1 Current context 23 2.3.2 Proposed intervention 23 2.3.2.1 Statements or declarations 24 Box: Existential risk negligence
    [Show full text]
  • Global Challenges Foundation
    Artificial Extreme Future Bad Global Global System Major Asteroid Intelligence Climate Change Global Governance Pandemic Collapse Impact Artificial Extreme Future Bad Global Global System Major Asteroid Global Intelligence Climate Change Global Governance Pandemic Collapse Impact Ecological Nanotechnology Nuclear War Super-volcano Synthetic Unknown Challenges Catastrophe Biology Consequences Artificial Extreme Future Bad Global Global System Major Asteroid Ecological NanotechnologyIntelligence NuclearClimate WarChange Super-volcanoGlobal Governance PandemicSynthetic UnknownCollapse Impact Risks that threaten Catastrophe Biology Consequences humanArtificial civilisationExtreme Future Bad Global Global System Major Asteroid 12 Intelligence Climate Change Global Governance Pandemic Collapse Impact Ecological Nanotechnology Nuclear War Super-volcano Synthetic Unknown Catastrophe Biology Consequences Ecological Nanotechnology Nuclear War Super-volcano Synthetic Unknown Catastrophe Biology Consequences Artificial Extreme Future Bad Global Global System Major Asteroid Intelligence Climate Change Global Governance Pandemic Collapse Impact Artificial Extreme Future Bad Global Global System Major Asteroid Intelligence Climate Change Global Governance Pandemic Collapse Impact Artificial Extreme Future Bad Global Global System Major Asteroid Intelligence Climate Change Global Governance Pandemic Collapse Impact Artificial Extreme Future Bad Global Global System Major Asteroid IntelligenceEcological ClimateNanotechnology Change NuclearGlobal Governance
    [Show full text]
  • Global Poverty and the Demands of Morality
    CHAPTER 9 Global poverty and the demands ofmorality Toby Ord The facts about global poverty Many of the world's people live in conditions of extreme poverty. They face material conditions that are almost unknown in the rich countries, such as the United States, Australia, or Western Eutope. While there is poverty in these rich countries, it is of a very different so rt. We are familiar with relative poverty, whete some people have comparatively less than othees, which leads to social exclusion, crime, and other problems. This is a serious concern for .. these countries, but it is important to distinguish it from the topic of this chapter, which is absolute poverty. Absolute poverty is not defined in terms of how much woese off one peeson is compared to anorher, but by how little they have compared to a standard for being able to afford rhe basic necess ities of life. This chapter is concerned with absolute poverty on a global scale. To put things into perspective, consider that of the 7,000 million people in the world today: • 2,500 million live on less than $2 pet day; • 1,300 million live on less than $ 1.25 per day; • 1,000 million lack clean drinking water; • 800 million go to bed hungry each day; • lOO million children don't get even a basic education; • 800 million adults cannot read or write; • 6 million children will die each year from preventable diseases.' It is difficult really to grasp these numbees. For example, how could someone live on just $1.25 per day? How could rhey even arrange accommodation for , The first two figures are from World Bank, PovcalNct, 1012, http://ircscarch.worldbankorgl PovcalNer/; the others arc from UN Millennium Project, 'Fast Facts: The Faces of Poverty', 2006, www.lInmillenniumprojeer.org/doetlmcnrs/UNMP-FastFacrs- E.
    [Show full text]
  • Existential Risk Prevention As Global Priority
    Global Policy Volume 4 . Issue 1 . February 2013 15 Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority Nick Bostrom Research Article University of Oxford Abstract Existential risks are those that threaten the entire future of humanity. Many theories of value imply that even relatively small reductions in net existential risk have enormous expected value. Despite their importance, issues surrounding human-extinction risks and related hazards remain poorly understood. In this article, I clarify the concept of existential risk and develop an improved classification scheme. I discuss the relation between existential risks and basic issues in axiology, and show how existential risk reduction (via the maxipok rule) can serve as a strongly action-guiding principle for utilitarian concerns. I also show how the notion of existential risk suggests a new way of thinking about the ideal of sustainability. Policy Implications • Existential risk is a concept that can focus long-term global efforts and sustainability concerns. • The biggest existential risks are anthropogenic and related to potential future technologies. • A moral case can be made that existential risk reduction is strictly more important than any other global public good. • Sustainability should be reconceptualised in dynamic terms, as aiming for a sustainable trajectory rather than a sus- tainable state. • Some small existential risks can be mitigated today directly (e.g. asteroids) or indirectly (by building resilience and reserves to increase survivability in a range of extreme scenarios) but it is more important to build capacity to improve humanity’s ability to deal with the larger existential risks that will arise later in this century. This will require collective wisdom, technology foresight, and the ability when necessary to mobilise a strong global coordi- nated response to anticipated existential risks.
    [Show full text]