DOCSLIB.ORG

Global Catastrophic Risks 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 Global Challenges Foundation Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 © Global Challenges Foundation/Global Priorities Project 2016 GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS 2016 THE GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOUNDATION works to raise awareness of the The views expressed in this report are those of the authors. Their Global Catastrophic Risks. Primarily focused on climate change, other en- statements are not necessarily endorsed by the affiliated organisations. vironmental degradation and politically motivated violence as well as how these threats are linked to poverty and rapid population growth. Against this Authors: background, the Foundation also works to both identify and stimulate the Owen Cotton-Barratt*† development of good proposals for a management model – a global gover- Sebastian Farquhar* nance – able to decrease – and at best eliminate – these risks. John Halstead* Stefan Schubert* THE GLOBAL PRIORITIES PROJECT helps decision-makers effectively prior- Andrew Snyder-Beattie† itise ways to do good. We achieve his both by advising decision-makers on programme evaluation methodology and by encouraging specific policies. We * = The Global Priorities Project are a collaboration between the Centre for Effective Altruism and the Future † = The Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford of Humanity Institute, part of the University of Oxford. Graphic design: Accomplice/Elinor Hägg Global Challenges Foundation in association with 4 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 5 Contents Definition: Global Foreword 8 Introduction 10 Catastrophic Risk Executive summary 12 1. An introduction to global catastrophic risks 20 – risk of events or 2. What are the most important global catastrophic risks? 28 Catastrophic climate change 30 processes that would Nuclear war 36 Natural pandemics 42 Exogenous risks 46 lead to the deaths of Emerging risks 52 Other risks and unknown risks 64 Our assessment of the risks 66 approximately a tenth of 3. Risk factors and interactions between risks 72 Drivers of individual risks 74 the world’s population, or Shared risk factors and interactions between risks 78 4. Do institutions collectively underinvest in global catastrophic risk? 82 have a comparable impact. Market and political failures 84 Which actors can help reduce global catastrophic risk? 88 5. What can the world do to reduce global catastrophic risk? 94 Endnotes 100 Acknowledgements 107 Contact info 107 6 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 7 FOREWORD Dear Reader! early four years ago tion from other important risks. And in favor of one or more organizations when the Global above all, the defense against various that have a mandate to decide on how Challenges Foundation forms of political violence requires to mitigate GCRs. was established, we a grotesquely large share of public Would this be possible? My count- decided on a direction resources. Each day, the world spends er question is whether there are any Nwith two parallel strategies. The first over SEK 40 billion on defence alternatives? To continue relying on is increasing the knowledge about expenditure – money that would be multilateral negotiations increases Global Catastrophic Risks (GCRs), needed to fight poverty and prevent the probability that decisions and which with our terminology means catastrophic risks. actions are insufficient and executed threats that can eliminate at least 10% My personal opinion is that in order too late. This means that the likeli- of the global population. This knowl- to drastically minimize GCRs we hood of GCRs continues to escalate. edge is an important prerequisite for must develop a model where a major- I hope that this publication can the Foundation’s second strategy: to ity of the world’s nations, with strong deepen the understanding of GCRs encourage debates and proposals as support from leading nations, can and that these insights provide a to how we can effectively and fairly make binding decisions which can fertile ground for both debates and reduce – and preferably eliminate – be enforced in an effective and fair proposals on how we can develop a these catastrophic risks. way. This would imply that individ- better way of managing and address- This publication, the Foundation’s ual nations waive their sovereignty ing these risks. 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 Stockholm, April 2016 Priorities Project at Oxford University mass destruction, population growth 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- Laszlo Szombatfalvy rently stands. tially devastating weaponry. Further, Founder of Global Challenges Foundation In addition to describing the risks, political violence creates uncon- their effects and their likelihood of trolled migration and we receive occurring, this year’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- 8 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 9 INTRODUCTION Global catastrophic risks pose a pressing challenge his report addresses one caught out by consequences that fol- some risks. Smart risk management of the most important low from the technology more rapidly means being realistic in weighing issues of our age – glob- than climate change has. these factors against each other. This al catastrophic risk. As a global community, we need report offers an excellent background Over the last decades, to win the race between the growing to the underlying issues of global Tbehavioural psychology has taught power of our technology and the catastrophic risks, and is an outstand- us that, as a species, we are bad at wisdom with which we manage it. ing starting point for policy-makers assessing scope. Issues that affect ten This requires a nuanced approach developing an interest in the area or people do not intuitively seem ten towards technological developments, researchers considering how their times more important than those that acknowledging both that technol- own work might be brought into the affect one person. Global catastrophic ogy carries huge potential to make study of global catastrophic risks. risks are one area where our scope lives better and also that it carries 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 universe itself – the beauty Future of Life Institute, my team and of which has inspired my own deep Max Tegmark I have been calling for global leaders curiosity in cosmology. Co-founder of the Future of Life Institute to address critical global risk issues This technological power is an Professor of Physics at MIT including nuclear weapons, biotech- enormous force for good, but carries nology and artificial intelligence. This its own risks. Although consuming builds on existing risk reduction work fossil fuels was critical in creating the led by institutions such as the United thriving and wonderful civilization 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 climate change. Other technologies, lives every year. Agricultural science 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 10 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary We believe the global ost generations generations. Reducing these risks is community should work 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 technology and society compounds together to harness new 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 war several global catastrophic risks, such as times in the 20th century. anthropogenic climate change and tools to address global 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 catastrophic risks. 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. 12 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 13 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Future of Research on Catastrophic and Existential Risk
    ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE Working together to face humanity's greatest threats: Introduction to The Future of Research in Catastrophic and Existential Risk AUTHORS Currie, AM; Ó hÉigeartaigh, S JOURNAL Futures DEPOSITED IN ORE 06 February 2019 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/35764 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Working together to face humanity’s greatest threats: Introduction to The Future of Research on Catastrophic and Existential Risk. Adrian Currie & Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh Penultimate Version, forthcoming in Futures Acknowledgements We would like to thank the authors of the papers in the special issue, as well as the referees who provided such constructive and useful feedback. We are grateful to the team at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk who organized the first Cambridge Conference on Catastrophic Risk where many of the papers collected here were originally presented, and whose multi-disciplinary expertise was invaluable for making this special issue a reality. We’d like to thank Emma Bates, Simon Beard and Haydn Belfield for feedback on drafts. Ted Fuller, Futures’ Editor-in-Chief also provided invaluable guidance throughout. The Conference, and a number of the publications in this issue, were made possible through the support of a grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF); the conference was also supported by a supplementary grant from the Future of Life Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence: a Roadmap for California
    Artificial Intelligence: A Roadmap for California Report #245, November 2018 Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy Little Hoover Commission Dedicated to Promoting Economy and Efficiency Pedro Nava Chairman in California State Government Sean Varner Vice Chairman/ Subcommitee Member The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” David Beier Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, is an Subcommitee Chair independent state oversight agency created in 1962. By statute, the Commission Iveta Brigis is bipartisan and composed of nine public members, two senators and two Subcommitee Member assemblymembers. Cynthia Buiza In creating the Commission, the Legislature declared its purpose: Anthony Cannella Senator [T]o secure assistance for the Governor and itself in promoting Chad Mayes economy, efficiency and improved services in the transaction of Assemblymember the public business in the various departments, agencies and Don Perata instrumentalities of the executive branch of the state government, Bill Quirk and in making the operation of all state departments, agencies and Assemblymember instrumentalities, and all expenditures of public funds, more directly Richard Roth responsive to the wishes of the people as expressed by their elected Senator representatives. Cathy Schwamberger The Commission fulfills this charge by holding public hearings, consulting with experts Janna Sidley and listening to stakeholders. During the course of its studies, the Commission may Former Commissioners Who create subcommittees and conduct site visits. Served During The Study Joshua LaFarga The findings and recommendations of the Commission are submitted to the Governor and the Legislature for their consideration. Recommendations often take the form of Helen Iris Torres legislation, which the Commission supports through the legislative process.
    [Show full text]
  • Catastrophism, Natural Disasters, and Cultural Change John Grattan and Robin Torrence
    Theme: Archaeology and the Environment Symposium 017/1 Grattan & Torrence Symposium: Catastrophism, Natural Disasters, and Cultural Change John Grattan and Robin Torrence The aim of this session is to examine both the short and long-term consequences of extreme natural events on patterns of cultural change. Archaeological theory about the pace and character of cultural change generally focuses on processes which are internally generated and which unfold slowly through time. Since environmental determinism has fallen out of favour, theories about social evolution pay very little attention to external, nonhuman factors nor to random factors. Little or no consideration has been given to the effects of one-off natural disasters. In contrast, a number of theoretical perspectives involving catastrophism, chaos, punctuated evolution, etc. provide a range of alternative views that focus on the effects of random events. One of the goals of the symposium is to assess the value of these theories for explaining the impacts of natural disasters on cultural change. Through extended discussions following short presentations of case studies representing a very broad coverage in spatial, chronological and cultural terms, the participants will consider a range of general questions. How and in what ways do natural hazards affect human societies? Have natural disasters played an important role in human evolution? Do natural disasters have only short-term, limited effects or should they play an important role within general theories about cultural change and
    [Show full text]
  • NATO Legal Gazette Issue 41
    Issue 41 October 2020 Legal Gazette Legal Aspects of Innovation 1 PAGE 2 NATO LEGAL GAZETTE, Issue 41 Contents Introduction, by Sherrod Lewis Bumgardner……………………………...….……......... 4 Preface, by Geoffrey S. Corn and Gary Corn..……………………………………... 6 Innovation for peaceful purposes only: Where there is the will, there is ITER, by Antoaneta Boeva …………………………………………………………………………… 14 Partnership, Not Pivot: NATO’s Legal Answer to the China Question, by Lauren Brown ………………………………………………………………………………………... 27 Responsibility, Liability and Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, by Theodora Vassilika Ogden ………………………………………………………………. 46 Autonomous Weapon Systems: A Pragmatic Approach to an Emerging Capability, by Major Gregg F. Curley..………………………………………………… 61 U.S. Export Controls: The Future of Disruptive Technologies, by Christopher Timura, Judith Alison Lee, R.L. Pratt and Scott Toussaint …………………………... 96 The Relevance and Benefits of Integrated Compliance Strategy (ICS) for NATO Defence Forces, by Martijn Antzoulatos-Borgstein …………………..…...…. 125 Legal Operations: The Use of Law as an Instrument of Power in the Context of Hybrid Threats and Strategic Competition, by Rodrigo Vázquez Benítez……….. 138 The Road to Hell is Paved with Bad Contractors: Vendor Vetting is a Better Path, by Brett Sander ……………………………………………………………………… 145 Publisher: Monte DeBoer, ACT Legal Advisor Editor-in-Chief: Sherrod Lewis Bumgardner, ACT SEE Legal Advisor Editors: Mette Prassé Hartov, HQ SACT Deputy Legal Advisor Galateia Gialitaki, ACT SEE Legal Assistant Copy Editors: Robert ‘Butch’Bracknell, HQ SACT Staff Legal Advisor Col Xavier Labarriere, HQ SACT Staff Legal Advisor Miles S. Porter, HQ SACT Legal Extern Malia Kenza Chenaoui, ACT SEE Legal Extern Copy Proofreader: Caitlin Fendon, HQ SACT Legal Intern Lola Chanfreau, ACT SEE Legal Extern 2 NATO LEGAL GAZETTE, Issue 41 PAGE 3 Disclaimer: The NATO Legal Gazette is produced and published by Headquarters Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (HQ SACT).
    [Show full text]
  • How to Stop a Supervolcano
    HOW TO STOP A SUPERVOLCANO [VIDEO TRANSCRIPT] In 1816, red snow fell in Maryland. And brown snow. And blue snow.1 Which was kind of weird. Even weirder? It was May. Parts of Pennsylvania were covered in half an inch of ice … in July.2 1816 was known as “The Year Without a Summer.” And the phenomenon wasn’t limited to the U.S. In fact, the reason Americans were shivering in the middle of the year … had to do with something that happened half a world away. The darkened, hazy skies produced by “The Year Without a Summer” led to a series of famous paintings by the likes of J.M.W. Turner, Caspar David Friedrich, and John Crome. Modern audiences often believe that the use of lighting in these works is stylized, not realizing that it was a reflection of the actual conditions at the time. Another artistic legacy of the year without a summer: Mary Shelley and her summer vacation companions at Lake Geneva were forced indoors, where they entertained each other by coming up with horror stories. Shelley’s contribution eventually became Frankenstein. The eruption of the volcano at Mount Tambora in Indonesia had released a massive cloud of ash and sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. As a result, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere plummeted. Crops failed and livestock died en masse. Between the eruption itself, the ensuing tsunamis, and the resulting starvation, approximately 92,000 people died.3 It is widely regarded as the worst volcanic eruption in recorded history. Here’s the good news: you didn’t have to live through it.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Global Catastrophic Risks 2020
    Global Catastrophic Risks 2020 Global Catastrophic Risks 2020 INTRODUCTION GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOUNDATION (GCF) ANNUAL REPORT: GCF & THOUGHT LEADERS SHARING WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ON GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS 2020 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors. Their statements are not necessarily endorsed by the affiliated organisations or the Global Challenges Foundation. ANNUAL REPORT TEAM Ulrika Westin, editor-in-chief Waldemar Ingdahl, researcher Victoria Wariaro, coordinator Weber Shandwick, creative director and graphic design. CONTRIBUTORS Kennette Benedict Senior Advisor, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Angela Kane Senior Fellow, Vienna Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; visiting Professor, Sciences Po Paris; former High Representative for Disarmament Affairs at the United Nations Joana Castro Pereira Postdoctoral Researcher at Portuguese Institute of International Relations, NOVA University of Lisbon Philip Osano Research Fellow, Natural Resources and Ecosystems, Stockholm Environment Institute David Heymann Head and Senior Fellow, Centre on Global Health Security, Chatham House, Professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Romana Kofler, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs Lindley Johnson, NASA Planetary Defense Officer and Program Executive of the Planetary Defense Coordination Office Gerhard Drolshagen, University of Oldenburg and the European Space Agency Stephen Sparks Professor, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol Ariel Conn Founder and
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Impact of a Future Volcanic Eruption on Decadal Predictions
    Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 701–715, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-701-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Assessing the impact of a future volcanic eruption on decadal predictions Sebastian Illing1, Christopher Kadow1, Holger Pohlmann2, and Claudia Timmreck2 1Freie Universität Berlin, Institute of Meteorology, Berlin, Germany 2Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany Correspondence: Sebastian Illing ([email protected]) Received: 22 January 2018 – Discussion started: 2 February 2018 Accepted: 27 April 2018 – Published: 6 June 2018 Abstract. The likelihood of a large volcanic eruption in the future provides the largest uncertainty concerning the evolution of the climate system on the timescale of a few years, but also an excellent opportunity to learn about the behavior of the climate system, and our models thereof. So the following question emerges: how predictable is the response of the climate system to future eruptions? By this we mean to what extent will the volcanic perturbation affect decadal climate predictions and how does the pre-eruption climate state influence the impact of the volcanic signal on the predictions? To address these questions, we performed decadal forecasts with the MiKlip prediction system, which is based on the MPI-ESM, in the low-resolution configuration for the initialization years 2012 and 2014, which differ in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) phase. Each forecast contains an artificial Pinatubo-like eruption starting in June of the first prediction year and consists of 10 ensemble members. For the construction of the aerosol radiative forcing, we used the global aerosol model ECHAM5-HAM in a version adapted for volcanic eruptions.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiative and Climate Impacts of a Large Volcanic Eruption During Stratospheric Sulfur Geoengineering
    Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 305–323, 2016 www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/305/2016/ doi:10.5194/acp-16-305-2016 © Author(s) 2016. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Radiative and climate impacts of a large volcanic eruption during stratospheric sulfur geoengineering A. Laakso1, H. Kokkola1, A.-I. Partanen2,3, U. Niemeier4, C. Timmreck4, K. E. J. Lehtinen1,5, H. Hakkarainen6, and H. Korhonen2 1Finnish Meteorological Institute, Atmospheric Research Centre of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland 2Finnish Meteorological Institute, Climate Research, Helsinki, Finland 3Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada 4Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany 5Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio campus, Kuopio, Finland 6A. I. Virtanen Institute for Molecular Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland Correspondence to: A. Laakso (anton.laakso@fmi.fi) Received: 18 June 2015 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 12 August 2015 Revised: 21 December 2015 – Accepted: 22 December 2015 – Published: 18 January 2016 Abstract. Both explosive volcanic eruptions, which emit sul- ulation, only about one-third of the global ensemble-mean fur dioxide into the stratosphere, and stratospheric geoengi- cooling occurs after the eruption, compared to that occur- neering via sulfur injections can potentially cool the climate ring after an eruption under unperturbed atmospheric con- by increasing the amount of scattering particles in the at- ditions. Furthermore, the global cooling signal is seen only mosphere. Here we employ a global aerosol-climate model for the 12 months after the eruption in the former scenario and an Earth system model to study the radiative and climate compared to over 40 months in the latter.
    [Show full text]
  • Beneficial AI 2017
    Beneficial AI 2017 Participants & Attendees 1 Anthony Aguirre is a Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He has worked on a wide variety of topics in theoretical cosmology and fundamental physics, including inflation, black holes, quantum theory, and information theory. He also has strong interest in science outreach, and has appeared in numerous science documentaries. He is a co-founder of the Future of Life Institute, the Foundational Questions Institute, and Metaculus (http://www.metaculus.com/). Sam Altman is president of Y Combinator and was the cofounder of Loopt, a location-based social networking app. He also co-founded OpenAI with Elon Musk. Sam has invested in over 1,000 companies. Dario Amodei is the co-author of the recent paper Concrete Problems in AI Safety, which outlines a pragmatic and empirical approach to making AI systems safe. Dario is currently a research scientist at OpenAI, and prior to that worked at Google and Baidu. Dario also helped to lead the project that developed Deep Speech 2, which was named one of 10 “Breakthrough Technologies of 2016” by MIT Technology Review. Dario holds a PhD in physics from Princeton University, where he was awarded the Hertz Foundation doctoral thesis prize. Amara Angelica is Research Director for Ray Kurzweil, responsible for books, charts, and special projects. Amara’s background is in aerospace engineering, in electronic warfare, electronic intelligence, human factors, and computer systems analysis areas. A co-founder and initial Academic Model/Curriculum Lead for Singularity University, she was formerly on the board of directors of the National Space Society, is a member of the Space Development Steering Committee, and is a professional member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
    [Show full text]
  • Autonomous Weapon Systems and Cyber Operations
    The Weaponization of Increasingly Autonomous Technologies: Autonomous Weapon Systems and Cyber Operations 2 No. 7 UNIDIR RESOURCES Acknowledgements Support from UNIDIR’s core funders provides the foundation for all of the Institute’s activities. In addition, dedicated funding for the activities leading to this paper was received from the Governments of Canada, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Switzerland. UNIDIR would like to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions of the participants in a November 2015 meeting on cyber, AI and increasingly autonomous technologies convened by UNIDIR: David Atkinson, John Borrie, Aude Fleurant, Adam Henschke, Sean Legassick, Patrick Lin, Ryder McKeown, Nils Melzer, Richard Moyes, Jean-Marc Rickli, Heather Roff, Eneken Tikk-Ringas, and Kerstin Vignard. Particular thanks are extended to Patrick Lin for his substantive input, meeting moderation, and synthesis. UNIDIR would also like to acknowledge the contributions of those experts and interviewees who have requested to remain unnamed. This report was drafted by Kerstin Vignard. About the Project “The Weaponization of Increasingly Autonomous Technologies” Given that governments have a responsibility to create or affirm sound policies about which uses of autonomy in weapon systems are legitimate—and that advances in relevant technologies are also creating pressure to do so—UNIDIR’s work in this area is focused on what is important for States to consider when establishing policy relating to the weaponization of increasingly autonomous technologies. See http://bit.ly/UNIDIR_Autonomy for Observation Papers, audio files from public events, and other materials. This is the seventh in a series of UNIDIR papers on the weaponization of increasingly autonomous technologies. UNIDIR has purposefully chosen to use the word “technologies” in order to encompass the broadest relevant categorization.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2018 – April 2019 1. Overview
    Centre for the Study of Existential Risk Six Month Report: November 2018 – April 2019 We have just prepared a Six Month Report for our Management Board. This is a public version of that Report. We send short monthly updates in our newsletter – subscribe here. Contents 1. Overview .............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Policy Engagement: ......................................................................................................... 2 3. Academic and Industry Engagement: ........................................................................ 4 4. Public Engagement:......................................................................................................... 5 5. Recruitment and research team ................................................................................... 6 6. Expert Workshops and Public Events: ....................................................................... 7 7. Upcoming activities ......................................................................................................... 8 8. Publications ....................................................................................................................... 9 1. Overview The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) is an interdisciplinary research centre within the University of Cambridge dedicated to the study and mitigation of risks that could lead to civilizational collapse or human extinction. We study existential risk, develop
    [Show full text]
  • Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 INTRODUCTION
    Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 INTRODUCTION GLOBAL CHALLENGES ANNUAL REPORT: GCF & THOUGHT LEADERS SHARING WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ON GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS 2017 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors. Their statements are not necessarily endorsed by the affiliated organisations or the Global Challenges Foundation. ANNUAL REPORT TEAM Carin Ism, project leader Elinor Hägg, creative director Julien Leyre, editor in chief Kristina Thyrsson, graphic designer Ben Rhee, lead researcher Erik Johansson, graphic designer Waldemar Ingdahl, researcher Jesper Wallerborg, illustrator Elizabeth Ng, copywriter Dan Hoopert, illustrator CONTRIBUTORS Nobuyasu Abe Maria Ivanova Janos Pasztor Japanese Ambassador and Commissioner, Associate Professor of Global Governance Senior Fellow and Executive Director, C2G2 Japan Atomic Energy Commission; former UN and Director, Center for Governance and Initiative on Geoengineering, Carnegie Council Under-Secretary General for Disarmament Sustainability, University of Massachusetts Affairs Boston; Global Challenges Foundation Anders Sandberg Ambassador Senior Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Anthony Aguirre Institute Co-founder, Future of Life Institute Angela Kane Senior Fellow, Vienna Centre for Disarmament Tim Spahr Mats Andersson and Non-Proliferation; visiting Professor, CEO of NEO Sciences, LLC, former Director Vice chairman, Global Challenges Foundation Sciences Po Paris; former High Representative of the Minor Planetary Center, Harvard- for Disarmament Affairs at the United Nations Smithsonian
    [Show full text]