It seems like this should be a course on all college curricula, and an interdisciplinary field that attracts the best and brightest minds from all disciplines. Yet there is very little work being done in this field, that I can find. Here's a brief outline of what I've come up with so far.
Estimate of Risks: Ask most knowledgable people in each field what their best estimate of the chances are from the cause they know most about. Sum chances across fields. Decide how much money it's worth spending based on risk vs. spending on other risk aversion such as air safety, nuclear regulatory agencies, military, etc.
Risk Factors: Asteroid Impact, other Astronomical disasters Nuclear War Biological Warfare, Pandemic from natural causes Nuclear or Biological Terrorism Ecological disaster or degradation, Pollution Climate change, natural or human generated, Vulcanism Overpopulation? Hunger? Chaos? Resulting in Population Crash? Advance of technology leads inevitably to more and more power being available to smaller and smaller groups of people, culminating in possible eventual ability of any human alive to destroy the planet?
Factors that Decrease Risk: Independent Colonies dispersed throughout solar system Increases in knowledge Technological improvements Defensive military technology
Disciplines: Medicine, Epidemiology Biology, Genetics Astronomy, Planetary Science, Climatology Politics/Political Theory Military/Military Science Economics Study of Risks, Perceived Risks, Response to Risk Paleontology, Geology Agriculture Zoology, Ecological Science (the science of ecosystems) Religion/Theology Education Technology/Engineering Physics History, Archaeology Psychology/Psychiatry Thinking about this leads me to believe there are actually no disciplines that we should exclude. The questions come from most areas of human knowledge, but the answers might come from anywhere at all. I've decided we really need for people from every field of human endeavor to be thinking hard about this problem.
Concerns: Prediction difficult Mistakes costly
Possible Responses: A. Disbelief / Humor / Dismissal B. Fatalism / Despair / Suicidal Responses (i.e. "Good! We deserve to go extinct!") C. Blind Faith D. Informed Faith, Intelligent Decisionmaking, Action
In trying to decide what I want to be when I grow up, I kept realizing whatever field I chose wouldn't seem very important after our species goes extinct. And that eventuality is seeming more and more likely all the time. What good am I doing in making sure the engines function perfectly on the Titanic? So I decided I ought to be watching for icebergs instead, since it seems like nobody else really is. Or rather, nobody sees beyond their particular field. Hardly anyone is looking at the big picture. So I decided I ought to do that instead.
Information/Resources: Our Final Hour : A Scientists Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankinds Future In This Century--On Earth and Beyond by Martin J. Rees The End of the World : The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction by John Leslie Beyond the Holocaust: Survival or Extinction? A Survival Manual for Humanity by Peter A. Zuckerman (full text available online -- see link)
This is just a start. I need hatrack's input. What think ye, jatraqueros?
[ February 19, 2004, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think you are the only one I've talked to who fully shares my concern. I would LOVE to take that class.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Maybe we should develop it, write the textbook, and make it widely available or something.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
You could probably teach it yourself online, although it'd be a lot of work.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Is this the diametric equivalent of Pascal's Wager?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Its similar logic. If you take steps to prevent disaster of that magnitude from happening, the worst case scenario is that you spent a lot of money for nothing.
But the worst case scenario of taking those steps is the prevention of the extinction of the human race. Which to me is the most important thing in the universe.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I was thinking that if there is a God, he'll be pretty pissed about our lack of faith. Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I think seeing Ragnarock would be the funnest thing... especially if I get to kill things.
Rhaegar
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I think about this. I think how the reaction of hatrack to things like this is likely to be much smarter than the average reaction of humanity as a whole. Because hatrack represents a group of people who are among the most intelligent, best educated, most caring, most open to new ideas of merit, most aware of reality and the world around us, and of the actual situation of humanity in the universe, of any people on this entire planet. Therefore the best of what we come up with here is likely to be the best our species can do. I'm really afraid it is. This is it, homo sapiens. This is your shot at survival.
[ February 18, 2004, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It seems it would be in humanity's best interest if we just build a cave for the jatraqueros to wait out the impending disaster(s) in. Did you include magnetic field reversal?
Actually, we only need "genetic material" samples from the brightest Jatraquero males and the fertile females. Any truly enlightened male will see that preserving resources for his children and their mothers is much better than actually surviving.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, pooka, I think if we build sufficiently deep and numerous mine shafts, and place all Jatraqueros there, until it is safe to return to the surface. There will be plenty of Virgins for the desperate, err, enthusiastic Jatraquero, and the entire cast of LotR will be of service to the Wenches, of course.
We must not have a mine shaft gap!
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This would be an interesting class. One question that would have to be answered is:
"Are there certain actions that cannot be taken even to save the lives of every human being in existence?"
In other words, is human extinction the worst possible outcome for humanity? It would be an interesting discussion.
Dagonee
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Nothing to add to the curriculum at this point, but as I'm sure you'd have guessed, I'd support something like this.
I was thinking, last weekend, that I might have to make myself stinking rich so that I can direct enormous amounts of money toward saving our species from extinction. Kind of a Manhattan Project for species survival. Believe it or not, I'm actually serious about this. I was thinking that the funds would probably be best used by channeling toward colonization efforts. This is just the barest germ of an idea at this point, but I'm interested in developing it further.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the first problem to be solved is clean, sustainable energy generation. This alone solves a host of problems that threaten us and will provide direct benefits to any colonization efforts.
Second step would be making that energy generation small, diverse, and portable.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:We must not have a mine shaft gap!
Then how do we get into the mine shaft?
Isn't a mine shaft without a gap called...Rock?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
What would someone in this field do though? I mean, we already have biologists who can work on the biological threats to mankind, and astrophysicists who are best suited to working on the asteroid threat, and so on. What use is there for someone who generalizes in all of these?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Think of what an underground jatraquero society would be like.
We have all the bases covered, especially if you consider spouses. We have doctors, biochemists to develop drugs, pharmacists to give them out - that takes care of most of our medical needs.
We have teachers to educate our kids, all the way from Jenny (whose experience with gifted childre would serve her well teaching brilliant jatraquero children) up through Icarus and Cor and loads of people who can teach college classes.
We have some of the basics of life covered - my hubby can set up the plumbing. We'd never be bored, with all these writers and storytellers around. We could even bring back the position of bard!
Don't forget all our engineers, we'd certainly need them. How could we survive without Bob to set up all our traffic lights?
I can sew, so can some others. Everyone would have a cloak.
It'd be awesome!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dan, umm, that was an oblique movie reference...
Apparently not that funny
-Bok
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
jeez, don't you know that hiding under your desk will prevent any and all problems.
So you all pretty much want Shpstones (ala Heinlein) to be invented.
Get Soros to fund it and then I will go along
[ February 18, 2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: luthe ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Bok, I got your reference.
It was funny.
Mine was just funnier.
.
Humbly yours, Dan
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I agree that there is a greater than zero chance that the human race will become extinct. As you all might expect, I have a different idea on how we can be best protected from such an event.
Lets look at nature. There are species which have been around for a long time, without significant changes. Fish, insects, bacteria, etc. While some forms of these particular life-forms can be very specialized, as a whole, these groups tend to be highly diversified and able to adjust to changing climate and food sources. It would seem to me that the surest way to create risk of extinction is specializing too heavily upon one means of survival. This tends to be reinforced by nature. The Koala bear must eat eucalyptus leaves to survive, so its fate is tied 100% to the eucalyptus tree.
Humans, as a race, are very resourceful. We have the ability to adapt very quickly to harsh environments thanks to our large brain and dexterous hands. There is a trade off that seems un-avoidable in modern society. Specialization of individuals brings about more efficient economies, yet causes said individuals to be more vulnerable to changing conditions. However, those individuals may still choose another area to compete in. If the entire human race were to specialize into one narrow field, say rice-based agriculture, our fate would be tied to that one field.
So what promotes the greatest individual specialization, while maintaining society-wide diversity? If you knew I was going to say free markets, go to the head of the class.
The basic concept behind free markets, which makes them so appealing in this sphere, is the equitable allocation of resources. In all systems without free markets, resources are divided up based on the decisions made by those in charge, be they governments or aristocrats or whatever. This amounts to a specialization as well. Allowing one person, or one small group of people to decide course of an economy. While those in control might have a very good idea of how to attain the "greater good" they still have imperfect knowledge of entire system. While an individual making a single purchase may also have imperfect knowledge, it is a good bet to assume that this individual has a better understanding of his/her own situation and best interest.
However, a free market distributes resources based on who demands those resources the most. If there is a huge demand for wheat-bread, thus causing scarcity of wheat-bread, prices go up, causing only those who most demand wheat-bread to be willing to trade for it. This system works on micro and macro scales. The value of any resource is relative. Something of great value to me, may be of little or no value to someone else. Thus, free markets allow those who value resources the most to use them, settling the issue or scarcity.
Then there's the issue of colonizing space. I am of the opinion that without some commercial reason to do so, any space exploration and exploitation will be impermenant and in-efficient. The best way to develop a viable community is through the enacting of private property laws. The American west was populated using this principle. Establishing a land claim office for the moon and mars would be a good way to encourage economic use of those bodies. My point is that in all fields, allowing innovation to flourish, unhampered by regulation and central planning will result in the best, most sustainable society we can hope to achieve.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:In all systems without free markets, resources are divided up based on the decisions made by those in charge, be they governments or aristocrats or whatever. This amounts to a specialization as well. Allowing one person, or one small group of people to decide course of an economy.
Not really - that's an example of centralized decision-making, not specialization. Mutual funds, for instance, are governed centrally but are often highly diversified. Thus, you cannot claim centralized decision-making in any way implies specialization.
In fact, free markets are going to be MORE prone to widespread specialization, because of things like the qwerty effect, in which standards develop and are difficult to break without government interference. For example - oil.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, Bokonon's won hands down, DanRaven. Though a gap needing to be filled is really part of the solution.
And don't argue: mine shaft is bigger'n your'n shaft.
[ February 18, 2004, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
shut yo' mouth!
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Not really - that's an example of centralized decision-making, not specialization.
Exactly, and the end result is the same thing, increased vulnerability to unexpected changes in the system.
quote: In fact, free markets are going to be MORE prone to widespread specialization
Which, as I mentioned before, on an individual level is desirable. The problem comes in when the entire society is forced into compliance with non-efficient policies.
quote: For example - oil.
Oil is a good example. If there were a sudden interruption in the availability of oil, the only way to recover would be through free market innovation. The government would be powerless to find an economical substitute. Also, consider that in our mixed economy, driven partly by political cronyism, there exist non-market forces encouraging the continuation of low oil prices and lack of competition.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No, the free market naturally does not find alternatives to oil as long as oil is cheaper and available - so it naturally becomes overly dependent on oil in a free market. Only through government-sponsered efforts will alternatives be pursued, at least as long as those alterntives are less efficient at the immediate level.
quote:Exactly, and the end result is the same thing, increased vulnerability to unexpected changes in the system.
No, centralized decision-making decreases vulnerability because it allows for a quick, consistent, well-thought-out response. Free markets react to drastic shifts in market dynamics through wild knee-jerk and uncordinated responses because of their lack of centralization, which makes them very vulnerable to disasters.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What would be something that would be unethical even if it ensured our survival? Most of our unethical acts seem to be moving us closer to one of the extinction scenarios. (that doesn't have some arcane plural, does it? I think scenario is Italian and not Latin, or at least not a Latin noun.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
pooka, was that last question directed at me?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: No, the free market naturally does not find alternatives to oil as long as oil is cheaper and available
Of course not. I didn't say that it did. WHat I did say, was that centralized control has forced oil to be cheaper and more available than it otherwise would be, thus preventing market forces from finding cheaper substitutes.
quote: Only through government-sponsered efforts will alternatives be pursued, at least as long as those alterntives are less efficient at the immediate level.
Agreed, and what can make alternatives more efficient? Is it government intervention or free market forces? Currently it is not economical to use an energy source other than oil for our cars. With scarcity of this resource increasing due to limited supplies and increasing demand, alternative become more and more economical. The reward of someone who discovers an alternative energy source for cars which is more economical than oil has a bonanza of cash waiting for him/her. This is a better incentive than any the government could possibly devise.
quote: centralized decision-making decreases vulnerability because it allows for a quick, consistent, well-thought-out response.
For this to be true, the planners must have perfect knowledge of the system, which is obviously impossible. Central planning of an economy fails whenever it is tried. The end result is famine and ruin.
quote: Free markets react to drastic shifts in market dynamics through wild knee-jerk and uncordinated responses
Un-coordinated by what definition? With the ready availability of information and means to communicate that information instantly, economic coordination naturally arrises. Also, without central planning, the end result will accurately reflect the best answer to the problem, rather than the best answer conceivable to the planner. The planner is also likely to bleed the society's wealth off to his/her own interests.
quote: lack of centralization, which makes them very vulnerable to disasters.
Look at North Korea, South America, and Sub-Saharan Africa. These are, in general, places where free markets do not exist. Private property is a myth in these places. I would say that central planning, coupled with corruption(which is inescapable with central planning), is the direct cause of the dire poverty of these regions. If a famine strikes North Korea, they have little hope of surviving it without outside help, why? Why is sub-saharan africa's collective GDP dropped 11% since 1974? Why are most of those countries now relying on international charity to surivive?
[ February 18, 2004, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm suprised the Doomsday Clock hasn't been mentioned.
Posted by Han (Member # 2685) on :
aka:
Estimate of Risks: This question seems to raise a lot of ethical questions. At what point do actions taken to avert unlikely disaster go too far? Is it worth spending $1 trillion to avert a 1 in 3 chance of species extinction? 1 in 1000? 1 in 1 trillion? 1 in 1 googleplex? Who pays? Will some people disporportionally benefit (or be harmed)? What about coercion? Can we make entire populations take thought for mass disaster, or not?
Side Comment: As long as we're speculating about catastrophic disasters, what about disasters that are survivable but unpleasant (such as widespread war, natural disaster, etc, that causes the breakdown of our way of life and widespread death, but leaves some survivors behind)? Should we take steps to prevent the collapse of civilization as well?
Risk Factors: Perhaps consider Underpopulation (if reproduction is no longer valued). Genetic trouble: if human genetic engineering catches on, various doomsday scenarios call for shortsighted benefits depleting humanity's gene pool, leaving us vulnerable to disaster. Moral decay (if we are unable to adequately police ourselves/civilize the next generation). Political breakdown: Not in and of itself a species-ender, but we do depend on the politicians to keep the nukes under control, so I'd be fairly worried if DC got taken out by a suitcase nuke or something if continuity of government broke down (this applies to other nuclear countries as well). Solar disaster: we still get all of our (quantifiable) energy from one source, ultimately. And, in the interests of completeness, alien or supernatural phenomena cannot be ruled out.
Factors that Decrease Risk: Increase in moral behavior (debate the exact meaning on your own time, working definition includes behavior that does not put personal welfare above major risks to mankind). Solar system colonies are a good step, but not sufficient as long as the sun can go nova. We probably shouldn't breathe easy until colony ships are heading in several different directions, at a minimum, and shouldn't rule out colonization of other galaxies just to be safe. [Paradoxically, as Heinlein points out, FTL travel may actually increase risk, as war becomes practical again].
[ February 18, 2004, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Han ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I am very interested in such a subject... however likely that it will happen in my, or even the next, lifetime. Is there no society in the world that already does this? It seems very obvious. Or at least, quite potentially a highly useful topic.
Also, there's no place I'd rather be in an impending disaster than in a closed society of bright people. Except the only position I could fill would be that of 'bard'. I need more practical skills. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So what promotes the greatest individual specialization, while maintaining society-wide diversity? If you knew I was going to say free markets, go to the head of the class."
Wow. It must have ticked you off when Asimov ended his Foundation series with the argument that, to improve its chances for survival, humanity had to become a communistic mass-mind. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That bugged me! Foundation is about the best thing to happen to sci-fi ever and then... that! Ahhh!
*Runs for the hills*
Hobbes Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
To tell the truth, I read that back in High School. I really don't remember exactly what that was all about. Either way, I have mega respect for the good Doctor, Gaia or no.
(This is totally off topic, but did you guys know he died from AIDs? I had no idea until a few months ago. Apparently he got it from a blood transfusion in 1983.)
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Sorry, I fear my sympathies lie more with VHEMT.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Dag
quote: pooka, was that last question directed at me?
yours is the post that triggered it, yes.
I don't think it's possible to spend too much money on the problem. But I my new guru fugu tells me that only crazy people don't take into account the opportunity costs. So if we spend googolplex dollars on space colonization, that is googolplex dollars we have not spent on subsidizing the tobacco industry and other important government functions.
That said, I don't see replacing school lunches with a card that says "A donation has been made in your name to the offworld colonization foundation".
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: subsidizing the tobacco
All part of the problem of government interferance. This is the root of corruption in our government.
quote: spend googolplex dollars on space colonization
The whole point is that no matter how much we spend via the gov., it won't be enough because such a place will not be economically viable. Look at the ISS, that is a serious boondoggle.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Am I crazy or has ISS turned into a chronic excuse for Russia to hit the US up for money?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You do realize how much of our technology is space related and space based, Robespierre? Think of all we do that depends on satellites.
And then there's manufacturing. There're numerous manufacturing experiments that could be (and unfortunately, aren't being) done on the ISS which would increase our understanding of metallurgical science greatly (which = money).
I certainly don't deny that we have gained very much from the space program in terms of technology. I just question the opportunity cost.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Danzig: I mostly agree. I think the only way for human survival to be a worthy goal is to discover a better way of living with the rest of nature. If the answer to staying on the Earth entails paving the entire land surface and destroying most of the ecosystem, then I'd rather the human species die out, frankly.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I think it may well take all our best efforts in every area to make it through the coming bottleneck. In other words we're goint to have to learn a whole lot more about maintaining ecosystems, about managing to live on a survivable earth in a sustainable way, AND develop independent space colonies at the same time. The two goals are actually codependent. Experiments in minimal habitats in space, terraforming, and so on, are likely to be the fastest and best way for us to learn what we need to know to maintain the earth without damaging it beyond survivability.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Once again, Anne Kate has taken the words out of my mouth.
And on a completely different note:
quote:That said, I don't see replacing school lunches with a card that says "A donation has been made in your name to the offworld colonization foundation".
[ February 19, 2004, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I'm always surprised by so many people's reactions to this of dismissal or unconcern. It seems like it's we sons of Martha who are the ones who think the problem is worth thinking about and spending some effort on, which is not surprising, I guess.
(Sons of Martha are the engineers and workers who actually keep technological society going, who build bridges and ships and maintain dams and power plants and so on. It's quite a dangerous job, and many are maimed and killed at it, even now. twinky sent me this yesterday, a poem by Kipling. I love it and it seems appropriate here.)
The Sons of Martha Rudyard Kipling
THE SONS of Mary seldom bother, for they have inherited that good part; But the Sons of Martha favour their Mother of the careful soul and the troubled heart. And because she lost her temper once, and because the was rude to the Lord her Guest, Her Sons must wait upon Mary’s Sons, world without end, reprieve, or rest.
It is their care in all the ages to take the buffet and cushion the shock. It is their care that the gear engages; it is their care that the switches lock. It is their care that the wheels run truly; it is their care to embark and entrain, Tally, transport, and deliver duly the Sons of Mary by land and main.
They say to mountains, “Be ye removèd.” They say to the lesser floods “Be dry.” Under their rods are the rocks reprovèd—they are not afraid of that which is high. Then do the hill-tops shake to the summit—then is the bed of the deep laid bare, That the Sons of Mary may overcome it, pleasantly sleeping and unaware.
They finger death at their gloves’ end where they piece and repiece the living wires. He rears against the gates they tend: they feed him hungry behind their fires. Early at dawn, ere men see clear, they stumble into his terrible stall, And hale him forth like a haltered steer, and goad and turn him till evenfall.
To these from birth is Belief forbidden; from these till death is Relief afar. They are concerned with matters hidden—under the earthline their altars are: The secret fountains to follow up, waters withdrawn to restore to the mouth, And gather the floods as in a cup, and pour them again at a city’s drouth.
They do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts work loose. They do not teach that His Pity allows them to leave their job when they damn-well choose. As in the thronged and the lighted ways, so in the dark and the desert they stand, Wary and watchful all their days that their brethren’s days may be long in the land.
Raise ye the stone or cleave the wood to make a path more fair or flat; Lo, it is black already with blood some Son of Martha spilled for that! Not as a ladder from earth to Heaven, not as a witness to any creed, But simple service simply given to his own kind in their common need.
And the Sons of Mary smile and are blessèd—they know the angels are on their side. They know in them is the Grace confessèd, and for them are the Mercies multiplied. They sit at the Feet—they hear the Word—they see how truly the Promise runs. They have cast their burden upon the Lord, and—the Lord He lays it on Martha’s Sons!
quote: Luke 10:38-42 (KJV)
38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. 40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. 41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: 42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.
[ February 19, 2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)