Global catastrophic risk

A global catastrophic risk is a hypothetical event that could damage human well-being on a global scale. Such an event might endanger or destroy modern civilization. There is a specific sub-class of these risks known as existential risks. These are risks that threaten the destruction of humanity's long-term potential. An existential catastrophe could cause total human extinction. It could also result in an irreversible, permanent, and inferior state of affairs. This might include the unrecoverable collapse of civilization or a permanent, inescapable dystopia. In these scenarios, humanity is locked into a terrible state with no chance of recovery.

Researchers classify these hazards into two main groups. The first group is non-anthropogenic hazards, which are purely natural. These include asteroid or comet impacts, supervolcanic eruptions, and natural pandemics. Other natural risks include lethal gamma-ray bursts or geomagnetic storms from coronal mass ejections. In the very distant future, the Sun might become a red giant star and engulf the Earth. The second group is anthropogenic risks, which are caused by humans. These risks involve technology, governance, and environmental changes.

Anthropogenic risks are often linked to new or changing technologies. Technological risks include the creation of artificial intelligence that is misaligned with human goals. Biotechnology and nanotechnology are also significant areas of concern. Risks can also arise from insufficient or harmful global governance. This includes the possibility of nuclear holocaust or global war. Other political risks involve biological warfare using genetically modified organisms. Cyberwarfare could also destroy critical infrastructure, such as the electrical grid. Additionally, humans face risks from climate change and environmental degradation.

Studying these risks presents unique methodological challenges for scientists. It is neither possible nor ethical to conduct experiments on global catastrophes. For example, the long-term effects of nuclear war cannot be tested through experimentation. It is also difficult to predict the future over very long timescales. This is especially true for anthropogenic risks that depend on complex social systems. Furthermore, humanity has never experienced an existential catastrophe. This lack of historical precedent means we cannot learn from a track record of such events. We must rely on looking at smaller, local civilizational collapses to understand these dynamics.

There are several reasons why society may not focus enough on these risks. Economic factors play a role because risk reduction is a global public good. If one nation invests in safety, they only receive a small fraction of the benefit. Additionally, many of the benefits of risk reduction are for future generations. There is currently no mechanism to manage transactions for these future benefits. Cognitive biases also affect how people judge these threats. For instance, scope insensitivity makes it hard for people to grasp the scale of extinction. People often find it difficult to care about massive numbers or qualitative changes in existence.

To manage these threats, experts use a framework called defense in depth. This system uses three distinct layers of protection. The first layer is prevention, which aims to reduce the probability of a catastrophe. An example is taking measures to prevent the outbreak of infectious diseases. The second layer is response, which stops a catastrophe from scaling globally. An example is preventing a small nuclear exchange from becoming a full war. The third layer is resilience, which helps humanity survive even during a catastrophe. An example is increasing food security to survive a nuclear winter.

Humanity is most vulnerable when all three layers of defense are weak. This happens when we are unable to prevent, respond to, or remain resilient against a risk. In the 21st century, many academic and non-profit organizations have begun researching these issues. They work to formulate mitigation measures and advocate for safer futures. Despite this, some researchers argue that these initiatives remain underfunded. They note that more research has been done on topics like snowboarding or dung beetles than on existential risk. Protecting the future requires addressing these complex, unprecedented challenges through organized scientific study.