Evaluating Existential Threats

youtube-Logo-4gc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of Irv Mills

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Originally Published on The Easiest Person to Fool  March 5, 2017

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Classical_definition_of_Kno.svg/1200px-Classical_definition_of_Kno.svg.png

Discuss this article at the Kitchen Sink inside the Diner

In a recent post, I talked about how most people are loath to discuss collapse, some even believing that talking about it makes it more likely to happen. After all, Business As Usual is working just fine and everything is going to be alright. Right?

In contrast to this sort of head-in-the-sand optimism there are people (admittedly a much smaller number of us) who like to focus on existential threats—things that promise, at the very least, to wipe out a large chunk of our human population and, at the worst, to bring an end to life on earth. When you start looking into this you'll find that there are quite a variety of such threats. In my next two posts, I'll take a look at a selection of them. I'll explain why I think that the kind of collapse that I've been talking about is the threat most worthy of most of our attention. And in the process we'll get a clearer picture of what kind of collapse that is.

This post, though, is about the virtues of worrying and how to evaluate existential threats.

What "virtues of worrying", you ask? Worry certainly isn't in fashion these days. On social media one frequently sees this little flowchart about when to worry. All paths seem to leads to the same conclusion—"don't worry".

Now, I admit to being somewhat of a worry wart. Perhaps because of that I can see several things wrong with this flowchart. First, when you don't know, you need to find out. While you are finding out, worry serves as an incentive. And at the bottom of the chart the possibility that there is a problem, and that you can do something about it, is very much under emphasized. Worry serves as an incentive to find out what you can do, make a plan and then execute it. When you've set that in motion, I guess maybe you could quit worrying, but instead I would swing back around to the top left of the chart and see if there is anything else to worry about.

On the other hand, it is true that you can waste a great deal of time and mental anguish worrying about things over which you have no real influence. You have to identify problems that you can actually do something about and concentrate your efforts there. Of course, different people will reach different conclusions—it's a big world and there is lots of room for disagreement. We can't really determine what the right thing to do is without a lot of trial and error, so a diversity of response is a good thing in that it makes it more likely that some of those responses will be more or less successful.

I'll borrow a "new word" from John Michael Greer—"dissensus". The opposite of consensus, dissensus means agreeing to disagree and wishing the other guy all the best even if you think his ideas are outright crazy or stupid. Provided, of course, that he extends a similar courtesy to you. I've noticed that when people are willing to do this, and then find themselves faced with a serious threat, it often turns out that on important points like "what the heck do we do next" there is a remarkable degree of agreement. Ideological differences can be set aside when we are dealing with more immediate problems.

What I am expressing here on this blog is my own point of view, which you are free to disagree with. I do wish you all the best in pursuing your own point of view. And if we find ourselves coming up with similar plans, it may be that we can help each other to put them into action.

What is my point of view? Well, I have a great deal of faith in the scientific consensus—we really don't have any better way than science of finding out about the world around us, and in the last few hundred years science has built up a pretty useful picture of that world.

Some will no doubt ask, "How can you question BAU and expect it to collapse and yet still be in favour of the scientific consensus?"

It is a common error to conflate the scientific consensus with the "official stories" that are the basic myths of Business As Usual. You can hardly blame anyone for jumping to the conclusion that BAU and science are on the same side, since every effort is made to use science to legitimize the ideas of BAU. Those myths are pushed by politicians, economists and business. They are dressed up in the kind of pseudoscientific costumes that make them hard to distinguish from reality. The "Biggest Lie" that I talked about recently, the idea that our population and consumption can go on growing forever on a finite planet, is at the heart of this false worldview.

There are lots of people who don't completely buy into BAU. And there are multi-billion dollar per year businesses (organic farming, health food, and alternative medicine to name just a few) who take advantage of that, spending a great deal on propaganda and doing a good job of positioning themselves as being in opposition to Business as Usual. There is money to be made in that business, but the pseudoscience they are selling is just as bad as the myths from regular BAU. The people pushing both of these ideologies are very adept at finding the parts of science that happen to agree with their positions and flogging them for all they are worth to further their cause.

The idea of these two conflicting ideologies, both of which are wrong, is central to what I am talking about on this blog and you'll find it coming up again and again. Last year I wrote a series of posts on the subject:

If anybody can suggest a better term than "Crunchy", something less pejorative and more mellifluous, I'd sure be happy to use it. Setting aside all the pseudoscience for a moment, Crunchiness, in its opposition to BAU, is on the right track.

Anyway, if you actually take the time and make the effort to understand how science works and what the current scientific consensus is, you'll realize that it does not particularly support either of these ideologies. But for a great many people, who don't have any real background in science, the combination of conflicting ideologies and pseudoscience is extremely misleading.

One unfortunate side effect of this is that a great deal of worry and effort is wasted on problems that nothing need be done about (because the risk is vanishingly small), or that nothing can be done about (because solutions are beyond our reach). Risk assessment is the key to avoiding this sort of thing.

Ask yourself four things when considering any particular problem or threat:

  1. Risk: what is the likelihood of this happening?
  2. Severity: what are the consequences if this does happen?
  3. Difficulty: how hard will it be to do something about this?
  4. Timescale: how soon will this happen?

If you study up on any existential threat, you'll find reliable experts who have already considered the problem and have a lot of wisdom to offer.

Based on the answers you find to each of those questions, you will decide to worry or not:

  • If risk is small, there isn't much to worry about and little need to plan a response.
  • If the severity is small, same conclusion.
  • If it would be easy to do something about the threat, you may want to take some action even if the risk and/or severity are small. If response is difficult then it will require detailed planning and the mobilization of forces beyond yourself. And you will need time to mount a response.
  • Sometimes it is simply not possible to stop a threat from happening, so the action we can realistically take consists of preparing to cope its effects.
  • If the timescale is short, you'll want to plan and act immediately. Preferably to draw on resources you already have in place.
  • If the timescale is long then you may use that time to plan and mobilize your response, or, you may decide to just watch and wait until it is more clear what's going to happen and when. Of course, ignoring threats that are on a long timeline is a tempting but dangerous approach. Eventually that timeline will get a lot shorter.

You'll plan a response based on the nature of the threat and follow up with action, or go and look for something else to worry about. After the first few times you run through your list of threats, you will already have made plans and started to implement them, so the time for worry is over. Of course, you'll always want to keep a "weather eye" out for trouble that you haven't anticipated, or established threats that have changed and now require a different response.

There are a few challenges involved with this approach that we should consider here.

How to identify a reliable expert is certainly one of those challenges. Unfortunately the letters "Dr." in front of a name is no guarantee that someone is either an expert or reliable. I can recommend only skepticism, critical thinking and learning to identifying the many types of bias and the sort of dirty tricks used by those producing pseudoscience. After a while you will develop at sort of "BS" detector that goes off when you are confronted with pseudoscience. A big part of that is knowing what the current scientific consensus says and being skeptical about claims that contradict that consensus. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And it is reassuring to find many researchers turning up the same findings, and interpreting them in similar ways.

Some will be eager to point out that scientists working for business concerns are certainly not reliable and their work just can't be trusted, as it will be biased to the advantage of the company. Sometimes this is true, but just as often it is not true. Your evaluation of that work must be based on the evidence, not on ideology—theirs, or yours.

Evaluating risk can also be quite challenging. In my experience there are a couple of particular pitfalls that people encounter. There are probably more, but these are the ones I know personally.

People often look at risk as being "monotonic". That is, if something is dangerous in large quantities, it must also be dangerous in small quantities—it may take longer for the harm to become evident, but there is still harm. This certainly sounds reasonable, but in most cases it is simply not true. Take radiation as an example. There is no doubt that ionizing radiation can kill in large quantities. This makes it frightening and since it can't be seen and is poorly understood, many people don't want to have anything to do with it, assuming that any release of radiation will affect them negatively.

But life on earth has been dealing with small quantities of radiation since day one and has evolved mechanisms for coping with the "background radiation". Most releases of radiation result in a barely detectable increase in the background and are not a serious concern. Of course, if you work in the nuclear industry, where there is the chance of exposure to significant amounts of radiation, you should take safety procedures seriously. And that brings me to my second risk evaluation pitfall.

The majority of the people I worked with during my career in the electrical transmission and distribution industry were quite brave. We often worked in close proximity to serious hazards and while a healthy respect was vital, outright fear would have been crippling. So far, so good. But some of the hazards we encountered were less straightforward. If there is a one in ten chance of serious injury, essentially everyone will take the appropriate precautions. But at some level of decreasing risk, many people will decide to just accept the risk, rather than do much about it. Especially if the precautions they are expected to take (procedures and protective equipment) are rather onerous.

At what level of risk is that a reasonable response? One in a million? Probably. But what about one chance in a thousand? My experience is that there is a range of risk that is significant, but many people find hard to take seriously. The trouble is, if a large population is exposed to the risk on a regular basis, the odds good are that someone is going to get hurt fairly soon. That's why the safety rules are written and why supervisors (me at one point) have to enforce them, even if they didn't take them so serious when they were workers. Something to keep in mind when evaluating risks.

One final thing I should point out—it seems to me that mankind as a whole is at or just past the peak of our ability to respond to large existential threats. From here on in, as collapse proceeds, it's all a bumpy downhill ride. The best we will be able to do, in a great many cases, is to mitigate the effects of what is coming. And since it appears that governments aren't interested in, and increasing don't have the resources to organize such a response, this will have to be done on an individual, family, or at most, community level.

So, what are some of these threats? I've divided them into two groups: non-anthropogenic (not manmade) and anthropogenic (manmade), and I'll be covering them in my next two posts.

3 Responses to Evaluating Existential Threats

  • dolph says:

    Interesting post.

    In my mind I like to make a distinction between immediate and long term threats.  This helps me distinguish between what I need to do right now, versus what I have some time for.

    Immediate:  shelter, food, safety, etc.

    Long Term:  heart disease, cancer, collapse of financial system, etc.

    Now, obviously threats can go between categories, or can occupy both, etc.  But you get my point.

  • Irv Mills says:

    dolph, I do get your pint, it makes good sense to me.

    Sadly, much of our society ignores long term threats altogether. And some more immediate threats that are just too incovenient to consider, it seems.
     

  • Bach's_bitch says:

    The author makes a lot of good points in this post, however, I must take issue with some things.

    First, the term "scientific consensus". Consensus isn't really a scientific principle but rather a political one. Even processes like peer review are meant to catch unverified claims or big omissions, rather than forming some view on the material itself.

    Second, the term "reliable experts". This is a pleonasm. An expert, by definition, is reliable. However, experts can lie about the subject they are experts in. To identify such lies, one has to be an expert. Unfortunately, the average human lifespan is too short to acquire expertise in the wide range of subjects which fall under "existential threats to humanity". So ultimately the only way to figure out whether, or how, or to what extent, something is an existential threat, is to observe it oneself. Anything else is either empty speculation or blind faith.

    Third, the idea of "evalutating the evidence". This is really a corollary to the third objection. Scientists are not the handmaidens of Minerva and hence no more or less prone to willfully ignoring existential threats to humanity than other mortals. Hence, they can present false or incomplete evidence, or present the evidence in a way that is inaccessible to a person with insufficient knowledge of the concepts or vocabulary used to do so. Again, it comes down to whether an individual has direct access to the evidence and the ability to judge it. Needless to say, virtually all individuals have neither.

    With that said, my personal opinion is that existential threats to humanity, if any, may be too complex to describe accurately let alone assessed for degree of risk. Scientific analysis is crucial either way, of course, but science has limits like everything else. The best approach, for the average person, towards something so large and nebulous as an "existential threat", is to form a general idea of its consequences and then be ready to suffer them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Knarf plays the Doomer Blues

https://image.freepik.com/free-icon/musical-notes-symbols_318-29778.jpg

Support the Diner
Search the Diner
Surveys & Podcasts

NEW SURVEY

Renewable Energy

VISIT AND FOLLOW US ON DINER SOUNDCLOUD

" As a daily reader of all of the doomsday blogs, e.g. the Diner, Nature Bats Last, Zerohedge, Scribbler, etc… I must say that I most look forward to your “off the microphone” rants. Your analysis, insights, and conclusions are always logical, well supported, and clearly articulated – a trifecta not frequently achieved."- Joe D
Archives
Global Diners

View Full Diner Stats

Global Population Stats

Enter a Country Name for full Population & Demographic Statistics

Lake Mead Watch

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BX686_LakeMe_G_20130816175615.jpg

loading

Inside the Diner

Starting a news franchise to document the life and times of a felony retread from the fucking Reagan administration as he circles the drain for a richly undeserved third act in American life as President of the fucking NRA.Jim Wright: Traitor, convict...

With a neat round-up of the other S. American countrieshttps://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/18/us-not-sitting-idly-by-on-eve-of-venezuelan-election/The US Is "Meddling" In The Venezuelan ElectionRoger Harris05/20/2018As Vene...

Quote from: Surly1 on Today at 07:00:52 PMI went back to read the original article again.https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/QuoteIf we focus on ma...

QuoteEddie: As usual, you are COMPLETELY full of shit. And yet you go on to list a horrifying set of tragedies with 44 dead this year, 128 in the last ten years.  Almost nothing really, I don't know what all the fuss is about.  If students c...

http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#sstanom

Blog Commentary
Diner Twitter feed

Knarf’s Knewz

Quote from: Eddie on March 13, 2018, 05:21:10 PMAl [...]

Quote from: knarf on March 13, 2018, 03:33:01 PMAU [...]

Quote from: knarf on March 13, 2018, 03:25:04 PM [...]

A new study found that the Great Recession correla [...]

From 2003 to 2005, Gina Haspel was a senior offici [...]

Diner Newz Feeds
  • Surly
  • Agelbert
  • Knarf
  • Golden Oxen
  • Frostbite Falls

Quote from: Surly1 on Today at 06:15:10 AM[img wid [...]

I prefer to keep my guns.No slogans. I'm not [...]

Quote from: Eddie on Today at 08:25:02 AMI don [...]

I don't usually post graphics, but this one i [...]

$21 Trillion! Blowing the Whistle on the Largest P [...]

‘Killing Gaza’: A New Documentary on Palestinians [...]

US-North Korea Peace Talks: Trump 🦀 Threatens Kim [...]

Agelbert's  Mini-Catamarran FollyPosted May 1 [...]

Agelbert NOTE: This short video has very interesti [...]

Quote from: Surly1 on May 19, 2018, 12:03:53 PMQuo [...]

Quote from: Eddie on March 13, 2018, 05:21:10 PMAl [...]

Quote from: knarf on March 13, 2018, 03:33:01 PMAU [...]

Quote from: knarf on March 13, 2018, 03:25:04 PM [...]

A new study found that the Great Recession correla [...]

From 2003 to 2005, Gina Haspel was a senior offici [...]

https://news.goldcore.com/ie/gold-blog/russia-buys [...]

Dear Readers,  This is a must read and a view that [...]

I did study those instruments when I was younger, [...]

The medical evidence supports colonoscopies, PSA t [...]

Quote from: Eddie on May 18, 2018, 08:11:50 AMThe [...]

Every graduating class has one guy everyone knows [...]

A new thread chronicling the antics of those Hones [...]

Quote from: Eddie on May 11, 2018, 06:17:08 PMQuot [...]

Alternate Perspectives
  • Two Ice Floes
  • Jumping Jack Flash
  • From Filmers to Farmers

Stupid Is As Stupid Does By Cognitive Dissonance     The other night, Mrs. Cog and I streamed a movi [...]

A Double Rainbow Graces Cogville By Cognitive Dissonance   It has been a somewhat dry spring so far. [...]

We Prefer Our Sociopaths Well Dressed and Spoken By Cognitive Dissonance   What would you do if I to [...]

A Duty to Know By Cognitive Dissonance   Conversations Mrs. Cog and I have often revolve around awar [...]

The Pendulum – Part Three Seeking Balance By High Desert   Missing in the mix of hundreds of bug-out [...]

Event Update For 2018-05-18http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.html Th [...]

Event Update For 2018-05-17http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.html Th [...]

Event Update For 2018-05-16http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.html Th [...]

Event Update For 2018-05-15http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.html Th [...]

Event Update For 2018-05-14http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.html Th [...]

NYC plans to undertake the swindle of the civilisation by suing the companies that have enabled it t [...]

MbS, the personification of the age-old pre-revolutionary scenario in which an expiring regime attem [...]

You know things have taken a turn for the desperate when women have started to drive. Or rather, whe [...]

From Filmers to Farmers is re-launched on the astounding open source blogging platform Ghost! [...]

The blogging scene is admittedly atrocious. Is there really no option for a collapse blogger to turn [...]

Daily Doom Photo

man-watching-tv

Sustainability
  • Peak Surfer
  • SUN
  • Transition Voice

The Russians Aren't Coming"What exactly is our strategy for the Malthusian predicament?"  In his autobiography, Holl [...]

Why is your teenage sibling trying to kill you?"We were searching for the tendrils of common language from which we could enlarge the discussi [...]

Straws are a gateway drug, because they are so easy and ubiquitous. That is also what makes them a g [...]

Spring Cleaning"If you’re buying weird tech gizmos, you need to know what you are trying to prove by that. [...]

Mycelial Mind"One thing we can say about our fungal cousins. They are vastly better connected to the natural [...]

The folks at Windward have been doing great work at living sustainably for many years now.  Part of [...]

 The Daily SUN☼ Building a Better Tomorrow by Sustaining Universal Needs April 3, 2017 Powering Down [...]

Off the keyboard of Bob Montgomery Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666 Friend us on Facebook Publishe [...]

Visit SUN on Facebook Here [...]

To fight climate change, you need to get the world off of fossil fuels. And to do that, you need to [...]

Americans are good on the "thoughts and prayers" thing. Also not so bad about digging in f [...]

In the echo-sphere of political punditry consensus forms rapidly, gels, and then, in short order…cal [...]

Discussions with figures from Noam Chomsky and Peter Senge to Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama off [...]

Lefty Greenies have some laudable ideas. Why is it then that they don't bother to really build [...]

Top Commentariats
  • Our Finite World
  • Economic Undertow

Yes, we think we understand everything and in the end of our current explanations say the universe j [...]

I favour the callers who are unable to pronounce my fairly simple and phonetically spelt Irish surna [...]

What we need is that old biddy known as the Queen of England to finally kick off... get her sorry ol [...]

The https certificate is supposed to renew automatically but didn't this time. But, it's r [...]

Yes - I did make an exception on the 17th and was able to open up today - the 19th - no problem. But [...]

It's a problem b/c the host for this site is slow to update the https certificates. At some poi [...]

Hi Steve - had a hard time getting to comments. Firefox said your "Certificate had expired [...]

They don't want to talk about it: cats might escape the bag. They'd rather flatter the emp [...]

RE Economics

Going Cashless

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Simplifying the Final Countdown

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Bond Market Collapse and the Banning of Cash

Off the microphone of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?

Discuss this article @ the ECONOMICS TABLE inside the...

Singularity of the Dollar

Off the Keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Kurrency Kollapse: To Print or Not To Print?

Off the microphone of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

SWISSIE CAPITULATION!

Off the microphone of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Of Heat Sinks & Debt Sinks: A Thermodynamic View of Money

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Merry Doomy Christmas

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Peak Customers: The Final Liquidation Sale

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Collapse Fiction
Useful Links
Technical Journals

Knowledge on the impact of climate variability on the decadal timescale is important for policy make [...]

We investigate the feasibility of developing decadal prediction models for autumn rainfall ( R A ) o [...]

By the end of this century, the average global temperature is predicted to rise due to the increasin [...]

For modern infrastructures, structural concrete has been widely adopted for various components and s [...]

The standard deviational ellipse is useful to analyze the shape and the length of a tropical cyclone [...]

Follow on our http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/