Search results

This paper provides a detailed survey of the greatest dangers facing humanity this century. It argues that there are three broad classes of risks – the “Great Challenges” – that deserve our immediate attention, namely, environmental degradation, which includes climate change and global biodiversity loss; the distribution of unprecedented destructive capabilities across society by dual-use emerging technologies; and value-misaligned algorithms that exceed human-level intelligence in every cognitive domain. After examining each of these challenges, the paper then outlines a handful of additional issues that are relevant to understanding our existential predicament and could complicate attempts to overcome the Great Challenges. The central aim of this paper is to constitute an authoritative resource, insofar as this is possible in a scholarly journal, for scholars who are working on or interested in existential risks. In the author’s view, this is precisely the sort of big-picture analysis that humanity needs more of, if we wish to navigate the obstacle course of existential dangers before us.

Comprehensive literature survey that culminates in a novel theoretical framework for thinking about global-scale risks.

If humanity wishes to survive and prosper in the coming centuries, then we must overcome three Great Challenges, each of which is sufficient to cause a significant loss of expected value in the future.

The Great Challenges framework offers a novel scheme that highlights the most pressing global-scale risks to human survival and prosperity. The author argues that the “big-picture” approach of this paper exemplifies the sort of scholarship that humanity needs more of to properly understand the various existential hazards that are unique to the twenty-first century.

This paper aims to consider few cognitive and conceptual obstacles to engagement with global catastrophic risks (GCRs).

The paper starts by considering cognitive biases that affect general thinking about GCRs, before questioning whether existential risks really are dramatically more pressing than other GCRs. It then sets out a novel typology of GCRs – sexy vs unsexy risks – before considering a particularly unsexy risk, overpopulation.

It is proposed that many risks commonly regarded as existential are “sexy” risks, while certain other GCRs are comparatively “unsexy.” In addition, it is suggested that a combination of complexity, cognitive biases and a hubris-laden failure of imagination leads us to neglect the most unsexy and pervasive of all GCRs: human overpopulation. The paper concludes with a tentative conceptualisation of overpopulation as a pattern of risking.

The paper proposes and conceptualises two new concepts, sexy and unsexy catastrophic risks, as well as a new conceptualisation of overpopulation as a pattern of risking.

The great filter and an unfriendly artificial general intelligence might pose existential risks to humanity, but these two risks are anti-correlated. The purpose of this paper is to consider the implications of having evidence that mankind is at significant peril from both these risks.

This paper creates Bayesian models under which one might get evidence for being at risk for two perils when we know that we are at risk for at most one of these perils.

Humanity should possibly be more optimistic about its long-term survival if we have convincing evidence for believing that both these risks are real than if we have such evidence for thinking that only one of these perils would likely strike us.

Deriving implications of being greatly concerned about both an unfriendly artificial general intelligence and the great filter.

The claim that super intelligent machines constitute a major existential risk was recently defended in Nick Bostrom’s book Superintelligence and forms the basis of the sub-discipline AI risk. The purpose of this paper is to critically assess the philosophical assumptions that are of importance to the argument that AI could pose an existential risk and if so, the character of that risk.

This paper distinguishes between “intelligence” or the cognitive capacity of an individual and “techne”, a more general ability to solve problems using, for example, technological artifacts. While human intelligence has not changed much over historical time, human techne has improved considerably. Moreover, the fact that human techne has more variance across individuals than human intelligence suggests that if machine techne were to surpass human techne, the transition is likely going to be prolonged rather than explosive.

Some constraints for the intelligence explosion scenario are presented that imply that AI could be controlled by human organizations.

If true, this argument suggests that efforts should focus on devising strategies to control AI rather strategies that assume that such control is impossible.

Islands have long been discussed as refuges from global catastrophes; this paper will evaluate them systematically, discussing both the positives and negatives of islands as refuges. There are examples of isolated human communities surviving for thousands of years on places like Easter Island. Islands could provide protection against many low-level risks, notably including bio-risks. However, they are vulnerable to tsunamis, bird-transmitted diseases and other risks. This paper aims to explore how to use the advantages of islands for survival during global catastrophes.

Preliminary horizon scanning based on the application of the research principles established in the previous global catastrophic literature.

The large number of islands on Earth, and their diverse conditions, increase the chance that one of them will provide protection from a catastrophe. Additionally, this protection could be increased if an island was used as a base for a nuclear submarine refuge combined with underground bunkers and/or extremely long-term data storage. The requirements for survival on islands, their vulnerabilities and ways to mitigate and adapt to risks are explored. Several existing islands, suitable for the survival of different types of risk, timing and budgets, are examined. Islands suitable for different types of refuges and other island-like options that could also provide protection are also discussed.

The possible use of islands as refuges from social collapse and existential risks has not been previously examined systematically. This paper contributes to the expanding research on survival scenarios.

Current covid-19 pandemic challenges health-care ethics. Ones of the most important challenges are medical resources allocation and a duty to treat, often addressed to medical personnel. This paper suggests that there are good reasons to rethink our health-care ethics for future global catastrophic risks. Current pandemic shows how challenging can be an issue of resources allocation even in a relatively small kind of catastrophic event such as covid-19 pandemic. In this paper, the authors show that any future existential bigger catastrophe may require new guidelines for the allocation of medical resources. The idea of assisted dying is considered as a hypothetical scenario.

This is a conceptual work based on conceptual analysis at the intersection of risk studies, health-care ethics and future studies. This study builds the argument on the assumption that the covid-19 pandemic should be treated as a sort of global catastrophic risk. Findings show that there are no such attempts in currently published peer-reviewed academic literature. This is crucial concept for the meta-analysis. This study shows why and how current pandemic can be interpreted in terms of global catastrophic risk even if, literally, covid-19 does not meet all criteria required in the risk studies to be called a global catastrophe.

We can expect an emergence of discriminatory selection policy which will require some actions taken by future patients like, for example, genetic engineering. But even then it is inevitable that there will still be a large number of survivors who require medical assistance, which they have no chance of receiving. This is why this study has considered the concept of assisted dying understood as an official protocol for health-care ethics and resources allocation policy in the case of emergency situations. Possibly more controversial idea discussed in this paper is an idea of assisted dying for those who cannot receive required medical help. Such procedure could be applied in a mass-scale during a global catastrophic event.

Philosophers and ethicists should identify and study all possible pros and cons of this discrimination rule. As this study’s findings suggested above, a reliable point of reference is the concept of substantial human enhancement. Human enhancement as such, widely debated, should be studied in that specific context of discrimination of patients in an access to limited medical resources. Last but not least, scientific community should study the concept of assisted dying which could be applied for those survivors who have no chance of obtaining medical care. Such criteria and concepts as cost-benefit analysis, the ethics of quality of life, autonomy of patients and duty of medical personnel should be considered.

Politicians and policymakers should prepare protocols for global catastrophes where these discrimination criteria would have to be applied. The same applies to the development of medical robotics aimed at replacing human health-care personnel. We assume that this is important implication for practical policy in healthcare. Our prediction, however plausible, is not a good scenario for humanity. But given this realistic development trajectory, we should do everything possible to prevent the need for the discriminatory rules in medical care described above.

This study offers the idea of assisted dying as a health-care policy in emergency situations. The authors expect that next future global catastrophes – looking at the current pandemic only as a mild prelude – will force a radical change in moral values and medical standards. New criteria of selection and discrimination will be perceived as much more exclusivist and unfair than criteria applied today.

This paper explores the building blocks of risk governance systems that are equipped to manage systemic risk in the 21st century. Whilst approaches to risk governance have been evolving for more than a decade, recent disasters have shown that conventional risk management solutions need to be complemented with a multidimensional risk approach to govern complex risks and prevent major, often simultaneous, crises with cascading and knock-on effects on multiple, interrelated systems at scale. The paper explores which risk governance innovations will be essential to provide the enabling environment for sustainable development that is resilient to interrelated shocks and risks.

This interdisciplinary literature review-based thought piece highlights how systemic risk is socially constructed and identifies guiding principles for systemic risk governance that could be actionable by and provide entry points for local and national governments, civil society and the private sector. particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), in a way that is relevant to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This considers preparedness, response and resilience, but more importantly prospective and corrective risk control and reduction strategies and mechanisms. Only when systemic risk is framed in a way that is relevant to the political agendas of countries will it be possible to begin a dialogue for its governance.

The paper identifies opportunities at the global, national and local levels, which together draw up a viable framework for systemic risk governance that (1) embraces the governance of sustainability and resilience through a strengthened holistic governance framework for social, economic, territorial and environmental development; (2) improves managing conventional risk to ultimately manage systemic risks; (3) fosters the understanding of vulnerability and exposure to gain insight into systemic risk; (4) places a greater focus on prospective risk management; (5) manages systemic risk in local infrastructure systems, supply chains and ecosystems; (6) shifts the focus from protecting privatized gains to managing socialized risk.

The choices and actions that societies take on the path of their development are contributing intentionally or unintentionally to the construction of systemic risks, which result in knock-on effects among interconnected social, environmental, political and economic systems. These risks are manifesting in major crises with cascading effects and a real potential to undermine the achievement of the SDGs, as COVID-19 is a stark reminder of. This paper offers the contours of a new risk governance paradigm that is able to navigate the new normal in a post-COVID world and is equipped to manage systemic risk.

The purpose of this paper is to apply Connolly’s (2003) concept of agonistic respect to develop a typology of agonistic/antagonistic discourses on Twitter. To develop the typology, this study examines 2,236 Tweets containing the hashtag #guncontrol and uses NodeXL (Smith et al., 2010) to create a network map from which the 75 most influential accounts are derived. Using constant-comparative analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), the authors identify seven categories of discourse style based on Connoly’s (2001) notion of ressentiment and “good faith presentations” of opposing arguments: furtive/secretive, cravenly opportunistic, willfully ignorant, irrational sentimental, misunderstanding/misguided, contingently wrong and reciprocal inquiry. The typology provides a useful and unique way to operationalize agonistic democratic theory and serves as the possible basis for training a machine learning classifier to detect antagonistic discourses on social media platforms.

To determine the level of agonism on Twitter, the authors examine tweets that employed the hashtag #guncontrol on March 12, 2018, one month after the shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14. The authors used the NodeXL excel add-on to collect and map 2,236 tweets. Using grounded theory/constant-comparative analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), the authors develop a typology of seven types of discourses ordered from most antagonistic to most agonistic using Connolly’s (1993) concept of agonistic respect.

After examining the top 75 most shared tweets and using constant-comparative analysis to look for patterns of similarity and dissimilarity, the authors identified seven different ways in which individuals present their opponents’ value positions on Twitter on the issue of gun control. The authors were guided by agonistic theory in the authors’ inquiry. The authors looked at how Twitter users expressed their opponent’s faith/value positions, how pluralistic the discourse space was in the comment threads and how much the “talk” was likely to elicit ressentiment from adversaries.

Because the authors intended to engage in theory building, the authors limited the analysis to a selected number of tweets on one particularly salient topic, on one day. The intent of this was to allow for a close reading of the tweets in that specific network for the purposes of creating a useful typology that can be applied to a broader range of cases/issues/platforms.

The authors hope that typology could serve as a potential starting point for Twitter to think about how it could design its algorithms toward agonistic talk. The typology could be used as a classification scheme to differentiate agonistic from antagonistic threads. An algorithm could be trained to spot threads overwhelmingly populated by antagonistic discourse and instructed to insert posts from other threads that represent agonistic responses like “contingently wrong” or “reciprocal inquiry.” While generous presentations or deeper, more nuanced presentations of the opponent’s value position are not a panacea, they could serve to change the orientation by which users engage with policy issues.

Social media platforms like Twitter have up to now been left alone to make markets and establish profitability off of public sphere conversations. The result has been a lack of attention to how discourse on these platforms affects users mental well-being, community health and democratic viability. Recently, Twitter’s CEO has indicated a need to rethink the ways in which it promotes “healthy discourse.” The utilitarian presumption that, left to our own devices, we will trial and error our way to the collective good does not account for the importance of others in refining one’s preferences, arguments and world views. Without an “other” to vet ideas and lead us toward becoming wiser, we are left with a Wyly antagonism that moves discourse further and further away from agonistic respect and toward antagonistic virtual struggle. Platforms that allow antagonistic talk that breeds ressentiment run the risk of irrevocably damaging democracy through poisoning its public sphere.

This paper is unique in providing a typology/framework for thinking about the types of “political talk” that exists on Twitter. By using agonistic political theory as a framework, the authors are able to establish some guiding principles for “good political talk” that acknowledges the incommensurability of value positions on issues like gun control. The typology’s emphasis on agonistic respect, ressentiment and generosity in the presentation of alternative value positions provides a starting point from which to map and catalog discourse on Twitter more generally and offers a normative model for changing algorithmic design.

This paper aims to examines the trade-offs that Small Island Developing States (SIDS) must make in navigating an inappropriate elite-driven global anti-money laundering anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML-CFT) order. This paper examines the case of Samoa, an under-researched Pacific Island nation. It is hoped that this paper will have a wider resonance for policymakers from other developing nations facing similar challenges.

It draws on the latest Samoan domestic source material and Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering Mutual Evaluation Reports to highlight the difficult balancing act that SIDS face in complying with complex global norms within their limited regulatory capacity and competing development priorities of financial inclusion and affordable remittance flows.

Samoa and other SIDS in balancing the existential risks of “blacklisting” with the significant regulatory opportunity costs of compliance undertake an expensive form of AML-CFT window-dressing. Policymakers need to be more sensitive to the needs and regulatory opportunity costs of small jurisdictions, particularly when questions about the effectiveness of the AML-CFT remain open.

The author notes Samoa’s offshore center’s role in raising its risk profile. However, owing to this paper's limited scope offshore center (OFCs) will not be explored in depth. Further research is needed in this area.

There is a dearth of contemporary academic research into AML-CFT regulation in the South Pacific and Samoa specifically. This paper presents through its Samoan case study insights into the cost-benefit calculations that small jurisdictions must make in seeking to comply with elite global AML-CFT norms vis-à-vis competing policy goals such as financial inclusion and ready access to remittance flows.