WHAT EXPERTS SAY
The following is a letter from Dr. James Martin, of the Center for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, addressed to Dr. Wagner:
Dear Walter,
I very strongly share your concern about existential risks. The following is
a section from my book "The Meaning of the 21st Century".
Lord Martin Rees is the President of the British Royal Society, so steeped in scientific history since 1660. He could hardly seem more civilized, living and working as he does amid the ancient magnificence of Trinity College in Cambridge, overlooking gardens sloping down to the river Cam. Despite the calm, Lord Rees has profound reasons for believing that civilization could experience "an irreversible setback." A deeply thoughtful and broad-ranging scientist, he says that we have so many dangers ahead that he rates the odds of Homo sapiens surviving the 21st century as "no better than fifty-fifty." He spelled out this reasoning in detail in his book Our Final Century. He is concerned that some big-budget scientific research will become too dangerous and that one low-budget maverick could trigger something uncontrollable. Current technologies already raise questions about whether we can control technology, and far wilder technologies are not on our radar screen yet.
If you think Lord Rees's claim sounds far-fetched, imagine the accelerating avalanche of technology continuing for a thousand years. Ultimately, it will become far too dangerous to live with. At some point in the future, humankind will not survive unless well-thought-out action is taken to ensure human survivability. That time will probably occur in the 21st century. This is the first century in which Homo sapiens could be terminated.
Risks that could terminate Homo sapiens are referred to as existential risks
(risks to our existence). Genetically modified pathogens are one. Some
decades in the future we may have problems with self-replicating
nanotechnology devices too small to see. Various aspects of future
technology could put humanity at risk. Marvin Minskey commented to us: "If we go on the way we are, we may not get through the next century at all.: When there is a clear danger in the headlights, common sense says hit the brakes, but scientists often want to keep the foot hard down on the
accelerator pedal.
When learning about the Holocaust, we shudder even to think about it. Yet when discussing a futuristic scenario in which humankind happens to be "wiped out" by an engineered pathogen, the understanding of what this means does not sink in.
The "next next" accelerator might give us a major step forward in our understanding of the universe, but the risk/reward ratio is absolutely unacceptable if the risk is the termination of Homo sapiens. Stephen Hawking, who understands the exotic mathematics better than anybody, worries that an accelerator event might conceivably wipe us out, so he advocates that we should set up a human colony on Mars to ensure the survival of Homo sapiens.
This is the first century in which we can genetically modify pathogens, or build a machine that starts an unexpected flash fire among subatomic particles that might set fire to the atmosphere. So a vital part of the meaning of the 21st century is to understand the possible risks to humanity's existence and establish controls and defense technology that ensures that Homo sapiens survives. If we survive the 21st century, we'llprobably have the procedures to survive long-term.
Humankind's long-term future will be utterly magnificent compared to our existence today. Given Lord Rees's statement about the possibility of exterminating Homo sapiens, what should our reaction be? There's only one acceptable reaction. We will do ANYTHING - anything possible - to prevent the ultimate holocaust - the extermination of humanity.