Various existential risks have the potential to destroy, or
drastically restrict human civilization, could cause human extinction, or even
cause the end of Earth. Severe events could cause the extinction of all life on
the planet Earth, the destruction of the planet Earth, the annihilation of the
solar system, to the annihilation of our galaxy or even the entire universe.
Existential risks are distinguished from other forms of risk both by their
scope, affecting all of humanity, and severity, destroying or irreversibly
crippling the target. Natural disasters, such as super volcanoes and asteroids,
may pose existential risks if sufficiently powerful, though man-made events
could also threaten the survival of intelligent life on Earth, like
catastrophic global warming, nuclear war, or bioterrorism. Despite the
importance of existential risks, it is a difficult subject to study directly
since humankind has never been destroyed before, while this does not mean that
it will not be in the future, it does make modeling existential risks
difficult, due in part to survivorship bias. While individual threats, such as
those posed by nuclear war or climate change, have been intensively studied on
their own, the systematic study of existential risks did not begin until 2002.
Mutual assured destruction, or mutually assured destruction
(MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which
a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing
sides would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable
annihilation of both the attacker and the defender, becoming thus a war that
has no victory nor any armistice but only effective reciprocal destruction. It
is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and
implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in
order to prevent the use of the same weapons by the enemy against oneself. The
strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once
armed, has any rational incentive either to initiate a conflict or to disarm
(presuming neither side considers self-destruction an acceptable outcome).
The United States and
Russia have agreed to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads by
nearly a third. Efforts are underway to rein in the spread of nuclear
materials, but the threat of nuclear weapons is still growing. Concern about
the spread of such weapons dates back to World War II. After the detonation of
the two U.S. atomic bombs over Japan in August 1945, the United States
understood how massively destructive these weapons could be. The United States
also realized the powerful security value of nuclear weapons. Through the
threat of nuclear retaliation, the United States could deter almost any nation
from attacking it or its allies.
Today, with the demise of communism in the Soviet Union and
the end of the Cold War, concern over the threat of a nuclear confrontation has
shifted to other nations, primarily those of the Third World. In 1974, India
became the sixth nation to test a nuclear device. And in 1979, U.S. satellite
photos revealed that Israel, in collaboration with South Africa, also may have
tested a nuclear device. Both Israel and India, located in volatile regions
with long histories of war and aggression, apparently sought nuclear weapons
for many of the same reasons as the United States and the Soviet Union--to
increase their security and protect their borders.
The unethical nature of nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and
the entire nuclear fuel cycle is becoming more obvious, as its history unfolds.
On grounds of nuclear weapons spread, unsolved wastes problem, health and
environment, effects on indigenous and poor peoples, injustice to today’s and
future generations – and even the sheer financial costs for now and the future
– it is clear that “atoms for peace” is a false and unethical enterprise. Given
the mounting negative evidence about the nuclear industry, it is concerning
that so many world political, scientific and economic leaders continue to
promote the industry. Sir Mark Oliphant, one of the founders of the atomic
bomb, was one who had the courage to change his mind, and to speak out against
nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Unthinkable as it may be, humanity, every last person, could
someday be wiped from the face of the Earth. We have learned to worry about
asteroids and super volcanoes, but the more-likely scenario, is that we humans
will destroy ourselves.
