[evan_au]

Which specific scientists (names please) are discussing the common sense logic presented in my threads on this subject?

Have a look at: https://www.cser.ac.uk/team/
I heard one of their staff interviewed recently - he seemed pretty balanced about a range of risks, covering a wide range of short and long-term probabilities.

the most pressing immediate existential threat currently facing humanity, nuclear weapons?

I applaud moves to reduce stocks of nuclear weapons - the degree of overkill is extraordinary.

Some previous politicians have also seen that maintenance of this arsenal is hemorrhaging their economies over the long duration, and could kill them at a moments notice. This is a responsible application of existing technology, IMHO.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START

However, the current US president seems opposed to nuclear weapons reductions, and instead expanding and modernising the nuclear arsenal. This is an irresponsible redirection of scientific resources, IMHO.
See: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-03/news/trump-questions-us-nuclear-policies

As for North Korea, they are only imitating what the USA did about 80 years ago - only its much easier now, because everyone knows it is possible, and even, to a large extent, how to do it.

Nuclear weapons are not an effective protection against a rare existential threat (asteroids/comets), but they have become a real existential threat in themselves.

But I think the problem here is the politicians, not the scientists they direct.

Should We Fire All The Scientists?

The current US president has taken steps in that direction, as is apparent in his choice of the heads of several (previously) science-based government agencies.

Did you vote for him, Tanny?

[Tanny (OP)]

I'm aware that we should try to mitigate the risks of a future disaster, but telling us that scientists are useless because we might all die in the future is pretty inane.

Well, slow down, back up, and do the logic.  I'll plead guilty to being inane if that assists this process.

1) The knowledge explosion is generating more and more knowledge at a faster and faster rate.

2) More and more knowledge equals more and more power.

3) More and more power leads to a growing number of powers capable of crashing civilization. 

4) Every power of that scale will have to be managed successfully every day forever, because a single failure a single time with a single such power makes our other successes irrelevant.

5) Few of our cultural leaders are taking any of this seriously.  As evidence, we recently had a presidential campaign where the immediate existential threat from nuclear weapons was barely mentioned.   

SUMMARY: Given the above, a continuation of the current course can be reasonably proposed to be leading towards civilization collapse.  If that is true, what is the point of the research being done today?

If you prefer, think of this in graph form.  Plot the ever accelerating growth of human power against the incremental (if that) growth of human maturity.  Watch as the lines diverge over time. 

[Tanny (OP)]

Evan, thanks for the links, I will investigate.   Happy to learn more, and even happier to be wrong about all this.

Have a look at: https://www.cser.ac.uk/team/
I heard one of their staff interviewed recently - he seemed pretty balanced about a range of risks, covering a wide range of short and long-term probabilities.

As far as you know, do they think it through to the bottom line question, which I propose to be...

How will we successfully manage every single one of the existential scale technologies (capable of crashing civilization) which will emerge from the knowledge explosion (at ever faster rates) every single day, forever?

I agree that many people are talking about the dangers that may emerge from this or that technology.  That's good obviously, but I'm still looking for those who are focused on the danger presented by the knowledge explosion itself.   That is, I am seeking scientists, and others, who are challenging our "more is better" relationship with knowledge, which I propose to be increasingly simplistic, outdated and dangerous.  I'm not seeking agreement, nor do I expect to find it (been discussing this for years) anyone on the topic in any form is welcome.

I applaud moves to reduce stocks of nuclear weapons - the degree of overkill is extraordinary.

We've already reduced the stockpiles dramatically, but that doesn't really matter as there are plenty left to finish us off.  One effect of reducing the stockpiles has been to put us to sleep, to induce the illusion that everything is under control.

But I think the problem here is the politicians, not the scientists they direct.

Respectfully, with apologies for being so annoying, this illustrates that you still don't get it, which makes you completely normal, even among the elites.

Knowledge empowers everybody. 

As example, at the moment only governments have access to nukes, but that's not going to last.  Nuclear weapons are not that hard to make, the only limiting factor is access to fissile material, and that's leaking out beyond government control, especially in Russia.

As example, genetic engineering is rapidly becoming easier and easier, cheaper and cheaper.  It's only a matter of time before I'll be able to do it my garage.

As example, high school students can use today's primitive AI to hack in to government servers.

I would agree that it's inappropriate to demonize scientists for doing what we hire them to do, and thus the title of this thread is reasonably defined as trolling.  The problem is better defined as being our entire culture failing to adapt to the revolutionary new environment being created by the knowledge explosion.

The current US president has taken steps in that direction, as is apparent in his choice of the heads of several (previously) science-based government agencies. Did you vote for him, Tanny?

How dare you accuse me of being a brain dead moron.  :-) No, I did not vote for the Moron-In-Chief, I voted for Bernie.   And then, I had to vote for Hillary.  Let's hope we get some better choices the next time.

You're perhaps asking me this out an assumption that challenging the "more is better" knowledge explosion makes one a backward looking Luddite etc.   But I'm looking forward, and challenging us to raise our game to adapt to the demanding new reality the knowledge explosion is rapidly creating.  Those who want to stick with status quo paradigms of the past are the real Luddites.

[Tanny (OP)]

Have a look at: https://www.cser.ac.uk/team/

Beginning to investigate this link, looks VERY relevant to this discussion.  Many thanks for enhancing the thread with this link, more is welcome as your time permits.

So my next question is, how do we get some of those folks in to this thread?

I see a contact form, but know from experience my lack of academic credentials will prevent me from getting in the door.   It would be far more effective for those of you who do have credentials to make the outreach, especially those of you who own and/or operate this forum.

I see they have a Facebook page, but Facebook has been deliberately designed to discourage in depth conversations, and that is what is needed.  Forums are perfect, especially a science forum like this one designed to connect scientists and the public.   Why shouldn't this forum be where the most intelligent online discussions of this topic are taking place?  How do we make that happen?

[Tanny (OP)]

Sorry for all the posts.  Here's a specific constructive proposal which might help focus the conversation.

In the 1940s we had the massive Manhattan Project which spent billions bringing the brightest minds together for a crash program to develop nuclear weapons.   Why don't we do the same thing today, in reverse? 

Sure, that seems impossible.  So did the original Manhattan Project, and they got it done anyway.

[evan_au]

Here is that interview with a representative from the Center for Study of Existential Risk - it was on the Naked Scientists podcast from 24^th August 2017.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/existential-risk-and-maverick-science

[Tanny (OP)]

Here's the definition of "community" from the CSER site (emphasis mine).

https://www.cser.ac.uk/about-us/

"We foster a reflective, interdisciplinary, global community of academics, technologists and policymakers examining individual aspects of existential risk and coming together to integrate their insights."

What's missing from their "community" are the people who fund academics, technologists and policymakers, ie. the public.   This seems to be a common problem on academic and scientist sites, the focus seems to typically be, 1) ignore the public, or 2) talk down to the public (they talk, we listen).  The problem here is that nothing substantial can be accomplished without buy in from the broad population.

My first impression is that the Naked Scientist team might be in a good position to help close the gap between the CSER researchers and the general public.  Your link suggests this process has already begun, and I cast my one little vote that it continue.

In an attempt to help further focus the marriage, I would repeat my assertion that there is little point to a discussion of science details unless the CSER project succeeds.  The CSER project is not just one of very many science topics.  It's basically the only one that matters, given that all else depends upon it.

[Tanny (OP)]

Here is that interview with a representative from the Center for Study of Existential Risk - it was on the Naked Scientists podcast from 24^th August 2017.

Reading this now, and see reference to "low probability/high impact events". 

I would argue that if we look at the big picture of the knowledge explosion as a whole, instead of just particular technological scenarios, what we're really looking at is a high probability high impact event.   

Each emerging technology is reasonably labeled a low probability threat in itself, but when we add them all up, and include the accelerating nature of their emergence, the odds would seem to change substantially.

What we should be focusing on is our "more is better" relationship with knowledge.  This paradigm has worked in the past only because the knowledge available was quite limited, and thus did not exceed human management capacity, at least not fatally.   The paradigm begins to fall apart as more knowledge is added at ever faster rates simply because there are hard limits to human maturity.

I'm not religious, but must admit to some fascination that this fundamental dynamic of the human condition was arguably predicted some 3,000 years ago in the story of Adam and Eve and the apple of knowledge.

[Tanny (OP)]

More from the article linked above (emphasis mine)...

"Huw - Well, what we need are scientific and technological whistleblowers. The kind of people who are thinking in a slightly abnormal way; they see something that other people don’t see. We need to make it possible for them to put up their hand and get listened to in those sorts of circumstances."

The article seems to do a very good job of highlighting the challenges faced by academics and scientists who are thinking outside the sanctioned group consensus.  Thumbs up for that.

But the speakers seem not quite ready to make the logical leap that perhaps what is needed is for academics and scientists to pay more attention to those who aren't trapped inside these career pressures.   

1) Are academics and scientists very well educated and intelligent?  Yes.  Thus it's logical to look to them for leadership, but....

2) Are academics and scientists also largely trapped inside careers that are likely to punish whistleblowers?   Yes again.  Thus it's equally logical to not look to them for leadership.

Being smart isn't enough.  One also has to be free to follow the logic and evidence where ever it leads, however inconvenient that may be to the established power centers, ie. those paying one's salary.

[Tanny (OP)]

From the article...

Connie - Slowing down science sounds like 1) very hard to do, it kind of feels like a runaway train at times and 2) like something that people aren’t going to want to do. Is there really an appetite for this and a response within the community?

After discussing this regularly online for ten years, a kind of casual sloppy market research, I would answer no.   In the vast majority of cases when I've started threads about our "more is better" relationship with knowledge, it winds up being me against the entire forum.  Most readers either have no idea what I'm talking about, or are instinctively and often passionately resistant.  The reaction here on this forum is tame compared to the norm.

Is slowing down science hard to do?  Yes, clearly that is true.  For now.  But revolutionary situations offer the opportunity for revolutionary change.  As example, sooner or later somebody is going to set off a nuke in some major city and then, maybe, just maybe, the door will open to new thinking about the currently unthinkable.

[Tanny (OP)]

From the article (emphasis mine)...

But I think the same can be said for the broader societal context that if scientists want to continue to experience the support of the public then they have to not just produce results that are reliable and not fraudulent, which is of course true, but they also have to think about their relationship between science and society, and the implications of their work for the broader society.

Yes!

Solution:  Stop talking TO us, and start talking WITH us.  Think of the public as your employers, instead of as your students.

[Tanny (OP)]

The article concludes...

Whatever we do about existential risk, I can’t emphasize enough how unlikely most of these scenarios and mass panic over minute possibilities does not seem helpful.

As noted above, here's the usual mistake of confusing the details with the bottom line.  There is a low risk presented by each particular emerging technology, which is elevated to a HIGH risk when they are added altogether, and presented at ever faster rates.

It's kind of baffling how anyone can call the risk unlikely when the first existential scale technology, nuclear weapons, stands locked and loaded today ready to crash civilization within an hour at the press of a button.

If you want some more Halloween horror, remind yourself who has their finger on that button.





PS:  Are those great photos or what?   

[yor_on]

The problem doesn't lay in becoming a scientist Tanny.

It's being failable. Scientists are the same as you and me, they have their dreams and their needs. They can be turned, just as we can. But they have a instrument called peer review that try to keep them honest. They also have repeatable experiments on their side, and restrictions called 'physical laws' defining them. That doesn't state that a scientists research is moral, or for the good of Earth. But it at least put some restrain on them. Otherwise, outside their field of expertise they are no different from you.

Now, does that mean that scientists are any better than us. Not really, but they have a way of keeping themselves honest in what they say at least. It doesn't protect us from hurting ourselves though, through flawed research.

[Tanny (OP)]

I agree with your post yor_on, and thanks for posting.

Otherwise, outside their field of expertise they (scientists) are no different from you.

Ok, so perhaps one purpose of this thread could be to more clearly specify what the field of expertise of the science community is.   As a point of reference, we might refer to the article evan_au has linked us to:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/existential-risk-and-maverick-science

Are the scientists in that specific discussion operating on a different plane than the general public?  Clearly they are more articulate than many people, but are they more insightful?  Is the subject of the knowledge explosion as a whole included in their field of expertise?  Or are scientists basically just human beings like the rest of us when contemplating questions of that scale?  What are the boundaries of the cultural authority of the scientific community?

My argument is that when it comes to the details of this or that technology, scientists working in those specific fields should be recognized as authorities on those subjects. 

On the other hand, when it comes to the knowledge explosion as a whole, granting them authority status may not be appropriate.    It may instead represent we in the public being lazy and unwilling to think these things through for ourselves.  We used to have that relationship with the religious clergy.  We often couldn't be bothered to investigate the largest questions ourselves, so we waited for someone else to hand us the answers. It was easier to have faith in authority than to think.

The peer review and other checks and balances you speak of are a good thing, agreed.  When it comes to some levels of this conversation, I am attempting to expand our definition of "peer".   I think the academic community could benefit by more closely partnering with those outside of their  ivory tower who don't have to worry about being made to look ridiculous.

If that's true, then we might put it in to action by trying to engage the CSER team in this thread and others like it here on this forum.  Who here feels they would make a good ambassador? 

[Kryptid]

Well, slow down, back up, and do the logic.  I'll plead guilty to being inane if that assists this process.

1) The knowledge explosion is generating more and more knowledge at a faster and faster rate.

2) More and more knowledge equals more and more power.

3) More and more power leads to a growing number of powers capable of crashing civilization. 

4) Every power of that scale will have to be managed successfully every day forever, because a single failure a single time with a single such power makes our other successes irrelevant.

5) Few of our cultural leaders are taking any of this seriously.  As evidence, we recently had a presidential campaign where the immediate existential threat from nuclear weapons was barely mentioned.   

SUMMARY: Given the above, a continuation of the current course can be reasonably proposed to be leading towards civilization collapse.  If that is true, what is the point of the research being done today?

If you prefer, think of this in graph form.  Plot the ever accelerating growth of human power against the incremental (if that) growth of human maturity.  Watch as the lines diverge over time. 

I'm well aware of what your argument is, but it does not necessarily follow that a single mistake will kill all of humanity. That depends strongly upon how many nuclear warheads are exchanged and their respective yields. It also does not follow that knowledge gains in all areas of science will result in existential threats. Should we stop studying flowers because someone somewhere might figure out how to make a genocide weapon with them?

[Tanny (OP)]

I'm well aware of what your argument is, but it does not necessarily follow that a single mistake will kill all of humanity.

I agree that human extinction is not very likely, even in a global nuclear war.  In my comments I'm referring to the collapse of civilization.   You know, some survive, but wish they were dead.

That depends strongly upon how many nuclear warheads are exchanged and their respective yields.

I'm not sure if this is true, but I heard recently that even a limited nuclear exchange between say, India and Pakistan, would result in enough nuclear winter phenomena to cause widespread crop failures, leading to widespread starvation and social chaos, leading to who knows what after that.

But anyway, we could solve the nuclear weapons issue completely, and would still face the same basic challenge, just not as urgently.   More powers of that scale are emerging at ever faster rates, each of which will have to be successfully managed every day forever. 

It also does not follow that knowledge gains in all areas of science will result in existential threats.

Agreed.  Most of what will emerge from the knowledge explosion will be positive, and most of the threatening technologies will be successfully managed.  Here's what you're missing...

That's no longer good enough.

When it comes to powers that can crash civilization, we will need to successfully manage every such power every day forever, because a single failure with a single existential scale power a single time will erase the ability to recover and learn from the mistake.

That's what is revolutionary about the new reality being created by the knowledge explosion.  In the past we could make mistakes, fix the problem, clean up the mess and continue.  What nuclear weapons are trying to teach us is that we are entering an era when that age old formula can no longer be counted on.  One mistake one time with an existential scale power, game over.

It's not necessarily weapons that are the threat.  As example, we launched the industrial revolution with the best of intentions.  We just didn't see at the time that it might lead to the climate spiraling out of control. 

Should we stop studying flowers because someone somewhere might figure out how to make a genocide weapon with them?

We should stop studying flowers because that's a dumb thing to be focused on while one has a loaded gun pointed at one's head.

[Kryptid]

More powers of that scale are emerging at ever faster rates, each of which will have to be successfully managed every day forever.

Forever? No. Just long enough for us to establish independent colonies on other planets and satellites. No conceivable nuclear disaster on Earth will be big enough to reach out to even our Moon, much less other planets. If we can survive that long, we will be much harder to kill as a species.

We should stop studying flowers because that's a dumb thing to be focused on while one has a loaded gun pointed at one's head.

And thus we have reverted back to the, "don't do anything fun or interesting because we might die tomorrow" argument...

[Tanny (OP)]

Forever? No. Just long enough for us to establish independent colonies on other planets and satellites.

How does having a colony on Mars solve the problem of civilization collapse on Earth, far and away the best place for humans to live?  Also, if we migrate off the planet, we will simply bring all these same challenges with us where ever we go. 

No conceivable nuclear disaster on Earth will be big enough to reach out to even our Moon, much less other planets. If we can survive that long, we will be much harder to kill as a species.

As already reported a number of times, I'm not discussing species extinction, but civilization collapse.

And thus we have reverted back to the, "don't do anything fun or interesting because we might die tomorrow" argument...

Nobody made any such argument.  Apparently you're not able to grasp the case which is being made, so you're resorting to arguing against assertions of your own invention.  If you're a twenty something, ok, fair enough, I couldn't have gotten any of this at that age either.  Lots of smart people of all ages don't get this, because they are relying on authorities who also don't get it.   

This conversation might be compared to going to the doctor for a routine physical and finding out that we have a serious form of cancer.  The natural first reaction for any of us is likely to be, "this can't be right, there must be some mistake".   

Or it might be compared to the person who shouts "Fire!!" in a crowded theater, thus spoiling the movie for everyone.  The value of that shouting depends entirely on whether there really is a fire. 

[Kryptid]

How does having a colony on Mars solve the problem of civilization collapse on Earth, far and away the best place for humans to live?

It wouldn't, but it would preserve the knowledge and technology that we've accumulated over time and thus not make all of our scientific progress in vain. The scientists on Mars, Venus, Europa, etc. could keep chugging along regardless of what happens to civilizations on Earth.

Also, if we migrate off the planet, we will simply bring all these same challenges with us where ever we go.

The chance of a nuclear holocaust happening on all of our Solar System colonies simultaneously would be practically zero.

As already reported a number of times, I'm not discussing species extinction, but civilization collapse.

Civilizations have collapsed many times in the past and no doubt will continue to do so in the future. If we have colonies elsewhere in the Solar System, that nullifies your argument that a nuclear disaster on Earth will make all of our knowledge gains be in vain.

Nobody made any such argument.  Apparently you're not able to grasp the case which is being made, so you're resorting to arguing against assertions of your own invention.  If you're a twenty something, ok, fair enough, I couldn't have gotten any of this at that age either.  Lots of smart people of all ages don't get this, because they are relying on authorities who also don't get it.   

This conversation might be compared to going to the doctor for a routine physical and finding out that we have a serious form of cancer.  The natural first reaction for any of us is likely to be, "this can't be right, there must be some mistake".   

Or it might be compared to the person who shouts "Fire!!" in a crowded theater, thus spoiling the movie for everyone.  The value of that shouting depends entirely on whether there really is a fire. 

You are arguing that we should stop studying flowers because there is a threat of civilization collapse, yes? So what are you saying, exactly? That we should stop any and all activities that don't have anything to do with stopping a theoretical nuclear holocaust?

[Tanny (OP)]

It wouldn't, but it would preserve the knowledge and technology that we've accumulated over time and thus not make all of our scientific progress in vain. The scientists on Mars, Venus, Europa, etc. could keep chugging along regardless of what happens to civilizations on Earth.

Ok, fair enough, your intellectual point is taken, especially if you will agree in return that such colonies are a wildly unrealistic prospect at this time.   You seem to be assuming that we will make it to the colony stage, sustainable (ie. including children) human outposts in very hostile environments fully independent of Earth.   In even the best case scenario, that's not going to happen for quite a while.

Rather than bet on such a long shot, and surrender to the prospect of humans surrendering the best planet they are likely to ever have, wouldn't it be a bit more rational to face the challenge presented here and now by the knowledge explosion and conquer it?

I'm not arguing that we can't adapt to the new reality being creating by the knowledge explosion.  I'm arguing that we currently show little serious interest in doing so. 

The chance of a nuclear holocaust happening on all of our Solar System colonies simultaneously would be practically zero.

For about the tenth time, nuclear weapons are only the first existential scale technology to emerge.  They do a great job of illustrating the far larger threat presented by the knowledge explosion, an endless parade of existential scale technologies.

Civilizations have collapsed many times in the past and no doubt will continue to do so in the future.

That will only happen if civilizations that collapse are in a position to recover.  In the past that's always been true, because there was no way to crash all the civilizations at once. 

If we have colonies elsewhere in the Solar System, that nullifies your argument that a nuclear disaster on Earth will make all of our knowledge gains be in vain.

Let's talk about this again in 200 years, if we're still here to do the talking.
 

You are arguing that we should stop studying flowers because there is a threat of civilization collapse, yes? So what are you saying, exactly? That we should stop any and all activities that don't have anything to do with stopping a theoretical nuclear holocaust?

Look, this is simple.  Unusual perhaps, but still simple.

If I was walking around with a loaded gun in my mouth all day everyday, but preferred to talk about flowers, might you consider me insane?