Risks and threats to civilization, humankind, and the earth

This paper is a brief look at a wide range of risks that are said to present great threats to humankind. It was stimulated by several interacting factors. First, too many books and articles about astrophysical catastrophes, in the scientific and semi-scientific press, give relatively little attention to their timeframe or the measures to anticipate and prepare for them. Second, and most important, is that the overblown effects of 9/11 have distorted the United States of America's perspective and agenda on catastrophes. The result is that billions of dollars have been wasted and attention turned away from threats that could be truly catastrophic for the United States and, in many cases, for the rest of the world. Third, are books that have become popular by raising the threat that what will happen to us will be similar to what happened to earlier societies such as the Maya and the Easter Islanders. Most notably among these is Jared Diamond's Collapse Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin Group, 2005]. The failure in these doomsday arguments is to overlook the greater sophistication, knowledge, awareness, monitoring and preparation currently in the United States and in other parts of the globe. The institutional structure and scientific knowledge today would either prevent or deal with the kind of socio-economic decline anticipated by the “collapse” arguments. In contrast several geophysical and celestial risks do imply global catastrophe. The value of this paper is as broad background to the specific scenario papers that follow. While it leans heavily on the work of others, it offers three new features for the analysis of any extreme risk. First is a scale of devastation, based on deaths. Second is a comprehensive time frame—now to the end of the Earth. Third is an outline of general questions that must be addressed for any risk, however large or small, if it is to provide insight into policy choices and promote systemic thinking.