May 6 - Policy - Questions #16
Comments
|
Repeatedly, those who warn of existential risk emphasize the importance of raising public consciousness. This seems like an uphill battle given humanity's tendency to express a bias towards the present—which is understandable for the many whose daily experience is struggling to meet basic needs. On the other hand, large-scale change must be motivated by the people, so public education is necessary if difficult. Still, there is a growing minority of people (e.g. academics, policymakers) who are concerned with these existential risks. As the rest of society learns of and develops attitudes towards these issues, are there any feasible institutional reforms or interventions for addressing existential risk that this minority could push for while the slow work of shifting societal narratives occurs? |
|
Given the readings you chose for this week, existential threats and particularly the threat of a nuclear holocaust are in the forefront of your mind. This is backed up by your push for climate change reform with California Senate bill 32 in your fourth term. With today's derisive political climate, I believe there needs to be a push towards bipartisanship from politicians, since California as well as the entire country is filled with diverse views, and elected officials do represent both Republicans and Democrats. Additionally, a lack of bipartisan action can exacerbate divisions in the American public that are extremely unhealthy for democracy to work properly. What do you think the importance of remaining bipartisan is regarding these existential issues as supposed to making decisions on a more unilateral level? Additionally, do you think democracy hinders our ability to deal with these issues? |
|
One of the most interesting things I read this week was that "the US and the Soviet Union are nuclear giants that are paralyzed by their own mutual hostage relationship." Do you think this relationship has improved at all over time as both countries have left their nuclear weapons on the shelf for this long? Additionally, what would retaliation look like in a first-use case for a country that is not allied either way targeting one of the two "nuclear giants?" |
|
I was reading the article The Psychology of Existential Risk: Moral Judgments about Human Extinction by Stefan Schuber, Lucius Caviola1 & Nadira S. Fabe and they did a study that showed that people give the possibility of human extinction very little thought. What do you think is the reason why people are reluctant to think about human extinction? How do you think we can incentivize both the everyday person and policy makers to give human extinction more thought so that we can find a solution to our existential threats? |
|
In light of the recent Covid-19 epidemic, I would like to ask a question around the vaccine rollout. In particular, I find it alarming how nationally demand for vaccines is falling despite not having herd immunity. As a result, what steps will the city of Chicago take to promote broader vaccination for the people who do not want it? |
|
Given the necessity of public trust for any policy to be successful, what do you see as the most important challenges that the government will need to overcome in the next decade to secure that public trust. Delving a little deeper, social media and the big tech companies responsible for them no doubt have a role in what the public believes. Thus, it seems vital that misinformation on social media be addressed in order to successfully communicate policy and its intentions to the public. How do you see the roles of the government and the big tech companies changing over the next decade in terms of responsibility for the information placed on that platform? Moreover, what do you think the challenges are in regulating a forum where some might argue that free speech rights apply? |
|
In reading "How Close is Humanity to the Edge", Toby Ord is quoted saying: "I’d already known that, during a crisis, the unthinkable can quickly become the inevitable.” How do we collectively, as humanity, alter our mindset to better prepare for the "unthinkable", when, in reality, the unthinkable is often highly possibly or even inevitable? |
|
In Brown's piece, he quotes Secretary Weinberger when he said "Let us not lose confidence that America has a special mission for peace." How can we claim America has a "special mission for peace" when so many people believe we are close to nuclear catastrophe and the US has not changed its policy or tried to move the world away from that possibility, as you explore in your review of Secretary Perry's book and in the quotes from you on page 206 of Perry and Collina's book? |
|
During the course of recent history, it is clear that a number of issues have become politicized and the two parties are having a harder time working together. As this has been happening, the threat of nuclear catastrophe has fallen out of the global consciousness. What steps could be taken to encourage bipartisanship of the nuclear threat and reintroduce it as a legitimate concern to the American people? |
|
“There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable. The contingency we have not considered seriously looks strange; what looks strange is thought improbable; what is improbable need not be considered seriously.” — Game theorist and Nobel laureate Thomas C. Schelling on Pearl Harbor Time and time again, nations have demonstrated an acute inability to prepare for low probability, highly destructive threats. Moreover, once these events have occurred (eg. Pearl Harbor, the September 11 attacks, or COVID-19), politicians fixate on preventing their reoccurrence rather than anticipating new and unfamiliar risks. This tendency is unmistakable in the global response to existential threats and "one-shot" events where preparedness could be the deciding factor between preservation and extinction. Is it possible to overcome this institutional bias? If so, how should we seek to do so? |
|
There is a term used in the New Yorker article "scope neglect" which explains the cognitive bias people have towards large problems that are getting worse. After reading the top 10 recommendations from The Button Perry, it is made clear to me that these problems cannot be ignored. What are some solutions to scope neglect? For matters of nuclear weapons, as well as other problems discussed in this class, it seems like this is a recurring issue. |
|
Given a number of the readings for this week center around the possibility of nuclear warfare, I’m wondering, from your perspective as a politician, what are the U.S.’s greatest vulnerabilities regarding this threat, and how would you navigate confronting these? |
|
Ronald Reagan was known to be a critic of MAD (mutually assured destruction), which is why he developed a new plan called the Strategic Defense Initiative (nicknamed the "Star Wars Program"). In this new plan, the US Department of Defense attempted to develop weapons that would make nuclear warheads obsolete. With the hope of making the world safer, they created a variety of weapon concepts, including particle beam weapons and space-based missiles. However, technology at the time didn't support these ambitious weapon concepts. With the technology necessary to build these weapons, do you think that these weapons might help us prevent nuclear armageddon? |
|
How do you feel about the future of California? Given the latest census results which showed a significant population shift from the West to the South, and given the huge risk that climate change poses to entire state, are there actions the state needs to take now in order to guarantee a prosperous future? |
|
With public awareness generally heightening about many of the big (i.e., existential) issues, the challenge remains of inciting political action, that is what it will take to grapple with problems head on. With your lifetime of experience with, and in, government what would you suggest would galvanize our leaders into action? What types of grass roots efforts are, or could be, instigated for change? What would it take to pre-catastrophically galvanize citizens? What could give smaller movements the momentum that’s required for formation, growth, and ultimately results? |
|
Who is best suited to shine a brighter spotlight on existential issues like nuclear proliferation? What institutions or spaces are best suited for such an information campaign? |
|
As the modern technology has advanced nuclear weapons, the US and Russia have increased their stockpiles and have continued to engage in an arm’s race founded on insecurity. Do you believe the Cold War ever really ended? Or have we continued to live in a cold war of sorts as US and Russia continue to seek parity in their nuclear stockpiles and technology? |
|
Since three of the five recommended readings were about nuclear weapons, it seems you believe this to be one of the more significant threats we face. However, there doesn't seem to be any intention in government of alleviating this threat. And unlike climate change, there aren't states whose economies depend on nuclear weapons (as opposed to fossil fuel extraction such as in states like Texas, North Dakota, or Alaska). There doesn't seem to be a meaningful constituency who are dependent on nuclear weapons. So why the lack of action? As someone who has intimately knowledge of the politics in this country and among politicians who are currently in power, why is there such opposition or sluggishness in implementing the recommendations in The Button that could reduce the existential threat that nuclear weapons present? |
|
In your Nuclear Addiction article, you provide a strong critique of the accelerating nuclear accumulation of both Russia and the United States. The purpose of this article is clearly to critique existing policy, and in the article you provide somewhat of a general advocation for non-nuclear defense policy. Is there a particular model of non-nuclear defense you find to be most effective? |
|
With the meteoric rise of social media and the unforeseen circumstances that have been observed, many experts and ex-social media platform employees have been critical of the governments ability to regulate these companies. Much of this has been from governmental incompetency and the inability of capitalist systems to regulate companies chasing profits. Therefore, as existential threats like AI arise, do you think the government will be able to regulate such threats? If so, should the onus fall on the companies to regulate their technology, or is their a governmental solution that can be created (like committees of industry experts)? |
|
Regarding a few of the readings this week, Do you think relations between the United States and Russia have improved since the Cold War? Additionally, Do you think either country have scaled back their Production/Storage of these weapons? |
|
In your piece in Thought Magazine, you make the powerful statement that "Morality, at a minimum, requires truth." While I certainly agree with you in the applications of this claim to shooing away misinformation campaigns, I do wonder how you feel about government secrecy and classified information. Say, for example, there exists a pertinent threat of nuclear attack--clearly, you wouldn't advocate for the government to issue a statement that contradicts this idea, but is it moral to go without alerting the public whatsoever? If yes, how much time must pass before the curtain is pulled down on this past occurrence? |
|
It seems that as with most other issues in our modern world, the arguments and discussions surrounding nuclear weapons have become more complex. The threat is no longer that the US or Russia or China will launch a nuclear weapon, but rather that a weapon could be launched accidentally or fall into the wrong hands. How do we explain to the American public the complex ideas of risk and expected value? |
|
In his book The Button, Perry points out that nuclear submarines provide sufficient nuclear power for the US's needs, particularly because they could survive an initial attack. Do you think that we might reach a point at which nuclear states have only this "minimal sufficient" number of weapons. Could this be a stable equilibrium, or must we seek to eradicate nuclear weapons altogether? |
|
The provided readings, and particularly those pertaining to nuclear escalation, highlight the roadblocks that ill-advised, headstrong, and selfish policies create for progress toward mitigating existential risk. In the Button and your review of Bill Perry's memoir My Journey at the Nuclear Brink there are several mentions of this reversal in nuclear policy from a state of relative de-escalation to a high-tension, antagonistic approach which involves spending billions on a thinly-veiled attempt at deterrence. What, in your opinion, is the root cause of this? An American need to convey strength, fear and a desire to put the populous at ease, and the massive nuclear lobby all strike me as contributors. What attitudes towards armament are most destructive? |
|
Having lived in California my whole life, I am all too familiar with the dangers of wildfires and earthquakes, yet the COVID-19 pandemic was the first time in my life where a crisis of any magnitude ever made me unsure of how to move forward. With that said, this was also the case for all governors of the United States who were forced to combat a crisis that they had likely never imagined possible. Given the ups and downs of California’s response to the pandemic, how do you believe you would have handled it? Was this something you ever imagined or prepared for during your time as governor? |
|
Is there a solution where we can ensure safety for all while also ensuring that the government does not have a monopoly on violence and destruction? |
|
"Try as they will [US & Russia], by testing, developing and deploying more nuclear weapons systems, neither will break out of the curse of assured mutual destruction." Is it really inevitable that these two countries are on a collision course that will lead to the end of the world? While some policies were mentioned in this week's readings regarding the easing of US and Russian nuclear tensions, is it possible that any sort of policy would prevent the inevitable mutual destruction from happening? |
|
In The Atomic Titanic by William Perry, the first recommendation the author mentions for a safer world is to end presidential sole nuclear authority. In the text, the author states that “sole presidential authority should be allowed only in retaliation to a confirmed nuclear attack on the United States.” Even if the authority of first use is shared amongst the legislative and executive branches, how do we know that this power will not be abused? Also, should we allow the president to retaliate freely against other countries in response to a nuclear attack? Should we be promoting an “eye for an eye”, or should we push for alternative methods, such as electronic countermeasures? |
|
When we speak of solutions, we need them quickly and accurately. The democratic process is great for preserving the liberates of man, but is not the fastest system for dealing with threats. What form of government do you think should be adapted to best deal with this multitude of threats? |
|
Do democracies and democratic institutions possess the requisite structures/incentives to address externalities and unpopular issues effectively? Are more centralized and authoritarian regimes better equipped to deal with existential risk than their more democratic counterparts? |
|
Like @ydeng117 mentioned above, I am also curious about how the Cold War policies affect the US and other likely competitors such as China and Russia? I am not familiar with Russian policies, but I know that China has never spoken that the US would be their competitor or opponent. However, the US government keeps publishing policies against Chinese national security and human rights. Would you think that many politicians in the US have overused their Cold War perspectives against the rest of the world? |
|
To what extent do you feel that the Citizens United decision impacts that way that politicians and the general public approach the issues of policy surrounding existential threats? How do we, as individuals, fight back against the immense power that the greed of politicians and private corporate interests (specifically the defense industry) hold over the ultimate policy decisions in this country? How can we possibly hope for positive change in these areas when the deck is so stacked against us? |
|
How well do you think most politicians understand existential threats? Clearly to the common public, some threats don't always appear as threatening as they really are, and this can result in widespread misconceptions (for example, doubts of climate change). How greatly can these misconceptions about existential threats influence the choices of politicians and policymaking? |
|
In your piece “Nuclear Addiction”, you end on a note that “we shall either use our new weapons and die or, rejecting the outworn logic of war, find some change in some form of mutual trust”. While I am a big proponent of alternatives to war and nuclear spending, I wonder how you think this mutual trust could come about, considering how far we are in the nuclear arms race? How would rejecting the 'logic of war’ work in 2021, practically speaking? |
|
The threat of conventional war |
|
This is related to my memo for this week. In chapter 7 of Ord's The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity he lists his estimated probabilities for existential crises. In it, he suggests that climate change has a 1 in 1000 chance of becoming an existential crisis past the point of return within 100 years. I think this is far too low, what do you think of this estimate? |
|
In your opinion, which group is more important for enacting meaningful policy reforms: grassroots activists or “elites” (be they in government, academia, the media, etc)? Should people interested in addressing existential risks focus on activating the grassroots in mass movements to affect political change, or could working to sway the opinions of a small number of elites be more effective at reducing such risks? |
|
Why is it that there does not seem to be much of a public discourse around the threat of nuclear annihilation as is deserved? Is it because we're focused on climate change right now and that is the priority? How then does policy prioritize the threat of different apocalyptic threats at the same time? |
|
How can you practically implement nuclear disarmament without opening up an international nuclear power vacuum? While many nations having large nuclear arsenals is dangerous for everyone, each nation individually may face at least a similar level of threat by being at a nuclear disadvantage. It seems that this practical consideration would highly motivate nations around the world to cheat or circumvent any real attempts at nuclear disarmament. |
|
Drawing on your very long history as California's governor, congrats by the way, and in the absence of federal government action, is there anything that states can legally do to help with problem of a potential nuclear war? Do they have any control over what weapons are housed in their area? Is there any hope for us other than action by the president and federal government? |
|
Do you believe term limits have an influence on the effectiveness and/or ambition of lawmakers? That is, if a lawmaker knows they cannot be reelected, do you think this pushes them to implement larger policy goals or hold back on them? |
|
Assuming some sort of disarming of nuclear weapons of countries like Russia and the U.S. was possibly, do you think powerful nations would willingly weaken themselves in this manner? If so in what scenario would they do this and why? |
|
What facilitated and enabled the negotiation of the reduction and the limitation of strategic arms between the USSR and the US during the Cold War, especially given the fact that the talks around START I and the INF Treaty were carried out at the moment of re-intensification in the 80s – after the breakout of the Soviet–Afghan War and the armament expansion decision of the Reagan administration? How were the two superpowers able to get back to the negotiation table with mutual trust on such an existential problem? |
|
We’ve talked about the dangers of misinformation in this class before and the danger it holds on its own. Do you think it’s possible to back away from the “nuclear edge” without acknowledging this, or do you think a part of the policy changes will need to be educating the public too? |
|
How Close Is Humanity to the Edge? provides a rather positive outlook on humanity and its potential to achieve greatness as well as to take rational steps that allow for expansion whilst mitigating its risks. Is this outlook too idealistic? Is it reasonable to think that individuals would be willing to strive towards "the greater good" mentioned in Ord's school of thought ("effective altruism") if that required the sacrifice of short-term gain? |
|
Do you think, given our current political troubles and track record in curbing climate emissions, nuclear threats, and pandemic infections, that the American political system is no longer suited for governance in a modern world? Additionally, how do you respond to allegations that the Chinese political model has produced better outcomes in the COVID pandemic because of its structure? |
|
You discussed how human behavior regarding the nuclear conflict can be compared to addiction--Is there a psychological strategy that can be employed to help solve the nuclear crisis? |
|
This week we zoomed in on policy responses to existential threats. The actions of policymakers, however, are strongly influenced by the criteria of what will get them re-elected. As such, would net value be added to society in the U.S. if policymakers could only serve one term - and therefore if their incentives were more closely aligned toward solving existential and general problems? Or would this not be the case? |
|
How important do you think it is that the general public understands existential threats? Would it be enough for politicians to put forth policies that address large scale threats and issues even if the public didn't ultimately understand them? There is signature class this quarter title Truth and one of it's primary questions is have we entered a post-truth era/world, what are your thoughts on such a question? |
|
Is it even fundamentally valuable to create policy for unstoppable environmental catastrophes, such as, say, Yellowstone erupting, a solar flare, or an asteroid hitting the earth? How do we allocate funding--a finite resource--to prophylactic measures against such impossible problems at the cost of very pressing social inequities that trouble our society? |
|
The nuclear crisis is one that's predicated on the nature of mutually assured destruction, and yet other countries with less capable military arsenals are made to bear the same level of risk should nuclear arsenals ever be deployed under any circumstances. Considering how dangerous nuclear fallout is, how can we assure that the casualty level be kept to a minimum and that there remains a safe haven for what remains of humanity under the most dire of circumstances? |
|
These readings made me think more about the connections between the various existential threats we have spoken about. Which threat if any do you think is most interconnected to other threats? Is it possible to institute policies that address multiple threats at once? What would that look like? |
|
It seems like one of the major obstacles to enacting workable policy solutions is the lack of coordination among experts (the policy people aren't listening to the science people, the industry people aren't listening to the policy people, etc.). How do we, as individual professionals, contribute to bridging this gap? Given American capitalism and the power of corporations to influence democracy, is this even possible? |
|
What makes something unthinkable? As a former person in government, specifically in California, did you ever have to deal with preparations for the “unthinkable,” earthquakes, wildfires, etc., and what were the steps you used when preparing for them? Are there some crazy things that your office prepared for that seem “unthinkable” that the public doesn’t know? |
|
Do you think that the framing of future disasters as extinction risks to humanity is helpful because it makes people aware of the stakes, or hurtful because it might ignore smaller crises that still cause great human suffering? |
|
How can the world move toward a more globalist society, as nativist movements continually are gaining steam globally? |
|
What do you think is the largest obstruction to climate change legislation? Additionally, do you think a slew of legislation like the Green New Deal is adequate or unnecessary for the crisis? |
|
In the Nuclear Addiction article, you critique the United States' nuclear policy. Why--in the age of mutually assured destruction--are nuclear weapons still a defense mechanism that policymakers consider as opposed to diplomatic solutions? And what forms of warfare do you think will replace nuclear weapons: perhaps bio warfare and cyber attacks? |
|
As a politician I was wondering whether the issue of existential threats was acknowledged and relevant in day-to-day political workings. What would your suggestions be to influence the level of existential threats through direct policy actions? |
and others
Questions for Governor Jerry Brown, inspired by the week's readings:
“Nuclear Addiction,” Thought Magazine, Vol. 59 No. 232, March 1984 (by Jerry Brown) -- Critique of US nuclear policy
“A Stark Nuclear Warning,” NY Review of Books, July 14, 2016 (by Jerry Brown) -- Review of Bill Perry's “My Journey at the Nuclear Brink”
“The Atomic Titanic,” The Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump (by Walter Perry), in Library Reserves linkable from the left menu.
“How Close Is Humanity to the Edge?” The New Yorker, November 21, 2020 (by Corinne Purtill) -- Profile of Toby Ord
“The Risk Landscape” and “Saving Humanity”, chapters 6 and 7 from The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity.
Questions: Every week students will post one question here of less than 150 words, addressed to our speaker by Wednesday @ midnight, the day immediately prior to our class session. These questions may take up the same angle as developed further in your weekly memo. By 2pm Thursday, each student will up-vote (“thumbs up”) what they think are the five most interesting questions for that session. Some of the top voted questions will be asked by students to the speakers during class.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: