May 20 - The Future - Questions #22
Comments
|
On page 75 of your book, On the Future, you note that Steven Pinker took up a bet with you about the chance of bio t/error causing 1 million deaths by 2020. What was the outcome of the bet? Do you and Pinker consider COVID-19 a bio error? |
|
At what point does innovation become too much? On one hand, the advances we make with technology and medicine are great and they give us a better quality of life. But these advances also make people's lives easier which is a good thing to a degree, however, there is a point where people are not using and exercising their brains enough to be “healthy”. We start to see this with people not being able to tell direction or do simple calculations. What do we do if the majority of the human population are no longer able or willing to work and do simple but necessary tasks? |
|
I am curious as to whether you think democracy is the best form of government to meet these challenges in the future? For example, would it be more effective to have a more centralized system where the government is able to take sweeping, drastic action in order to help tackle issues head on? Do you see the polarization that comes with democracy as an irreparable issue that will hamper any attempts to find solutions to these existential threats before it is too late? |
|
In 1950, Enrico Fermi famously asked: "Where is everybody?" Given the apparent absence of extraterrestrial life, do you believe in the existence of a 'Great Filter'? If so, how far along are we? Does the filter lay in humanity’s past, present, or future? |
|
You mentioned that if other intelligent life exists in the universe, our progeny will merge with them over astronomical timescales. What motivation do you think such hyper-intelligent beings would have to intellectually engage with us - what might we have to offer that they couldn't already know given their level of advancement? In the same vein of motivation, what motivation might electronic life have for space colonization, other than potentially around black holes to capture hawking radiation to power simulations until heat death, if you think the fate of the universe is heat death, considering the timescales of black holes? |
|
I have seen mention of things like the Big Rip, the Big Bounce, or the Big Chill when talking about the destiny of our universe, so what do you think is going to be the inevitable fate of our universe? |
|
Stephen Hawking has stated that perhaps the greatest threat to humanity is an asteroid impacting Earth. How real is this threat and what preparations do we have in place in the case of an incoming asteroid with little warning time? |
|
A major exploration in your book On the Future is exploring the deep future of humanity, 100 + years into the future. As a physics major, these questions are fascinating to me - the mysteries of the universe are quite boundless. However, questions of the multiverse or the origins of the universe does little to feed hungry people despite massive food waste, bring peace and prosperity to those parts of the world that have hence been denied that, or reverse the effects of climate change. My question is a little threatening to this particular career path, but could the effort, organization, and money put into building particle accelerators, radio telescopes, or gravitational wave interferometers (sorry Dr. Holz) be directed to more humanistic projects? Or, alternatively, how can pressure be correctly applied to fix the problems of today so that we can collectively enjoy the fruits of scientific discoveries in the future? |
|
In Chapter 2, Humanity’s Future on Earth, you explore the existential risks of bio error and bio terror writing that they will, “be aggravated as it becomes possible to ‘design’ and synthesise viruses— the ‘ultimate’ weapon would combine high lethality with the transmissibility of the common cold.” (78) This line feels eerily omniscient of what we have been living through, and it leaves me wondering how has the Covid-19 pandemic made you rethink the ways such a risk could manifest itself in our world? |
|
In Chapter 2 of your book, you write that "people are typically uneasy about innovations that seem 'against nature' and that pose risks." What do you think the main reason for this is? In other words, do you think that these beliefs stem mainly from religious reasons, or because they wish to be risk-averse? |
|
In the context of climate change and biotechnology, have humans progressed passed the point of letting natural processes dominate? In other words, is the expediency demanded of these problems only possible if humans accept the status of gods and act accordingly? To address climate change, must we eschew the idea of a higher power? |
|
I'm fascinated by the cover of your text as we think about the future of humanity. How are we to balance space travel and colonisation with the need to sustain our futures on planet Earth? This question is particularly oriented around Mars given the Chinese rover landing there earlier this week and the NASA's continued exploration of the planet. |
|
In the conclusion, you mention the importance of supporting science globally and without borders, as well as some of the potential setbacks in funding and structure in the West. During COVID-19 pandemic, pre-vaccine, we saw a global effort to find the vaccine and scientists from all over working together. Do you think that this means that moving forward science will work more globally? Particularly for space exploration/general do you think they will get increased funding post-pandemic? |
|
The Drake equation has been used to quantify the probability of finding intelligent extraterrestrial life. The greatest uncertain variable is L="The length of time such [intelligent] civilizations release detectable signals into space, in years." In other words this variable encapsulates the time it takes for intelligent civilizations that have the ability to release signals to self destruct. Do you think the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing powers of AI, greater nuclear threats, and worsening conditions of climate change highlight the decrease in likelihood that intelligent life exists in the universe due to these factors contributing to the faster self destruction of Earth? Or may these issues be singular to human civilizations? |
|
One (of the many) compelling portions of your book On the Future: Prospects for Humanity deals with the distinction between the pressing threats facing us now and increasing in urgency into the near future, and those threats that are so gravely existential and final, that we cannot fully comprehend them. Many of your examples deal with scenarios present only in theoretical physics and carrying extremely low probabilities, but a central point despite this is that we don’t know enough to calculate the probabilities, but we know that they are not zero. These threats are far removed from the public eye and have their own associated benefits, so how in your opinion should we address them moving forward? Is it ethical to continue these experiments despite potentially universe-ending concerns? Or are these really just science-fiction? |
|
In your book, you advocate for privately funded manned space travel, citing the advantages of fewer constrictions as well as more freedom for innovation and technology. However, what do you foresee as the risks of this? Wouldn’t we come up against the problem of short-term economic motivations for these entities? And how to control or mediate conflicting private interests? Would the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 remain intact? You say that this “may need some public regulation”, what shape might this take? |
|
In your book's conclusion, you write that "nations may need to give up more sovereignty to new global organisations." But as we have seen, the leaders of different countries might have competing beliefs and interests regarding global issues (for example, Trump left the Paris Climate Accords, meanwhile, Biden rejoined it). How can we ensure that nations rise up to the moment and remain committed to combatting these global issues together? |
|
Many of your predictions in ‘On the Future’ regarding the potential of a pandemic are nearly perfect and well ahead of their time considering a major pandemic had not yet occurred in this digital age. Specifically, in Chapter 2 you wrote, “Air travel can spread a pandemic worldwide within days, wreaking havoc on the disorganized megacities of the developing world. And social media can spread panic and rumor, and economic contagion, literally at the speed of light.” Given that this book was written nearly two years before the COVID-19 pandemic, what led you to making these predictions, and did you imagine that within just a few years these predictions would come true? |
|
With the fear of existential risk growing every moment, what do you think is the most plausible scenario where Humans could be in significant danger (Without Nuclear Armageddon)? I personally think overpopulation as well as food shortages may have detrimental effects moving forward. |
|
In Chapter 1 of the book On the Future, it is mentioned that certain religious leaders are actually pushing for environmental regulation and the prevention of climate change. To quote the book, the Pope states that “humans have a duty to care for all of ‘God’s Creation’, that the natural world has value in its own right, quite apart from its benefits to humans.” Going off of this idea, do you believe that we should find alternative ways to instill a sense of urgency in the public when it comes to climate change? Is it possible that ‘advertising’ the impacts of climate change in popular media can shift societal understanding of climate change? |
|
The question comes from The Future Prospects for Humanity by Martin Rees in Beshara Magazine. |
|
In your book’s chapter 4, you ask the reader to look into the very-distant future of humanity (assuming there is one). Our class’s general focus is on the concept of a Doomsday. Though humanity may change drastically on massive timescales, it seems unlikely that we will ever have more security than we have power. Do you think humanity will ever truly escape from all Doomsday threats? |
|
Rees made an excellent point in his interview with Bronson: politicians rarely address existential threats because, unless those existential threats come to fruition within a given political term, many voters will deem those precautions as wasteful when in reality they serve as insurance. To achieve reelection, politicians are incentivized to achieve short term goals that immediately impact voters in a favorable manner. How do we incentivize politicians to act with a longer term mindset? Is changing the mindset of voters the primary factor or are there systematic political changes we can implement to pragmatically achieve this? |
|
Can American democracy effectively address the many existential threats that we have studied over the course of this class? I'm thinking about how facts have become politicized, and whether we can effectively tackle issues when there is disagreement regarding whether that issue even exists. |
|
What would it take to speed up our production and distribution of renewable energy products? |
|
On the Future was published in late 2018, and in 2019 you released another book titled Our Amazing World. Your writing discusses existential threats so as to convey the seriousness and severity of concepts that seem fictional to many, but having now lived through the events of 2020 and early 2021, what discussions (if any) would you change or add to On the Future if you had the chance to publish an updated edition? |
|
How do we get people at large to intuit and appreciate science the same way they do music? |
|
Advances in technology and artificial intelligence will likely eventually enable civilization to expand into the next frontier of space. Do you think that if we were to relocate humanity to new planets in the universe, the same human-inflicted existential problems like climate change and rampant inequality that plague our earth today would eventually develop on those planets as well? In other words, do you think we would not be able to escape our own predicament of eventual self-destruction? If so, then what type of societal transformation would be necessary to counter this? |
|
In your article in The Independent, you mention that it is difficult to get politicians to focus on measures required to combat long-term threats without pressure from the media/press. In recent years, and especially during the pandemic, we have seen people shift towards news outlets that most align with their beliefs. Do you believe the increasing diversification of the news sources people consume helps to contribute or alleviate this necessary pressure on politicians? |
|
Is democracy the best political system to deal with existential threats? It would make sense that having one strong leader who makes the right decision could act much quicker than democracy. |
|
How massively will the lifestyles of high energy consumers have to change in order to effectively combat climate change? |
|
One problem we have seen in the COVID-19 pandemic is the public’s lack of trust in the science they read about in the news. From face masks to the vaccines, unfounded skepticism prevents the public from taking effective collective action. In your conclusion, you speak about the importance of science and technology in coming up with solutions to the threats we face. Yet, these technologies can’t help us if we don’t trust them as a baseline opinion. What should the role of scientists be in improving the relationship between the general public and the scientific community? |
|
Artificial meat has been gaining some traction and attention in recent years. Bill Gates recently came out with a book called “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster”, and in it, he stresses innovation as a solution to reducing carbon emissions. He also stresses that wealthy nations should transition to 100% synthetic meat to improve emissions. Is this something you agree with? If so, what do you think the timeline would be for a country like the US to implement this into policy? Do you think it would be something that could realistically be adopted by a population? |
|
At the end of chapter 4, you argue that atheists cannot argue for science by excluding the possibility of religion. Given the divisions among humans you discuss, what methods do you recommend for bringing people together from their various belief systems (religious, political, etc.) in order to act on science? |
|
If nuclear deterrence is a flawed system, how do you propose we convince both China and Russia to completely disarm their arsenals? |
|
"_Indeed, we’re in denial about a whole raft of newly emergent threats to our interconnected world that could be devastating. Some, like climate change and environmental degradation, are caused by humanity’s ever heavier collective footprint. We know them well but we fail to prioritise countermeasures because their worst impact stretches beyond the time-horizon of political and investment decisions._" I'm curious to know, based on your mention of both political and investment decisions, your thoughts on the future of campaign finance and the influence of lobbyists/corporations on politics. |
|
You consider yourself a “techno-optimist”, arguing that technologies can play an important role in solving some of humanity’s biggest problems. How do you respond to people that are generally skeptical of this perspective or tend to think new technologies are the problem (rather than the solution)? |
|
Many times, when people who desperately want change try and improve the world, and find themselves alone in a sea of uncaring cooperation's and systematic issues, that are too difficult for one human to handle. Even when many amass, they feel outnumbered and like they aren't doing enough. How do you suggest people cope, so they don't crack under the pressure? |
|
In your book, On the Future, you mention how you believe that advances in science will help the world deal with future existential crises. However, there are numerous experts that believe the high levels of scientific progress that have been seen in the past have not been seen in present times and most likely will not be seen in the future. Do you believe this poses a threat to the solution you proposed in your book? If so, are there other solutions the world should focus on? If not, do you believe scientific progress isn't slowing, or that this slow rate will suffice for dealing with future existential threats? |
|
I thought it was interesting that Martin Rees said that the two areas of concern are climate change and "existential threats". The differentiation between the two isn't something we have heard throughout this course. What do you think are some of the most effective ways to mitigate climate change without comprising the effects of some other existential threatS? |
|
There are many interesting questions asked above relating to the reading that I would love to hear responses to as well, but a more personal question I have would be: what is the most impactful scientific fact or discovery in your life that changed the way you fundamentally looked at the Universe and your life on Earth? |
|
Martin Rees, in his interview with Beshara Magazine, says that we do not have a coherent and connected theory of physics, and I am wondering to what extent recent developments in the field might change that or grow either end of the field? I am specifically talking about the development in the study of muons. To quote the AP, "Tiny particles called muons aren’t quite doing what is expected of them in two different long-running experiments in the United States and Europe. The confounding results — if proven right — reveal major problems with the rulebook physicists use to describe and understand how the universe works at the subatomic level." |
|
In your book you write that new technology “may offer new solutions to the crises that threaten our crowded world; on the other hand, they may create vulnerabilities that give us a bumpier ride through the century” (63)”. I was wondering if you have a specific emerging-technology in mind that currently has the potential to go both ways (offer solution vs create vulnerabilities)? |
|
In your book, you mentioned that different countries and entities will have different incentives regarding geoengineering. What are some scenarios you foresee that would lead to large-scale geoengineering without a worldwide (albeit presumably desperate) consensus? |
|
In your interview with Beshara magazine you mention that one of you area of concern, in terms of social disruption, is that our expectations are high. We have high standards and live in a comfortable world, so we don't cope as well when a crisis happens i.e. there is a breakdown of social order. Do you think there's a way to lower expectations? Will we be forced to? Are there ways in which our high expectations are beneficial? |
|
How must politics transform in order to mitigate existential threats? What form of government is most effective in dealing with said threats? Is is democracy, or an altered form of democracy? |
|
Would the lecturer please compare the US academia with the UK academia in terms of their professional performance and their relationship with the public and politicians in the face of existential threats? |
|
What kind of international body would need to exist to effectively implement solutions to these existential crises on a global scale? What kind of international reorganization would need to happen to make cooperation more feasible and efficient? |
|
Do you think that American democracy as it exists (with maybe a little adjustment) would be strong enough to survive/prepare for future risks? Or do you think that we need some sort of largescale societal change? |
|
Given that our society is driven by technological advancement, I imagine that the future will be one that's predicated on emerging technologies and research. How can our scientists best assure themselves and the public that the technology that emerges can be safely handled? How concerned should we be with technology running amok and leading to our doom? |
|
Do you think that there could ever be a moral imperative to making certain transhumanist-modifications obligatory? |
|
How do you think a future pandemic will affect the human race? During this pandemic, some people said it was going to be the end of the world. How did you view it? |
|
Is there a way to remove corporate interests from politics? How can we get politicians such as Joe Manchin whose entire careers have been funded by energy and coal to take climate change seriously? Voting with feet or wallets both seems to be in vane. |
|
What steps do you think need to be taken before humanity could start seriously considering colonization of other planets? As a follow up to this, do you think that we should fix all of the problems on Earth before even considering such an endeavor |
|
Why do you think technology will save our species? It seems like the scale of problems we create for ourselves dwarf the investment we put into technology to save ourselves. For example, it seems like we've done irreversible damage to our climate, and even technology that made us instantly carbon neutral would not cool the planet fast enough to prevent a "heat-age" |
|
How can you liberate art from capitalism? That's a pretentious way of putting it, but how do we escape from milquetoast critiques of capitalism published by Amazon? |
|
***original post 18 hours ago was deleted by github so reposting |
|
In examining the future of humanity, I believe it is important to also understand how humanity will evolve in tandem with the threats that we create. In terms of forms of aggressive destruction (nuclear, bioterror, cyberattacks, etc.), do you believe that humans will become more hostile or more agreeable to one another? To what extent is aggression towards others built into who we are as a species? |
|
What are your thoughts on the potential 'space hotels' that have been rumored to be developed in coming years? Is this productive, or a waste of time and money? Is this an extension of manifest destiny, or imperialism of recent centuries? |
|
Does globalisation imply that science is working more globally than it has before or does the global world order and the current geopolitical landscape disable globalist thinking in a way that we haven't seen before? |
and others
Questions for Martin Rees, inspired by his book On The Future.
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: