Quantcast
Connect with us

Acclaimed British astrophysicist warns humanity has only a 50 percent chance of surviving the 21st Century

Published

on

One of the world’s leading scientists says technology gives a handful of bad actors the power to do serious harm on a global scale — and he gives humanity a 50-50 chance of surviving the 21st Century.

Martin Rees, Britain’s astronomer royal and a Cambridge University cosmologist, has written a new book called “Future: Prospects for Humanity” that gives reason for optimism about humankind’s chances for survival, but he told Vox that his hopes rely heavily on a series of good decisions getting made.

“I’m an optimist in that I believe that the ability of technology to provide a good life for everyone, not just in our countries, but throughout the world, is going to grow,” Rees said. “But I’m also an ethical pessimist in that I recognize that this is not happening in the way that it should.”

His previous book, 2003’s “Out Final Hour,” explored all the ways humans could destroy themselves through technology, and he said the rapid explosion of technology with little regard for ethics has made him even more concerned about societal disruption triggered by small groups or individuals.

“This is a relatively new thing, and I’m not sure we fully appreciate the dangers,” Rees told Vox. “Technology has not only increased the ways we could destroy ourselves, it’s also made it much easier for us to do it. So that means we’re always close, potentially, to a global disaster.”

ADVERTISEMENT

He said the demand for energy and other resources was unsustainable, but he said individual bad actors pose a potentially greater threat in the short run.

“I worry about the disruptive effects of cyber attacks or some form of biological terror, like the intentional release of a deadly virus,” he said. “These kind of events can happen right now, and they can be carried out by small groups or even an individual. It’s extremely hard to guard against this kind of threat.”

Those threats are potentially catastrophic, but Rees said humans are not socially prepared to handle them.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Our societies are more brittle now and less tolerant of disruption,” Rees explained. “In the Middle Ages, for example, when the Black Plague killed off half the populations of towns, the others sort of went on fatalistically.”

“But I think if we had some sort of pandemic today,” he added, “and once it got beyond the capacity of hospitals to cope with all the cases, then I think there would be catastrophic social disruption long before the number of cases reached 1 percent. The panic, in other words, would spread instantly and be impossible to contain.”

Technological changes are rapidly changing human society, and Rees said economic pressure to pursue new advances exerts stronger pressure than ethical considerations for using them responsibly.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Is it too fast for society?” Rees said. “I don’t know. I do know that we’re struggling to cope with all these technologies. Just look at the impact of social media on geopolitics right now, and the risks of artificial intelligence and biotechnology far exceed social media. But these things also have potentially huge benefits to society, if we can manage them responsibly.”


Report typos and corrections to [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t even a competent investor: report

Published

on

There can be no doubt that high-powered hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein would rather the public know him for his prominence and success as an investor than for the allegations of child sex trafficking, for which he has now been indicted and faces life in prison. And there has for years been mystique surrounding Epstein's business — his wealth fund is so exclusive that it reportedly requires a billion dollars up front from clients.

But according to the Dow Jones' periodical Barron's, Epstein may not even be good at that.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Jon Stewart blasts ‘abomination’ of Rand Paul trying to ‘balance the budget on the backs of’ 9/11 responders

Published

on

On Wednesday's edition of Fox News' "Special Report," comedian and activist Jon Stewart slammed Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) for blocking unanimous consent for a bill to support health care for 9/11 first responders.

"Pardon me if I'm not impressed in any way by Rand Paul's fiscal responsibility virtue signaling," said Stewart to anchor Bret Baier, who appeared on the show with first responder and activist John Feal.

He added that Paul's complaint, that the bill was unfunded, rings hollow given that he "added hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficit" with the GOP tax cuts for billionaires. He castigated Paul for trying to "balance the budget on the backs of the 9/11 first responder community."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Republicans will never say that racism is ‘racism’ — basically because they’re racist

Published

on

Is there any expression of racism that Republicans will actually admit is racism? It's a question on a lot of progressive minds in the wake of Donald Trump demonizing female congresswomen of color with the "go back" canard that white nationalists and other assorted racists have long used to abuse anyone with heritage they dislike, whether that heritage is Jewish, Irish, Italian, African, Latin American or Muslim. Telling someone to "go back" is, in the ranks of racist statements, right up there with calling a person the N-word or some other rank slur. Yet, there still appears to be resistance among Republicans to admitting that is racism, which leads many on the left to wonder: If this doesn't count, then what could possibly count?

Continue Reading
 
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

Enjoy Summer! Try Raw Story Ad-Free for $1. Invest in Progressive Journalism.
close-image