Lifeboat Foundation on Livescience.com Wednesday, Sep 20 2006
risks 12:48 pm
The Lifeboat Foundation has been mentioned on a recent article on Livescience.com:
Scientists could generate a black hole as often as every second when the world’s most powerful particle accelerator comes online in 2007.
This potential “black hole factory” has raised fears that a stray black hole could devour our planet whole. The Lifeboat Foundation, a nonprofit organization devoted to safeguarding humanity from what it considers threats to our existence, has stated that artificial black holes could “threaten all life on Earth” and so it proposes to set up “self-sustaining colonies elsewhere.”
But the chance of planetary annihilation by this means “is totally miniscule,” experimental physicist Greg Landsberg at Brown University in Providence, R.I., told LiveScience.
The point of this is not whether or not there really is an immediate risk from nuclear accelerators (which is debatable), but that an organization focused exclusively on existential risk is getting this kind of coverage from a top-tier science website.
Existential risk is a pretty big deal. To quote Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons (1984):
I believe that if we destroy mankind, as we now can, this outcome will be much worse than most people think. Compare three outcomes:
1. Peace
2. A nuclear war that kills 99% of the world’s existing population
3. A nuclear war that kills 100%2 would be worse than 1, and 3 would be worse than 2. Which is the greater of these two differences? Most people believe that the greater difference is between 1 and 2. I believe that the difference between 2 and 3 is very much greater… The Earth will remain habitable for at least another billion years. Civilization began only a few thousand years ago. If we do not destroy mankind, these thousand years may be only a tiny fraction of the whole of civilized human history. The difference between 2 and 3 may thus be the difference between this tiny fraction and all of the rest of this history. If we compare this possible history to a day, what has occurred so far is only a fraction of a second.
Humanity’s future potential matters, a heck of lot more than whether or not you personally make it through this century. If you want to be part of a community devoted to preventing existential risk, join us.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Although humanity’s future is critically important, all that I know is my own consciousness. The chance of immortality and humanities accension to a higher level follow the same path among the many possible futures.
The pot is simmering. Soon it will boil. The lifeboat has a great goal of helping to stop humanity from falling to it’s demise in the last few steps of it’s current existance. It never ceases to amaze me when I reflect upon how far us little humans have come in so short a time.
There has indeed been more of this kind of futurism discussions in the “popular” media. I brought some magazines along for the plane ride for a business trip and even saw some futuristic talk in Maxim magazine. Nick Bostrom was quoted in the article as well.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
It’s good to get coverage, but it felt to me that when the article mentioned the Lifeboat Foundation it had a dismissive tone; it didn’t even provide a link. It said the Lifeboat Foundation is devoted to safeguarding humanity from “WHAT IT CONSIDERS threats to our existence”, with the implication that we’re wrong.
Still, they say there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Maybe someone will be moved to investigate further and see what the Foundation is all about.
By the way I plugged the Foundation on the latest Astroroach podcast.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Any publicity is good publicity. People are going to hear about these topics and organizations and even if there is a dismissive attitude, it will still stick in their minds.
It’s funny that people know more about the latest celebrity gossip than they do about critical issues that could extinguish humanities existance… it’s a cryin’ shame.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:01 am
Some cosmic rays are much more energetic, than those artificial, mentioned above.
But they seldom colide with each other, what might be the case here. A black hole created would soon evaporate, but what if it doesn’t? What if some small black holes are stable?
All in all … I would drop this experiment. Agree.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:14 am
“I believe that if we destroy mankind, as we now can, this outcome will be much worse than most people think. Compare three outcomes:
1. Peace
2. A nuclear war that kills 99% of the world’s existing population
3. A nuclear war that kills 100%
….
Civilization began only a few thousand years ago. If we do not destroy mankind, these thousand years may be only a tiny fraction of the whole of civilized human history. The difference between 2 and 3 may thus be the difference between this tiny fraction and all of the rest of this history. If we compare this possible history to a day, what has occurred so far is only a fraction of a second.”
The problem I have with the line of reasoning is someone might be able to justify #2 in order to prevent #3. In the case of diamondiod MNT I think that there is a real possibility of a genocidal “preventative first strike” in order to prevent an unstable nano arms race ending in everyones death.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:01 am
Jim, yes, you can justify #2 with #3. That’s just a fact. If you really have to avoid #3 by initiating #2, then yes, it’s really the ethical thing to do. If you’re just using it as a manipulative tool, then obviously not.
But the potential for abuse does not change the ethical calculations one bit.