I'm Terrified of Human Extinction

[Thinkaholic]

Hi, all. I'm nearly 14, and self-teaching physics and mathematics. One quote of Newton's really inspires me. It is the 'Shoulders of giants' quote, and even though it was just Newton taking a stab at Robert Hooke's short stature, it has meaning to me, and probably you guys, too. I want people to 'Stand on my shoulders' after I'm gone.

However, I'm afraid I won't live long enough to put any ideas out. I'm so scared that humanity will succumb to its challenges (WMD, climate change, resource scarcity, greed, ignorance, and overpopulation, to name a few.) and come to an end. I really want humanity to survive, but so many scientists say otherwise. There are so many people living on this planet with futures, including me. I want to live my life, and not see humanity come to a close.

Also, another thing I'm scared of is A.I. A ton of scientists and science enthusiasts, including me, think that advanced A.I. shouldn't come to be. It is just way too risky. Yet, so many companies are working on it.
I don't want to see any of this happen, nor do I think it should happen at all. I'm very concerned for the future.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Actually, IMO, if you had seen no movies you would not be worried about catastrophes like "Skynet".

You really should worry about more gradual but very unpleasant problems as the world population reaches and exceeds the carrying capacity for human populations. As resources become scarce, people will become more violent and politically radicalized in an attempt to get enough to survive.

This happened on a small scale after WWI in the Weimar republic. The economy basically fell apart the Weimar in part because of sanctions resulting from the WWI peace accords. People looked for scapegoats and radical solutions, which led to WWII. This is oversimplified, but you get the idea.

 

[russ_watters]

However, I'm afraid I won't live long enough to put any ideas out. I'm so scared that humanity will succumb to its challenges (WMD, climate change, resource scarcity, greed, ignorance, and overpopulation, to name a few.) and come to an end.

Most of those problems couldn't possibly wipe out humanity in your lifetime. The only one that has any chance is nuclear weapons and that likelihood is quite low.

I really want humanity to survive, but so many scientists say otherwise.

Doomsaying makes the news, but don't mistake that for meaning that a significant fraction of scientists think we are doomed, soon.

Please don't take this as making light of your fears, but teenage years are pretty much defined by angst. You'll almost certainly outgrow it as you figure out how the world really works...then it will be replaced by more mundane and real fears such as paying your rent before your next paycheck arrives.

 

[russ_watters]

You really should worry about more gradual but very unpleasant problems as the world population reaches and exceeds the carrying capacity for human populations. As resources become scarce, people will become more violent and politically radicalized in an attempt to get enough to survive.

But even if that is a realistic scenario (I don't think it is), it couldn't possibly wipe out humanity in the OP's lifetime; It couldn't wipe out humanity ever.

 

[jim mcnamara]

But even if that is a realistic scenario (I don't think it is), it couldn't possibly wipe out humanity in the OP's lifetime; It couldn't wipe out humanity ever.

That is correct, it is not Doomsday, just a mass die off under nasty circumstances. None of us would want to be around during such a thing.

Sam Harris has a video proposing one such nasty consequence of AI run amok, which I do not buy 100%, but it is a good presentation.

 

[russ_watters]

That is correct, it is not Doomsday, just a mass die off under nasty circumstances.

I don't see how that is possible: that would require us to have enough food to vastly overshoot the Earth's carrying capacity, then lose the food, resulting in the extra people dying.

What I foresee is a leveling-off for the developed world - which has pretty much already happened except for immigration in the US - and increasing issues in the 3rd/developing world. You wouldn't want to live in India or Iran in 50 years, but then again, I wouldn't now.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Look Russ - I do not want to dispute your point. Simply because I am lazy and you have a lot of assumptions that do not match mine. And that's okay. I punt.
You can consider this a win by default.

 

[UsableThought]

You really should worry about more gradual but very unpleasant problems as the world population reaches and exceeds the carrying capacity for human populations. As resources become scarce, people will become more violent and politically radicalized in an attempt to get enough to survive.

But even if that is a realistic scenario (I don't think it is), it couldn't possibly wipe out humanity in the OP's lifetime; It couldn't wipe out humanity ever.

That is correct, it is not Doomsday, just a mass die off under nasty circumstances. None of us would want to be around during such a thing.

I'm with @jim mcnamara in the above dialogue.

Nuclear war on a global scale is certainly possible, but seems less likely than local nuclear conflicts. There seems a high degree of uncertainty here in terms of anyone confrontation. A series of such confrontations? That seems pretty scary.

It may also be possible for global warming to result in a "tipping point" wherein mass ecological disaster develops - e.g. major damage to the food chain in the oceans. However I'm too poorly informed to know how real this fear is or isn't. There might be a fair amount of uncertainty here as well, I don't know.

Whereas there seems much less uncertainty that both population increases & the consequences of global warming are likely to combine to create insufficient resources & thus "nasty circumstances" in which we see even more violence than today; breakdown of the rule of law spreading to regions we might have thought safe; and even greater uprooting of populations - and not just in the less developed countries, but in the West too. We're already seeing an increase in floods and droughts, with the latter leading to increased crop loss.

The uncertainty with the above unpleasantness seems at least partly a matter of the difficulty of predicting just how fast particular bad things will happen & what the cascade effects will then be. A slower timescale might permit at least some workable actions to lessen impacts. A faster timescale makes everything worse.

The world may or may not end any time soon with a bang. However some or even most of human society may slide to its end with a whimper, a yell, and a scream.

 

[UsableThought]

I don't see how that is possible: that would require us to have enough food to vastly overshoot the Earth's carrying capacity, then lose the food, resulting in the extra people dying.

What I foresee is a leveling-off for the developed world

At this point we'd have to start cite sources. I have a few but it would take me time, and I'm not sure this thread is the place for that kind of depth. One is a fairly short book, Learning To Die in the Anthropocene, by the journalist (and Iraqi war vet) Roy Scranton; he has a long list of primary sources in the back.

But it's all speculation; and anyway I'd rather you be right than me.

P.S. Rather than have to wade through an entire book, you can get a snapshot version of Scranton's argument via this opinion piece he wrote for the New York TImes:
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/learning-how-to-die-in-the-anthropocene/?mcubz=1

 

[Ygggdrasil]

You really should worry about more gradual but very unpleasant problems as the world population reaches and exceeds the carrying capacity for human populations. As resources become scarce, people will become more violent and politically radicalized in an attempt to get enough to survive.

I don't see how that is possible: that would require us to have enough food to vastly overshoot the Earth's carrying capacity, then lose the food, resulting in the extra people dying.

One can see the seeds of what jim has proposed in the recent history of the Middle East. Many have argued that one major contributing factor to the Arab Spring protests that began in 2010 was food shortages and rising food costs, in part a consequence of climate change. The Arab Spring movement led to, among other conflicts, the Syrian Civil War, which has precipitated a humanitarian crisis. The consequences of this violence and political unrest has not been limited to the region as Europe has been affected by the resulting migration of refugees and the conflict has contributed to the rise of extremist groups in the region, such as ISIS. (Of course, not all food shortages spread to have global effects, for example, the ongoing food crises in East Africa).

As regions approach their carrying capacities, societies will have less leeway to deal with temporary fluctuations in the food supply. These problems can be exacerbated by the failure (or lack) of political institutions as is the case in many areas facing food insecurity. These local issues can then precipitate larger global crises.

Are these scenarios likely to cause a doomsday and human extinction? Probably not, though that doesn't mean that they don't pose a serious problem.

 

[phyzguy]

As others have said, while the problems you have mentioned (climate change, resource scarcity, greed, ignorance, and overpopulation, nuclear war...) may cause serious economic dislocations and in the worst case even mass losses of human life, it is virtually impossible for me to see how they could cause human extinction. Can anyone give me a scenario for any of these things that leads to human extinction?

 

[Choppy]

Hi, all. I'm nearly 14, and self-teaching physics and mathematics. One quote of Newton's really inspires me. It is the 'Shoulders of giants' quote, and even though it was just Newton taking a stab at Robert Hooke's short stature, it has meaning to me, and probably you guys, too. I want people to 'Stand on my shoulders' after I'm gone.

However, I'm afraid I won't live long enough to put any ideas out. I'm so scared that humanity will succumb to its challenges (WMD, climate change, resource scarcity, greed, ignorance, and overpopulation, to name a few.) and come to an end. I really want humanity to survive, but so many scientists say otherwise. There are so many people living on this planet with futures, including me. I want to live my life, and not see humanity come to a close.

Also, another thing I'm scared of is A.I. A ton of scientists and science enthusiasts, including me, think that advanced A.I. shouldn't come to be. It is just way too risky. Yet, so many companies are working on it.
I don't want to see any of this happen, nor do I think it should happen at all. I'm very concerned for the future.

This feeling of dread is a direct consequence of sensationalism in the media I suspect.

That's not to downplay the weight of problems that you've listed, nor the feelings that you have.

Sometimes it can help to try to shift your point of view though. Remember that up until about a century ago something as simple as a bacterial infection could be a death sentence. If you live in a first world country today, that same kind of problem is reduced in most cases to a minor inconvenience. You have the opportunity to be able to read and write. If you want, you can pursue an advanced education or apprenticeship. You have unprecedented latitude to choose your vocation, your friends, and romantic partner. You can travel around the world in a matter of hours, with the biggest annoyance having to wait in line for a few minutes and then choose which movies to watch while you're doing it.

As a young person today, you have the opportunity to be a part of the solution to some of these big problems. Look at AI for example. Sure, it can be scary. But it can also be wonderful. I work in healthcare as a medical physicist. One of the big areas of research right now is in looking at how AI can be used to help radiologists arrive at a diagnosis. When you look at a CT scan, not matter how well-trained you are, a computer can process and manipulate the data in that image better than you can, and may be able to detect patterns that a human can't. Machine learning is being pursued so that we can limit the number of incorrect diagnoses made, so that we can catch the onset of diseases earlier, and turn the life-threatening diseases of today into the minor inconveniences of tomorrow.

 

[jackwhirl]

Sure as the heat death of the universe, we're all going to die.
So make the most of the time you have. :D

That said, I agree with @phyzguy, most of the things you mentioned are unlikely to end us as a species.

What could end us?
Climate change, if something like the clathrate gun hypothesis is correct and we go full Venus.
Gamma-ray burst or asteroid. These would suck because they're outside of our control right now.
Speciation. Just because they're our descendants doesn't mean they'll be human.
Any others?

 

[russ_watters]

Frankly guys I think the OP deserves better than empty validation of unhealthy fear. Let me try a different tack: Does anybody think that these possibilities are worthy of the OP damaging his emotional health over?

 

[jackwhirl]

Does anybody think that these possibilities are worthy of the OP damaging his emotional health over?

Qualified no.

Mentally healthy and intelligent people worry about those things. So worry, but don't despair. Take the attitude that these are solvable problems -- they are -- and work to solve them. Just pick one or two and try to make a difference.

Consider your luck! You don't get to have giant shoulders without solving a big problem. Here you have your pick of them.

Elon Musk is a bit of an overachiever; he picked three: climate change, AI, and the superset of human extinction itself.

 

[UsableThought]

Frankly guys I think the OP deserves better than empty validation of unhealthy fear. Let me try a different tack: Does anybody think that these possibilities are worthy of the OP damaging his emotional health over?

Good suggestion for redirecting the thread; just one clarification:

Fear is not unhealthy per se; it evolved for a reason; the mere experience of fear will not "damage our emotional health." For more, read up on any modern system of behavioral psychology, esp. those which acknowledge evolutionary psychology.

What matters with all averse emotions, including fear, is how we respond - both when a fear is deemed realistic, and when it is deemed unrealistic.

In this case many scientists share the OP's concerns; so his fears have a realistic basis. So how can he respond in a healthy way?

Mentally healthy and intelligent people worry about those things. So worry, but don't despair. Take the attitude that these are solvable problems -- they are -- and work to solve them. Just pick one or two and try to make a difference.

This is the correct response. A comparable situation is that we are all going to die personally; yet we don't let that make stop ourselves from making meaning in our life as best we can. The same applies more broadly to concerns about the fate of those we care about, all the way up to the level of our society and humankind as a whole.

 

[UsableThought]

@Thinkaholic, I mentioned modern behavioral psychology in my previous comment. One example of this is Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, or ACT, which is a worldwide evidence-based effort; it had a brief moment of fame when TIME magazine interviewed its founder, Steven Hayes. Another interview with Hayes is here.

A couple of points from ACT and other schools of psychological thought seem relevant to any fears we might have about the possible extinction of humankind & what we can do about it:

1) Animals can't suffer in pondering possible futures because they don't have a powerful symbolic language; humans do, and so we can imagine such futures. But it's worth noting that the future never exists as such; only the present. So one way not to get sucked into worrying about things we're not sure will happen is by paying attention to the present moment. The present is where we live, moment by moment; it's where we can take action based on what we care about.

2) Humans can and do make meaningful lives despite all sorts of dire situations. Another psychologist, Viktor Frankl, became famous for inventing a school of psychology out of a personal experience of discovering deep meaning and purpose to his life while he was imprisoned at a Nazi prison camp in German-occupied Czechoslovakia during WWII. He called his psychotherapy "Logotherapy"; it is not much practiced today, but was very influential on later research by others. A quote from the Wikipedia article on Logotherapy: "Rather than power or pleasure, logotherapy is founded upon the belief that it is the striving to find a meaning in one's life that is the primary, most powerful motivating and driving force in humans."

Frankl wrote about one of the key incidents that changed his life in the camp in his book, Man's Search for Meaning. Escape attempts from the camp were common, but only sometimes successful; even so, life at the camp was so invariably fatal over time that usually anyone who had a chance to join in an attempted escape would do so. Frankl had been offered such a chance and had decided initially to accept. He describes what happened next; just a quick note that he was also a physician, and in that role had volunteered his services to his fellow prisoners:

"I made a quick last round of my patients [just before I intended to escape], who were lying huddled on the rotten planks of wood on either side of the huts. I came to my only countryman, who was almost dying, and whose life it had been my ambition to save in spite of his condition. I had to keep my intention to escape to myself, but my comrade seemed to guess that something was wrong (perhaps I showed a little nervousness). In a tired voice he asked me, 'You, too, are getting out?' I denied it, but I found it difficult to avoid his sad look. After my round I returned to him. Again a hopeless look greeted me and somehow I felt it to be an accusation. The unpleasant feeling that had gripped me as soon as I had told my friend I would escape with him became more intense.Suddenly I decided to take fate into my own hands for once. I ran out of the hut and told my friend that I could not go with him. As soon as I had told him with finality that I had made up my mind to stay with my patients, the unhappy feeling left me. I did not know what the following days would bring, but I had gained an inward peace that I had never experienced before. I returned to the hut, sat down on the boards at my countryman's feet and tried to comfort him; then I chatted with the others, trying to quiet them in their delirium."​

So - back to your question. Suffering is normal for humans - sickness, old age, death, etc. Many societies throughout human history have endured troubled times or been destroyed; and as jackwhirl has mentioned, even the universe may come to an end - although there again we are talking about a "future" that exists solely as a symbolic construction made possible by language. We live now - we need not be prisoners of a symbolic construct. So regardless of the scenario, whether distant or immediate, whether speculative or seemingly quite real, we can choose what we value about being alive & thus how we respond.