What is an acceptable risk to destroy the earth ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vanesch
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the acceptable risk of destroying Earth, particularly in relation to the potential creation of micro black holes at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Participants argue that the acceptable risk of annihilating 6 billion lives should be significantly lower than the annual mortality rate from car accidents, which is 1.2 million. A proposed figure for the acceptable risk of Earth’s destruction is 1 in 5000 per year, based on a cost-benefit analysis of human life value. The conversation also touches on ethical considerations regarding the intrinsic value of life on Earth beyond human existence.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of risk assessment and probability theory
  • Familiarity with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and its implications
  • Knowledge of ethical frameworks in environmental discussions
  • Awareness of historical extinction events and their impact on biodiversity
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of micro black holes and Hawking radiation
  • Explore ethical theories related to environmental philosophy
  • Investigate historical extinction events and their recovery processes
  • Study risk-benefit analysis methodologies in scientific research
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, environmental scientists, ethicists, and anyone interested in the implications of scientific advancements on global risks and biodiversity.

  • #31
muppet said:
The distinction was drawn earlier in the thread between an acceptable risk - one that we voluntarily assume, like getting in a car- and those circumstances over which we have no control.

This is true, but baywax also has a point, in that relatively high risk levels associated with choices of action are usually a comparison between risk and benefit, but if the involved risk is much lower than "natural and unavoidable" risks, then it would be a bit strange to prohibit it, as it would in any way just be "noise". If we can obtain the slightest benefit out of an action which poses a risk which is orders of smaller than the natural risk (such as asteroid impact) to get us all done, then I think the discussion is moot.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
541
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
18K