A post-apocalyptic think tank

The "Centre for Existential Risk Research" (CSER) of the University of Cambridge was founded in 2012. He develops scientific methods for assessing global risk factors. The organization examines threats arising from developing technologies, dangers that no one has yet considered.

The "doomsday clock" moved forward this year for the first time since 2012. This theoretical countdown to the catastrophe was invented 67 years ago by the members of the "Bittown of Atomic Scientists", a group that was incorporated in 1945 to stand watch and included scientists who participated in the "Manhattan Project". Its current members moved the hands of that clock forward three minutes due to the threat of climate change and the slowing down of nuclear disarmament in the world.

But global warming and the nuclear crisis are not the only dangers facing humanity. There is an organization that examines threats arising from developing technologies, dangers that no one has yet considered. The "Centre for Existential Risk Research" (CSER) of the University of Cambridge was founded in 2012. He develops scientific methods for assessing global risk factors in order to find out, for example, if a scenario in which robots take over the earth is a subject of science fiction only or if such a possibility actually exists in real life. Some of the greatest minds in the world, including Stephen Hawking, Jan Talin (one of the founding engineers of Skype) and the philosopher Hugh Price, contribute their opinions.
Scientific American's representative, Erin Biba, sat down with one of the center's founders, astrophysicist Lord Martin Rees, to talk about the possibilities for the rest of life as we know it. Here are edited excerpts from it.

Why is it necessary to establish a group that delves into the dangers associated with new technologies?
Throughout human history, our ancestors faced dangers: plagues, storms, earthquakes and man-made disasters. But this century is different. It is the first century in which one species, our species, can determine the fate of the planet, threaten civilization and endanger the existence of future generations.

What kind of scenarios are you looking at?
At the moment there are very different opinions among the experts both as to the probabilities and as to the effects. Climate scientists disagree on whether there are points of no return beyond which a holocaust could occur. There is a huge range of opinions among experts in artificial intelligence: some believe that artificial intelligence at the level of a person with its own will (goals independent of the goals of humans) can develop by the middle of the century. Others believe that the chance of this is very slim. They argue that we should focus our concerns on the ethics and safety of stupid robotic automatons (like military drones). And there is already a lively debate on the issues at the forefront of biotechnology. I hope that CSER will help forge a stronger general consensus around the question of what the most real dangers are and help put them on the agenda.

What are the main dangers facing humanity in your opinion and how serious are they?
I am personally pessimistic about the community's ability to cope with biotechnological developments. As we know, at the Asilomar Conference, held in the 70s, the pioneers of molecular biology formulated guidelines for recombinant (recombinant) DNA. But these kinds of issues arise today even more sharply. Today there is a debate and concerns about the ethics and caution that must be taken with new techniques: experiments to "improve the function" of viruses and the use of genetic editing technology known as CRISPR. Compared to the 20s, today the community of scientists in the field is more global, more competitive, and more subject to commercial pressures. I'm afraid that anything that can be done will eventually be done by someone somewhere. Even if there are official and agreed upon protocols and regulations, it will be difficult to enforce them just as it is difficult to enforce laws prohibiting the use of drugs. Biotechnological mistakes and biotechnological terrorism rank first on my personal list of dangers for the medium term (next 70 to 10 years).

Is there something people fear unjustly?

Many residents of the developed world worry too much about secondary dangers (carcinogenic substances in food, low exposure to radiation, plane crashes, etc.). Some are too afraid of an asteroid strike, which is one of the most understandable natural hazards and the easiest to estimate. What's more, we will soon be able to reduce the risk of this by diverting asteroids from collision courses with Earth. This is why I am in favor of the B612 Sentinel project.

What should worry us more is new threats. These certainly deserve more attention, and those are what the CSER wants to investigate. An important rule is that the unknown is not improbable. What is at stake is so important that even if we manage to reduce the chance of a disaster by one part in a million, we have done our part.

More of the topic in Hayadan:

• "If the mass of the Higgs boson is as measured in the axis, an empty bubble will swallow the universe
• The end of the world - the predictions that did not come true
• Ten reasons that will cause the end of the world, someday

The article was published with the permission of Scientific American Israel