Welcome to the age of weapons containment: A SentDev Classic

Soon after the end of the Cold War, U.S. President George H. W. Bush declared that a new era had opened up in which he hoped that his country would become a “kinder and gentler nation.” Fifteen years later his proclamation appears naïve and gushing with idealism, but his optimism was understandable given the times; the Soviet Union had just collapsed with the Eastern Bloc going down with it, and all without a single shot fired from an American gun. The world, it seemed, had been rebooted and started anew.

Indeed, economic and cultural globalization quickly ensued, ushering in what we now regard as the post-ideological, post-bi-polar geopolitical era. Democracies and capitalism began to take root in areas completely unaccustomed to such institutions. One prominent political theorist, Francis Fukuyama, was so taken by these turn of events that he declared the new era to be the end of history.

But things haven’t turned out exactly as hoped or planned. The weight of history is still very much upon us. The events of September 11, 2001 were a wake-up call of sorts, a not-so-subtle reminder that politically instigated catastrophes are still a real and potent threat. In a world dominated by the hegemonic power of the United States, the world was introduced to the muscle of asymmetric agitation.

To be sure, today’s geopolitical situation is one in which asymmetric threats -- a phenomenon more commonly referred to as terrorism -- are taken to be the most pressing security concerns. Yet this is only part of the story. We live in an era in which conventional warfare between two or more combating nations of roughly equal power is all but behind us. Given the political and economic compatibility of so many nation states, the need and desire for war has waned considerably. As Margaret Thatcher once famously said, democracies “do not go to war with one another.” Moreover, conventional war, with all of today's high-tech tools of destruction, would surely be suicide.

As current events reveal, however, wars are still occurring -- but to call them such might be a stretch. The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, are the reactionary spasms of occupation. The current regimes in both countries have been established by the conquerors who are now cleaning up the mess of victory, albeit very poorly and haphazardly.

Still, when it comes right down to it, conflicts such as these are still very 'warlike' in their composition. And despite the decline in all-out war between nations, hostilities are still happening. There are several key factors that can account for this ongoing problem.

First, we still live in an era of the sovereign nation state where war is regarded as the self-justified continuation of diplomacy by other means. Second, there is civilization's insatiable appetite for natural resources – a factor that creates volatility in those resource rich areas whose governments are politically and economically at odds with those who desire the resources. Thirdly, and related to the first point, there are ideological reasons for entering into war, whether it be the spread of capitalism, “freedom,” religion or totalitarian ideology. Lastly, and the one I now want to shift attention to, war is a means to prevent a state from developing and using advanced weapons such as nuclear bombs and bio-weapons.

This last point is a relatively new phenomenon, one that I believe will characterize the 21st century.

The dust is finally settling after the collapse of the Cold War and a new era is starting to unfold before us. It is not an era where anyone will afford to be “kinder” or “gentler,” nor will it be an era in which so-called terrorism is the Great Threat (asymmetric threats cease to be asymmetric when the enemy has access to apocalypic technologies). Rather, the 21st century is revealing itself as the Age of Weapons Containment.

There are already strong indicators that this is the case, at least in theory. The U.S. justified its invasion of Iraq under the guise of ferreting out Saddam’s illusory weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush was successfully able to garner support for an invasion based around a seemingly tangible and dangerous threat. Sure, the reason for war was falsified, but the incident will prove to be an ominous harbinger of things to come – crises that won't involve red herrings.

Since 9/11 the world’s attention has been pre-occupied with threats of hijacked planes and hassles at the airport. At the same time the United States worked obsessively in the Middle East to guarantee its access to oil (an agenda made all the more pressing as China nears superpower status). During this time, however, the North Koreans were busy developing nuclear weapons. Now the U.S. and the international community are scrambling to figure out what to do about it. North Korea is truly a “rogue” nation if there ever was one, with a psychologically unstable and malicious leader at the helm. The question being asked the world over is: how do you take nuclear weapons away from a country once it has acquired them?

The answer is, you can’t. At least not without engaging in a brutal attack that involves nuclear weapons. Frighteningly, the only option may be to allow North Korea to keep their nukes and work to prevent other countries from joining the Nuclear Club. Yet, as the New York Times recently noted, there are at least 40 countries around the world today that have the technological know-how to develop their own nuclear weapons program. The situation seems untenable.

And it’s poised to get worse. Weapons technologies are increasingly set to increase in sophistication, destructive power, and most frightening of all, accessibility. Nuclear weapons are the first of an entirely new set of apocalyptic technologies that include genetically engineered viruses, self-replicating nanotechnology and robotics, and even malign artificial intelligence. As a consequence of these potential threats, one of two things will happen on the geopolitical stage: either agreement will finally be made on the establishment of transnational authorities, or nations will react with unilateral violence against potential threats in an effort to contain the spread of dangerous weapons.

Unfortunately, it may very well be the latter. The U.S. has already set this precedent by virtue of their invasion of Iraq -- an action in which they disregarded the U.N.'s injunctions. While the U.S. worked to prevent the spread of communism during the latter half of the 20th century, they may very well define their 21st century geopolitical role as the country that works to prevent the spread of apocalyptic technologies.

Rather than rely on international bodies, countries with the resolve and military might will react with force when a perceived threat hits the radar. As a potential example, does anyone think for one minute that Israel will stand idly by while Iran develops their own nuclear weapons? How long will Japan and South Korea hold out before they take action against North Korea?

The goal of world federalism seems as far off as ever. The international community cannot get it together and give the United Nations teeth. The United States bears much of the blame. Consequently, nations are waiting until situations become untenable and they're forced to act on their own.

Looking ahead to the future, similar revelations will occur when when bio-labs are detected in suspicious countries, or as nanotechnology and robotics industries mature. As is the case today, only until the situation looks overwhelmingly dangerous will threatened countries react. It will be an era of reactionary efforts to curtail the development and proliferation of extremely dangerous weapons. Beyond a doubt, the United States will beat a unilateral path as it faces each threat, while all the while undermining the global community and shirking its responsibility to help build a powerful international regulatory regime.

But even if transnational agencies can be created, these institutions will still have to face the same issues. Preventing the wide-spread and unchecked accessibility to apocalyptic technologies will redefine the human condition. We may have to live with a multitude of existential threats in perpetuity. This is not a good situation.

In the meantime, all eyes are on North Korea. How the international community deals with this crisis will be a very important precursor to how they will deal with even greater threats in the coming decades.

Originally posted on October 16, 2006.

Large Hadron Collider accused of being an existential threat

Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho are pursuing a lawsuit in a U.S. federal court to prevent Geneva's Large Hadron Collider from being switched on later this summer.

They're afraid that the new giant particle accelerator could destroy the entire planet.

That is, without trying to over-state the obvious, a rather extraordinary claim; it doesn't get much more serious than that.

Wagner and Sancho argue that scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, have played down the chances that the collider could produce a tiny black hole or a strangelet that would convert Earth to a shrunken mass of strange matter.

They also claim that CERN has failed to provide an environmental impact statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This case illustrates a disturbing new trend -- one that started with the development of the atomic bomb: we are increasingly coming into the possession of technologies that could cause the complete extinction of the human species.

Or, at the very least, technologies that we think might destroy us.

Memories of the Manhattan Project

We don't know for certain that the collider will create a black hole or cause some other unpredictable disaster.

But we suspect that it might. Thus, it has to be considered an existential risk.

This is now the second time this has happened to us.

Back during the early days of the Manhattan Project, a number of scientists voiced their concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by "igniting" the atmosphere. It was decided that the threat was very low and, as we all know, the United States went ahead and detonated the first bomb on July 16, 1945.

But for a brief moment 63 years ago, some concerned observers held their breath and nervously watched at the bomb lit-up the New Mexico sky.

And now we have a new contender for the perceived existential threat de jour.

Let science be our guide

Is the Hadron Collider an existential risk? Well, based on our current understanding of physics, we have to conclude that there is a non-zero probability that the collider will act in a way that could destroy the planet.

Just how non-zero is the next big question.

Three years ago, Max Tegmark and Nick Bostrom wrote a piece for Nature in which they took a stab at the question. They warned that humanity has been lulled into a false sense of security and that "the fact that the Earth has survived for so long does not necessarily mean that such disasters are unlikely, because observers are, by definition, in places that have avoided destruction."

To reach an answer, they combined physics, philosophy, probability theory (and most assuredly a hefty dose of wild-ass guessing) and concluded that a civilization destroys itself by a particle accelerator experiment once every billion years.

Admittedly, one in a billion seems excruciatingly improbable.

So let's have some fun and smash those particles together at extreme velocities.

But I have to wonder: what if they had concluded a one in a million chance? Is that sufficiently low? Remember, we're talking about the fate of all human life here.

What about one in a hundred thousand?

At what probability point do we call it all off?

How will we ever be able to agree? And would our conclusions cause us to become cripplingly risk averse?

I have no good answers to these questions, suffice to say that we need to continually develop our scientific sensibilities so that we can engage in risk assessment with facts instead of conjectures and hysteria.

The new normal

Moving forward, we can expect to see the sorts of objections being made by Wagner and Sancho become more frequent. Today's it's particle accelerator experiments. Tomorrow it will be molecular nanotechnology. The day after tomorrow it will be artificial intelligence.

And then there are all those things we haven't even thought of yet.

The trick for human civilization will be to figure out how to assess tangible threats, determine level of risk, and devise steps on how to take action.

But it doesn't end there. Inevitably, we will develop technologies that have great humanitarian potential, but are like double-edged swords. Molecular nanotechnology certainly comes to mind.

Consequently, we also have to figure out how to manage our possession of an ever-increasing arsenal of doomsday weapons.

It will be a juggling act where one single mistake will mean the end of all human life.

Not a good proposition.

Blessed are the doomsayers

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -- Woody Allen

Back in 2000 Sun Microsystems chief scientist Bill Joy published his now famous (or is that infamous?) warning cry, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." Soon thereafter philosopher Nick Bostrom published his seminal paper on existential risks and Sir Martin Rees released his book, Our Final Hour. Even thinkers like Stephen Hawking and James Lovelock chimed in, warning that human civilization is headed in a bad way.

And it was only recently that the Doomsday Clock was once again moved foward.

Indeed, doom mongering has suddenly crept back into fashion. A new breed of Chicken Littles has emerged. But these aren't your run-of-the-mill street corner nut jobs warning that the end is nigh. Rather, these are serious thinkers with excellent credentials.

And in my own small way I have also contributed to this burgeoning neo-doom culture. A good portion of my thinking and writing is devoted to the topic. It's an important issue for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (where I'm on the Board of Directors). I'm also advising for the Lifeboat Foundation, an organization dedicated to foresight and disaster prevention.

I settled into this vein quite unintentionally and unwillingly; the more I delved into the issue, however, the more I became convinced that looming catastrophic risks were indeed a problem.

Needless to say there has been considerable negative reaction to what is perceived as unjustified fear mongering and hyper negativity. Doomsayers are often scorned and put to task on their grim prognostications. Many critics contend that today's catastrophists are no different that those from the past. For them, it's deja vu all over again.

Popular targets

Doomsayers are often ridiculed or ignored altogether mainly on account of the fact that an existential catastrophe has yet to actually happen. Catastrophism evokes images of apocalyptic religions and doomsday cults -- Book of Revelations type stuff, end of the world, judgment day, and so on.

Observation tells us that the worst predictions rarely, if ever, come true. Humans, after all, are still alive and kicking 60 years after the development of the atomic bomb. Moreover, despite localized violence in many parts of the world today, conditions for human existence have never been better. And the problems that do exist, like climate change, do not appear overwhelming intractable.

The human psyche is repelled by despair; it flees from it like the plague. Few want to associate themselves with the fear mongering doomsayers. It is a position that is inherently unattractive, with all its pessimism, defeatism and paranoia.

Catastrophists have been accused of using their position to increase social status. Worse, doomsayers are seen as providing fodder for advantageous politicians who use scare tactics in their politicking. There's no better way to control and manipulate a populace by exploiting their fears.

Enter the new doomsayers

Doomsaying went out of style thanks to the euphoria caused by the end of the Cold War. An idealistic complacency settled in, and much of society lived in utter denial of humanity's ongoing apocalyptic potential.

These days, in our post 9/11 world, disaster scenarios have once again regained currency. The fall of the bi-polar geopolitical arrangement has led to a much more unstable multi-polar global regime, while the United States exhibits a hegemonic attitude despite not actually being one.

Further, an entirely new generation of apocalyptic threats have been uncovered by scientists and technologists. Theoretical possibilities include catastrophic devastation in the wake of deliberately engineered pathogens, self-replicating molecular nanotechnology run amok, run-away global warming, and poorly programmed artificial intelligence. There are undoubtedly many more. Humanity will in short order have access to a growing arsenal of apocalyptic technologies; we'll soon be spinning plates -- and eventually one of them is going to fall.

Adding insult to injury are philosophical and observational indicators suggesting that humanity does not have a very promising future. These include the Doomsday Argument and the Fermi Paradox.

Confronting the grim and bitter truth

Intelligence, which has in the short run been the most powerful evolutionary trait ever witnessed, may ultimately prove to be a fatal adaptation. It may very well be that civilizations eventually extinguish themselves under the weight of their untenable technological complexity.

Our past success as a civilization does not guarantee future gain. Yes, we survived the Cold War, but as an apocalypse wielding species, we are now perpetually living on borrowed time. In our militaristic, real politik world, the notion of abolishing and containing these weapons is a pipe-dream.

Off the mark?

Of course, I and many other doomsayers may be wrong; my view of the future may be considerably off the mark.

A number of scenarios come to mind. A quasi-totalitarian and planetary wide police state could be imposed; the nation state may die as a political entity resulting in the significant lessening of geopolitical tensions; ongoing memetic homogenization may alleviate the pressure exerted by radical non-state actors; democratic institutions may prove to be successful in how they manage the development, application and proliferation of apocalyptic technologies; effective prophylaxis may be developed to counter the effects of catastrophic technologies (e.g. space-based defenses and Active Shields).

Don't blame the messenger

More to the point, however, none of the doomsayers are saying, "abandon hope all ye who enter here." On the contrary, despite the seemingly impossible odds, the purpose of the doomsaying exercise is to raise awareness. Human civilization needs to work to prevent catastrophe -- and prevention cannot happen without foresight. These threats are a call to action. Failure to properly assess and elucidate these threats could quite literally result in human extinction.

Societies need doomsayers to eliminate passivity and indifference so that a safe future can be engineered.

Even if that may be an impossible task.