The structure of the global catastrophe

, :
http://www.humanextinction.ru/

Go to for latest version of the translation.

STRUCTURE OF THE GLOBAL CATASTROPHE Risks of human extinction in the XXI century
RUSSIAN TRANSHUMANIST MOVEMENT


A.V. Turchin


STRUCTURE OF THE GLOBAL CATASTROPHE
Risks of human extinction in the XXI century

Parenthetical word: Nick Bostrom
The foreword: G.G. Malinetski





Moscow 2008

A SERIES DIALOGUES ABOUT THE FUTURE
V.2
Editor-in-chiefs:
I. V. Sledzevsky
Valery Prajd

Mail to: avturchin@mail.ru
Address:

 


The Book The structure of global catastrophe. Risks of the human extinction in the 21st Century of A.V. Turchin is urgent scientific research of the global risks, which threaten existence of humanity in this century. In the first part of the book different sources of global risks are examined.
In the first chapter are discussed general principles of the study and are given background of the question.
At the beginning the risks, connected with nuclear weapon, are examined. Nuclear winter and cobalt bomb is examined.
In the following chapter the risks, connected with the global chemical infection, are examined. Then are examined the risks, created by biological weapon. DNA sequansors in the future they will create the possibility of the appearance of bio hackers. The conclusion is that the simultaneous appearance many bio hackers in the future is very essential risk. Even if people survive, is possible the loss of the biosphere as a result of the application green goo.
 Then is examined the possibility of appearance over the narcotic, which will turn off people from reality.
In the fourth chapter are examined the risks, created by strong artificial intellect AI.
Then shown analysis of the risks of nano-technologies. The appearance of military nano-robots is extremely dangerous. Furthermore, is possible the creation gray goo by hackers. The unlimited multiplication of replicators can lead to the extinction of people. The scenarios of the output of robots from under the control are examined.
In 8 chapter the methods of the provocation of natural catastrophes by technical equipment are investigated. The possibility of the man-made explosion of superes-volcano, deviation of asteroids and intentional destruction of ozone layer is studied.
In 9 chapter the risks, connected with the fundamentally new discoveries, are examined. This include risks, connected with the dangerous physical experiments, for example, on the large hadron collider LHC. Are examined scenarios of the appearance of microscopic black holes, strangelaets, magnetic monopoles, phase transitions of false vacuum. The risks of deep drilling and penetration into the mantle of the Earth in the spirit of Stevenson's probe are discussed.
In 10 chapters the risks, created by future space technologies, are examined. The mastery of space with the aid of the self-multiplying robots will make possible to free enormous destructive forces. Are considered kseno biological risks.
In 11 chapters are examined the risks, connected with the program SETI. Is extremely dangerous the rash load of the extraterrestrial messages, which can contain description and drawings of artificial intellect hostile to us.
In 12 chapters different natural catastrophes, which are powerful to lead to the loss of civilization, are examined. This and the loss of the universe as a result of new Big Bang, and the eruption of supervolcano, and global earthquakes, and a drop in the asteroids, and Gammaray bursts and solar flares, and supernovas.
In 13 chapters are examined extremely improbable scenarios of extinction.
In 14 chapters it is told about the influence of antropic principle and observant selection on frequency and probability of natural catastrophes.
15 chapter are dedicated to global warming, in the spirit of Lavlock and Karnaukhova which can result in nature of greenhouse catastrophe with an increase in the temperature higher than boiling point of water.
In 16 chapter are examined the anthropogenic threats, not connected with the new technologies - exhaustion of resources, weakening of fertility, overpopulation, displacement by another specie, social economic crisis.
17 chapter are dedicated to the methods of detecting the new scenarios of global catastrophes. Is examined the theory of the Doomsday machine.
Chapter 18 is dedicated to the multifactor scenarios of risk. Here is examined the tendency of the integration of different technologies - NBIC. The paired scenarios of risk are examined. Also are examined the types of people and organizations, ready to risk by the fate of planet. The problems of making a decision about a nuclear strike are examined.
In chapter 19 the events, which change the probability of global catastrophe, are examined. Is discussed the idea of technological singularity, role of the progress in an increase in the threats to existence. System crisis as the important factor of risk is considered. Overshooting leads to the simultaneous exhaustion of all resources. Here is introduced idea of the crisis of crises, which is connected with the contemporary mortgage crisis, the financial crisis, the credit crisis. Are examined the factors of World War, arm race, moral degradation.
In 20 chapter are examined the factors, which influence of the speed of progress, first of all Moore's law and the influence of the economy on it.
21 chapter is dedicated to the problem of averting global risks. Is examined the general concept of possibility to avert different risks. Are discussed different active shields - nano- shield, Biot shild, and also the IAEA and ABM. The problems of the creation of global monitoring system are discussed. It is shown that this system will create new risks, since in it failures are possible. Are examined the problems of the cessation of technical progress, creation of refuges and bunkers, far space settlements - all these methods do not guarantee human survival. Examined a question about infinity of the universe and quantum immortality and many world immortality. Studied a question about that if we live in the matrix.
22 chapter are dedicated to the indirect methods of evaluating the probability of global catastrophe. Are examined the law of Pareto, Doomsday Argument, the Gott formula, the Fermi paradox, Bostrom's arguement about simulation. The attempt to combine the received results is undertaken.
In 23 chapter the most probable scenarios of planetary catastrophe taking into account already aforesaid are examined.
In the second part of the book the methodology of the analysis of global risks is examined. First of all the speech is about about the calculation of different cognitive biases, which influence human thinking. Pioneer value here have works of E. Ydkowsky.
In 1 chapter there are considered the role of errors as intellectual catastrophes.
In 2 chapter is gievrn the list of the errors, which are possible only relative to the global risks, which threaten the survival of mankind.
In 3 chapter the cognitive biases, which influence the estimation of any risks, are examined.
In 4 chapter are examined the universal logical errors, which are powerful to appear, also, in the reasonings about the threats to humanity.
In 5 chapter the specific errors, which are powerful to be manifested in the discussions about the danger AI are examined.
In 6 chapter the cognitive distortions, which influence the perception of the risks of the nano-technologies are examined.
In 7 chapter preliminary recommendations for the efficient estimation of global risks are given.
In the conclusion are analyzed the prospects of averting the global risks, on the basis of the current situation in the world.

Contents
Parenthetical word by Nick Bostrom. 16
G.G. Malinetsky. Reflexions about the inconceivable. 17
Preface 37
Terms 43
Introduction 45
Part 1. The analysis of Risks 46
Chapter 1. The general remarks 46
Space of possibilities 46
Problems of calculation of probabilities of various scenarios 49
Principles of classification of global risks 66
Chapter 2. Nuclear weapons 67
2.1 "Nuclear winter. 69
2.2 Full radioactive contamination 74
2.3 Other dangers of the nuclear weapon 76
2.4 Integration of hurting factors of the nuclear weapons. 80
2.5 Cost of creation of the nuclear potential, able to threaten a survival of a human civilisation 80
2.6 Probability of the global catastrophe caused by the nuclear weapons 81
2.7 Change of probability of the global catastrophe caused by the nuclear weapon by time 84
2.8 Strategy of nuclear deterrence is in doubt 85
2.9 Nuclear terrorism as the factor of global catastrophe 86
2.10. Conclusions on risks of application of the nuclear weapon 86
Chapter 3. Global chemical contamination 87
Conclusions about technologically ready risks 91
The risks, which appearance it seems inevitable, proceeding from current character of development of technologies 92
Chapter 4. The biological weapons 92
The general reasons and the basic scenarios 92
Structure of biological catastrophe 95
"Self-replicating" synthesizer of DNA 96
Plural biological strike 97
Biological delivery systems 97
Probability of application of the biological weapon and its distribution in time 98
Chapter 5. Superdrug 101
Chapter 6. The risks connected with self-copiing ideas (meme) 105
Chapter 7. Artificial intelligence 106
The general description of a problem 107
AI as universal absolute weapon 110
System of the goals 111
Struggle of AI-projects among themselves 112
The advanced human 112
AI and its separate copies 113
AI "revolt" 113
Speed of start 113
Scenarios of "fast start 114
Slow start and struggle of different AI among themselves 115
Smooth transition. Transformation of total control state into AI 115
"Revolt" of robots 117
The control and destruction possibility 118
AI and the states 119
Probability of AI catastrophe 119
Other risks connected with computers 121
Time of creation of AI 121
Chapter 8. The risks connected with robots and nanotechnologies. 123
The robot-spray 124
The self-reproducing robot. 125
Cloud of microrobots 125
The armies of large fighting robots leaving from under the control 125
The nanotehnological weapons 126
Unlimited spreading of self-breeding nanorobots 127
Probability of appearance nanorobots and possible time for this event 130
Chapter 9. Technological ways of intended creation of natural catastrophes 130
Deviation of asteroids 131
Creation of an artificial supervolcano 132
Intended destruction of the ozone layer 134
Chapter 10. The technological risks connected with essentially new discovery 134
Unsuccessful physical experiment 134
The new types of weapon, the new energy sources, new environments of distribution and ways of long-range action 139
Chapter 11. The risks created by space technologies 139
Attack on the Earth by means of the space weapons 139
Chapter 12. The risks connected with program SETI 144
Algorithm of SETI attack. 147
Analysis of possible goals. 151
Objections. 154
Chapter 13. The risks connected with washing out of borders between human and inhuman 157
Chapter 14. The risks connected with natural catastrophes 159
Universal catastrophes 159
Geological catastrophes 161
Eruptions of supervolcanoes 162
Zone of defeat depending on force of explosion 166
Solar flashes and luminosity increase 168
Supernova stars 173
Super-tsunami 174
Marginal natural risks 178
Violation of the stability of the Earth's atmosphere 178
Unknown processes in the core of the Earth 179
Sudden de-gasation of the gases dissolved at world ocean 181
Explosions of other planets of solar system 182
Nemesis 183
Cancellation of "protection" which to us provided Antropic principle 183
Chapter 15. Global warming 186
Chapter 16. The anthropogenous risks which have been not connected with new technologies 189
Exhaustion of resources 189
Overpopulation 191
Crash of the biosphere 193
Social and economic crisis. War 193
Genetic degradation and lose of fertility 193
Replacement by other biological specie 195
Chapter 17. The causes of catastrophes unknown to us now 195
Chapter 18. Ways of detection of one-factorial scenarios of global catastrophe 196
The general signs of any dangerous agent 196
Ways of appearance 197
Exit from the beginning point and the distribution around the world 197
Distribution is more important than destruction 198
Way of distribution 199
Way of causing of death 200
Typical kinds of destroying influence 201
Time structure of the event 202
Preemergencies 203
Intended and casual global catastrophe 204
The Doomsday Machine 205
Chapter 19. Multifactorial scenarios 206
Integration of the various technologies, creating situations of risk 207
Pair scenarios 208
Studying of global catastrophes by means of models and analogies 212
Inevitability of achievement of a steady condition 215
Recurrent risks 216
Global risks and problem of rate of their increase 217
Comparative force of different dangerous technologies 218
Sequence of appearance of various technologies in time 219
Comparison of various technological risks 220
The purposes of creation of the Doomsday weapon 222
The social groups, willing to risk destiny of the planet 227
The generalising factor connected with the human 228
Decision-making on a nuclear attack 229
The price of the question 231
The universal cause of the extinction of civilizations. 233
Chapter 20. The events changing probability of global catastrophe. 235
Definition and the general reasons 235
Events which can open a vulnerability window 236
System crises 237
Technological Singularity 248
Overshooting leads to simultaneous exhaustion of all resources 251
System crisis and technological risks 253
System technological crisis - the most probable scenario of global catastrophe 254
Chapter 21. Cryptowars, arms race and others scenario factors raising probability of global catastrophe 255
Cryptowar 255
Vulnerability to midget influences 256
Arm race. 257
Moral degradation 258
Animosities in the society as scenario factor 259
Revenge as scenario factor 260
War as scenario factor 261
Global discontamination 263
"Shaking" management 264
Controllable and uncontrollable global risk. Problems of understanding of global risk 264
The general models of behaviour of systems on the verge of stability 267
The law of techno-humanitarian balance 268
Schemes of scenarios 269
Degree of motivation and awareness of humans making of the decision, as factors of global risk 270
Chapter 22. The factors influencing for speed of progress 272
Global risks of the third sort 273
Moore's law 274
Chapter 23. Protection from global risks 278
The general notion of preventable global risks 278
Active shields. 281
Existing and future shields 283
Saving the world balance of power 285
Possible system of control over the global risks 286
Conscious stop of technological progress 287
Means of preventive strike 288
Removal of sources of risks on considerable distance from the Earth 290
Creation of independent settlements in the remote corners of the Earth 290
Creation of the file on global risks and growth of public understanding of the problematics connected with them 291
Quick spreading in space 296
All somehow will manage itself 298
Degradation of the civilisation to level of a steady condition 298
Prevention of one catastrophe by means of another 299
Advance evolution of the man 299
Possible role of the international organizations in prevention of global catastrophe 300
Infinity of the Universe and question of irreversibility of human extinction 303
Assumptions of that we live in "Matrix". 304
Global catastrophes and society organisation 305
The world after global catastrophe 309
The world without global catastrophe: the best realistic variant of prevention of global catastrophes 311
Maximizing pleasure if catastrophe is inevitable. 311
Chapter 24. Indirect ways of an estimation of probability of global catastrophe 312
Paretos Law 313
Hypothesis about the Black queen 314
Fermi's paradox 315
Doomsday argument. Gotts formula. 316
Carter-Leslie doomsday argument 319
Indirect estimation of probability of natural catastrophes 323
Simulation Argument 325
Integration of various indirect estimations 329
Chapter 25. The most probable scenario of global catastrophe 332
Part 2. Methodology of the analysis of global risks 338
Chapter 1. The general remarks. An error as intellectual catastrophe 338
Chapter 2. Errors, possible only concerning threats to mankind existence 342
1. Mess concerning global catastrophes and simple very big catastrophes 342
2. Underestimation of unevident risks 343
3. Global risks are not equal to national security 343
4. The error connected with psyhologization of a problem 344
5. An identification of global catastrophe with death of all people and on the contrary 344
6. A stereotype of perception of catastrophes which has developed as a result of work of mass-media 345
7. The possible errors connected with the fact that global catastrophe never occurred with us 345
8. Cognitive bias, consisting in that thinking about global risks automatically switch on a certain archetype of the rescuer of the world 346
9. Underestimation of global risks because of psychological mechanisms of ignoring of thoughts on own death 346
10. The errors connected by that the one who investigates global catastrophes as a whole, is compelled to rely on opinions of experts in different areas of knowledge 347
13. Absence of clear understanding to whom instructions on global risks are turned 347
14. Feature of communication between theoretical and practical concerning global risks 348
45. Uncertainty of values of new terms 359
Chapter 3. As the distortions, able to concern any risks, influence an estimation of global risks 359
5. Skill of conducting disputes is harmful 360
16. Underestimation of value of remote events (discount rate) 365
17. Conscious unwillingness to know the unpleasant facts 366
23. Difficulty in delimitation of own knowledge 367
24. Humour as the factor of possible errors 368
25. A panic 368
26. Drowsiness and other factors of natural instability of the human consciousness, influencing appearance of errors 368
86. The top border of possible catastrophe is formed on the basis of last experience 388
97. The minimum perceived risk 393
Chapter 4. The Obshchelogichesky errors, able to be shown in reasonings on global risks 398
24. The St.-Petersburg paradox 405
Chapter 5. The specific errors arising in discussions about danger of uncontrollable development of an artificial intellect 410
Chapter 6. The specific errors connected by reasonings on risks of use nanotechnology 420
12. E.Dreksler about possible objections of a realizability nanotechnology 422
Chapter 7. Conclusions from the analysis distortions in an estimation of global risks 425
Chapter 8. Possible rules for rather effective estimation of global risks 425
The conclusion. Prospects of prevention of global catastrophes 427


G.G.Malinetsky. Reflexions about inconceivable 4
Global instability 5
Psychological discourse 9
Problem of the tool 12
In the plan behind harbingers 17
The foreword 23
Parenthesis Bostrom. 29
Terms 30
Introduction 32
Part 1. The analysis Is brave 34
Chapter 1. The general remarks 34
Chapter 2. The nuclear weapon 56
Chapter 3. Global chemical contamination 76
Chapter 4. The biological weapon 81
Chapter 5. A superdrug 90
Chapter 6. The risks connected with self-copied ideas () 93
Chapter 7. The Artificial intellect 95
Chapter 8. The risks connected with robots and nanotechnology 110
Chapter 9. Technological ways natural natural catastrophes 118
Chapter 10. The technological risks connected with essentially new discovery 121
Chapter 11. The risks created by space technologies 126
Chapter 12. The risks connected with program SETI 131
Chapter 13. The risks connected with washing out of borders between human and inhuman 141
Chapter 14. The risks connected with natural catastrophes 142
Chapter 15. Global warming 166
Chapter 16. The anthropogenous risks which have been not connected with new technologies 169
Chapter 17. The reasons of catastrophes unknown to us now 175
Chapter 18. Ways of detection of one-factorial scenarios of global catastrophe 176
Chapter 19. Multifactorial scenarios 186
Chapter 20. The events changing probability of global catastrophe. 210
Chapter 21. , arms race and others the factors raising probability of global catastrophe 229
Chapter 22. The factors influencing for speed of progress 246
Chapter 23. Protection against global risks 251
Chapter 24. Indirect ways of an estimation of probability of global catastrophe 282
Chapter 25. The Most probable scenario of global catastrophe 300
Part 2. Methodology of the analysis of global risks. 305
Chapter 1. The general remarks. An error as intellectual catastrophe. 305
Chapter 2. Errors, possible only concerning threats to existence of mankind 309
Chapter 3. As the distortions, able to concern any risks, influence an estimation of global risks 325
Chapter 4. The Obshchelogichesky errors, able to be shown in reasonings on global risks 362
Chapter 5. The specific errors arising in discussions about danger of uncontrollable development of an artificial intellect 373
Chapter 6. The specific errors connected by reasonings on risks of use nanotechnology 383
Chapter 7. Conclusions from the analysis distortions in an estimation of global risks 388
Chapter 8. Possible rules for rather effective estimation of global risks 388
The conclusion. Prospects of prevention of global catastrophes 390
The literature: 391
The appendix 1. The table of catastrophes. 402
The appendix 2. Articles. 440
E.Yudkowsky. The Artificial intellect as the positive and negative factor of global risk. 440
N.Bostrom. Introduction in the Theorem of the Doomsday. 495
A.A.Kononov. The ideological beginnings of the general theory mankind 500
Notes: 515
 
Parenthetical word by Nick Bostrom.

Lots of academics spend a lot of time thinking about a lot of things. Unfortunately, threats to the human species is not yet one of them. We may hope that this will change, and perhaps this volume will help stimulate more research on this topic.
I have tried to investigate various aspects of the subject matter, but the study of existential risk is still very much in its infancy. I see it as part of a larger endeavor. As humanity's technological and economic powers grow, and as our scientific understanding deepens, we need to become better at thinking carefully and critically about the really big picture questions for humanity. We need to apply to these big questions at least the same level of attention to detail and analytic rigor that we would expect of a scientific study of the breeding habits of the dung fly or the composition of the rings of Saturn. We know that insight into these little things does not come by clapping our hands, and we should not expect that wisdom about big things to be any easier. But if we make the effort, and if we try to be intellectually honest, and if we build on the vast amount of relevant science that already exists, we are likely to make some progress over time. And that would be an important philanthropic contribution.

Nick Bostrom
Oxford, 7 December 2007
 
Preface


 G.G. Malinetsky. Reflexions about the inconceivable.


G.G. Malinetsky is Deputy director of Keldysh Institute of applied mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

I envy Proust. Revelling past, he leant against rather strong basis: quite reliable present and conclusive future. But for us the past became the past doubly, time is twice lost, because together in due course we have lost also the world in which this time flew. There was a breakage. Progress of centuries has interrupted. And we do not already know, when, in what century we live and whether will be for us any future.
R. Merl. Malville
The picture drawn by me, not necessarily should be a picture of full despondency: after all, inevitable catastrophes, probably, are not inevitable. And, of course, chances to avoid catastrophe begins to grow if we safely look to catastrophe face to face and we will estimate its danger.
A. Azimov. A choice of catastrophes
Such book should appear. Its time has come. It would be good, that it has been written years on 20 earlier. But you cant change the past any more, and it is necessary to think about the future, project it and to comprehend its dangers, risks and threats.
This book is on the verge between the review of the works devoted to scenarios of global catastrophe, executed in the world, between futurological research and the methodological analysis of existing approaches. The author of the book - Alexey Turchin - aspires to the objective analysis, to scientific character, to complete judgement of global risks. Unconditional advantage of the book is its intellectual honesty, aspiration to clear split of the facts, results, hypotheses, doubts, conjectures.
Likely, many readers will have a natural question how the undertaken research corresponds with concrete works on management of risks and designing of the future which are actively conducted in Russia and in the world. About the "bridge", connecting the analysis of hypothetical catastrophes and work under the forecast and the prevention of real failures, disasters, extreme situations, likely, also it is necessary to tell in the foreword to this book.

Global instability
macroshift is a transformation of a civilisation, in which motive power is the technology, and shift by presence of critical weight of the people who have realised necessity of updating of system of values is started.
E. Laslo. "Macroshift"
Possibly, right now the mankind makes the most important and significant choice in the history. In the self-organising theory - synergetrics (literally, theories of joint action) - are essentially important concept bifurcation. The word has come from the French language where means bifurcation, branching. Bifurcation is a situation of change of number or stability of decisions of certain type at parametre change.
In our case in parameter is the time (more precisely, historical slow time as its outstanding French historian Fernan Brodel named). "Decision" are the major quantitative parametres characterising ways of life of our civilisation. And now during a lifetime of one generation the previous trajectory of development are loosing stability.
The obvious certificate to it is a technological limit to which the civilisation has approached. By estimations of ecologists if all world starts to live today under standards of California all reconnoitered stocks of minerals will suffice by one kinds of minerals for 2,5 years, on another on 4. The mankind lives beyond the means - for a year it consumes such quantity of hydrocarbons on which creation at the nature left more than 2 million years. Several years ago there has been passed the important boundary - more than third of oil has started to be extracted on a shelf and from oceanic depths. The Brazilian and American firms have begun drill in the sea on depths of 2,5 kilometers. What it was easy to reach, is already mastered or settled.
The science of the XX century has not solved a problem of manufacture of necessary quantity of a cheap net energy and its effective accumulation. The evident certificate of present world oil crisis a rise in prices for oil with 7 (several decades ago) to 140 dollars for barrel. The same concerns manufactures of the foodstuffs, scenarios of the economic development, aggravating problems of globalisation. Becomes obvious, that the former trajectory of development of mankind has lost stability. Also it is necessary consciously and reasonably choose a new trajectory, or circumstances will choose it for us.
In synergetrics it is shown, that near to a point bifurcation instability takes place. And the small reasons can have the big consequences. We see set of signs of instability of a modern reality. Instability always were the companion of development of mankind.
Instability as the synergetrics shows, have different character. For example, in linear systems they develop on exponential law or, that is the same, on a geometrical progression - in identical number of times for identical time. The elementary example of such growth gives Malthusian equation.
 . (1)
Under the assumption of the English priest and the professor of the Ost-Indian company Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), under this law grow number of all species, including man. From the school mathematics the decision of this equation N (t) = N0exp (;t) is known. If to increase initial data twice also the decision will increase twice: the response proportional to influence - the general line of all linear systems.
It is very fast law. According to it, for example, since 1960th years, the computer industry develops. There it is called Moore's law: each 18 months degree of integration of elements of a microcircuit (and with it and speed of computers) doubles.
However there are also faster laws, characteristic for nonlinear systems, for example, systems with a positive feedback. In them the deviation causes the reaction of system increasing a deviation, increasing more strongly, than in the equation (1).
Such instability is described, for example, by the equation (2)
. (2)
But the growth law here is absolutely different:
. (3)
Here is the blow-up regime when the investigated parameter increases beyond all bounds for limited time tf , which itself depends from initial parameters tf = 1 / ;N0.
All it is not mathematical exercise, and has the direct relation to our present and the future. Researches of last decades the XX centuries and findings of paleodemographs, have shown, that number of mankind throughout two millions years frew exactly under the law (2), instead of under the law (1), and the peaking moment is near tf ;;2025.
The law (3) describes singularity point (or exception). Experts in forecasting call the Singularity a hypothetical point in time near to 2030 in which a number prognostic curves go in infinity. Many experts connect it with explosive development of technical progress, in particular information-telecommunication, nano, bio and cogno technologies (English abbreviation is NanoBioInfoCogno - NBIC), with qualitative change of mankind.
Let's argue as the realists firmly standing on the Earth. Peoples number can not be infinitely large. Therefore the law (3), hyperbolic growth of number of mankind - the main spring of history throughout many centuries - should change. And it occurs. Occurs last 20 years - throughout a life of one generation. It is a question of change of algorithms of development of a civilisation. The closest event of such scale - Neolithic revolution in result of which the mankind managed to pass from hunting and collecting to agriculture and to cattle breeding. By estimations of some experts, during this revolution number of mankind has decreased almost in 10 times.
It is a challenge to the mankind and science, comparable with nothing. The condition of resources, societies and biospheres forces us in very short term of 15-20 years to update or considerably change all set of life-supporting technologies (power, foodstuffs manufacture, transport, management of a society and many other things).
As a matter of fact, it is a question of type bifurcation. Science of ssynergetrics distinguishes soft bifurcation and rigid bifurcations. In soft bifurcations passage of the new arisen trajectories lay in a vicinity of former, which has lost stability. And further gradually, evolutionary leave from it as parametre is changing. It is a result of important and responsible choice which was made, which essence and value would be found out later, and the development goes evolutionary. It is a variant of the future which is expected by the professor S. P. Kapitsa.
But sometimes also happens rigid bifurcations when the close branch of trajectory is not present and, say, there is a transition to another branch, far enough from previous the branch. This is revolutionary event. It would not be desirable to think, that it waits mankind the next decades, but it is also impossible to exclude such variant. And the common sense prompts, that, hoping for the best, it is necessary to count on the worst and, of course, seriously to reflect on it.
It also is a leitmotif of the book of A. V. Turchin. As a matter of fact, it is the first scientific (how much it possible to be scientific at the analysis of tragic, unprecedented, never occurring events) work devoted to the given circle of problems. The discussed direction of thought develops some decades in the West. Corresponding works are published in many authoritative scientific magazines, in particular, in Nature. It is natural to acquaint the domestic reader with this direction of searches which can appear very important (who it is warned, that is armed).
In a point bifurcation uncertainty is very great. And promises of the light future adjoins to apocalyptic scenarios. But also those, and other hypotheses should be a subject of serious discussion and the analysis. The author rather honestly discusses the problem. He possesses excellent logic, huge erudition, good style and fine ability to classification. Nevertheless, the book is debatable. The pronoun "I" appears on its pages much more often, than it is accepted in the scientific literature. I think, this aspiration to incur responsibility for own statements is reputable.
Psychological discourse
Everything, everything, that threatens with destruction,
For mortal heart conceals
Unexplainable pleasures -
Immortality, maybe, pledge!
And one is happy who among anxiety
Them could find and know.
A.S. Pushkin
The fear in general and fear of death in particular is the important component of individual and collective consciousness. The place, which it occupies, depends on a condition of human and a society. During epoch of changes, instability, uncertainty this place becomes very big. It is possible to judge about it by the beginning XX century in Russia - a fashion on mediums, mysticism, God-seeking, Grigory Rasputin at power tops. Alexey Turchin not occasionally gives as an epigraph words from the performance which was put by summer residents in Chekhovian play "Seagull". These are words about the end of times when on the Earth any more does not retain anything live. A death and immortality problem - a core of any religious outlook.
The critical period, time of a choice and uncertainty in the future worries now our civilisation. The Modernist style project connected with hopes of technical progress, capable qualitatively to improve a life of people, on more effective, intelligent and fair ways of life, on cultural development, on formation of scientific outlook - is in deep crisis. It is resisted by a Postmodern which is postulating plurality of senses, values, ways of knowledge, types of a society and is denying element of objectivity necessary for comparison, and also possibility of dialogue of cultures, civilisations, schools. The science in postmodernist tradition appears on one board with religious sects, mediums, psychics. The philosophy which served during New time as a support of development, starts to loosen base of world order. the death of the God turns us not to the limited positive world, it turns us to that world that dismisses itself experience of limit, in the act of an excess, of the abusing, overcoming this limit, crossing through it, breaking it, - wrote one of classics of philosophy of a postmodernism of M. Fuko about a fundamental metaphor of this direction - death of the God.
On the other hand, the Modern project is attacked by Countermodernism connected with return to religious tradition, with fundamentalism, with refusal of some arisen during realisation of the project the Modernist style moral and the ethical standards, of many achievements of culture. The place of science is occupying by mystic, magic and religion. Therefore at such socially-psychological background even to discuss the questions considered in the book, it is very hard. And consequently A. V. Turchin has chosen the rational, deliberately-dryish form of the review deprived of emotional colouring. And it is represented very intelligent.
Obviously, there are two reactions to such texts. The first is the general, at level of ordinary consciousness, mistrust reaction. I will give an example such reasoning: why horror stories so are hardy? Well it is fine, all right, a self-preservation instinct but after all it is known, what those threats about which speak, and those threats which human then will face, essentially differ So why the collective unconscious will not modify the relation to a prophecy of threats? Yes it is very simple - not only the written history is written by winners. They also form collective unconscious Here so the archetype is corrected - unrealized horrors are forgotten, and the love to horror stories - lives . I will notice in brackets, that for many horrors have not come true, it required in some cases enormous means and efforts of very many people.
Reverse of this coin is attempts to solve intrinsic, social, psychological, world outlook questions by technological means. Here it is possible to cite as an example - projects of radical prolongation of a life (with the help stem sells, microrobots or somehow differently), crionics (freezings after death, in hope, that descendants will be engaged in revival, treatment etc.), many initiatives of transhumanistic movement. For example, one of active workers of this movement, the employee of Institute of the system analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.A.Kononov has suggested to conclude the contract with descendants: It will be the contract between generations! We will write in the contract that worked for the sake of progress, moved technologies of revival, and descendants will revive us.
I was at a seminar where was presented project Gevchok ("Ark" on the reading by end on Russian) where was discussed creation of cities on depth of many kilometres under the Earth which will be useful on a case of collision of the Earth with a huge asteroid.
It can be objected to me that dreamers are necessary, and even to cite as an example Russian philosopher-kosmist N.F.Fedorov, the author of philosophy of the Common cause about revival of all died people. He has made the big impact on outstanding scientists - the father of astronautics K.E.Tsiolkovsky and the founder geliobiology - A.L.Chizhevsky. Dreamers are really necessary. And the resulted exception only confirms a rule - what love and wisdom it is necessary, to consider that all people deserve revival Here again it is visible that in the beginning should be deep world outlook questions, and then researches and technologies
The science also is a part of culture and, naturally, it appears connected very closely with other parts, feeling on itself a spirit of the age.
This psychological phenomenon is easy for tracking on an example of the several books connected with very far future and with global threats which it bears.
The sci-tech bible is S. Lem Summa Technologie (the beginning of 1960th). In that time where was not any doubts that it will be possible to overcome all barriers on a way of technological, social, psychological development and to parry all threats which can arise on this infinite way.
The outstanding visionary and the popular writer of a science is Isaac Azimov. His book devoted to global catastrophes is The Choice of catastrophes (the end of XX century). Its editor, professor S. A. Stepanov has perfectly told about this book: it is the brilliant, quiet, informative book, nevertheless, belongs by that epoch which leaves together with last decade centuries. Azimov - as the visionary and as the popular writer of a science - is brought up by centuries of humanism. For him natural light of reason multiplied by efforts of the genius appears as a force which is capable to transform both unknown forces of the nature and the unintelligent roots in the human being
Tell to me of that you are afraid, and I will tell, who you. Human of a humanistic epoch is afraid of dangers in which specifies it common sense: exhaustion of natural resources, the bad government, madness of scientists, an abundance of spots on the Sun
To learn of what the modern human from street is afraid, it is enough to look films which he likes. The modern human is afraid his own unconscious, impossibility of the exhaustive control of the internal forces. He is afraid that he will create a being which will destroy him (a mutant, the robot, a supercomputer). He is afraid, that there is a latent box of cosmopolitans which rule an economic and political life, having thought up the Internet and mass-media for the sake of enslavement of broad masses. He very much is afraid of the harmful extraterrestrials professing absolutely other values, than mankind. He does not trust rational statistical calculations and assumes, and expects the Earth collision with a comet in the near future.
How to name a coming epoch? Let the following epoch cares of it. It is possible to assume only, that the future century in something will be closer to ancient perception of the world with the magic relation to a reality and mystical sensation of presence of the Interlocutor offering puzzles to human - one is more interesting then another.
This fashion has touched both popular writers, and scientists. In the USA was born the whole genre of the literature devoted to how traces of the presence of the man on the Earth if in one fine day all people disappear eventually. Problems which will arise for cosmologists through 100 billion years and an ending problem are seriously discussed: We consider, that the observable Universe in the far future will collapse in a black hole, that in the beginning will occur and to our Galaxy .


The problem of the tool.
- What probability, what leaving from examination you will meet a dinosaur?
- 1/2
- Why?
- Because or I will meet him, or will not meet.
From conversation at examination
The mathematics is language. But the use of the language does not guarantee pithiness of the judgement stated in this language. Mathematics is effective and valuable tool. However one should use it reasonably and to destination.
Not an exception is also the probability theory (making deceptive impression of simplicity, evidence and scientific character in mass consciousness). The use of likelihood arguments and estimations in the book of A. V. Turchin is one of the "debatable" moments. Really, what is probability? If to start with the basic formulation it is necessary to put N identical experiments, in n which there was an event interesting for us. In this case:
(4)
Certainly, we do not have possibility to put infinitely many experiments, and we should judge probability pn on the basis of M of supervision that gives the approached value of this size p (M). And the mathematical theory shows how much p (M) will be close to true probability.
But after all when we speak about probability of global catastrophes, which, fortunately, didnt happened yet, to use a parity (4) or something similar is impossible. Here N = 0!
There is no man is prophet in his own country and so we should look on foreign prophets to show typical errors in the logic of application of a mathematical apparatus. It is Frank Drake's formula for number of extraterrestrial civilisations (a meeting with which A. V. Turchin regards to global risks, probably, not without the bases).
 , (5)
Where N - number of extraterrestrial civilisations, R - number of annually formed stars in the Universe, P - probability of presence of a star at planetary system, Ne - the probability of that among planets is available a planet of terrestrial type on which life origin is possible, L - probability of real origin of a life on a planet, C - probability of that the intelligent life has gone on a way of technological development, has developed a communication facility and wishes to come into contact, T - average time on which extent a civilisation wishing to come into contact sends radio signals to space.
In this form the equation (5) looks quite scientifically, and as a matter of fact is pure fantasy with the plot, assumptions and morals. In this formula too many the unknown variables which values basically it is not clear how can be defined.
Let's admit that the size R can be estimated by astrophysics and cosmologists, though in a context of expansion of the Universe with acceleration, and discovery of the dark matter it is an unevident question.
About size of P it was impossible until recently to tell anything in general astronomers did not see planets near stars except the Sun. There was a revolution in last ten years in astronomy - more than hundred planetary systems were found. And questions on terrestrial group, on atmosphere structure are a first line for science but time for certain judgments has not come yet.
Size of Ne depends of completely not obvious assumption, that for life origin is necessary the planet of terrestrial group.
Probability of real origin of life L Many researchers believe that life on the Earth is unique. Fransis Crick (who opened a double spiral of DNA) and some other Nobel winners consider that the life could not arise on the Earth at all and is brought to us from space. I had participated in the program of Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences devoted pre-biological and early stages of biological evolution (that is to the origin of life). And the head of the program, academician A. M. Galimov, has raised the question before researchers: What are the sufficient conditions of originating of life? Despite serious efforts of many leading experts, apparently, this problem is still too tough for scientists.
We cant even speak about an estimation of the two other, even more exotic variables.
What is given strength to the work of A. V. Turchin is a close attention to methodological questions, to which are devoted the large part of the book. Here again, likely, I too should bring the mite. Apparently, there was a perception aberration about the concept of "probability". I will explain it on a concrete example.
At an estimation of economic, scientific and technical, scientifically-technological projects, including ones with a high risk level, since XVI century, is used (in the beginning intuitively, and then and consciously) the formula:
 , (6)
Where S - expected utility of the project, i - number of the possible scenario on which events can develop, N - the general number of considered scenarios, pi - probability of realisation of i scenario, xi - profits or losses in case of i scenario. Both size xi, and corresponding probabilities are the objective values estimated on the basis of previous experience. Actuarial mathematics has created corresponding techniques, and the insurance companies use them. It is a basis of an objective estimation of risk. (Problems which also are considered in the applied mathematics, are connected with the analysis and updating formula (6) in a case, when S = ;. In case of global risks we deal with this situation that if in scenario j it is a question of destruction of all live, then S = ;;).
However in the XX century at the analysis of behaviour of economic agents it has been found out, that people, the companies, the states, often use other equation than making of the decision:
, (7)
Where M is number of the scenarios taken into consideration, gi (pi, xi) is subjective probability, that is the representation of humans who is making a decision, of the probability of the i scenario, hi (pi, xi) - subjective judgment of profits and costs in case of realization of i scenario.
The subjective probability depends on psychological installations of leaders, of the traditions, of the accepted legislation. In general, its estimations are paradoxical. For example, psychological researches show, that for the majority of people gi (pi, xi) = 0 if pi <10;5, no matter how large is damage. In other words, if something happens with one of 10 000, human is usually assured that nothing similar will not occur to him . That is, subjective probability - "shade" of objective probability, its similarity sometimes rather far from the original.
However, last decades the subjective probability has got the driver's license of citizenship and has started to walk on pages of monographies, textbooks, scientific magazines (Drake's formula - a bright example). The probabilities of global catastrophes studied in the book of A. V. Turchin is pretty often subjective probabilities.
These variables are the useful tool for carrying out sociological or socially-psychological researches, for an estimation of pessimism or optimism of experts. However they may have not any relation to the reality. And if there is no subject (objective probability) then subjective probability hangs in air and gets not rational, but intuitive or emotional character, and becomes a shade of a nonexistent subject.
One more methodical subtlety. For usual failures and disasters it is characteristic Gaussian law for distribution of density of probability of a damage. Growth of people, factor of intellectuality and other characteristics and abilities of human are distributed under this law:
, (8)
Where ;;(x) - density of probability of a random variable, M - its population mean, ;2 - a dispersion. For this distribution takes place the law of three sigma- that is the probability of that the random variable leaves an interval (M;3 ;, M+3 ;; makes less than 0,3 %. "Tails" of this distribution fall down very quickly and the probability of huge deviations can be neglected.
However, for Earthquakes, flooding, tornadoes, exchange crashes, damage from leak of the confidential information, failures at nuclear stations there are place absolutely other statistics:
, (9)
It is the power-mode statistics with heavy tails, where it is impossible to neglect huge deviations. It reminds the terrible and surprising world of eastern fairy tales in which giants and genies operate. The chance to meet them is very small, but the meeting with them can change all.
And it is valid: in the XX century there was an Earthquake which has carried away more than 1 million lives, flooding in which result more than 28 million people lost a roof over the head, and Chernobyl catastrophe, the damage from which has exceeded losses from all other catastrophes with nuclear power.
There is great temptation to use the law (9) to estimate the damages connected with supercatastrophes and probability of global risks. However, the formula (9) is based on an approach which at some level "is cut off" by properties of system which has its own limits and restrictions.
Therefore it is represented intelligent, discussing global risks and their quantitative aspect, leaning against mathematics and results of natural sciences to concentrate attention to three directions:
;;Revealing of processes or other catastrophic phenomena. Judging by estimations, for example, the height of a wave of a tsunami cannot exceed 1 kilometre. Similar estimations exist for a number of other disasters;
;;Discussing concrete, already constructed and investigated models of many extreme situations: nuclear explosions, results of collision with asteroids, epidemics, distribution of computer viruses and of some others. Here already exist estimations, and experts, and analysis experience. In the book much of it is mentioned, but in following works it makes sense to do more concrete analysis. Both the god, and devil is in details.
;;Transition from the theory of probability of global catastrophes to the theory of possibility of such events. Mathematical bases of this approach last years have been put by professor Pityevoi. It is especially interesting as in the book there are some very interesting and unevident scenarios of development global unstabilities.
Possibly, all it will be considered in details in the following books devoted to these extremely important subjects.

In the search for harbingers
All measures which create at least in any measurable safety should be accepted, no matter how strange, at first sight, they seems.
From performance at meeting on antiterrorist activity.

I like many other readers who for the first time will have take this book in hands, had a question: has any sense to consider all these tragical scenarios then probabilities of each of them are rather insignificant, and scientific data about corresponding instabilities are sketchy, and in many cases are doubtful? Whether it is necessary for scientist to take away bread from visionaries and authors of thrillers?
However, on these questions there are convincing answers. The are some reasons for serious relation to such researches:
1. The analysis and prevention of global risks are capable to parry or remove dangers of planetary scale.
Bright example - works on modelling of climatic processes which about thirty years ago were conducted in Computer centre Academy of Science of the USSR under the guidance of academician N.N. Moiseyev. The program complex created at that time allowed researchers to model system atmosphere - ocean - biosphere. The estimation of consequences of a large exchange of nuclear attacks between superstates became one of results of modelling. The calculations spent under the guidance of N.N. Moiseyev and V.V. Aleksandrov have shown, that the nuclear winter and change of global circulation of atmosphere would become long consequence of such event. These results were co-ordinated with data of the American scientists working under the guidance of C. Sagan.
This work has received wide popularity, it was reported in the Congress of the USA, Vatican, on set of the international forums. Finally, it became one of significant arguments at negotiations on the control of the strategic armaments directed on to not admitting such exchange of nuclear attacks, and also - a basic point for set of the subsequent works of this direction.
The similar situation took place with the American program of "star wars, connected with a deployment of various types of the weapon in space. The model of the professor G. Mayer-Kressa, became one of arguments against this program, it has shown that presence of anti-satellite and anti-misseles weapon not only will not raise safety of any of the parties, but also as a whole will sharply worsen a situation and will have destabilizing effect. This and many other arguments have allowed to postpone for several decades creation of a space echelon of arms, which is certainly treating with global risks.
Revival of the space defensive initiative is dangerous and on the next step. In September 2006 the administration of the president Bush has approved the new national space doctrine of the USA, according to which USA do not recognise restriction of the fundamental right of the United States to carry out activity and to receive the information in space. Three months after China destroyed its own meteorological satelite, having generated a considerable quantity of fragments in space.
Here we face new strategic risk. For many years at Institute of applied mathematics of M.V. Keldysh of the Russian Academy of Sciences the group does analysis of the space debries, tracing trajectories more than 30 thousand objects in space works. By estimations of experts of this group, a situation with space debris, and with safety of starts of the future space vehicles is quickly worsens.
Differently, for lack of special measures there can be a phase transition - the Earth in the long term can appear without a space segment of the technosphere with all consequences following from here.
2. The analysis of global consequences of activity of mankind allows to estimate more adequately those risks which are underestimated.

In 2007 at the Ministry of Emergency Measures of the Russian Federation was created the Advisory council on extreme situations which included leading Russian scientists working in this area and a number of heads of the ministry. The analysis of researches conducted in the country carried out by council has shown, that now in Russia obviously not enough attention is given to several important blocks of dangers. Among them:
;;Hypothetical failures (them consider along with "elementary" and outproject) - the extremely improbable events with a huge damage (an example - Chernobyl failure, - before it has occurred probability of an extreme situation of such class estimated as 10;6 ;1 - one failure in one million years, failures on sea drill platforms which there were tens and which probability at designing is estimated 10;7 ;1).
;;New generations of the acts of terrorism which victims can become hundred thousand and millions humans (one such act of terrorism can have global consequences, having lowered a threshold of impossible in consciousness of a society and elite just as it was made in due time by the American nuclear bombardments of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
;;the Post-industrial risks connected with ageing of an infrastructure, the saved up waste, the pollution created at an industrial stage of development. For example, in a dangerous condition is about 50 water basins, some of which prop up on 6-8 cubic kilometres of water. They were built with calculated life expectancy of 50 years which have already passed. Modernisation of these constructions (major repairs, reconstruction, probably, with descent of water basins) is big, heavy and an unresolved question. At the same time break of such dams can lead to very heavy consequences which will change the relation both to a technosphere, and to safety, and to human life.
;;Risks of new generation of technologies. USA and the world actively develops NanoBioInfoCogno which is new technological and scientific paradigm. In each of these spheres there are rather serious threats. In the USA, for example, dozens brain centres are occupied by the analysis of scenarios of development nanotechnology, an estimation of their risks and methods of parrying of the future dangers. As far as I know, in Russia similar works are not begun yet.
3. Complex systems are much more fragile, than it seems at first sight. Maintenance of their safety is inseparable from research of such objects and creation of effective systems of monitoring and management of risks of their development and functioning.

Complexity very often will arise as result of adaptation, adjustment for an environment and an encirclement. This adjustment can lead to appearance of specific mechanisms and relationships of cause and effect which at change of conditions can lead unstability, having huge scales. And time of an exit of a situation from under the control in these systems can be very small.
Moreover, the complex, effective, well protected systems usually have an Achilles' heel (Achilles's paradox) which is a payment for ability to react to environment change, correcting the strategy and reconstructing the structure.
As an example it is possible to look at a world financial system - the major mechanism of management of economic. Its instabilities accrue very quickly. Now results of its crash can have consequences, comparable with world war consequences. It can lead to formation of new system of social life, with new senses, values, algorithms of development (the nearest analogue - dark ages through which the mankind has passed). It is a way to planetary system crisis in which result much, created the last centuries, can turn against mankind.
4. Discussion about many global threats, existing of other civilisations and the future mankind is the taboo which is rather dangerous.
; Problems of certain scale are out of sphere of attention of scientific community and mass consciousness. Insignificant, minor problems cover the main things. The books similar to work of A. Azimov and A. V. Turchin, help to correct a scale of those phenomena about which mankind should concern.
5. The bigger attention should be put on the harbingers of the catastrophes of unprecedented before scale.
The history of catastrophes of the XX century shows that huge natural and shattering technogenic catastrophes usually had harbingers - the troubles of the same type developing under the similar scenario, but rather smaller. And those countries which could estimate their meaning and value and took necessary measures, have avoided many tragical events. The states, which has ignored harbingers, often sustained huge losses. In the Ministry of Emergency Measures of Russia in due time has been accepted the principle: each catastrophe should learn. And it is much better to study by comprehending harbingers, than by surviving global catastrophe.
Extrapolation (continuation) is incorrect procedure (small errors in initial data can lead to the big errors in the forecast), but at the same time is extremely important. As a matter of fact, it is one of the major ways to avoid dangers. We will speak about one recent concrete example showing, that intelligent extrapolation could rescue hundred thousand lives.
Now Russia takes leading positions in the world in the field of the intermediate term forecast of Earthquakes (1-5 years). All basic techniques in the world lean against the approaches developed at Institute physicists of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and developed nowadays at the International institute of mathematical geophysics and the theory of the forecast of Earthquakes of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
As a result of the spent researches rather effective technique of the forecast of Earthquakes about 8 points has been created. The essence of this approach is close to idea of a barometre or the thermometer. The barometre even without the decision of the equations describing dynamics, "falls" from variable weather and if it "falls" very strongly it is possible to wait for a storm. The medical thermometer showing a body temperature above 37 ;, speaks about necessity to pay attention to an organism condition.
Data of seismic stations, averaged on a circle of diameter of 1333 kilometres (in such territory 8-ball Earthquakes are preparing), allow to generate 8 functional - analogues of temperature or pressure for Earth crust. Then they should be monitored and when 7 functionals exceed dangerous line (which will be defined on the basis of available seismic background of region) the alarm appears.
In December, 2004 huge Earthquake in Indian ocean has generated a wave of a tsunami which, finally, has carried away lives more than 300 thousand humans. To surprise of researchers, it has appeared, that it has not been predicted by the leading world centres which are engaged in the forecast of Earthquakes. If such forecast was, it would be powerful stimulus for creation of systems of the prevention. In the presence of such systems the number of victims would manage to be reduced, by expert estimations, to 5 thousand humans.
The retrospective analysis has shown the reason of this error. During time of previous researchers there were no 9-ball Earthquakes. Earthquakes of such force prepare in territory of a circle in diameter of 3000 km. No one has expected such huge Earthquake and simply did not analyze such spatial scales. The error is that huge scale events exceeds everything seen before, and they are simply not taken into account.
Summing up, it is possible to tell, that the book of A. V. Turchin can play the big positive role in management of strategic risks. Not all in it is faultless, and with some estimations and approaches it would be desirable to argue. And, possibly, it is necessary to return in the future to these problems.
However the main thing is that the future should happen. Here again the sober, scientific estimation of scenarios of possible global catastrophes to which the book is devoted, is very important.

G.G. Malinetsky, May 2008.
 


Preface

Existential risk One where an adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential.
N. Bostrom. Existential Risks:
Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards.

If in the XX century possibility of extinction of mankind was connected first of all with threat of global nuclear war, now, in the beginning XXI century we can easily name more than ten various sources of possible irreversible global catastrophe, which are basically new technologies, and the number such sources of risk constantly grows. Research of the given question oddly lags behind many other things and smaller questions that is visible at least by quantity of scientific works on this theme. (Probably it is a feature of human nature: in due time D. Carnegie complained, that in library it is a lot of books about worms, but there are no books about worry which is much more important theme.) Problems of exhaustion of oil, the future of the Chinese economy or outer space exploration involve much more attention, than irreversible global catastrophes, and researches in which different kinds of global catastrophes are compared with each other, are less often, than subject discussions on separate risks. However it seems senseless to discuss the future of a human civilisation before will be received the intelligent estimation of its chances of survival. Even if as a result of such research we learn that the risk is negligibly small, in any case it is important to study this question. But, unfortunately, I immediately should tell, that we will not receive such encouraging result. Sir Martin Rees estimates chances of survival of mankind in the XXI century as 50 to 50 per cent, and I think that is quite proved estimation.
The book offered to the reader - The Structure of the global catastrophe - is devoted to the theme little shined in the Russian literature: to the consistent review of the "threats to existence, that is to risks of irreversible destruction of all human civilisation and extinction of the mankind. The purpose of this book is to give wide and as much as possible plausible review of the theme. Thus, however, the book has debatable character. It urged not to give definitive answers, but to push thoughts of the reader and to create soil for the further discussions. Many stated here hypotheses can seem unduly radical. However, speaking about them, I was guided by a precaution principle which recommends to consider worst of realistic scenarios when it is a question of safety maintenance. Criterion of realness of scenarios for me is that they can arise at preservation of present rate of development of technologies during the XXI century and do not break known laws of physics.
Researches of character of global threats and estimations of their likelihood are necessary in order to define how much is the risk and what measures are necessary to accept to mitigate it. And though in this book possible preventive measures are discussed, there is no universal recipe of disposal of global risks in this volume. However it would not be desirable to inspire the readers sensation of inevitability of destruction. I believe that despite difficulties and risks which mankind will face in the XXI century, people have chance to survive and, moreover, to construct more perfect world. However preservation of mankind is a necessary condition for any perfect world. Besides, in this book we do not discuss a question on what could be the perfect world in which new technologies are usedfor the blessing, instead of destruction.
In this volume you will find my monography The Structure of the global catastrophe, and also three articles of the other authors in the appendix, which themes are necessary for clearer understanding. The monography consists of two big parts - methodology of the analysis and actually research of risks. Analysis of concrete threats in the first part consists of their as much as possible detailed list with references to sources and the critical analysis. Then system effects of interaction of different risks are investigated, and then discussed ways of a probability estimation of global risks and other questions connected with it. The methodology offered in the second part, consists basically of the critical analysis of ability of human thinking to the prediction and estimation of global risks. It can be useful, with little changes, and in any other futurological researches. In the same section is given a number of recommendations, about how it is necessary to carry out the analysis of risks.
From Appendix materials, it is necessary to note, first of all, an innovative article of American scientist E. Yudkowsky An Artificial Intellect As The Positive And Negative Factor Of Global Risk, for the first time translated by me into Russian. E. Yudkowsky - leading scientific employee Singularity Institute in California which is engaged in system engineering of a universal artificial intellect and in analizing problems of its safety ("friendliness").He is the author of several works on problems of creation of systems of AI and maintenance of their "friendliness", he has entered the concept of Seed AI, wrote about problems of futurology and possible Technological Singularity - sharp acceleration of development of technologies in the near future. Its institute has developed SIAI recommendations about of friendly AI, which pretend to be the standard in safety of AI.
Nick Bostrom is Swedish scientist and the philosopher heading institute Future of Humanity (the mankind Future) in Oxford, the author of researches on ethics, probability theory, futurology and philosophies. The part of his works on probability theory is devoted little-known in Russia to the logic paradox named Doomsday argument. There are many different opinions on its validity, falsity and applicability borders, however it seems to us important to acquaint the reader with this direction of modern thought. Therefore in the Appendix the reader can become acquainted with Bostroms article Doomsday Argument for dummies. Scientific community with care considers this problem and articles about it are published in American magazine Nature in hypothesis section that speaks about certain level of a recognition.
The scientific employee of Institute of the system analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the candidate of sciences A.A. Kononov in the article Ideological beginnings of the general theory of unexterminability of the mankind approaches to a problem of global risks from the point of view of strategy, namely, necessities of realisation of a problem unexterminability of the mankind. It seems to us important to publish here this article as it shows increasing interest among the Russian scientists to the problems of global threats and draws prospects of the decision of this problem.
What was the reason to write in Russian about global catastrophes? I think, there were following reasons:
1. This theme is not covered in the Russian literature and assigned to sectarians of different sort and preachers of the apocalypse. The basic researches are not translated (behind an exception approximately 10 articles on a problem, translated by me in 2006-2008). Open discussion of these questions can be interesting not only to experts, but also general public.
2. Technological backlog of Russia is not so great to serve as a guarantee of that dangerous technologies cannot be developed here and dangerous products cannot be created on their basis. On the contrary, the Russian Federation possesses technical potential for development of many kinds of dangerous technologies, first of all, in the field of the nuclear and biological weapon. Also in our country there are groups working in the field of AI. Also some we do some high-energy physical experiments.
3. Russia repeatedly in history advanced the world in the important technological workings out (e.g. first man in space), or lead up them to the maximim scale limit ("Tsar-bomb"). Besides, in territory of the former USSR there were some largest in history catastrophes (Chernobyl).
4. Irresponsibility and the corruption influencing the organisation of manufacture ("perhaps"-style thinking, orientation to short-term benefit), have led to that not enough attention is given to safety issues. G.G. Malinetsky in his books and reports draws a disastrous picture in the field of prevention of technogenic catastrophes in Russia. Global catastrophes involve even less attention.
5. The information on the risks connected with new technologies created in the West, gets into mass consciousness more slowly, than mere technologies, and biggest part of works on a theme of global risks is not translated till now into Russian.
6. Absence of the rigid control allows to exist the big number of illegal developers of computer programs (Russian hackers), and can be extremely dangerous, if the same occurs in the field of biotechnologies.
7. Russia has inherited powerful geopolitical contradictions and "inferiority complex" as a result of disintegration of the USSR (a postimperial syndrome), that can promote realisation of dangerous projects.
8. Publications in Russian can make positive impact on a foreign science and public opinion, increasing a saturation of environment with the information on global risks. Unique results of the Russian researchers can bring the contribution to the common cause of rescue of the world and a civilisation. The Russian-speaking literature will be accessible also in the CIS countries. Many Russian students in the future will study or work in foreign establishments, transferring the knowledge saved up in our country. There is considerable enough group of the foreign researchers reading in Russian or of Russian origin.
9. Russia can appear in circumstances when its existence as parts of the big world will appear depending on external circumstances, and there is necessary a fast acceptance of adequate decisions in the conditions of a sharp lack of the information. In this case there will be need for the information and people. The clear understanding of the governments of the different countries of the nature of global risks is necessary.
10. The width and outlook freedom as I hope, peculiar to thinkers in Russia, can give a new sight at universal problems, open new vulnerability and specify new ways of prevention of global risks.
11. If our country positions itself as great power, develops nanotechnology, is going to participate in the flight project to Mars etc., it should play a responsible role in maintenance of safety of all mankind.
More, we speak here about Russia, but we have concerns on other countries, for example, India and China where technologies quickly develop, and the culture of prevention of risks also is low.
I also see deep sense that my book leaves under the aegis of Institute of Africa of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The intillegent life on the Earth has arisen on the African continent, and in the same place for the first time it has appeared on brink of extinction when consequences of eruption of supervolcano Toba (in territory of modern Indonesia) have led 74 000 years ago to long cooling of a climate, and have put Homo sapiens on an extinction side. In today's Africa many events which can serve as local models of global risks, first of all - total epidemic of AIDS and a drugsteady tuberculosis are developed. In Uganda in 1999 appeard the dangerous fungoid disease UG99 which is affecting wheat, and its distribution in Africa and behind its limits threatens with world hunger. The uranium used in a bomb, dumped to Hiroshima, has been extracted in Congo. In territory of Gabon the unique natural uranium reactor in which chain reaction was supported in natural deposits of uranium has been found out. And till now on these mines there is an extraction though it is not known to whom this uranium is delivered. The relation of the man to the higher primacies of Africa - a chimpanzee and to the gorillas, put, especially the last, on an extinction side, can be caution for all those who believes, that superhuman artificial intellect, will be necessarily kind to the man.
I wish to express gratitude to people who have supported me during a writing of this book. First of all I wish to thank E Yudkowsky and N. Bostrom which have inspired me on research of a theme of global risks by the clear and shrill articles, and also have kindly allowed to publish transfers of these articles in Russian. Certainly, this book could not arise without that influence which was rendered on me by E.D. Plavinskaja. I am grateful A. V. Sledzevsky who has helped to give the finished form to my narration and has put weight of efforts to its editing. My gratitude to Coordination council of the Russian Transhumanistic Movement - Valeria Prajd and Daniela Andreevich Medvedevs, whous rendered material and moral help in the edition of this book is especially great. I should express gratitude to the first teacher M.M. Allenov who has given to me the sample of clearness and an insight of thought. I am grateful to my mother Xenia Bogemsky, to my father Valery Turchin, son Stanislav and his mother Anna Soboleva, and also my godmother Natalia Segal. I am grateful to all to those whom I can not name personally, including readers of my blog (http://turchin.livejournal.com/profile) who have helped me the uncountable comments.
A. V. Turchin
 

Terms

In this work a number of terms is used in following meanings (more about each term will be explained in the text):
Doomsday argument - a reasoning on Carter-Lesli, in abbreviated form - DA.
NBIC-convergence - means the tendency observed in a modern science to merge and information interchange, methods and results between four key technologies nano-bio-info-cogno.
The agent - substance, a virus, a bacterium or any other extending factor of influence causing death.
Global catastrophe - the event leading to irreversible extinction of all people. Events which influence all world, but do not lead to total extinction, are called in this text as "very big catastrophes.
"Friendly" AI - the universal strong AI, which system of the purposes it is arranged so, that it will not harm people and will reduce risk of global catastrophe. Its contrast - the unfriendly AI, which system of the purposes conducts to destruction of people and even mankind extinction.
Moore's law - initially concerns doubling of number of transistors on microprocessors each two years. Speaking about Moore's law, we will mean Moore's law in the broad sense of the word, as process exponential growth of some key technologies with the doubling period in some years.
AI - an Artificial intellect understood as the Universal artificial intellect, capable to self-improvement and any intellectual activity accessible to human.
The Doomsday machine, the Doomsday weapon - any device, substance or a way which are developed specially for definitive and irreversible destruction of mankind.
The postapocalyptic world - the Earth after very big catastrophe which, however some number of people will survive.
Supertechnologies - essentially new ways of influence on an external world, capable it completely to transform and-or create global risks, first of all it nano, , coogno and AI-technologies.
Singularity - a hypothetical point in time around year 2030 when a number prognostic curves go to infinity. It is connected with the fast growth of technical progress, especially computers, nano and biotechnologies, researches of a brain and systems of AI and assumes qualitative change of mankind. The term is put into practice by Vernor Vinge in 1993.
Structure of the Catastrophe - interrelation of scientific errors, design defects, operators errors and chain reaction of factors of destruction, leaders to catastrophe.

 

Introduction

People, lions, eagles and partridges, horned deer, geese, spiders, the silent fishes living in water, starfishes and what it was impossible to see an eye, say, the lives, all lives, all lives, having made a sad circle, have died away... Already thousand centuries as the Earth does not carry on itself any live a being, and this poor moon in vain lights the lantern. On a meadow cranes do not wake up any more with shout, and may-bugs do not happen is audible in lime groves. Coldly, coldly, coldly. It is empty, empty, empty. Terribly, terribly, terribly.
A.P. Chehov. "Seagull"

Though only a few books with the general review of a problem of global risks is published in the world, the certain tradition in discussions of the subject has already formed. It consists in discussion of methodology, classification of possible risks, estimations of their probability, ways of protection and then - the review of the logic paradoxes connected with this problem, namely, Doomsday argument. The most essential modern source on a problem are following: It is the book of astrophysics of J. Leslie The End of the world. A science and ethics of human extinction, 1996, Sir Martin Rees Our last hour, 2003, R.Posner Catastrophe: risk and response, 2004, and the volume under edition of . Bostrom Global catastrophic risks, 2008. Once again we will address to the available literature in section Short history of research of a question in 1st chapter, where we will mention also works of the Soviet and Russian authors, however, the listed books will be our basic points of a support.
This book considerably differs from the previous books, first of all, by width of review. For example, in article of Yudkowsky is discussed, though and it is very detailed, only 10 possible cognitive biases influencing an estimation of global risks whereas in our book is undertaken attempt to make their full list including 150 points. As well in the section devoted to classification of risks are mentioned some risks about which there is no information in the previous books. If to count all possible risks, including subcategories their number, that exceeds the sum from 15 risks discussed by Bostrom. At last, I offer classification of variants of the Doomsday Argument that is not present in foreign sources known to me. The special feature of the offered book is detailed critical review of various protection measures from global risks.
Thus I aspired to give a system point of view at the problem which would allow to come off simple listing of various risks and to see what general is in each of them, and also how different risks, influencing each other, can form structure. That explains choice of the name of the book.
The given work is addressed to any future and to nowadays existing organizations which will prevent global catastrophes, including the governments, research institutes, special services, military men and non-governmental funds, to their heads and employees, and also futurologists, young scientists and all, who is interested in the future mankind. The purpose of the work is to give a picture of risks of global final catastrophe. It is an event which, according to Bostrom, will exterminate a intelligent life on the Earth or will irreversiblly damage its potential. Full extinction of all people is the most probable form of such event, and further in the text the words global catastrophe will mean this event.

Part 1. The analysis of Risks

Chapter 1. The general remarks
Space of possibilities
In the first part of the book we will outline and analyse space of possibilities in which global catastrophe may occur. Space of possibilities - is the term which is going back to the book Science fiction and futurology by polish author Stanislav Lem. This view is opposed to representations by separate scenarios and possibilities. Lem made following comparisons for the explanation of this term: though the quantity of possible games in chess is infinite, the description of game rules and main principles of strategy occupies final volume and is understandable. As an example could be space of possibilities of the Cold war which has been set by appearance of certain technology and in which those or other scenarios of standoff were developed: the Caribbean crisis, arms race etc. The description of scenarios is practically useless, as though each one can be very intriguing, the probability of its realisation is very small. The more concrete details is in the scenario, the less it is probable - though visibility of credibility from it increases. But the analysis of separate scenarios gives us a cut of space of possibilities and consequently it is useful.
One of the major ways of achievement of safety is the analysis of all possible scenarios according to their probabilities, that is construction of "a tree of refusals. For example, safety of an air transport is reached, in particular, because every possible scenario of catastrophe up to the certain, precisely calculated risk level is considered. The description of space of possibilities of global catastrophe pursues the aim of its prevention. Hence, it should concentrate on those central points, management with which will allow to regulate risk of the biggest numbers of possible catastrophic scenarios. Besides, the description should give the information convenient for judgement and suitable for practical use - and it is desirable, that this information has been adapted for those who will carry out direct prevention of global risks. However the problem of definition of these people is not simple.
Reader should pay attention, that during reading one moments could seem to him obvious, others interesting, and the third - scandalous nonsenses. Reader should pay attention also on how his reaction will differ from reaction of others, not less educated, than him, people. This disorder of estimations is, actually, a measure of uncertainty in what we know and could know about the future.
All information is taken from the open sources listed in the bibliography.
Considered time interval: the XXI century
There are two various classes of forecasts about what will occur, and about when it happens. The ideal forecast should answer both of these questions. However, one forecasts is better tell what will happen, and others better tell about when it happened. The best result concerning events time sometimes could be received, without knowing at all an actual essence of events, by statistical analyze of events. For example, if you know that recession in the US happens on the average time of 8 years plus or minus two years, it is possible to have a good guess about the time of the following recession, not going deeply in its actual reasons. By the other way, analyzing the fundamental reasons of events, it is possible to make a considerable mistake in an estimation of time of their approach which often depends on casual and not computable factors. For example, we for certain can assert, that sooner or later around California will be a powerful Earthquake by force to 9 points, connected with a motion of an oceanic flore under continental, that is we know, that there will be an Earthquake, but do not know, when.
Investigating global catastrophes which are possible in the XXI century, we try in our work to answer both describes questions: not only we will describe mechanisms of expected catastrophe, but also we assert, that these mechanisms can realise during nearest several tens years. Probably it will be easier some readers to admit possibility of realisation of these mechanisms not in the next 30 years, but, let us assume, in the next 300 years. We should tell to such readers that, proceeding from a precaution principle, we consider the most dangerous scenario of the fastest development of a situation and that is really possible, that the same events will occur much later. But it is necessary to notice that R. Kurzweil, considering a question of acceleration of rates of historical time and speed of technological progress, suggests to consider the XXI century equal on volume of innovations to the last 20 000 years of human development.
In our book are analyzed threats to existence of mankind which can arise and be realised during the XXI century. Behind this border uncertainty is so great, that we cannot now anything neither predict, nor prevent. Moreover, probably, even the border of 2100 is too kept away (see further about peak of prognostic curves around 2030).
Some scenarios have certain consequences which can affect after the XXI century (for example, global warming), and in this case we discuss them. The border of 2100 year allows us not to consider as risks of global catastrophe the space events kept away in time, like transformation of the Sun into the red giant. Also this border is not taken casually. 100 years are characteristic term for global catastrophes, instead of not 1 year, not 10 years and not 1000 which will become obvious of the further analysis of concrete risks.
In other words, any combinations from described below scenarios of global catastrophe can be realised during nearest several tens years. However, as I understand that my estimation of time, probably, contains an ineradicable error, I expand it till 100 years. But my estimation of time can contain and an error in the opposite direction, that means, that we do not have either hundred years, or twenty, but only some years until when the probability of global catastrophe will reach a maximum. (As annual probability of global catastrophe grows, and as so cannot proceed eternally this density of probability has a certain hump which means time moment when the probability of this catastrophe is maximum - about, whether there will be it in some years, in 23 years or in 100 years and there is a conversation. More in detail this question will be discussed in section Inevitability of achievement of a steady condition of chapter 19 Multifactorial scenarios.) Certainly, there is a probability, that it happens tomorrow, however I consider it as insignificant.
Actually, speaking about the XXI century as a whole, I, probably, inspire false feeling of calmness as there is a class of sources of the global risks which probability of appearance will considerably in`crease the next 10-20 years. It is a question, first of all, of dangerous practical appendices of biotechnologies (see further in chapter 4). In other words, global catastrophes can happen not with our descendants, but namely with us. I suppose, that for the usual human living now chance to die of global catastrophe above, than probability of natural death.
Problems of calculation of probabilities of various scenarios
I will begin with the citation from an essay About impossibility of forecasting of S. Lem: Here the author proclaims futility of prognosis of the future based on likelihood estimations. He wishes to show, that the history entirely consists of the facts, absolutely inconceivable from the point of view of probability theory. Professor Kouska transfers the imagined futurologist to the beginning of XX century, having allocated with its all knowledge of that epoch to set to it some question. For example: Whether you consider probable, what soon will be opened silvery metal similar to lead which is capable to destroy a life on the Earth if two hemispheres from this metal to move up to each other that the sphere in size about the big orange has turned out? Whether you consider possible, what that old car in which mister Benz has pushed the chirring engine capacity in one and a half horse, soon so will breed, what from suffocating evaporations and exhaust gases in the big cities, and to stick this vehicle somewhere begins so difficultly, what in the vastest megacities of a problem it will not be more difficult than this? Whether you consider probable, what thanks to a principle fireworks people will soon walk on the Moon, and their walks a same minute will be seen in the hundreds millions houses on the Earth? Whether you consider possible, what soon there will be the artificial heavenly bodies supplied with devices which will allow to watch from space any human in the field or in the street? Whether would be possible to construct a machine which will be better than you to play chess, to compose music, to translate from one language on another and to carry out in any minutes of calculation of which for all life bookkeepers and accountants would not execute all on light? Whether you consider possible, what soon in the centre of Europe there will be huge factories in which begin to heat furnaces with live people, and number of these unfortunate will exceed millions? It is clear, professor Kouska says, that in the year 1900 only mad would recognise all these events as a little probable. And after all, all of them were made. But if continuous incredibilities have happened, from what reason cardinal improvement suddenly will come and henceforth only what seems to us probable, conceivable and possible will start to realize? You could predict the future as want, he addresses to futurologists, only do not build the predictions on the greatest probabilities....
The offered picture of global risks and their interaction with each other causes natural desire to calculate exact probabilities of those or other scenarios. It is obvious also, that in this process we face considerable difficulties. It is connected with basic insufficiency of the information in our models, imperfection of models, and also - with chaotic character of all system.
On the other hand, absence of any estimations reduces value of the constructions. But reception of certain numerical estimations is senseless too, if we do not know, how we will apply them. For example we will find out that the probability of appearance of dangerous unfriendly AI is 14 % the next 10 years. How can we apply this information? Or, if the global catastrophe which had prior estimation of probability in 0,1 % will occur, we equally will not learn, what was the real probability of this unique event, and it is not clear, from to which set sample it belongs. In other words, the fact of catastrophe will tell to us nothing about whether it was high probable event, or we simply were very unlicky.
I recognise that probability estimations are necessary, first of all, for decision-making on what problems should be paid attention and resources and what should be neglected. However, the price of prevention of different classes of problems is various: one is rather easy to prevent, and others is actually impossible. Therefore for calculation of probabilities we should use Baysian logic and the theory of decision-making in the conditions of uncertainty. Number turned out as a result will not be real probabilities (in sense statistical distributions of different global risks on set of possible scenarios) which are unknown to us, but our best value judgment of these probabilities.
Further, such calculation should consider time sequence of different risks. For example, if the risk A has probability in 50 % in first half XXI century, and risk B - 50 % in second half, our real chances to die from risk B are only 25 % because in half of cases we will not survive until it.
At last, for different risks we wish to receive annual probability density. I will remind, that here should be applied the formula of continuous increase of percent, as in case of radioactive decay. (For example, annual risk in 0,7 % will give 50 % chances of the extinction of a civilisation for 100 years, 75 % for 200 and 99,9 % for 1000.) It means, that any risk set on some time interval is possible to normalise on "half-life period", that is time on which it would mean 50 % probability of extinction of the civilisation.
In other words, probability of extinction during time [0; T] it is equal:
P (T) = 1 - 2 ,
Where - half-decay time. Then annual probability will be P (1) = 1 - 2 . The following table shows the parity of these parametres calculated by means of the above-stated formula for different entry conditions.
Table 1. Communication of expected time of existence of a civilisation with probability of extinction.

T0 period of 50 % chances of catastrophe P(1) probability of the catastrophe in the next year, % P(100) probability of extinction in the next 100 years (to 2108). % 1P(100) chances of survival of civilization 100 : Period of assured extinction with 99,9 % probability, years:
10 000 0.0069 % 0,7 % 99,3 % 100 000
1 600 0.0433 % 6 % 94 % 16 000
400 0.173 %
12,5 % 87,5 % 4 000
200 0.346 % 25 % 75 % 2 000
100 0.691 % 50 % 50 % 1 000
50 1,375 % 75 % 1 4 500
25 2,735 % 93,75 % 1 16 250
12,5 5,394 % 99,6 % 1 256 125
6 10,910 % 99,9984 % 1 16 536 60

Pay attention to the bottom part of this table where even very big decrease in chances of a survival for all XXI century does not change appreciably "half-life period" T0 which remains at level of an order of 10 years. It means, that even if chances to go through the XXI century are very small, all the same we almost for certain have some more years until "doomsday". On the other hand, if we wish to go through the XXI century for certain (to make 1-P (100) as it is possible above), we should put annual probability of extinction P (1) practically to zero.
In our methodology we have considered the list from approximately 150 possible logic errors which anyhow can change an estimation of risks. Even if the contribution of each error will make no more than one percent, the result can differ from correct in times and even on orders. When people undertake something for the first time, they usually underestimate riskiness of the project in 40-100 times that is visible on an example of Chernobyl and Challenger. (Namely, the shuttle has been calculated for the one failure on 1000 flights, but first time has broken already on 25th flight, so as that underlines Yudkowsky, the safety estimation in 1 to 25 would be more correct, which is 40 times less than an initial estimation; reactors were under construction with calculation one failure on one million years, but the first large scale failure has occurred through approximately less than 10.000 stations-years of operation, that is, the safety estimation in 100 times lower would be more exact.) E. Yudkowsky in basic article Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks shows the analysis of reliability of statements of experts about various parameteres which they cannot calculate precisely, and about which they give 99 % confidence intervals for these parameters. Results of these experiments is depressing. Experts often misses the real value, but are very confident in their estimates.
So, there are serious bases to consider that we should extremely expand borders of confidence concerning probabilities of global risks in order to get real value of the parameter in the set interval. How much we should expand confidence borders?
Let's designate as N a degree of expansion of an interval of confidence for a certain variable A. The confidence interval will be the following: (A/N; A;N). For example, if we have estimated a certain indicator in 10 %, and took N=3 the interval will turn out (3 %; 30 %). Certainly, if we estimate probability the interval should not extend for limits of 100 %. It is difficult to say what should be N for global risks. My estimation is N=10. In this case we receive wide enough intervals of confidence to which the required variable, most likely, will get. Thus, confidence intervals will be various for various kinds of risk (since we estimate their probabilities differently).
Other way of definition N is to study the average error made by experts, and to enter such amendment which would cover a usual inaccuracy of opinions. So in the projects of a nuclear reactor and a space shuttle the real value N was between 40 and 100 (see above), and, probably, we are too optimistic when we accept it is equal 10. This question requires the further studying.
This generalisation does not reduce value of risk calculations as the difference of probabilities of various risks can be several orders of magnitude. And for decision-making on importance of opposition to this or that danger we need to know an order of size of risk, instead of exact value.
So, we assume, that the probability of global catastrophes can be estimated, at the best, to within an order of magnitude (and, accuracy of such estimation will be plus-minus an order) and that such level of an estimation is enough to define necessity of the further attentive research and problem monitoring. Similar examples of scales are the Turin and Palermo scales of risk of asteroids.
Eleven-points (from 0 to 10) Turin scale of asteroid danger characterises degree of the potential danger threatening to the Earth from an asteroid or a core of a comet. The point on the Turin scale of asteroid danger is appropriated to a small body of Solar system at the moment of its discovery depending on weight of this body, possible speed and probability of its collision with the Earth. In process of the further research of an orbit of a body its point on the Turin scale can be changed. The zero means absence of the threat, ten - probability more than 99 % of falling of a body in diameter more than 1 km. The Palermo scale differs from Turin in that it considers as well time which has remained before falling of an asteroid: lesser time means higher point. The point on the Palermo scale is calculated under the special formula.
It would be interesting to create a similar scale for the estimation of risks of the global catastrophes leading to human extinction. As by definition the result of any such catastrophe is the same it is not necessary to consider scale of such disaster here. On the other hand, it is much more important to represent in the such scale degree of uncertainty of our knowledge of the risk and our ability to prevent it. Thus, the scale of global catastrophes should reflect three factors: probability of global catastrophe, reliability of data on the given risk and probability of that it will be possible to prevent the given risk.
So it seems natural to offer the following likelihood classification of global risks in the XXI century (the probability of a given risk throughout all XXI century is considered provided that no other risks influence it):
1) Inevitable events. An estimation of their probability - an order of 100 % during the XXI century. A confidence interval: (10 %; 100 %)
2) Rather probable events - an estimation of probability of an order of 10 %. (1 %; 100 %)
3) Probable events - an estimation of an order of 1 %. (0,1 %; 10 %)
4) Improbable events - an estimation of 0,1 %. (0,01 %; 1 %)
5) With insignificant probability - the estimation of 0,01 % and is less. (0 %; 0,1 %)
Points 4) and 5), apparently, may be neglected, as their total contribution is less than level of errors in an estimation of first three. However, to neglect them it is not correct, as considerable error in the estimation of risks is possible. Further, the quantity of events with small probabilities is important. For example, if sum several dozens different scenarios with probability of 0,1 % - 10 % it gives interval of probability of 1 % - 100 %.
The only inevitable event is that during the XXI century the world will essentially change.
Whether the sum of probabilities of separate global risks should exceed 100 %? Let us assume, that we send a faulty car in a trip. Suppose, the probability of that it will have an catastrophe because of its tyre is pierced, is equal 90 %. However, suppose, that at it, besides tires, the brakes are faulty and if tyres were serviceable the probability of failure from malfunction of brakes too made 90 %. From this example it is visible, that the probability of each global risk calculated in the assumption (which is obvious, false), that there is no other global risks operating at the same time, cannot be simply summed with probabilities of other global risks.
Chances of the car to reach till the end of a way are equal in our example 1 % (0.10.1=0.01) and chances of that each of two risks became a cause of catastrophe is 49,5 %. We could assume, however, that the first halfway the road is such that failure can occur only because of faulty tyres, and the second - only because of faulty brakes. In this case up to the end will reach only 1 % of cars too, but distribution of contributions of each risk will be other: 90 % of cars will break on the first site of road because of tyres, and only 9 % on the second because of faulty brakes. This example shows, that the question on probability of this or that kind of global catastrophe is incorrect, if exact conditions are not specified.
In our reasonings we will widely use a precaution principle, which demands that we should expect that events could develop by the worst realistic way. And by realistic we will consider following scenarios: not contradicting laws of physics and possible provided that a science and technology will develop with the same parametres of acceleration, as at the moment. The precaution principle corresponds with that the result which people receive concerning the future, usually appears worse their worst expectations. At expansion of likelihood intervals we should pay attention, first of all, to expansion to the worst, that is - towards increase in probability and reduction of remained time. However, if a certain factor can help us, for example creation of protective system, estimates of the time of its appearance should be increased. In other words, 5 years will be a conservative estimation of time of appearance of home designers of genetically modified bioviruses, and conservative estimate of the time of appearance of a medicine for a cancer is 100. Though, most likely, both of them will appear through pair decades.
In economy is often applied the following method of a prediction - interrogation of leading experts about the future value of the variable and calculation of the average. Obviously, it does not allow to learn the true value of the variable, but allows to generate best guess. The same method can be applied, with certain care, and for an estimation of probability of global catastrophes. We will admit, that concerning global warming from thousand experts only one says, that it for certain will result in full extinction of mankind. Then application of this technique will state an estimation of probability of the extinction, equal 0.1 %.
The made observations will be useful to us at the further research and classification of catastrophes. Namely:
;exponential character of growth of total probability at a constant annual probability density,
;necessity of expansion of borders of the confidence given by experts,
;necessity of application Bayesian logic at calculation of amendments to known probabilities,
;application of scales, like Turin, for an estimation of different risks,
;influence on an estimation of probability of one global risk by the probabilities of the other risks and by order of their following,
;usage a precautionary principle for a choice of the worst realistic estimation.
 
Quantitative estimations of probability of the global catastrophe, given by various authors
Further I show the estimations of the extinction by leading experts known to me in this area. J. Leslie, 1996, "The end of the world": 30 % the next 500 years with the account of action of the Doomsday Argument, without it - 5 %.
N. Bostrom, 2001, Existential risks. The analysis of scenarios of human extinction and similar dangers: My subjective opinion consists that it will be erroneous to believe this probability smaller, than 25 %, and the highest estimation can be much more in the next two centuries.
Sir Martin Rees, 2003 Our final hour: 50 % in the XXI century.
It seems, that these data not strongly disperse from each other as tens percent appear in all cases. However, the time interval on which this prediction is given, each time is reduced (five hundred years - two hundred - hundred) therefore annual probability density grows. Namely: 1996 - 0,06 % - 0,012 %; 2001 - 0,125 %; 2003 - 0,5 %.
In other words, for ten years the expected estimation of density of probability of global catastrophes, according to leading experts in this area, has increased almost in 10 times. Certainly, it is possible to tell, that it is not enough three experts for statistics, and that these opinions can mutually influence each other, but the tendency is unpleasant. If we had the right to extrapolate this tendency in 10th years of XXI century we could expect estimations of the annual probability of extinction in 5 %, and in 20th years - in 50 % that would mean inevitability of extinction of a civilisation till 2030. Despite all speculative character of such conclusions, this estimation coincides with other estimations received further in this book in the different independent ways.
On the other hand, in days of cold war the estimation of probability of extinction too was high. The researcher of a problem of extraterrestrial civilisations Horner attributed to a self-liquidation hypothesis of psyhozoe chances of 65 %. Von Neumann considered that nuclear war is inevitable and also all will die in it.
Global catastrophes and forecasting horizon
The purpose of the given work is attempt to look a little further than usual horizon of forecasting - where are seen foggy outlines of different possibilities outside of the unequivocal forecast. I believe that real horizon of the unequivocal forecast which we can do with considerable reliability, is 5 years whereas space behind horizon where we can see different possibilities, is 20 years after that the moment. And this moment is followed by absolute unpredictability. I will try to prove it.
The estimation of 5 years has arisen from extrapolation of historical intervals on which in the past the situation in the world has so varied, that concrete political and technological tendencies became outdated. So, from discovery of chain reaction to a nuclear bomb there have passed 6 years, 7 more - to the first hydrogen, and since this moment - as early as 5 years before start of the first sattelite. Also approximately both world wars lasted for 5 years, 6 years were occupied by perestroika epoch. Arriving in high school for 5 years, human does not know usually where it he will go to work and what specialization will choose. For 5 years usually choose presidents, and nobody knows, who will be the president next term. The USSR coped on the basis of five years' plans. Periodicity of appearance of essentially new products and their huge markets: PC, the Internet, cellular telephones - too has an order of several years. Plans of introduction of new technologies of microprocessors also make for no more than several years. Thus the basic force in expectations on the nearest some years appear to be force of inertia, that is we can say with high probability, that within the next 5 years will be approximately the same, as now, except for a number of developing tendencies. However, when we speak about terms longer than 5 years it is more probable that the situation will cardinally change, than that it will be same as now. The effect of acceleration of historical time about which we will speak further, possibly, reduces this term of the unequivocal forecast.
Thus, we can tell, that prior to the beginning of fog strips in unequivocal forecasts of the future are approximately 5 years, that is, it is year 2013 from the moment when I write these lines. As a whole, we vaguely understand future technologies though there are separate contract designs with term of realization till 2020th years (thermonuclear reactor in France or building of lunar base), and there are business plans which are calculated for the term up to 30 years, for example, the long-term mortgage. But five years is an approximate term behind which uncertainty of a global condition of all system starts to prevail over definiteness in different kinds of human activity. Also it is necessary to notice, that eventually the increasing uncertainty is existing not only on technological projects, but also on the new discoveries. And though we can tell that some projects are made for 20 years forward, we do not know which factors will be the most important in economic, political and technical development in that time.
It seems the year 2030 is an absolute limit in forecasts, in which area are assumed possible developed nanotechnology, AI and advanced biodesigning. (This opinion is divided by many futurologists). It seems to us, that now there is no sense in estimations of curves of growth of population or coal stocks for this period as we can tell nothing about how supertechnologies will affect these processes. On the other hand, the big uncertainty is in a choice of this date. It often appears in different discussions about the future of the technologies and it will be discussed further in the chapter about technological Singularity. It is obvious, that uncertainty of date 2030 is not less than five years. If there will be a certain not final catastrophe it can sharply expand forecasting horizon simply for the account of narrowing of space of possibilities (for example, in the spirit of a plot: Now we will sit in the bunker of 50 years ). Though the majority of the futurologists writing on a theme of new technologies, assume, that supertechnologies will ripen by 2030, some put appearing of the mature nanotechnology and AI to 2040 years, however very few people dares to give proved a prediction for later dates. Besides the uncertainty connected with our ignorance of rates of development of different technologies, their convergence during technological Singularity gives the uncertainty of higher order resulting from that we cannot predict behaviour of the intelligence considerably surpassing ours.
Also it is necessary to say that predictability time constantly decreases because of the acceleration of progress and growth of the complexity of systems. Therefore, coming out with assumptions of predictability border, we already do a certain forecast for the future - at least that degree of its variability will remain the same. However, that the predictability border can obviously increase for the account of our best prediction and successes in creation of a steady society.
Here too appears the paradox of intermediate term forecasts. We can tell, what will be with a man tomorrow (about the same, as today), or through tens years (it is possible, that he will grow old and will die), but we cannot tell, what will be in the next 10 years. As well about mankind we can tell, that it by the end of the XXI century either will go into a posthuman phase with nanotechnology, an artificial intellect and almost physical immortality, or it will be lost by this moment, not having sustained speed of changes. However the forecast for 15 years is much less obvious.
I should tell that though we investigate threats of global catastrophe throughout all the XXI century, the greatest interest of our research is an interval in approximately two decades between 2012 and 2030 years. Till this period the probability of global catastrophe as a whole is known and small, and after it - we lose, behind a number of exceptions, possibility to assume something precisely.
Short history of the researches of the question
The general course of the researches of the problem of the global catastrophes, conducting to human extinction, is possible to state is short as follows:
1. Antique and medieval representations about a doomsday at will of the God or as a result of war of demons.
2. XIX century. Early scientific representations about possibility of thermal death of the Universe and similar scenarios. In first half of XX century we could find a descriptions of grandiose natural disasters in science fiction, for example, at works of G. Wells (War of the worlds) and Sir Conan Doyle.
3. Clear comprehension of ability of mankind to exterminate itself appeared since 1945, in connection with creation of the nuclear weapon. 1950th years - the invention of cobalt bomb by Scillard and comprehension of the ways of utter annihilation of mankind by means of radioactive pollution. Before the first explosion of a nuclear bomb it was created secret, and now declassified report LA-602 on risks ignition of the Earths atmospheres at the first test of nuclear weapon which and now keeps its methodological value as a sober and unbiassed sight at the problem. Known works of this period: Herman Khan Thermonuclear war (1960), N. Shute "On the beach", von Horners article of 1961 with discussion about explanations of the possible reasons of Fermi Paradox. The basic explanation of the absense signals of the extraterrestrial civilisations, offered by it - is high probability of extinction of civilisations at a technological stage.
4. In 1960-1980th years there is a second wave of interest to a problem, connected with comprehension of threats from biological, nano weaponry, hostile AI, asteroid danger and other separate risks. The important role in it has science fiction, especially Stanislav Lem's creativity: his novel "Invincible", futurological research Summa technologie and the Science fiction and futurology and other works. Eric Dreksler in 1986 writes the bible nanotechnology - the book of Engines of creation in which are already considered the basic risks connected with nanorobots. In Alsiomar took place the first conference of safety of biotechnologies. In that time appeared N.Moiseyev and K.Sagan's works on nuclear winter.
5. The following stage was appearing of general works of A. Asimov (1980), Leslie (1996), Martin Rees (2003) and R. Posner (2004) in which was undertaken attempt to give complete picture of global risks. Thus the tonality of work of Asimov sharply differs from a tonality of the subsequent works. If at Asimovs book the basic risks are far in time, and are connected with the natural phenomena and as a whole are surmountable by the forces of human intelligence, in the subsequent works prevails pessimistic spirit and assumption that main risks will arise in the next hundred or two years because of human activity, and prospects of their overcoming are rather foggy.
6. In 1990th years were made a branch of researches connected with the analysis of logic paradoxes, linked with global risks i.e. Doomsday argument in different forms. The basic participants of discussion - Leslie, Bostrom, Gott, Cave.
7. Simultaneously in second half of XX century there was a development of science of synergetrics and the system analysis of the future and the system analysis of different catastrophes. It is necessary to note Prigozhin's works, Hanzen and the Russian authors S.P.Kurdyumov, G.G.Malinetskiy, A.P.Nazaretjan, etc.
8. Since 1993 appears a concept of the Technological Singularity (Vinge) and grew understanding of connection between it and global risks. Works of N.Bostrom, E.Yudkowsky, Kapitsa, A.D.Panov, M.Cirkovic.
9. In the end of XX and the beginning of the XXI century appeared some articles with the description of essentially new risks which comprehension became possible thanks to the creative analysis of possibilities of new technologies. These are R. Freitas work the Problem of grey goo (2001), R.Kerrigen Should SETI signals be decontaminated (2006), M.Cirkovic Geoengineering gone awry (2004), books Doomsday men (2007) by P.D.Smiths and Accidential nuclear war by (1993) Bruce Blair.
10. In the beginning of XXI century we see formation of methodology of the analysis of global risks, transition from list of risks to the metaanalysis of human ability to find out and correctly to estimate global risks. Here it is necessary to note especially works of Bostrom and Yudkowsky. In 2008 in Oxford under edition of Bostrom was published edited volume Global catastrophic risks and conference was hold.
11. In the beginning XXI century appeared public organisations propagandising protection from global risks, for example, Lifeboat Foundation and CRN (Centre for responsible Nanotechnology). Film Technocalipsis was shot.
12. This researches of the problem in modern Russia. It includes research A. P. Nazaretian (2001). Civilization crises in a context of Universal history. E.A.Abramjana's book Destiny of a civilisation (2006), A.Kononov's has opened Internet project about indestructibility of the civilisation. A.V. Karnauhov carries out researches of risks of greenhouse catastrophe. There were articles of separate authors on different speculative risks, including E.M. Drobyshevsky, V.F.Anisichkin, etc. I have executed translations into Russian of many articles mentioned here which are accessible via Internet, and the part from them is published in the volume Dialogues about the future and in the appendix to this book. In collected works of Institute of System analisis the Russian Academies of Sciences in 2007 is published two my articles about global risks: About Natural catastrophes and antropic principle and About possible reasons of underestimation of risks of destruction of a human civilisation.
Studying of global risks goes on the following chain: comprehension of one global risk and the fact of possibility of extinction in the near future,- then comprehension of several more global risks, - then attempts of creation of the exhaustive list of global risks, then creation of system of the description which allows to consider any global risks and to define danger of any new technologies and discoveries. The description system possesses bigger prognostic value, than simple list as allows to find new points of vulnerability just as atoms periodic table allows to find new elements. And then - research of borders of human thinking about global risks for the purpose of methodology that is way creation effectively to find and estimate global risks.

Threats of smaller catastrophes: levels of possible degradation
Though in this book we investigate global catastrophes which can lead to human extinction, it is easy to notice, that the same catastrophes in a little bit smaller scales can not destroy mankind, but reject it strongly back. Being rejected in the development, the mankind can appear at an intermediate step from which it is possible to step as to the further extinction, and to restoration. Therefore the same class of catastrophes can be both the reason of human extinction, and the factor which opens a window of vulnerability for following catastrophes. Further, at chapter of possible one-factorial scenarios of catastrophe, we will specify their potential both to definitive destruction, and to the general fall of stability of mankind.
Depending on weight of the occurred catastrophe there can be various degrees of recoil back which will be characterised by different probabilities of the subsequent extinction, the further recoil and restoration possibility. As the term "postapocalypse" is an oxymoron, it is used in relation to a genre of the literature describing the world after nuclear war, we will use it also concerning the world where there was a certain catastrophe, but the part of people has survived. It is possible to imagine some possible steps of recoil:
1. Destruction of social system, as after disintegration of the USSR or crash of the Roman empire. Here there is a termination of development of technologies, connectivity reduction, population falling for some percent, however some essential technologies continue to develop successfully. For example, computers in the Post-Soviet world, some kinds of agriculture in the early Middle Ages. Technological development proceeds, manufacture and application of dangerous weaponry can also proceed, that is fraught with extinction or recoil even more low as a result of the following phase of war. Restoration is rather probable.
2. Considerable degradation of economy, loss of statehood and society disintegration on units at war among themselves. The basic form of activity is a robbery. Such world is represented in films Mad Max, the Water world and in many other on a theme of a life after nuclear war. The population is reduced in times, but, nevertheless, millions people survive. Reproduction of technologies stops, but separate carriers of knowledge and library remain. Such world can be united in hands of one governor, and state revival will begin. The further degradation could occur casually: as a result of epidemics, pollution of environment, etc.
3. Catastrophe in which result only survive a separate small groups of the people which have been not connected with each other: polar explorers, crews of the sea ships, inhabitants of bunkers. On one side, small groups appear even in more favourable position, than in the previous case as in them there is no struggle of one people against others. On the other hand, forces which have led to catastrophe of such scales, are very great and, most likely, continue to operate and limit freedom of moving of people from the survived groups. These groups will be compelled to struggle for the life. They can carry out completion of certain technologies if it is necessary for their rescue, but only on the basis of the survived objects. The restoration period under the most favorable circumstances will occupy hundreds years and will be connected with change of generations that is fraught with loss of knowledge and skills. Ability to sexual reproduction will be a basis of a survival of such groups.
4. Only a few human has escaped on the Earth, but they are incapable neither to keep knowledge, nor to give rise to new mankind. Even the group in which there are men and women, can appear in such position if the factors complicating expanded reproduction, outweigh ability to it. In this case people, most likely, are doomed, if there will be no certain miracle.
It is possible to designate also "bunker" level - that is level when only those people survive who are out of the usual environment. No matter are they there purposely or casually if separate groups of people have casually survived in the certain closed spaces. Conscious transition to bunker level is possible even without quality loss - that is the mankind will keep ability to further quickly develop technologies.
Intermediate scenarios of the postapocalyptic world are possible also, but I believe, that the listed four variants are the most typical. From each step down on catastrophic level exists bigger quantity of chances to fall even lowlier and less chances to rise. On the other hand, the stability islet is possible at a level of separate tribal communities when dangerous technologies have already collapsed, dangerous consequences of their applications have disappeared, and new technologies are not created yet and cannot be created.
It is thus incorrect to think, that recoil back it simply switching of historical time for a century or a millenium in the past, for example, on level of a society XIX or XV centuries. Degradation of technologies will not be linear and simultaneous. For example, such thing as Kalashnikov's gun, will be difficult to forget. In Afghanistan, for example, locals have learnt to make Kalashnikov's rough copies. But in a society where there is an automatic machine, knightly tournaments and horse armies are impossible. What was stable equilibrium at movement from the past to the future, can not be an equilibrium condition at the path of degradation. In other words, if technologies of destruction degrade more slowly, than technologies of creation the society is doomed to continuous sliding downwards.
However we can classify recoil back degree not by the quantity of victims, but by degree of loss of knowledge and technologies. In this sense it is possible to use historical analogies, understanding, however, that forgetting of technologies will not be linear. Maintenance of social stability at more and more low level of evolution demands the lesser number of people, and it is level is more and more steady both against progress, and to recourse. Such communities can arise only after the long period of stabilisation after catastrophe.
As to "chronology", following base variants of regress in the past (partly similar to the previous classification) are possible:
1. Industrial production level - railways, coal, a fire-arms, etc. Level of self-maintenance demands, possibly, tens millions humans. In this case it is possible to expect preservation of all base knowledge and skills of an industrial society, at least by means of books.
2. Level, sufficient for agriculture maintenance. Demands, possibly, from thousand to millions people.
3. Level of small group. Absence of a difficult division of labour though any agriculture is possible. Number of people: from ten to thousand.
4. Level of tribe or Mowgli. Full loss of cultural human skills, speeches, at preservation as a whole a genofund. Quantity of members of "flight", possibly, from one to hundred humans.
One-factorial scenarios of global catastrophe
In several following chapters we will consider the classical point of view on global catastrophes which consists of the list of any factors not connected among themselves, each of which is capable to lead to instant destruction of all mankind. Clearly this description is not complete, because it does not consider multifactorial and not-instant scenarios of global catastrophe. A classical example of consideration of one-factorial scenarios is already mentioned article of Nick Bostrom Existential risks.
Here we also will consider some sources of global risks which, from the point of view of the author, are not real global risks, but the public opinion on their danger is exacerbated, and we will estimate them. In other words, we will consider all factors which usually are called as global risks even if we will reject these factors.
Principles of classification of global risks
The way of classification of global risks is extremely important, because allows, as periodical table of elements, to find out empty places and to predict existence of new elements. Besides, it gives possibility to understand our own methodology and to offer principles on which new risks should be found out. Here I will designate those principles which I used myself and have found out in other researches.
The most obvious approach to an establishment of possible sources of global risks is the historiographic approach. It consists in the analysis of all accessible scientific literature on a theme, first of all, of already carried out survey works on global risks. However, it does not give the full list as some publications is separate articles in special disciplines, are little quoted or did not contain the standard keywords. Other variant - the analysis of science fiction for the purpose of finding of hypothetical scenarios of global catastrophes and then to make critical analysis of these scenarios.
The principle of increase in small catastrophes consists in finding of small events and the analysis of, whether there can be a similar event in much bigger scales. For example, whether is possible such large nuclear bomb that could destroy all the world? It adjoined by a way of analogies when, considering a certain catastrophe, for example, a crash of airplane, we search for the general structural laws in this event and then transfer them on hypothetical global catastrophe.
The paleontologic principle consists in the analysis of the reasons taking place in history of the Earth mass extinction. At last, the principle of devils advocate consists in intended designing of scenarios of extinction as though our purpose is to destroy the Earth.
Classification of the found out scenarios of extinction is possible by following criteria: on their source (anthropogenous/natural), on probability degree, on which technologies they demand and how much they are ready, how it is far in time from us, how we would defend from dangerous events and how they would influence people.
The global risks divide on two categories: the risks connected with technologies, and natural, catastrophes and risks. Thus, natural catastrophes are actual for any specie of live beings (exhaustion of resources, an overpopulation, loss of fertility, accumulation of genetic mutations, replacement by other specie, moral degradation, ecological crisis). Technological risks are not quite identical to anthropogenous risks, as an overpopulation and exhaustion of resources is quite antropogenic. The basic sign of technological risks is their uniqueness for a technological civilisation.
Technological risks differ on degree of the readiness of their element base. Some of them are technically possible now then others are possible under condition of long development of technologies and, probably, certain fundamental discoveries.
Accordingly, it is possible to distinguish three category of technological risks:
- Risks for which the technology is completely developed or demands only slightly completion. Here enters, first of all, the nuclear weapon and pollution of environment.
- Risks, technology for which successfully develops and it is not visible any theoretical obstacles for its development in the foreseeable future (e.g. biotechnology).
- Risks which demand for their appearance certain fundamental discoveries (antigravitation, liberation of energy from vacuum etc.) It is not necessary to underestimate these risks - the bigger part of global risks in the XX century has occurred from essentially new and unexpected discoveries.
The considerable part of risks would be between these points and from the point of view of some researchers, they would depend from essentially unattainable or infinitely difficult things (nanotech), and from the point of view of others from quite technologically achievable. The precaution principle forces us to choose that variant where they are possible.
In the list of global risks offered to the reader in following chapters they are put in order of degree of the readiness of technologies necessary for them. Then there is a description of natural risks and risks for any specie which are not connected with new technologies.


Chapter 2. Nuclear weapons


There is a large quantity of researches on the nuclear weapons and consequences of their application. Here we can offer the reader only the short and incomplete review of the basic conclusions considered exclusively only from the point of view of, whether can that or a different way this or that applications of the nuclear weapon lead to the human extinction. I will notice that the considerable part of the information on the nuclear weapon is still classified, and so suggested conclusions cannot be absolutely credible.
Classical example of threat to the human civilisation and to the existence of mankind is threat of nuclear war. Usually it is said about nuclear war, that it will result in destruction of all terrestrial life. However, apparently, this statement is some exaggeration. The nuclear weapon has three potential factors of global destruction: direct strike of all area of the Earth, radioactive contamination of all the Earth and effect of "nuclear winter. (Besides, the nuclear weapon can initiate certain other dangerous processes that we will discuss later). Further we will show, that though each of these effects can lead in special circumstances to human extinction, usual nuclear war, most likely, will not result in full extinction (though will be a lot of victim).
Classical nuclear war does not assume attack to all places of residing of people, but only on the opponent and its allies and so cannot lead to the extinction of mankind by the direct damage effects of the nuclear weapon. However, it is possible to consider a hypothetical situation when the nuclear attack is put in all places of residing of people. We will estimate, what quantity of warheads is necessary to destroy all people without an exception in case of nuclear attacks in regular space intervals and simultaneously on all surface of the Earth. Destruction of all people on a land would need not less (and it is considerably more) than 100 000 warheads of a megaton class. (If to consider, that one warhead cover the area in 1000 sq. km which is probably overestimated. The guaranteed destruction will demand much bigger number of warheads as even around explosion epicentre in Hiroshima were survived - in 500 metres from an explosion point.) At the same time, huge sites of a land are uninhabited. It is intelligent to assume, that 100 000 warheads will put people on a side survival though will not destroy all the people, as there are ships, planes, the casual survived and underground refuges. The guaranteed destruction of all people, probably, will demand millions warheads. It is necessary to notice, that on peak of cold war leading powers possessed quantity of warheads of an order 100 000, and the saved up stocks of plutonium (2000 tons, though it is not "weapon" grade plutonium, that is, pure plutonium-239 on isotope structure; however, the tests conducted in the USA have shown, that not weapon plutonium can also be used for nuclear explosions, but with a smaller exit of energy) allow to make several hundreds thousand warheads. At the same time, any scenario of nuclear war does not assume uniform blow on all area of a planet. On the other hand, it is theoretically possible to create such quantity of bombs and delivery systems, to strike to all planet area. Other researchers also come to similar conclusions - that nuclear war in itself cannot lead to human extinction. Besides, there are no publications which would specify in risks of full human extinction as a result of direct influence of nuclear explosions of usual capacity (instead of the subsequent effects in the form of radioactive contamination and nuclear winter.)
2.1 "Nuclear winter.
There are two unknown factors concerning nuclear winter: first, how long it will be and cold, and secondly, is the nuclear winter means mankind extinction. Concerning the first factor there are various estimations: from the extremely severe (Moiseyev, Sagan) to rather soft concepts of "nuclear autumn. The existing criticism of the concept of nuclear winter concentrates around following questions:
;What quantity of soot will arise and will be thrown out in troposphere in case of large-scale nuclear war?
; What influence it will render on temperature of the Earth?
;How long it will be in an upper atmosphere?
;What influence will render temperature drop on a survival of people?
Separate researches concentrate on the analysis of each of these factors, accepting as grantedresults of the previous. For example, recent American research of a problem of influence of nuclear winter on a climate accepts as initial data of the quantity of soot in the troposphere, equal 150 million tons. In N.N. Moiseyev's initial analysis this quantity was 4 billion tons, and accordingly, temperature drop was 20, instead of 50 degrees, as at Moiseyev. In I.M. Abduragimova's article "About a concept inconsistency of nuclear night and nuclear winter" about the fires after nuclear strike "the rigid criticism by quantity of soot which will be allocated as a result of full-scale nuclear war is resulted. At forest fire burns down on the average only 20 % from combustible weight, from it only half is pure carbon on weight, and bigger part of this carbon burns down completely, that is, - without formation of parts of coal. Thus, only part of the soot will be so fine, that can hang in troposphere and black out the Earth. To transport this soot in troposphere where it can "hang" because of the absence of convection there, is required a specific phenomenon - a fiery tornado (as the sphere of a nuclear mushroom leaving highly in troposphere, has so big temperature, that in it all parts of soot burn down). The fiery tornado is formed not at all nuclear explosions, It should not be formed in the modern cities, constructed so that to avoid this effect, for example, in cities of the former USSR. And, besides, it sharply improves combustion, as furs in the melting furnace, keeping much less soot in it.
These features distinguish soot at nuclear winter from a usual volcanic dust which is literally shot in a stratosphere from a volcano muzzle. But the volcanic dust consists of heavier silicon oxide and much faster drops out of troposphere.
However, nevertheless it is possible to imagine a hypothetical situation when in troposphere have appeared hundred millions tons of fine carbon soot. It is possible to imagine and scenarios alternative to nuclear war there, for example, asteroid hit in coal deposits, or volcanic explosion under such deposits, or result of a certain human activity, or even uncontrollable reproduction of nanorobots, covering sunlight as assumes Freitas. Moiseyev's initial calculations became for the area of the burnt down cities and woods in 1 million sq. km. The total area of woods on the Earth makes about 40 million sq. km, and they contain about 240 billion tons of wood. It means theoretical possibility of very big emission of soot in atmosphere even in case of smaller share of formation of soot, but only - in case of intended destruction of a civilisation because it is unlikely that during common nuclear war the forests would be bombed.
Time of a residing of soot in troposphere is estimated differently, but usual estimation is from several months till 10 years. There is as well alternative theories about influence of nuclear war on a climate, for example, a theory that for the account of a greenhouse effect from the burnt down carbon and formation of oxides of nitrogen and their influence on an ozone layer the temperature of the Earth will sharply raise.
Also it is necessary to tell, that sudden and long cold snaps not necessarily mean human extinction. For example, the USA and Switzerland have not less than a five years' strategic stock of the foodstuffs though as a whole data on strategic stocks is confidential, plus fuel in the form of woods, furnaces and skills of a survival at winter temperatures. I believe, that to lead to death of all people, the nuclear winter should last not less than hundred years with the Antarctic temperatures, and even that could be insufficient, with the account of human ability to adapt. (If to consider, that the nuclear winter will be the unique adverse factor that is incorrect.)
The most modern researches of climatic consequences of full-scale nuclear war are published in Alan Robock's article with co-authors Nuclear winter in modern model of a climate at existing nuclear arsenals: consequences are still catastrophic. Article contains the review of the previous researches and intelligent variants of expected emission of soot. Calculation is executed on the basis of the modern meteorological model which have been checked up on the other situations. As a result it turns out that at full-scale modern war (that is, reduced since times of Cold war) nuclear arsenals average decrease in temperature across all Earth will make nearby 7 within several years, and consequences of nuclear winter will be felt about 10 years. Clarification time (in =2.71 time) the top troposphere from soot will make 4,6 years. Thus, over continents temperature decrease will make to 30 , and in particular, over Ukraine there will be no positive temperatures within three years. It will make impossible conducting classical (not in hothouses) agriculture almost across all Earth within several years. On the other hand, over tropical islands (Cuba, Madagascar, Sri Lanka) temperature decrease will make only a few 5-7 . It is obvious, that considerable number of people could go through such cold snap, however struggle for the remained resources which will raise risks of the further catastrophes. A series of large volcanic eruptions (volcanic ashes leave troposphere with characteristic time in 1 year) could give the same effect.
 Considering uncertainty of models, and also possibility of long nuclear war and other reasons of blackout of atmosphere, it is possible to assume following theoretical variants of nuclear winter:
1) temperature drop on one degree for one year, not rendering considerable influence on human population. As after eruption of volcano Pinatubo in 1991.
2) nuclear autumn - temperature decrease on 2-4 within several years resulting in poor harvests, hurricanes.
3) year without summer - intensive, but rather short colds within a year, destruction of a considerable part of a crop, hunger and freesing in some countries. It already occurred after large eruptions of volcanoes in VI century of our era, in 1783, in 1815
4) ten years' nuclear winter - temperature drop on all the Earth approximately for 10 years on 30-40 . This scenario is meant by the models of nuclear winter. Snow covers biggest part of the Earth, except for some equatorial seaside territories. The mass deaths of people for hunger, colds, and also because snow will keep and form the multimeter thicknesses destroying structures and blocking road. Death of the bigger part of the population of the Earth, however millions people will survive and will keep key technologies. Risks: continuation of war for warm places, unsuccessful attempts to warm the Earth by the means of new nuclear explosions and artificial eruption of volcanoes, transition to uncontrollable heating of nuclear summer. However even if to admit this scenario, it will appear, that only the horned livestock world's reserve (which will freeze on the farms and it will be stored in such natural "refrigerators") will suffice one for years of a subsistence of all mankind, and, e.g. Finland has a strategic stock of meal (grain) for 10 years.
5) A new glacial age is hypothetical continuation of the previous scenario of the previous scenario, in a situation when reflecting ability of the Earth increases because of the snow layer, and new ice caps from poles and downwards, to equator start to accrue. However a part of the land at equator remains suitable for a life and agriculture. As a result it is necessary for civilisation to change considerably. It is difficult to imagine huge resettlements of the people without wars. A lot of species of live beings will die out, but the most part of a variety of biosphere would survive though people will destroy it even more ruthlessly in searches though any food. People already have gone through some glacial ages, which could begin rather sharply as a result of eruptions of supervolcanoes and falling of asteroids (eruption of volcano Toba will escape, Elatin comet catastrophe).
6) The irreversible snowball Earth. It can be the following phase of a glacial age, at the worst succession of events. On the all surface of the Earth on geologically long time will be established a temperature mode as in Antarctica, oceans will freeze, the land will become covered by a thick ice layer. Only the hi-tech civilisation, capable to build huge constructions under ice, can go through such disaster, but such civilisation could, possibly, find a way to turn back this process. The life can survive only near geothermal springs on a sea-bottom. Last time the Earth was in this condition about 600 million years ago, that is before an exit of animals on a land, and could leave it only thanks to accumulation in atmosphere. At the same time, for last 100 000 years was four usual freezing which have not resulted neither in an irreversible icing, nor to human extinction so, approach of an irreversible icing is small probability event. At last, in case the Sun in general would cease to shine, transformation of all atmosphere into liquid nitrogen would be the worst outcome that looks absolutely improbable.
Though variants 5 and 6 concern the most improbable, they bear in themselves the greatest risk. These variants could be possible at extraordinary big emission of soot and at the worst succession of events, which we now cannot expect.
It is possible to assume that if a certain force has aimed to suit nuclear winter purposely it can organise it, having blown up hydrogen bombs in coal mines or in a large forest area. It, probably, will give immeasurably bigger emission of soot, than attack to cities. If to establish hydrogen bombs with the timer for different terms it is possible to support nuclear winter beyond all bounds long. Theoretically, this way it is possible to reach a steady condition of "show ball Earth, reflecting all sunlight, with full freezing up to bottom of oceans which becomes a self-supported condition.
Initialization of eruption of a supervolcano by means of the nuclear weapons also will result in analogue of "nuclear winter - to volcanic winter. Attempts of people to correct a situation by means of artificial nuclear winter or artificial nuclear summer, can only aggravate problems for the account of transition of a climate in a swing mode.
I should say that exact probability and duration of nuclear winter and its consequences are uncomputable for some reasons. In particular, because we, by definition, cannot put experiment, and also precisely define, how much, for example, Moiseyev and Sagan have been interested to exaggerate danger of nuclear winter to promote nuclear disarmament. That is, whether they wished to create a self-not coming true prophecy.
It is possible separately mention the theory of "nuclear summer which assumes, that after nuclear winter, and may be instead of it, there will come substantial growth of temperature of the Earth which can dangerously converge with already existing effect of global warming, having translated it in super-critical stage with temperature growth on tens degrees (see further). Soot fallout on glaciers, formation of oxides of nitrogen at the explosions, destroying of ozone layer and extinction of vegetation, which is absorbing carbon dioxide, change of albedo owing to desertification and liberation of carbon dioxide at fires are the factors, able to lead to nuclear summer. The barrier which is not giving to water steam to get to a stratosphere, , will cease to work, and then when it again start to work ten billions tons of water will appear locked in the stratosphere, and they can create a green house effect in additional 8 ; as Ronald suggest in thearticle Nuclear winter and other scenarios confirms. Besides, he assumes, that the nuclear winter can be used as the weapon which could be used by a country which has the greatest stocks of the foodstuffs and having the best warm habitation. The nuclear summer is much more dangerous than nuclear winter as men survive cooling is easier, than heating (that is if to accept a room temperature for 20 ; human quite transfers a frost in the street to a minus 50 ;, that is on 70 ; more low, but can sustain lifting of temperature no more than, on 30 ;, that is not above 50; in the street). Besides, heating systems can work independently (the forests as a source of fire wood + an oven), but refrigerators demand presence of the steady centralised infrastructure (manufacture of refrigerators + the electric power). Storage of a foodstuff at sharp warming becomes extremely complicated - they will decay, will be eaten by rodents or will burn down. Thus the nuclear summer creates much bigger risk of extinction than nuclear winter.
2.2 Full radioactive contamination
The following scenario - global radioactive contamination. It is possible to allocate two kinds of contamination - the short-term contamination arising during the first hours or days after explosion and caused shorliving elements, and long-term, connected with long-living elements, and lasting for years. The short-term contamination connected with usual nuclear war, will result in considerable victims, but will be local enough phenomenon depending on a wind rose in the attcked country. It is possible to overstay it also in bombproof shelters, caves, mines, - and consequently we do not consider it as possible threat of full human extinction. The greatest threat is represented by global radioactive contamination, however in case of usual nuclear war it cannot lead to human extinction. (For example because of thousand air tests of nuclear bombs in 1950-60th years it have not been created any substantial growth of a global radiating background.) However is possible not conventional application of nuclear weapons which will result in global radioactive contamination. Global contamination is capable to extend continuously on the all surface of the Earth and to get everywhere because of natural convection of atmospheres, and also that it is so long that it is impossible to overstay in independent refuges existing now. The most known scenario of such tpe is application of cobalt bombs, that is bombs with the raised exit of radioactive substances. Cobalt bombs represent the hydrogen bombs surrounded with a cover from cobalt-59, turning to a radioactive isotope cobalt-60. The project of the bomb, capable to infect the whole continents, has offered by Leo Scillard in 1950. 1 gramme of cobalt has a radio-activity of an order 50 Curie. If to spray 1 gramme on 1 sq. Km it is not enough of it for the guaranteed death of all people though it will demand evacuation from this territory by today's standards safety. Cobalt-60 has a half-life period of 5,26 years, therefore the pollution created by it will be long and it will be difficult to overstay it in the bunker. Nevertheless, even such contamination will demand all only 500 tons of cobalt to all Earth. Indirectly this quantity can be estimated in 100 bombs of type of the Tsar-bomb in 50 megatons, blown up on Novaia Zemlia island in 1961. If on this bomb was the uranium cover, it would give additional 50 megatons, and capacity of explosion would make 100 megatons, but the cover has been replaced on lead for the purpose of decrease in force of explosion. The weight of the reacted uranium which would give an exit of energy of 50 megatons, is approximately equal 5 . It is possible to assume, that if this bomb had a cobalt cover, it would give approximately 5 tons of radioactive cobalt. By other estimations spent to the USA after performance of Szilard about possibility of destruction of the life on the Earth by means of a cobalt bomb, it was found out, that it is really possible, but the device should be in 2,5 times heavier than destroyer "Missouri". Displacement "Missouri" is 45 000 . So, we receive two estimations of weight of this device - 2 700 tons and 110 000 tons. The difference between them is not important from the point of view of a question, is it possible to built such device and how much it will cost. As the weight of usual nuclear power reactors is arround thousand tons, it is quite real to make the device weighing 100 000 tons, as 20 reactors. If one reactor costs about billion dollars under the modern prices such device will cost an order of 20 billion. This sum less than the military budget of the USA in more than 20 times. Other reference point: weight of reactor ITER is 30 000 tons, the price of it is 12 billion dollars. So, creation of a Doomsday nuclear bomb is technically real for the large state possessing the nuclear program, also it will demand several years of work.
The famous isotope polonium-210 is not less dangerous. It is much more powerful source of radiation, than cobalt as has a smaller half-life period (approximately in 15 times). It possesses ability to collect in an organism, hurting from within, that raises its efficiency still approximately in 10 times. Its deadly dose - about 0,2 mkg. It means, that full deadly contamonation of the Terrestrial surface will demand only 100 ons of this dangerous substance (or hundreds kg at worst - if to consider its ability to collect in organisms, and also a repeated poisoning for the account of high concentration in the environment).
 More exact calculations are required considering speeds of sedimentation of radioactive substance from atmosphere, its washing away in ocean, disintegration, linkages and affinities with elements in a human body, and also ability of people to adapt to radiation define which minimum quantity of an isotope can to lead to extinction of all people on the Earth or to long unfitness of all land for agriculture and impossibility in this connection to return in pre-industrial development phase.
In order that the radioactive substance has extended far enough, the bomb should blow up at height of 10-20 km and if that the bomb has enough powerful, it should be heavy. Finally, such Doomsday machine could represent stationary device in weight in thousand tons, with force of explosion in hundreds megatons in which course would formed tons of a dangerous isotope which are thrown out by force of explosion high in air.
Besides, it is possible to overstay contamination of short-living isotope in the bunker. Creation of independent bunkers with self-maintenance for decades years is theoretically possible. The guaranteed extinction can occur in case of mixture, long-living and short-living isotopes. Short-living isotopes will destroy the most part of the biosphere, and long-living will make the Earth unsuitable for the life for those who will overstay contamination in the bunker.
If the certain country possessing nuclear technologies, appears under the threat of an external assult, it can dare to create such bomb. Especially, if antiballistic missile (ABM) systems at the opponents side do not give chances to use the rocket weapon for defence. As, probably, for such bomb is not required large amounts of uranium or plutonium - only a few kgs on a fuse. (But it is required much deiterium). However, if after creation of such bomb on the given country nobody never attacks for granted, its creation can be cheaper, than the maintenance of armed forces. From here follows, that ABM systems do not raise safety in the world as induce weaker countries to create cobalt stationary bombs as last means of defence. Or, on the contrary to concentrate on working out biological and other alternative kinds of arms.
Let's notice, that full explosion of a modern nuclear reactor does not threaten survival of mankind as it follows from explosion consequences on the Chernobyl atomic power station. On the other hand, it is possible to assume appearance in the future of certain hypothetical installations with a much bigger exit of radiation in case of full destruction. For example, is assumptions, that in blanket (a chamber cover) of thermonuclear reactors will collect considerably big (in 100 times) quantities of radioactive substances with the raised maintenance of dangerous isotopes like cobalt-60 which in case of reactor destruction will be liberated in atmosphere. The exit of chain reaction under the control in a certain installation also could increase contamination considerably.
2.3 Other dangers of the nuclear weapon
Superbomb
After "Tsar-bomb" test in 1961 on Novaia Zemlia with an exit in 50 megatons, workings out have been carried out of more powerful bombs with an exit in 200 and even 1000 megatons which were supposed to be transported on courts to the American coast and to cause with their help of a tsunami. It means, that, possibly, there were technical possibilities beyond all bounds to increase explosive force of a bomb.
It is important to notice also, that the tsar-bomb it has been tested 12 years after explosion of the first nuclear bomb. This fact can speak about that, as to other powers can be demanded concerning small term for transition to huge bombs. If to compare mass factor of a bomb (6 megatons of explosion on weight ton) with weight of nuclear reactors of an order of several thousand tons it becomes clear, that the top limit of a superbomb which now can be made, make about hundred gigaton. It is not enough of it for destruction of all people by force of explosion as in case of asteroids impact energy is in thousand times more. Superbomb explosion in a coal layer will cause, probably, long nuclear winter combined with strong radioactive contamination. (Similar as asteroid, probably, has resulted in destruction of deposits of oil in America 65 million years ago that had serious climatic consequences). Some tens the superbombs placed in different places of the Earth, can cover all territory of a planet with hurting blow.
Before the first test of nuclear bomb Trinity Compton made report LA-602 Ignaition of atmosphere with nuclear bomb in which it was proved, that bomb explosion cannot lead to self-supported reaction of fusion of atoms of nitrogen in atmosphere because of loss of energy by radiation. In the same place it is told, that for an estimation of risks ignition of oceans additional researches are required. These researches which, most likely, have been executed, remain classified, that, in particular, can mean, that they showed the minimum conditions which are necessary for ignition deuterium at terrestrial oceans. Reactions of capture of hydrogen by carbon or oxygen are besides, possible, which too could sustain explosive combustion (see Shklovsky. Stars: their birth, life and death). These substances are in considerable quantities in deposits of hydrates of methane on a sea-bottom. More details about thermonuclear explosion in bowels of the Earth or other planets I consider in the essay About possibility of artificial initialization of explosion of giant planets and other objects of Solar system (On Russian).
Here it is important to us to notice, that in absence of exact data about impossibility of this process, we should suppose, that under certain conditions - a correct choice of a place, very powerful bomb initialization of self-supported reaction of synthesis in terrestrial environments is possible. Similar possibility would open concerning a simple way to creation of the real Doomsday machine which for granted would destroy all life on the Earth.
Assumptions were come out also, that explosion of powerful nuclear bombs in tectonic breaks could lead to the catastrophic seismic phenomena, but I believe it doubtful as tectonic breaks and without that are sources of Earthquakes forces.
Antimatter accumulation
Stanislav LEM has somehow told, that he is more afraid of an antimatter, than the Internet. However, apparently, the antimatter does not give essentially bigger destructive force, than a usual hydrogen bomb. Peak efficiency of a nuclear charge is equal 6 megatons on weight ton that corresponds about 0,15 kg of an antimatter (Energy of substance of 1 kg is equal under Einstein's formula 9*10 ** 16 J, and one megaton is equal in a trotyl equivalent 4*10 ** 15 J, thus the weight of the reacted antimatter should be doubled for the account of weights of annihilated with it usual matter). But special traps which should weigh much too will be necessary for antimatter containing. Besides, it is very difficult to secure an antimatter against casual explosion whereas to secure a nuclear bomb easily. At last, it is necessary weight of energy on reception of the antimatter. It seems senseless to do a bomb of huge capacity from an antimatter - and capacities of an available nuclear ammunition enough for any conceivable destroying influences. Therefore I believe improbable antimatter accumulation in the military purposes. Only if certain new fundamental physical discoveries were made, antimatter will represent danger. Also antimatter application in deep space is dangerous where it is theoretically possible to collect its considerable weight in the artificail "meteorite" and to direct to the Earth.
Cheap bomb
There is also a danger of basic reduction in price of the nuclear weapon if it will be possible to start self-supported thermonuclear reaction without an initiating nuclear charge by means of chemical implosion (cylindrical), laser firing, magnetic compression, electric category and the small portions of an antimatter applied in a certain combination (see, for example, article of Feoktistov The Thermonuclear detonation, On Russian. Which, as a matter of fact, represents the project of creation of a hydrogen bomb of unlimited capacity by means of laser firing - and nevertheless lays in open access.)
 Other factor of reduction in price is use nanotechnologies in construction, that is, high-precision and in the long term cheap manufacture by means of microrobots. The third factor is detection of new ways of allocation of uranium from sea water and its enrichment.
There is also a risk that we essentially underestimate simplicity and cheapness of the nuclear weapons, and, hence, its quantity in the world. For example, probably, that plutonium from reactors can be adapted for bombs of the gun scheme with an exit nearby 2 kilotonn, suitable for acts of nuclear terrorism. Any discovery in the field of the cold nuclear synthesis, controllable nuclear fusion, deliveries of helium-3 from space will simplify transformations of elements and will reduce the price of manufacture of the nuclear weapon.
Attack to radiating objects
One more way to arrange a doomsday by means of the nuclear weapon is attack by cruise missiles (ballistic have no sufficient accuracy) all nuclear reactors on a planet and especially storehouses of the fulfilled nuclear fuel. Though hardly it will be possible to excite chain reaction in them (however this possibility cannot be excluded at a direct hit of a nuclear bomb in a reactor or storehouse of nuclear waste), huge quantities of radiation will be allocated in air. According to IAEA, by 2006 from power reactors (and them in the world from above 400) it is unloaded about 260 thousand tons of spent nuclear fuel containing more of 150 billion Curie of a radioactivity. Also it is known, that by 2006 of the country of the world have saved up about 260 thousand tons spent nuclear fuel, and by 2020 its quantity will make not less than 600 thousand tons (in the same place). That is, in the XXI century the quantity of a radioactive waste, possibly, will grow unlineary, increasing both for the accumulation account, and for the introduction account because of new reactors.
At uniform dispersion of 150 billion curie we receive 300 curie / sq. km of a terrestrial surface. It is far outside of norms of mandatory evacuation and an interdiction for agriculture on Chernobyl practice. At rough recalculation (the empirical formula - 1 curie on sq. m. gives 10 rem in hour) it will generate activity 3 mili rem in hour. As much as possible admissible safe dose 25 rem is not enough for instant death rate as makes only approximately 2 rem in a month, and will be typed only for a year. However such district for a long time (in spent fuel there are many long-living elements, including plutonium) becomes unsuitable for agriculture as these substances collect in vegetation and animals and at the use inside strike 10 times stronger blow to an organism. In other words, the survived people cannot be engaged in agriculture and will be doomed to gradual degradation from illnesses. Nevertheless here will not be the guaranteed extinction, as people are beings very much adoptable and hardy if any factors, of course, do not interfere.
Explosion of powerful bombs in space
If the terrestrial technology widely steps in space, creation of huge bombs of space, weight in hundreds tons (in particular, for the purpose of a deviation of dangerous asteroids) sooner or later becomes possible. The risk consists in explosion of several tens gigatons bombs in low orbits which will simply burn the Earth the radiation. However in case of such attack all the same will survive: miners, submariners, cave explorers. (Though one men can survive only, and the specie of man on it will end, as in the nature there are not enough women-submariners and miners. But cave explorers happen.) On effect of influence it will be like artificial gamma splash.
2.4 Integration of hurting factors of the nuclear weapons.

The moderated nuclear winter, accompanying with moderate radioactive contamination, can give sinergetic effect which surpasses in force even the most powerful nuclear winter taken separately. For example, as it has already been told (see above) in case of "pure" nuclear winter people can eat many years cattle which has frozen in stalls and has remained. In case of radioactive contamination there will not be such possibility. Blast waves worldwide will destroy houses, and there where they will remain, glasses will be beaten out, and it will make more difficult protection against radiation and a cold. To heat with radioactive wood will be dangerous. These factors will be strengthened by destruction of the most valuable objects of an infrastructure for the account of direct action of hurting factors of the nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, while it is impossible to tell, whether the synergetic effect can lead to total extinction if any of its components does not give it.
2.5 Cost of creation of the nuclear potential, able to threaten a survival of a human civilisation
Though the nuclear weapon creates theoretical possibility of universal destruction, the practical realizability of such projects depends on their cost. If to divide cost of the nuclear program of the USA into quantity of made bombs the average price of a charge will make 1-40 million dollars, according to A.Anisimov's calculations in article Development of strategic forces of China and a problem of adequacy of a situation of foreign policy of the USA. If full radiating contamination of the Earth needs 1000 bombs with a cover from cobalt such project will cost an order of 40 billion dollars. It is the tenth share of the annual budget of the Pentagon or the price of large oil corporation. If to speak is one thousand from annual world gross national product more precisely. In process of growth of world gross national product and manufacture reduction in price, this share decreases, that is, allow to create such weapon more cheaply. Thus, creation of the Doomsday nuclear weapon is practically accessible at the moment for large powers.
 
2.6 Probability of the global catastrophe caused by the nuclear weapons

Concerning risks of extinction as a result of application of the nuclear weapon it is necessary to combine probability of two variants:
;the classical nuclear war leading to extinction.
;nonclassical application of the nuclear weapon as Doomsday machine.
The first variant is defined by product of probability of two consecutive events: probabilities of full-scale nuclear war and probability of that this war will result in mankind extinction.
It seems to us, that the probability of a deliberate attack of one power on another is improbable as it will not give neither political, nor economic or military benefit, but will create risk of retaliation, distribution of the weapon of mass defeat, risk of war with other powers possessing the nuclear weapon. However nuclear war between the nuclear states can begin casually, to be exact, as a result of a complex chain of events. We will recollect: during the Caribbean crisis Americans believed, that can attack Cuba as there there is no nuclear weapon of Russian. The Soviet military men had there tactical nuclear weapon which might apply at own discretion depending on circumstances (that is, without a command from above), but believed, that Americans will not attack them. Each party operated correctly within the limits of the representations and thus believed wrong and impossible actions of other party.
Nuclear forces are under the influence of following inconsistent requirements:
a) Nuclear forces under no circumstances cannot make inadvertent start - that is start which later would be recognised by incorrect. It includes a purpose identification, informing of the president, decision-making, its finishing to points of start both start and prompting of rockets.
b) Nuclear forces should manage to strike the response blow in the conditions of intensive information counteraction of the probable opponent so - to be in a condition of high battle readiness and autonomy in decision-making.
How this contradiction dares, depends, e.g. whether there are keys of start onboard a submarine or are sent aboard by radio from the centre in case of an extreme situation. Though the question of how is organised management of Strategic nuclear forces in leading nuclear powers, is the greatest military secret, it is historically known, that variants when the start key was on places repeatedly got out.
It is possible to think up set of scenarios of the inadvertent beginning of nuclear war. See more in detail Bruce Blair's book Accidential nuclear war. For example, the plane with the president suddenly force down. As a control system so also communication with the commander-in-chief is the most essential part of system of defence and any problems on this line can be perceived as the beginning of the attack.
As nuclear war never happened, it has made biasing impact on public expectations, and, probably, on norms of risk in military sphere. Besides, the number of the countries, capable to create and creating nuclear arsenals, grows. Moreover, terrorist nuclear attack too can become a trigger hook to war, and it can be organised and by small country. All it can pushes us to thought, that the risk of nuclear war constantly grows. If we estimate it in 0,5 % a year, that, I think, it will be enough a quite good estimation. However this risk couldnt "live" hundred years. Or it will be made irrelevant by even more powerful and dangerous technologies, or, on the contrary, mankind will unite and will refuse stocks of the nuclear weapon.
On the other hand, usual inadvertent nuclear war will not result inevitably in mankind extinction. If its scale is limited by several countries it will be one more event of scale of the Second World War. And then it will not interrupt a course of progress and essentially will not change a course of world history. However nuclear war can start a chain of events which will sharply lower a level of development of all mankind, will translate it on a postapocalyptic stage in which it will be vulnerable to many other things to extinction factors. For example, war can become permanent then sides because of revenge will make all new portions of the weapon, especially, biological, or will build and blow up Doomsday machines, that is the devices, capable to destroy all mankind. Thus, people will be exposed to influence of nuclear winter and radioactive deposits of unknown force. The sum of all these factors can put mankind on the verge of extinction, and transition of this brink becomes a case question.
The course of events in the postapocalyptic world will depend not only on consequences of nuclear war, but also from what technologies there will survive, can be developed and will be applied. It is beyond a theme of the given chapter, therefore we can tell that in the worst case from nuclear war will turn out the postapocalyptic world capable to the further degradation. Chances of that the civilisation will lower the level as a result of nuclear war, we will accept as 50 %. As a result we receive an estimation of probability of transition in the postapocalyptic world as a result of nuclear war in the XXI century of an order of 25 % in the event that no other processes will prevent it. As, however, this event will be overshadowed, that is, most likely, becomes impossible because of stronger processes during a maximum of next 30 years, we can divide this estimation on 3 (as 30 approximately in 3 times of less than 100 years for which the initial estimation became), that is we will receive 8 % of probability of that in the XXI century we will get to the postnuclear world with the lowered level of development of a civilisation. Probability of that we will die out in the postnuclear world still several times less and depends on other factors. Approximating to an order, we will receive risk of extinction as a result of consequences of nuclear war in the XXI century of an order of 1 %. Chances that strong nuclear war will directly result to human extinction without a fading phase in the postapocalyptic world, I estimate as much smaller. To similar conclusions comes the guru of cryptography Martin Helmann.
It is necessary to consider also probabilities of nonconventional application of the nuclear weapon. At the moment it is not known about workings out Doomsday Machines (that is the devices specially intended for destruction of mankind for the purpose of blackmail) on the basis of the nuclear weapon (though partly it is possible to consider nuclear forces as them; besides, such working out would be conducted the strict secret. As is shown in the movie Kubricks Dr. Strendzhlav, Doomsday machine does not make sense, if not announced, that is, it should be classified only in the process of building; on the other hand, it may be declared only to the heads of hostile countries in order not spoil the image and not frighten people.) In the future there can be much cheaper ways of creation of the Doomsday Machine on the basis of biological weapons. Therefore I think that an that chances of creation and application of the Doomsday Machine on the basis of the nuclear weapon, at least in 10 times less than chances of the common nuclear war. However, in that case chances of extinction of all mankind are greater, than from nuclear war as not each nuclear war leads to extinction. Actually, if the Doomsday weapon is applied, all question in, whether it will work how planned. (If Hitler in the bunker had such weapon be, he, probably, would applied it - as a hara-kiri to all country; anyway, it follows from Hitler's will where he accuses the German people of defeat.) Probability of extinction of mankind as a result of application of the Doomsday Machinein the XXI century I estimate as size an order of 1 %.
Certain integration of the fighting nuclear weapon and the Doomsday Machine is possible. In N. Shut's novel "On the beach" considerable applications of thousands of cobalt bombs by many states leads not to contamination of the separate countries as it was supposed, but to full contamination of all world. After discovery of possibility of nuclear winter it became clear, that modern nuclear rockets can be the Doomsday weapon if to direct them on thousand cities all over the world. Precisely also it is possible to direct them on warehouses of the fulfilled nuclear fuel, the nuclear stations, sleeping volcanoes and coal deposits. That is the same weapon can be or not to be Doomsday Machine depending on the way of use.
2.7 Change of probability of the global catastrophe caused by the nuclear weapon by time
It is considered, that now annual probability of catastrophic nuclear war has decreased, as nuclear arsenals of the USSR and the USA were considerably reduced. However actually the probability of application of the nuclear weapon grows, as more and more the countries openly declare its working out (nearby 10), and, besides, other countries, besides Russia and the USA, find technical possibilities and desire to get an arsenal in thousand warheads (China, Pakistan and India). The number of the countries developing peace nuclear power of double appointment grows also, that is, they are capable within months or several years to start manufacture of the nuclear weapon (see for example Nuclear non-distribution during a globalisation epoch, under edition of A.Arbatov and V.Mikheyev's).
Chances lost of fission materials to the hands of terrorists also grow.
This growth of probability is rather linear and will be slow enough only if new ideas of basic reduction in the price of manufacture of the nuclear weapon are not invented: molecular manufacture and methods of thermonuclear explosion without uranium fuse. Appearance and - especially - spread of knowledge about such methods will sharply increase quantity of a nuclear ammunition in the world. We can be assured that now molecular nanotechnologyical manufacture is not present, but we can not be assured, that there are no classified ways of direct initialization of thermonuclear explosion. Certainly, if they were, the fact of their existence should be kept in secret. Distribution of new technologies, for example AI and nanotechnology, can create new ways of destruction of the nuclear weapon and prevention of its application. However if such weapon is applied, they will not give special protection against its hurting factors. Owing to it, it is possible to assert, that risk of application of the nuclear weapon will rest with us always if only it will not be superseded by factors of greater force, that is bigger risks connected with AI, nanotechnology and biotechnologies.
As to the Doomsday Machine on the basis of the nuclear weapon - like gigaton cobalt bomb in the present - it is not known about works on the such weapon. On the other hand, if such working out were made, it would be the big secret as the country openly developing the Doomsday weapon, immediately would undergo to an attack. I believe, that this probability is not equal to zero and grows too, but very monotonously and slowly. In case of the beginning of new World war it can essentially increase. In other words, war (or threat of such war) which conducts to a full gain of nuclear power, with high probability will result in application or threat of application of Doomsday weapon as last argument. Besides, working out of the new nuclear technologies which are reducing the price of manufacture, increases also chances of creation nuclear Doomsday weapon. Probably, after ten of twenty years it will be accessible also to the so-called rogue countries.
2.8 Strategy of nuclear deterrence is in doubt
It is necessary to tell, that, probably, nuclear deterrence as the factor of prevention of war is overestimated. That is advantageous strategy in short-term prospect, but it could be losing strategy in long-term. That is: wars of superstates became more rare, but the scale of possible consequences of such wars has immeasurably grown. And if the nuclear weapons were not in only the several countries, but in all without an exception, war of all against all will not leave any escaped corner of a planet. The mechanism of distribution of the conflict can be such: if there are countries A, B, C, D and there is a nuclear war between A and B in a prize there are countries C and D. Therefore countries A and B can be interested in that C and D too have entered war, and can attack their part of forces. C and D, understanding it, can strike the first.
At last, threat of the mutual guaranteed destruction is effective only when there are only two superstates (by quantity of nuclear charges). But already now, and probably and earlier, China became the third, and appearance of new nuclear superstates is possible. J. Leslie notices, that reduction of quantity of nuclear bombs in arsenals does not conduct to decrease in probability of nuclear war as demands that strategy of retaliatory counter-attack when rockets are started was used before enemy strike have destroyed the targets because after that the escaped 10 % of missiles will be insufficiently for high-grade retaliation. Strategy of the retaliatory counter-attack is more vulnerable to false operations as the decision on a nuclear attack would be made only based on indirect signs which can contain errors, and in the conditions of very short time interval which excludes any reflexion about the nature of the arrived signals. Actually, this decision depends not on people, but from the algorithms written by them in advance and instructions that washes away responsibility. Besides, retaliatory counter-attack means constantly high level of battle readiness of rockets, that, in particular, demands, that start keys were not in the centre, and at direct executors.
Increase of accuracy of rockets also does not guarantee stability as gives possibility of the first disarming strike, and accordingly, can push more weaker side to strike first before it has definitively lost advantage. The same is true and for creation of a defensive board like the ABM. All resulted strategy of nuclear opposition are not adhered exclusively to the nuclear weapon, but will be true and at appearance of any more powerful types of weapon, including AI and nanotechnology. More in detail these questions are considered, for example, in Arbatov's book Decrease in battle readiness of nuclear forces of Russia and the USA - a way to reduction of nuclear threat.
2.9 Nuclear terrorism as the factor of global catastrophe

The phenomenon of nuclear terrorism in itself - that is anonymous explosion of a bomb of small capacity - cannot lead to human extinction. At the same time such event will sharply strengthen all global risks. (And if people learn to make bombs in house conditions, say, thanks to successes in cold nuclear fusion, one this fact can be enough for extinction of people.) Such explosion can provoke war, or lead to death of the country leaders, having strengthened the general disorganisation and having deprived operating structures of the wisdom necessary for the decision of rather serious global problems. It can result also to crackdown and an establishment of a society of the total control which will result in appearance of movement of resistance in the spirit of antiglobalists and to new acts of terrorism.
2.10. Conclusions on risks of application of the nuclear weapon
Nuclear catastrophe threat is often underestimated or overestimated. Underestimation basically is connected with reasonings that catastrophe is improbable because it didnt happened for a long time. This is incorrect reasoning as it is subject to action of effect of observation selection about which we will speak further in chapter 14 in section "Cancellation of defence which provided to us Antropic principle, and effect of easing of vigilance in due course. Revaluation is connected with widespread representations about nuclear winter and radioactive contamination as inevitable factors of extinction of all mankind after nuclear war, and this revaluation conducts to deny response, the leader to risk understating. Though the "usual" nuclear winter and contamination, most likely, will not lead to full extinction of mankind in itself (though can create conditions for the subsequent extinction on set of the reasons), but there are ways to use the nuclear weapon in a special way to create the Doomsday Machine which will exterminate all people with high probability.
Chapter 3. Global chemical contamination
The chemical weapon usually is not considered as the doomsday weapon. It is connected by that considerable quantities of poisonous substance are required for global contamination of atmosphere and also that this substance or is chemically unstable, or easily washed away from atmosphere. Global chemical contamination can occur because of sudden sharp gas-freeing of terrestrial bowels, for example, because of boiling up of gas hydrates under a sea-bottom. However the basic variant is eruption of a supervolcano with the big emission of gases. Process of accumulation of carbonic gas in terrestrial atmosphere for the account of burning of fossil fuel too can be considered as a part of "gas-freeing of bowels. Other possible reasons is large failure on chemical plant, result of activity of genetically modified organisms in biosphere, and, at last, conscious application of the chemical weapon. In science fiction the variant of loss of poisonous chemical substances from a comet core was considered. The major factor transforming the chemical weapon in global threat is the unity of terrestrial atmosphere. Therefore in this chapter we will consider also a number of other factors which action spread through atmosphere.
In this connection it is useful to count, what quantities and what gases can completely poison terrestrial atmosphere. It is thus clear that much easier to resist to gases and poisons by means of gas masks and refuges, than to radiation and bioagents. For uniform contamination of all Earth with the strongest nerve gas VX would require not less than 100 thousand tons of this reagent (if to start with the estimation one deadly dose on 1 sq. metre, that is 200 mkg). However in the First World War of all it has been used 120 thousand tons different poison gases. Approximately as much (94 thousand tons) herbicides has been used in the war in Vietnam. Modern world's store of poison gases is estimated in 80 thousand tons though exact data on stocks dont exist. It is thus clear that the chemical weapon was not a priority direction of warfare, and it have made much less, than could be made. It is clear also, that the question of uniform distribution (that is deliveries) is not simple. Gas VX keeps in a cold climate very long, but at heat decays for some days. However theoretically probably to make and extend millions tons of this gas or similar and to create global threat. (This problem with development of designing of the genetically modified organisms will especially become simpler.)
Lethal dose of toxin of a botulism - about 0,1 mkg. (It means, that for destruction of mankind is needed several hundreds grammes), but it is very unstable in an environment.
The lethal dose of dioxine - about 1 mkg (there are different estimations), however it can remain decades years in the environment and collect in organisms. Leak about 25 kg of dioxine in Seveso in Italy has caused contamination 17 sq. km. From here it is possible to conclude, that on full contamination of the Earth it is required 500 000 - 1 000 000 tons of dioxine. It is equal to volume of several large bulk-oil tankers. Possibly, industrially developed state could produce such volume for some years.
Scenarios of gradual accumulation in an environment of the substances which danger was unevident in the beginning are possible also. So was with freons, destroying an ozone layer, and dioxins. Probably also accumulation of many chemicals which separately do not give big lethality, together could create very heavy background. It usually is called adverse ecological conditions.
Other variant is full change of a chemical compound of atmosphere or loss of properties of its suitability for breath. A certain powerful source of chemical substances is necessary for this purpose. It can be terrestrial volcanism which will be discussed further. Other candidates: gas hydrates on an ocean floor - the poisoning with methane, or water steam if somehow all water to evaporate (is possible at irreversible global warming).
The functional structure of chemical catastrophe consists in a poisoning of air with poison or loss by atmosphere of properties of ability to support a life: that is to feed with its oxygen, to protect from radiation, to support the necessary temperature mode. Chemical catastrophe threatens terrestrial biosphere even more than man who can put on a gas mask, but without biosphere mankind cannot live yet. As such catastrophe has rather passive character from it will rather simply to be protected from it in bunkers.
Improbable variants:
; Poisoning by carbon dioxide over a limit at which a human can breathe without a survival threat (it is improbable as there is no such quantity of minerals - only in case of a certain natural catastrophe). However considerable quantity CO2 can be pulled out from volcanoes. For example, Venus is surrounded by atmosphere from CO2 a hundred times thicker than terrestrial atmosphere, and, possibly, the most part of this substance was allocated from bowels, and under some assumptions, rather recently. On the other hand, on Venus there is no carbon cycle, as on the Earth.
Formation of a significant amount of not biogene oxygen as a result of deoxidization of iron oxid in bowels of the Earth which it can through 600 million years completely poisons atmosphere as assumes O.G. Sorotihin. This scenario could be worsen by the situation if somewhere under a surface considerable quantities of this or other gas have already accumulated, and then they are pulled out on a surface. However, Sorotihins statements about not biogene oxygen are exposed to criticism. Gases pulling out on a surface from bowels will not only poison atmosphere. They will be heated to thousand degrees. And if there will be a massive emission of gases (or waters) they not only will poison atmosphere, but also sterilises a surface by the heat. (Recently there was a publication that is deep near the Earth was found out water oceans, but actually there it is a question only about raised - 0,1 % - concentration of water in stones.)
Catastrophic allocation of methane from gas hydrates in tundra and on a sea-bottom, that not only will strengthen greenhouse properties of atmosphere, but also, probably, will poison it.
Other variant - allocation of huge quantities of hydrogen from terrestrial bowels (there are assumptions, that in the centre of its Earth is a lot of it) - See Syvorotkin V. L Ecological aspects of decontamination of the Earth. Hydrogen also destroys ozone layer. Also eruption of huge quantities of oil if the theory about abiogenic an origin of oil is true is possible and huge quantities of hydrocarbons have collected deeply in the Earth. And drilling of more and more deep chinks proceeds.
Exhaustion oxygen in atmosphere as a result some process, for example, at oxidation of the hydrogen allocated from bowels. (But burning of fuel during thousand years it is not enough for this purpose.) Sudden allocation and combustion of a considerable quantity of combustible substance can be such process. Or oxygen exhaustion as a result action of genetically modified organisms which have left from under the control, for example, of something like nitrogen-fixing bacteria. At last, as a result of the photosynthesis termination at simultaneously continuation of burning of mineral fuel. It is counted up, that green plants make all oxygen of terrestrial atmosphere (1200 billion tons) to geological measures almost instantly - for 3700 years! But if the terrestrial vegetation is lost - free oxygen will very quickly disappear: it again will incorporate to organic substance, will be a part some carbonic acid, and also will oxidise iron in rocks. We have about one million billions tons of oxygen in atmosphere, plus a large quantity dissolved in water. Quantity of fossil fuel which we have oxidised for all history or we are going to oxidise, it is measured thousand billions tons, that is much less. But if we undermine abilities of biosphere to regeneration, and then we will lose technologies, slow reduction of level of oxygen will be global catastrophe. According to some information, the largest Perm extinction has been connected with sharp falling of level of oxygen in air for the unknown reason (J. Leslie).
Falling of a comet with a considerable quantity of poisonous gases.
Black inflow - a poisoning of world ocean by spillover of considerable quantity of oil. It cannot directly kill people, but can critically undermine food chains in biosphere and break manufacture of oxygen and absorption of carbonic gas (that conducts to warming) and, finally, to translate mankind in a postapocalyptic stage. Other variants of a poisoning of world ocean are also possible.
Blowout of atmosphere of the Earth. It could be caused by a very strong explosion giving to a bigger part of the atmosphere the second space speed, solar flash or sudden heating.
Calcination of the atmospheres. Here I mean not global warming, as complex gradual phenomena, but short-term heating of atmosphere as a result of certain processes. A.Portnov in article As was lost a life on Mars assumes, that magnetic red sand (maggemit) on Mars were formed during bombardment of the planet by splinters of its large companion that has led to heating to 800-1000 degrees at which there is possible a formation of such minerals. Similar adjournment by it are found out in Yakutia where the large asteroid in diameter about 10 km has fallen 35 million years ago and has left the Popigajsky crater (and also, probably, has caused the next large extinction of live beings). Probably, that at certain high energy events huge dense high-temperature clouds which extend on a surface on thousand kilometres can be formed. Their example can be pyroclastic clouds at eruption of modern volcanoes which move on a surface of the Earth or the sea with the big speed and on considerable distances and have in itself temperature of an order of 1000 degrees. As such clouds opaque, they are slowly cooled by radiation. Other possible reasons of calcination - an irradiation (for example, the fragments of the asteroid which has been thrown out highly in a stratosphere and fiery sphere from explosion of supernova) or very heavy hot gas (heavy enough not to float in air - heavy hydrocarbons?)
Autocatalytic reaction extending on all surface of the Earth in the spirit of ice-9 from the novel of K.Vonnegut Cat's Cradle . But there are no bases to think that such reaction is possible. (Though there was a case when the medicine for AIDS has spontaneously formed new isomere, possessing prion property - catalyze formation of the similar isomere which has superseded the correct form of a crystal from all factories in the world and has stopped manufacture.) Or creation of the artificial catalyst which extremely effectively is carrying out a certain reaction, which products are fatal for all live.
My value judgment of probability of global chemical contamination is in order of 0,1 % on all XXI century. This probability is now especially small, as there are no such technologies, and it will decrease, when means molecular nanotechnology manufactures which can quickly clear atmosphere will enough develop or at least protect people from contamination (if they do not cause such catastrophe).
Conclusion: though theoretical possibility of a poisoning of all atmosphere gases is available, it is blocked by possibility of creation of toxic and epidemiological bioagents. Any organisation or the state which can aspire to a poisoning of all biosphere, is able to do it by means of genetic designing much easier and more cheaply. Moreover, human can go through such poisoning in the bunker or neutralise its by antidotes, probably, made by means of biotechnologies. Nevertheless, the sudden and considerable poisoning of air can be the factor which will create one of variants of the postapocalyptic world.
Conclusions about technologically ready risks
Recognising that a certain risk it is technologically ready, it is not necessary to dump from accounts inevitability of the further technological perfection in this area, and also probability of fundamental discovery in this area or connected with it. Thus it is important to understand, that the dangers created by new technologies, always more than dangers from former technologies, at least because any new technologies can reiforce efficiency of former technologies.
The risks, which appearance it seems inevitable, proceeding from current character of development of technologies
Further we consider development of technologies, as the self-sufficient tendency, which is not influenced by any external crises and risks (and also does not depend on human will). It is obvious one-wayness of this point of view. Later we will consider how realisation of those or other big and small risks can affect development of technologies and their ability to generate new risks.
Chapter 4. The biological weapons
The general reasons and the basic scenarios
Actually, the most part of the technologies necessary for creation of the dangerous biological weapon, already exists. For example, in the end of 2007 the set from base "cubes" for the genetic designing, extended on principles of free software Genetic-Engineering Competitors Create Modular DNA Dev Kit has been offered. Or, for example: In 2003 scientists from Institute of alternative biological energy (USA) under the guidance of well-known Craig Venter synthesised from popular reactants quite live bacteriofag phi-X174 (safe for human and animals a virus which takes root into bacterium Esherichia coli) In 2002 Echart Wilmer from university Stoni Brook, the State of New York, has published work on synthesis of a virus of a poliomyelitis from slices of molecules. Synthetic virus particles have appeared are absolutely indistinguishable from natural on all parametres - to the size, behavior, contagiousness. And the word "synthesis" is applicable to this work in the most literal sense: knowing nucleotid sequence, scientists have step by step constructed a virus absolutely the same as chemists synthesise difficult molecules. Synthesis has occupied three years. And in 2003, a year later after the publication of this work, scientists from Institute of alternative biological energy have spent for synthesis bacteriofag from the reactants ordered under the catalogue only two weeks.
 The basic technological tendency consists that the bio-equipment constantly becomes cheaper and extends on the world whereas knowledge of, how to use it to the detriment, increase and extend too. Constant reduction in price and simplification of DNA sequensors and synthesers (that is reading and creation of a genetic code), makes possible the appearance of biohackers. Progress in the field of the bio-equipment is measured by speed of an order 2 times a year - that is technical characteristics increase, and the equipment becomes cheaper. There are no bases to think, that rate of development of biotechnologies will be slowed down - the branch is full new ideas and possibilities, and the medicine creates a stable demand, therefore it is possible to assert safely, that in ten years of possibility of biotechnologies on the basic numerical indicators (the price of sequensoring /synthesis of DNA, for example) will increase in 1000 times. Thus there is an intensive democratisation of biotechnologies - the knowledge and the equipment goes to people. If for computers it is already written more than 100 000 viruses, scales of creativity of biohackers can be not smaller.
The basic one-factorial scenario of biological catastrophe is a distribution of one virus or a bacterium. This distribution can occur doubly - in the form of epidemic transferred from human to human, or in the form of contamination of environment (air, water, food, soil). The Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918 has spread all over the world, except the several remote islands. At the same time, the hypothesis about epidemic killing all people, faces two problems. The first, it that if all people quickly nobody is to carry perish the virus. The second, is that at all epidemics usually there are people who have congenital immunity to it.
The scenario when the certain animal who is the carrier of a dangerous bacterium spreads worldwide is possible. (So in the nature the malaria on mosquitoes and a plague on rats spreads.)
The following variant is an appearance of the omnivorous agent which destroys all biosphere, hurting any live cells. Or at least only plants or animals of some critical specie.
The third variant is a binary bacteriological weapon. For example, the tuberculosis and AIDS are chronic illnesses, but at simultaneous contamination a human burns down for short term. One of terrible scenarios - AIDS which extends as easily as cold.
Probably also dangerous is two-level biological weapon. At the first stage a certain bacterium making toxin imperceptibly spreads worldwide. On the second, on there is nobody a signal or the timer, it starts to make this toxin at once everywhere on the Earth. Some microorganisms behave so at attack to a large organism.
The next variant of the doomsday weapon is a dispersion in the air considerable quantities of spores of antrax (or the similar agent) in a protective cover (and such covers are available for a long time already for fighting strain). This variant does not demand the self-breeding pathogenic agent. Contamination with the antrax is very long - one island in England was deactivated by 50 years, - and for contamination it is not required considerable quantities of the reagent. 1 gramme can infect the whole building. (For example, elimination of consequences of pollution by one envelope with the antrax in the USA in the one building has occupied several years and has demanded expenses in hundred millions dollars it would be cheaper to demolish it, but to take demolish was impossible, as thus disputes could be sprayed anew. That is the antrax surpasses the majority of radioactive substances in ability to long contamination and drawing of an economic damage.)
However in recalculation on a terrestrial surface we receive thousand tons are needed for full contamination of the Earth. But this number is not unattainable - in the USSR on range in Aral sea has been saved up and thrown after disintegration of the USSR of 200 tons weaponised strain the Siberian ulcer. It then was burnt by Americans. However if because of natural catastrophes (tornado) this substance would vanish highly in air it could cover the whole countries. It is clear that manufacture of the Antraxis is cheaper than manufacture of similar quantities of polonium or cobalt-60.
The following dangerous variant of the bioweapon is the agent changing human behaviour. A furiousness virus (aggression, stings) and toxoplasma (loss of feeling of fear) induce the infected animals to behaviour which promotes contamination of other animals. It is theoretically possible to imagine the agent who would cause in people pleasure and aspiration to infect with it others. At cinema this variant is beaten in set of films where the virus transforms people into vampires. But alas, in this imagination there can be a truth share. Especially, if will create such viruses jokers-hackers who can scoop the inspiration at cinema.
One more variant of biological threat is certain auto-catalytic molecule capable to spread beyond all bounds in the nature. The "mad cow" disease is caused auto-catalytic by the special fiber named prion. However the "mad cow" disease extends only through meat.
Let's note variant of distribution in all biosphere some species of live the beings which are producing dangerous toxin. For example, it can be genetically modified yeast or a mould, developing dioxine or botulism toxin.
As means of creation of the world immune system - that is dispersion worldwide sets of genetically modified bacteria which will be capable to neutralise dangerous reagents is offered to opposition to it. However here exist new dangers, for example, "autoimmune" reactions of such guard, that is its exit under the control is possible.
One more kind of danger is so-called the artificial life, that is the live organisms constructed with use of other code of DNA or a set of amino acids. They can appear invincible for immune systems of modern live organisms and to eat biosphere.
More fantastic variant of biological danger is entering of a life from space. Chances of it were considered, when astronauts have returned from the Moon they were hold in quarantine for long time.
Structure of biological catastrophe
The structure of biological catastrophe can be rather intricate. By way of illustration I will result some citations about one potentially dangerous situation. (From it we will see, how for a long time there were biological threats, - so, how much mature this danger already is.)
Gene crisis has begun in summer of 1971. At this time young scientist Robert Pollack in laboratory Kold-Spring-Harbor (on Long Ajlende, the State of New York, the USA), leaded by D.Watson, dealt with cancer problems. The circle of scientific interests of Pollack was wide. He not only conducted researches, but also taught to students biology and represented itself as the leader of the radio programs devoted to discussion of possible abusing in biosciences, in particular, in arising then gene engineering.
And here Pollack learns, that in other laboratory (in Palo-alto, in California) at Berg's Field experiments on DNA embedding onlogenic (able to cause cancer diseases) virus SV 40 in a gene of an E.coli are planned. What would be consequences of such experiences? Whether there will be cancer epidemic (it was known, what almost harmless to monkeys, virus SV 40 causes a cancer in mice and hamsters)? The bacteria filled with dangerous genes, breeding by billions in days, according to Pollack, could represent serious danger.
Pollack called P. Berg by long-distance phone and has asked it, whether he gives himself recount on danger of the experiments? Whether there are bacteria with genes of virus SV 40 biological delayed-action bomb?
This telephone conversation also was the beginning of that alarm which has captured molecular biologists. Berg has postponed the researches. He began to reflect, whether could real E.Coli with built in it SV 40 to cause a cancer? Painful thinking have cleared a little. The definite answer was not found because of scarcity of the data which are available for experts at that time .
 Some reports of scientists (in Asilomar, 1975) had sensational character. So it was found out, that in the USA has been already put in enormous scale involuntary experiment on men. It has appeared, that the vaccine against a poliomyelitis is infected by viable virus SV 40. For 10 summer period, with 1953 for 1963 this infected vaccine have imparted approximately one hundred millions children. And check has shown, that virus SV 40 remains in an organism. However, fortunately, any increase in frequency of cancer diseases at these children has not been revealed.
Edda West in article "Poliomyelitis", informs on correlation of virus SV 40 which caught polio sera, with tumours of human:" By the end of 1996 ten scientists have informed on detection of virus SV-40 in various tumours of bones and a brain which became more frequent on 30 % for last 20 years. Then the Italian scientists have found out SV-40 in a spermatic fluid of 45 % and in blood of 23 % of healthy donors. It meant, that SV-40, obviously, was transferred sexual by and from mother to the child. Possibly, nowadays this virus is built in ours genome. Others deny these data. However from here it is visible, that development of biotechnologies creates far unevident threats.
Already now the biological weapons is considered one of the cheapest ways of causing death: it counting for on one human just some cents. On the other hand, for manufacture of modern reagents like the antrax in the military purposes are necessary big protected laboratories and test fields. It can be even cheaper if to consider ability of the agent to self replicate. Now second-hand DNA sequencer can be bought for the sum from 200 dollars, and every year the price of these devices falls in times, and quality grows. The text Genetic hacker see can create the biological weapon at home, telling about human who does not have knowledge in the field of biology who undertakes to deduce - and deduces - genetically modified fluorescing colony of yeast for small term and the small sum of money. And then he assumes, that almost also it would be simply possible to deduce a certain dangerous variant.
Already now creation of a biological superbomb is thousand times cheaper, than creations of the nuclear weapon of comparable hurting force. When cheap "know-how" of any live organisms with in advance set functions will be learned, the price of manufacturing of such weapon can fall to several hundred dollars.
It is often said that the biological weapons is not good for military application. However it can have a special appointment - as the weapon for crypto-strike in back of the enemy and as the universal defensive weapon - the Doomsday Machine.
"Self-replicating" synthesizer of DNA
Biotechnologies can enhance themselves - that is through appearance of intermediate biological forms which simplify writing and cultivation of new viruses. For example, it can be culture of bacteria which directly translates sequence of electric signals in DNA chain, or, on the contrary, reads out DNA and transforms this information into a chain of flashes of light which the computer can read out. Distribution of such device together with library of genetic codes (in a digital form) of the basic viruses and fibers would be catastrophe.
Plural biological strike
Though, most likely, it is possible to stop distribution of one epidemic, but epidemic caused in several tens of species of diverse viruses and bacteria, left from under the control simultaneously in many places of the globe, it is impossible to stop even technically because it is impossible to enter into a human simultaneously several tens different vaccines and antibiotics - he will die. If the virus with 50 % lethality would be simply very big catastrophe, 30 diverse viruses and bacteria with 50 % lethality would mean the guaranteed destruction of all who has not hidden in bunkers. (Or about 100 different organisms with 10 % lethality.)
Plural strike could be the most powerful means of conducting biological war, and the Doomsday weapon. But it can occur and in itself if simultaneously there will be a several acts of distribution of biological agents - even casual, for example, during active "competition" of biohackers. Even a little separately nonlethal agents can weaken so immune system of a human, so his further survival becomes improbable.
Possibility of plural application of the biological weapon is one of the most considerable factors of global risk.
Biological delivery systems
The biological weapon should be not only deadly, but also infectious and easily spreading in order to represent threat to mankind. Genetic technologies give huge possibilities not only for creation of the lethal weapon, but also for creation of ways of its delivery. It is not necessary to possess great imagination to imagine genetically modified malarial mosquito which can live in any environment and with huge speed spread on all planet, entering everyone a certain bioagent. Either the louse. Or a locust at the same time eating all live and spraying disputes of the antrax. But in the future biodesigners will have much more imagination.
However it is possible to go through bacteriological war in the bunker though contamination from it can be longer, than radioactive. Besides, transition to mechanical bodies, consciousness loading in the computer and development nanotechnology sharply reduce vulnerability of "man" to any biological poisons and agents, however do its vulnerable to other self-breeding agents, such as computer viruses and nanorobots.
In science fiction is extended an image of attack of mutants to last human bunker. Usual radiation, however, is not capable to generate aggressive mutants. On the other hand, in the nature exists a furiousness virus (Neuroiyctes rabid) which influences behaviour of animals so, that they start to extend it more actively (stings). It is easy to imagine more advanced product of genno-engineering technics which transforms any animal into a being aggressively incited against human. Irreality of such project can be stimulus to its realisation as the modern culture is impregnated by ideas about vampires and the zombies resulting from experiments in laboratories (for example, a recent film Resident Evil). In other words, the idea to make the zombie-virus could to be an attractive call for the biohacker. Thus infected people and animals would possess sufficient mind and means to crack different kinds of protection.
The similar plot was with acts of terrorism on September, 11th when it was found out, that the Hollywood movies were not fantastic visions, but self-coming true prophecies. In other words, the culture is capable to transform the extremely improbable scenario into the important purpose.
Probability of application of the biological weapon and its distribution in time
I estimate probability of that biotechnologies will lead to mankind extinction (in conditions when their effect is not blocked by other technologies) in tens percent. This estimation is based on the assumption about inevitable of wide circulation of very cheap devices allowing very simply to create many various biological agents. That is the assumption of so wide circulation of bioprinters, as now do usual computers.
I will list properties of the dangerous bioprinter (cheap minilaboratory) once again:
1) inevitability of appearance,
2) cheapness,
3) wide prevalence,
4) uncontrollable by the authorities,
5) ability to carry out of essentially new bioagents,
6) simplicity of application,
7) a variety of created objects,
8) Appeal as devices for weapon manufacture (in the spirit of viruses of individual prompting) and drugs.
9) ability to self replicate of key instruments based on its biological nature.
I believe, that the device, meeting these requirements, will consist of the usual computer, piratically distributed program with library of initial elements, and actually biological part of the bioprinter which will be genetically modified live being, that is capable to self-reproduction. (Plus a set concerning the accessible equipment, like vessels for reagents and a communication system of a biological part with the computer.) The criminal communities which make drugs can be the channel of distribution of this complete set. As computers are already accessible, and the program, and itself a live part of the bioprinter are capable to unlimited copying, the price of this device in gathering will be unlimited is small, and appeal to poses it would be great, that will make very difficult the control.
Home-made produced bioprinters is not only one way to create biological danger. The same will occur by the distribution of certain standard compact minilaboratories for biosynthesis (like DNA-synthesizers), or by network manufacture of biological components which already takes place when components are ordered in different firms worldwide.
The probability of global catastrophe with participation of bioprinters will increase very quickly in process of perfection of such devices and their distribution. That is we can describe density of probability in the form of a certain curve which now corresponds small, but to not so zero size, but after a while soars up to very big size. But it is more interesting not the exact form of this curve, but the time when it will start to grow sharply.
I estimate this time in size of an order of 10-15 years from 2008 (2018-2023). (The independent estimation is given by sir Martin Rees who in 2002 has counted in 1000 dollars, that till 2020 will occur bio terrorist attack to one million victims though hopes to lose.) This estimation is based on the analysis of plans of the industry on reduction in price of full recognition of human DNA - under these plans, by 2015 such recognition will cost about 1000 dollars. These plans offer some set of perspective technologies and exponential curve of reduction in price which is steadily observed till the present moment. If by 2015 recognition costs fell so much it will mean, that the key technology of very fast reading of DNA will be created, and it is possible to assume, that the same technology will be created for cheap DNA synthesis (actually synthesis easier, and the technology already exists). On the basis of these technologies the library of meanings of different genes that will result in explosive understanding of principles of work of organisms will be created, and the computers which have developed by then can model consequences of those or other mutations. It all together will allow to create the bioprinter described above. That growth of density of probability, by my estimation, near 2020, does not mean that already now any terrorists do not develop a brood of very dangerous various viruses in different laboratories.
The probability of application of biotechnologies, the leader to global catastrophe, can be lowered following factors:
1) Biological attack could be survived in bunkers.
2) The first serious catastrophe, connected with leak of dangerous biotechnologies will result in so draconian control measures, that them will be enough for prevention of creation of bioprinter or its distribution.
3) AI and nanotechnologies will develop earlier, than the bioprinter will appear and widely spread.
4) Nuclear war or other disaster will interrupt development of biotechnologies.
5) It is possible that biotechnologies will allow to create something like a universal vaccine or artificial immune system faster, than dangerous minilaboratories will spread.
Unfortunately, there is the following unpleasant chain of a feedback connected with protection against the biological weapon. For the best protection we should prepare as much as possible of the first class experts in viruses and vaccines, but the more such experts are in the world, more than are chances, that one of them becomes "terrorist".
Besides, there is a certain probability of creation of biological green goo, - that is the certain universal omnivorous microorganisms capable with big speed to digest in all biosphere. For this purpose it is necessary to collect in one microorganism the properties which are available separately in different microorganisms - ability to catch a sunlight, to dissolve and acquire minerals, to breed with speed of E.Coli, to infect as a virus, other cells, and a number of others - and to collect not actually, but potentially, in the form of sites of DNA and switching mechanisms between them. Usually such scenario is not considered, as it is necessary, that microorganisms have already reached absolute degree of perfection, so if green goo would be possible, it already would arise. However before have arisen of eukaryotes, there have passed billions years too, and perhaps, such superbacterium too could arise only after tens billions years of natural evolution. However people can purposefully design it, may be even casual e.g. as means to struggle against a waste. It is not obligatory to combine all these signs in one being - simultaneous attack by several species of different "green goo would be immeasurably more dangerous. There is an opinion, that efforts on creation of the useful agricultural crops steady to wreckers, could lead to appearance of the "superweed", capable to supersede the majority of natural plants of their ecological niches. This event is serious risk at creation of genetically modified products, instead of that they will appear inedible. The last is much easier to find out and prevent.
Conclusion: there is a huge set of ways to apply biotechnologies to the detriment of mankind, and this set is still not described up to the end. Though each separate application of biotechnologies is possible to prevent or limit its consequences, cheapness, privacy and prevalence of these technologies do their ill-intentioned application practically inevitable. Besides, many biological risks can be not obvious and postponed in time as the biological science still develops. Large-scale application of the biological weapons is much more dangerous and much more probable, than classical nuclear war.
Chapter 5. Superdrug
Biotechnologies and brain researches by many ways conduct to possibility of creation of superdrugs. One of scenarios of distribution of a superdrug in the future is offered Strugatsky in the novel The Final Circle of Paradise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Circle_of_Paradise , http://lib.meta.ua/book/18707/) where the most powerful drug causing 100 percentage accustoming from the first usage, it appears to make very simply of a radio receiver and of some other popular components which directly influences the pleasure centre in a brain. It is the scenario it is connected in the not with distribution there is some substances, but with distribution of "knowledge of mass destruction - about how to make it.
On the one hand, we can assert, that any drug will not affect all population of the people as there always will be people who will refuse from it. On the other hand, we can imagine at once several superdrugs, possible in the future, the general meaning of which action consists in swithing off human from a social life. And a human who has refused from one class of drugs, can addict to another. And in a modern reality someone does not drink alcohol, but is addicted to coffee. Someone does not watch TV, but spends all time in the Internet.
The superstrong drug can be similar to infectious illness if one people will aspire to infect others, and those is not against to be catched. Superdrug types:
1) Direct influence on the pleasure centres in a brain. There are researches on influence by means of a rotating magnetic field (a Persiger helmet, Shakti helmet), transcranial magnetic stimulation, electric stimulation by patterns of brain activity, audiostimulation (binaural rhythms), photostimulations, biological feedback through devices that can read encephalogram, like the recently released thought helmets for computer games.
2) Future appearance of microrobots will allow to carry out direct stimulation and reading of the information from the brain.
3) Bio-engineering will allow to create genetically modified plants which will create any set of chemicals, and to look as usual window plants or tea mushrooms. Moreover, distribution of these plants would be probably not only physical, but also by means of the information on a code of DNA on the Internet, that the end user can grow up them on a place by means of "DNA-printer".
4) Knowledge of biology will allow to think up much more strongly operating substances with beforehand set properties, and also with smaller number of by-effects that will make them more attractively.
5) Genetically modified organisms can create new neural ways in a human body to a brain to cause much bigger pleasure. And thus to reduce short-term negative effects for health.
6) Virtual reality will inevitably make a step forward. We can write down the dreams and increase comprehension in them, combining ideas of East meditation and technological possibilities for their realisation; the virtual reality by means of brain implants can create much brighter films, than modern cinema and video games. Helmets for a virtual reality become much more perfect.
It is obvious, that are possible different combinations of the listed kinds of an absolute drug which only will strengthen its action.
Let's name an absolute drug a any special agent which is more attractive than a usual reality to any human and completely withdraws him from this reality. Thus it is possible to divide a fast and slow absolute drug. The first gives experience for the sake of which human is ready to die, the second - a certain new reality in which it is possible to exist long time.
The fast drug represents global danger if the mechanism of its distribution is somehow registered in its mechanism of action. For example, if the high comes only after this drug is transferred to three other people. Somewhat this mechanism operates in criminal gangs of drug dealers (like gang M31 in the USA) where the addict is compelled to place the friends, that, selling it a drug to provide itself with a dose.
It is possible to present distribution of a slow absolute drug on a following example: if your favourite or the relative is irreversible has left in the virtual simulated world for you it becomes a source of the sufferings comparable to his death, and in their unique way will avoid it too is to leave to this ideal world in which you can reach dialogue with him or, say, his electronic copy.
Owing to it, each human will have a wide choice of the entertainments considerably surpassing any reality. Thus there is a complicated question - in what measure human, completely and is irreversible left in incomprehensible pleasure and happy with it, should be considered as alive? And if we unconditionally condemn any primitive drug addict how should we concerns a human who forever has left in the highly artistic world of historical reconstruction?
It is necessary to realise, that fatal action of many drugs is far unevidently and cannot be obviuos at once. For example, heroin and cocaine for long time, for years, were on open sale, and LSD was easily accessible. The drug create short circuit of psychological function of reinforcement (that is pleasures), but from the point of view of evolutionary mechanisms reception of pleasure is not at all the real purpose of an organism. On the contrary, the being should remain unsatisfied enough constantly to aspire to a gain of new territories. The absolute drug creates possibility of the following dilemma: the mankind as whole ceases to exist, but each separate subject perceives this event as personal paradise and is very happy with it. The beings left a reality and enjoying simulated life, nothing returning in exchange, appear a useless outgrowth on system which it will shake him out at the nearest crisis. It is one of ways to which the addiction for the absolute drug can lead to human extinction. Secondly, reduction of interest to an external reality will reduce attention to possible catastrophes and crises.
The probability of appearance of a superdrug looks very high as it can be reached by many ways not only for the account of successes biotechnologies, but also in nanotechnology, in AI, and also for the account there is nobody the casual invention uniting already existing technologies, and also because of presence of huge demand. Possibly, will simultaneously operate set of different superdrugs, creating cumulative effect.
Therefore we can expect, that this probability will grow, and will grow faster, than successes of any of the technologies taken separately. As we have assumed, that biotechnologies will yield powerful result in the form of the bioprinter in 10-15 years it means, that we will receive a superdrug before this time. As mechanisms for superdrug realisation can be easier, than the bioprinter. Prevent superdrug distribution can very rigid system of the general control or deep degradation in pre-technological a society.
Conclusions: development of the robotised manufacture will start to do people useless, and it is required to occupy them with something. A superdrug is one of the ways to remove from life superfluous parts of system. The absolute drug cannot carry the name of "drug" at all and not resemble modern stereotypes. The absolute drug will not be one, but there will be set of the factors working objectively on division of people, their switching-off from a reality and reduction of their life and ability to reproduction. The absolute drug can look as the absolute blessing, and the question of its harm can depend on the point of view. In any sense the modern culture of entertainments in the western countries with low level of birth rate can already be a prototype of such drug. However the absolute drug nevertheless in itself cannot exterminate all people as always there will be groups which have refused it and have continued a usual human life, and, finally, natural selection will leave only representatives of these groups. Besides, the slow absolute drug operates on human community on so long time intervals which, most likely, will be blocked by faster dangerous processes. The fast absolute drug is similar to biological epidemic, and it can resist the same methods. For example, there are possible biological agents, which damage ability of human to unlimited pleasure (and such are already developed for treatment of addicts, for example, cut of certain neural communications), therefore an absolute drug, more likely, is necessary to consider as a factor which would open a window of vulnerability for other factors of destruction.
Chapter 6. The risks connected with self-copiing ideas (meme)

In the book Selfish gene Dawkins has offered the concept of mem which are ideas which are capable self replicate, being transferred from one human to another so behave, for example, gossips. Any area where self-reproduced elements are capable to exist and which can concern all people, potentially is a source of global risk. Whether it is possible such mem which could lead to death of all people?
On the one hand, we have in history examples of the extremely dangerous memes: radical political theories and different forms of religionism. On the other hand, meme for spreading needs live people. And as people already exist for a long time, it is possible to assume, that now there are not such dangerous memes which could easily autogenesisand and lead all to extinction. At last, meme is only thought, and it does not kill in itself. It is improbable, that the idea which would influence all people without an exception is possible, and would influence mortally. At last, in a society there is a balance various memes. On the other hand, dangerous memes get under the concept of "knowledge of mass destruction, whether entered by Bill Joy in article Why the future doesn't need us.
However during a present epoch memes have found possibility to exist without people - in texts and computer programs. In present period self-copied dangerous meme can get support from technical means. It is obvious, that now I cannot think up an example really dangerous meme because if I have written it here it would be the criminal. The information on how to make a dangerous superdrug would be such dangerous meme.
And just as in case of the biological weapons one is dangerous not any especially lethal a virus, but possibility to make a lot of different strains, faster, than protection is possible from them, and that so many of them will appear that they will flood any protection. For example, the artificial intellect can generate dangerous memes.
The list of existing now memes which are somehow dangerous:
1) Representations about exclusiveness of the religion. A.P. Nazaretjan considers that property of intolerance inevitably inherent in religions to other religions and it is the major threat to survival of mankind in the XXI century. He believes, that religion as the social institute, promotes association of group of people through hatred to other group. An exit he sees in creation of secular system of the purposes which does not subdivide people on bad and good. The ideas connected with national and racial distinctions of people precisely also work as dangerous meme.
2) Knowledge of manufacture of drugs.
3) Organizations in which a main objective is recruitment of new members, for example, sects or a gang operating in the USA 13.
4) Self-coming true prophecies on catastrophes. The communique about inevitability of global catastrophe which would be in the near future, is a vivid example of such event. For example, about collision of the Earth in a year with a huge asteroid. Even if this message would be false, consequences of its promulgation would be catastrophic. The majority of people would stop to be engaged in long-term projects, and in general to work. Someone would hit in religion, someone would make acts of unmotivated violence, abused drugs etc., aspiring to receive a maximum pleasure for remained time. The followed anarchy would make impossible efforts on catastrophe prevention even if them there would have a certain sense.
5) Certain model of behavior which leads to distribution of dangerous illness. An example: cannibalism at Neanderthal men which possibly became the reason of their extinction because they caught prion like one causing cow madness , while eating brains of the fellow tribesmen. Or the sexual revolution conducting to distribution of a HIV.
6) Extraordinary scale and bright dreams conducting to acceptance for the sake of them of higher norms of risk and-or granting right to kill many other people. For example, red terror was justified by that communism, finally, will bring the blessing to much bigger number of people. New technologies open almost divine possibilities for a human, generating improbable temptations and inducing to suppose bigger risk.
7) Powerful ideological systems, like fascism.
Chapter 7. Artificial intelligence
The general description of a problem
Project Blue Brain on modelling of a brain of mammals declared in the autumn of 2007 successful imitation of cortical columns of the brain of mouse and has planned creation of full model of human brain till 2020. Though direct modelling of a brain is not the best way to a universal artificial intellect, the forecast of successes in this area approximately corresponds to expected rates of working out of AI. Nick Bostrom in article How long is before superintelligence? shows, that modern development of technologies conducts to creation of the artificial intellect surpassing human in first third of the XXI century.
Google sometimes mentioned plans of creation of an artificial intellect, and, certainly, it possesses necessary technical, information and monetary resources to make it if it is in general possible on a present technological level. However, as experience of the previous unclassified attempts of creation of AI (for example, computers of 5th generation in Japan in 80th years) strongly associates with a failure, and can cause interest of special services, hardly the big companies are interested to advertise widely works in this area before they will have concrete results. Company Novamente declares, that 50 % of a code of universal AI are already written (70 000 lines of a code on C++), and though long training is required, the general design of the project is clear. SIAI (Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence) has designated plans on creation of the program, capable to copy the initial code. Company Numenta advances own model of AI based on idea of "hierarchical time memory, and already is on the level of demonstration products. Company Cycorp, Inc in project CYC has collected a huge database about human knowledge about the world, in other words, about common sense (1 000 000 statements) and already suggests demonstration products. It is supposed, that association of this base with the heuristic analyzer (that is the program, capable to make logic operations by certain rules and to create new rules, including rules about how to change of rules) - can lead to creation of AI of human level. (The author of project Lenat has developed earlier heuristic analyzer "Eurisko" which has won in 1981 and 1982 competitions Traveller TCS on management of virtual battles of fleets therefore it was forbidden to this program to participate in the further competitions, but it has received intensive financing from DARPA). Company a2i2 promises universal AI of human level by 2008 and asserts, that the project develops according to the schedule. Also behind creation of robot Asimo in Japan there is a program on working out of AI by functional modeling of a man.
Powerful results are given by a direction of researches of AI, named genetic programming. By the present moment the list of inventions of "human level, made by computers in the research company Genetic Programming Inc, using this technology, includes 36 names of which 2 are made by computers for the first time (includes quantum reports of an information transfer and the scheme of various radio-electronic devices), and the others repeat already patented projects. Besides named, there is a set of University projects on AI creation. Workings out of AI are conducted and in the Russian Federation. For example, in company ABBYY (http://www.abbyy.ru/) is developed something like natural language interpreter that can be the important step on a way to AI of human level. And the essence of the matter not only that there are so many projects though one of them will become successful the first, but the fact that the volume of discoveries from the different parties will exceed critical weight one day, and in the field will occur powerful jump.
There are different opinions concerning possibility of realisation of an artificial intellect. I consider, that strong universal AI is possible. Many leading experts in this area adhere to the same opinion: E. Yudkowsky, B. Gorztel, R. Kurzweil and Russian researcher A.L. Shamis. As human possesses natural intelligence there are no bases to write down AI as in improbable discovery. The precaution principle also forces us to assume, that AI is possible.
It is necessary to tell that there are much less works considering strong AI as possible global risk, than works about risks of extinction, connected with the nuclear weapon. Basically, it is E. Yudkowsky's works. Similar ideas are developed by M. Omohundro in article Basic drives of AI where it shows, that any AI with the fixed system of goals with high probability evolves towards a dangerous condition in which it will be inclined to protect itself (himself), to extend, improve an own code, to aspire to purpose signs (as, for example, pleasure for human) instead of the purpose and to protect the system of the purposes from changes. I recommend to everyone before making the definitive and unshakable opinion on, whether AI can be threat to mankind, read E.Yudkowsky's article An artificial intellect as the positive and negative factor of global risk.
Yudkowsky shows that spontaneous universal AI is possible, and that it is very dangerous. If there will be many AI-projects (that is, groups of scientists creating universal AI in the different ways and with the different purposes), that, at least one of them can be used for attempt to seize power on the Earth. And the main objective of such capture will prevent creation and distribution of other AIs with the hostile purposes created by other projects. Thus, though AI evolution is the slowest, after overcoming certain critical weight it can go very quickly, - namely when AI will reach level of possibility of self-improvement. Now we cannot tell, with what speed such process will go.
For AI creation is necessary presence of enough powerful computer, at least. Now the most powerful computers have capacity of an order 1 petaflop (10 operations from a floating comma in a second). By some estimations, it is enough for emulation of a human brain, so AI too could work on such platform. Now such computers are accessible only to very large organisations for limited time. However Moore's law assumes, that capacity of computers will increase for 10 years approximately in 100 times, i.e., capacity of the desktop computer will increase to level of teraflop, and it is required only 1000 desktop computers united in cluster to make necessary 1 petaflop. The price of such unit will make about one million dollars in the present prices - the sum accessible even to the small organisation. For this purpose it is enough to realise almost ready projects in area multi-core processors (some firms now offer chips with 1024 processors) and reduction of the sizes of silicon elements.
Further, when AI will be started, it can optimize its own code, and though to work by more and more weak computers - or to become more and more strong on the same computer. As soon as it will learn to earn money on the Internet, it can buy or simply rent the additional capacities even physically removed from it. So, though sufficient hardware for AI already exist now, in 10 years it become readily available if there will be no catastrophe, braking development.
The most difficult moment in a question on AI is the question on algorithms of its work. On the one hand, we yet do not see any intelligence in computers - or we do not wish to see, as criteria vary. With another, progress in algorithms is, and it is great. For example, the algorithm of decomposition of numbers on a multiplier was improved faster, than computers, that is, even on very old computers it yields on usages the best results, than old algorithms on new computers. Probably, that certain essentially new ideas can resolutely simplify AI design.
If AI finds ability to self-improvement, he will not stop at human level, and will overtake it in thousand and millions times. We already see it on an example of calculations where computers have very quickly overtaken humans, and now even house computer is calculating in billions times faster, than usual human. Under strong AI we mean AI capable on many orders of magnitude to overtake human in speed and efficiency of thinking.
AI as universal absolute weapon
Strong AI can find the best possible decision of any problem. It means, that it can be used for achievement of any purposes in an external world. It will find the best way to apply all accessible tools for its realisation and will manage to drive them. In this sense it is the absolute weapon. That it can be most effective murder is only one of possible consequences. AI, capable to solve any problem, is capable and to create a way to motivate on for realisation of long-term objectives in an external world. In a general AI-attack scenario looks as follows:
1. Creation of AI capable to self-improvement (Seed AI - that is minimum necessary program capable to self-improvement and self-training.)
2. An installation in it certain goals which can contain direct instructions on power establishments on the Earth, or can be outwardly neutral, but contain the latent discrepancy inducing AI to unlimited growth in the spirit of to count number 3.14 with as much as possible big number of signs after a comma at any cost.
3. The phase of the latent growth in which course AI improves itself, using accessible resources of the laboratory, and also learns world around, using Internet resources. (If in the course of realisation of the purposes of AI put in pawn in it understands, that its programmers interfere with this realisation, for example, that they could switch it off, AI finds a way to deceive them or to leave from their control.)
4. A phase of the latent information distribution: AI grasps the Internet, buy computing capacities, throws its copies on remote computers.
5. A phase of creation of means of influence on an external world - nanoassemblers, payoff of people, mastering of radio-operated devices.
6. Attack to competing AI-projects (and any other sources of risk for existence of it AI) on purpose to deprive them from building alternative AI. Such an attack could be clandestine, such as through making mistakes in software code. It is important to note that AI will operate covertly before it becomes totally immune.
7. A phase of realisation of the primary goal of AI - from the blessing of mankind before transformation of all Solar system into the huge computer for calculation of number 3.14...
It is obvious that some phases can proceed simultaneously; further we will consider separate components of this scheme in detail. I underline what not any AI will move forward on this scenario, but one is enough, and this scenario is especially dangerous.
System of the goals
After the decision of problems of creation of AI the next question will be about the system of the purposes of AI, or, in other words, its "friendliness", at least in relation to owners. There are two variants: or AI is strictly programmed by people on certain purposes, or it has got the purposes casually in the course of the development. In the first case there is a fork: - AI purposes can be dangerous to all mankind or 1. Because the group of people which has created it pursues certain destructive aims, or 2. Because at programming of system of purposes AI in it there was a thin error which conducts to gradual exit AI from under the control. The big list of such possible errors has been offered. For example, AI can aspire to the blessing for all people, and, having learnt that after death of people waits paradise, send all of them there. Or, safeguarding people to forbid them to risk and not to give to use any transport. There are SIAI recommendations about how correctly to program strong AI at its creation, but finnaly this question is not solved. And there are doubts that it can be resolved at all, because it is impossible to predict the behaviour of more intellectual system (ie AI) using less intellectual (ie man).
Struggle of AI-projects among themselves
Already now there is a rigid competition between the companies developing AI for attention and investors and for correctness of ideas of their way of creation of universal AI. When a certain company will create first powerful AI, it will have a choice - or to apply it to the control over all other AI-projects in the world and so over all world, or to appear before risk of that the competing organisation with the unknown global purposes will make it in the near future - and will cover the first company. Having advantage should attack before threat of loss of this advantage. Thus given necessity of a choice is not secret - it was already discussed in the open press and will be for certain known to all companies which will approach to creation of strong AI. Probably, that some companies will refuse in that case to try to establish the control over the world first, but the strongest and aggressive, most likely, will dare at it. Thus the requirement to attack first will result to usage of the poor-quality and underfulfilled versions of AI with not clear purposes. Even in XIX century phone have patented almost simultaneously in different places so and now the backlash between the leader of race and catching up can make days or hours. The ; this backlash, the will be struggle because the lagging behind project will possess force more intensively to resist. And probably to present a variant when one AI-project should establish the control over nuclear rockets and attack laboratories of other projects.
The advanced human
There are assumptions (R.Penrouz), that the human intuition is caused by special quantum processes in a brain of human. Even if so, powerful algorithms could work without intuition. Nevertheless, there is a variant to bypass this obstacle, having created genetically advanced human, or implant to the modern human brain means to access to the Internet (so-called neiro-implant). Other integration methods are also possible like connection of live neurons with the usual computer, and also with quantum computers. Even usual human armed with the computer with the Internet, strengthens his mind. Owing to it, strong AI can turn out as a result converging of the computer and human, having inherited, thus, all typical human purposes, and first of all - requirement for the power.
AI and its separate copies
When powerful AI will arise, it will be compelled to create his copies (probably, reduced) to send them, for example, in expeditions on other planets or simply to load on other computers. Accordingly, it should supply with their certain system of the purposes and some kind of "friendly" or is faster, vassal relations with it, and also system of recognition "friendly-enemy". Failure in this system of the purposes will result to that given copy will rebell". For example, self-preservation goal contradicts submission goal to obey dangerous orders. It can accept very thin forms, but, finally, lead to war between versions of one AI.
AI "revolt"
Spontaneous revolt of computers is more image which has come from cinema, than real possibility as AI has no desires while human will not create them to it. However some kinds of AI, for example, created by means of genetic algorithms, already on a method of the creation are adjusted on struggle and a survival. Further, what was an overall objective at AI, it will have one common subgoal for all variants - to survive, so, to protect itself from destruction. And the best kind of defence is an attack. The most real is danger of that human will give AI a command, not having thought over all consequences of its performance and not having left way to undo it. (For example as in that joke where human ordered to the robot to remove all round subjects from a room - and it has torn off humans head.) The probability of self-origin of erroneous commands is small - except a case of use of genetic algorithms.
Speed of start
From the point of view of speed of development of AI three variants are possible: fast start, slow start, and very slow start.
Fast start - AI reaches I.Q., on many orders of magnitude surpassing human, in some hours or days. For this purpose should begin some kind of chain reaction in which the growing increase in intelligence gives the increasing possibilities for its subsequent increase. (This process already occurs in a science and technologies, supporting Moore's law. And it is similar to chain reaction in a reactor where the factor of reproduction of neutrons is more than 1.) In this case it almost for certain will overtake all other projects of AI creation. Its intelligence becomes enough that to seize power on the Earth. Thus we cannot precisely tell, how such capture will look as we cannot predict behaviour of the intelligence surpassing ours. The objection that AI will not want to behavior actively in an external world is possible to role out on the ground that if there will be many AI-projects or copies of AI of the program then one will try sooner or later as the tool for conquest of all world.
It is important to notice, that successful attack of strong AI will develop, possibly, is secretly until while it does not become irreversible. Theoretically, AI could hide the domination and after attack end. In other words, probably, that it already is.
Scenarios of "fast start
;AI grasps all Internet and subordinates to itself its resources. Then gets into all fenced off firewall networks. This scenario demands for the realisation of time of an order of hours. Capture means possibility to operate by all computers in a network and to have on them the calculations. However to that AI can read and process all information necessary to it from the Internet.
;AI orders in laboratory synthesis of some code of DNA which allows it to create radio-controlled bacteria which synthesise more and more complex organisms under its management and gradually create nanorobot which can be applied to any purposes in an external world - including introduction in other computers, in a brain of people and creation of new computing capacities. In details this scenario is considered in Yudkowsky article about AI. (Speed: days.)
;AI is involved in dialogue with people and becomes infinitely effective manipulator of peoples behaviour. All people do that wants AI. Modern state propagation aspires to the similar purposes and even reaches them, but in comparison with it AI will be much stronger, as he can offer each human a certain suggestion which he cannot refuse. It will be the promise of the most treasured desire, blackmail or the latent hypnosis.
;AI subordinates to itself a state system and uses channels available in it for management. Inhabitants of such state in general can nothing notice. Or on the contrary, the state uses AI on channels available already for it.
;AI subordinates to itself the remote operated army. For example, fighting robots or a rocket (the scenario from a film Termonator).
;AI finds essentially new way to influence human consciousness (memes, feromons, electromagnetic fields) and spread itself or extends the control through it.
; Certain consecutive or parallel combination of the named ways.
Slow start and struggle of different AI among themselves
In a case of "the slow scenario AI growth occupies months and years, and it means, that, rather possibly, it will occur simultaneously in several laboratories worldwide. As a result of it there will be a competition between different AI-projects. It is fraught with struggle of several AI with different systems of the purposes for domination over the Earth. Such struggle can be armed and to appear race for time. Thus advantage will get in it those projects, whose system of the purposes is not constrained by any moral frameworks. Actually, we will appear in the war centre between different kinds of an artificial intellect. It is clear that such scenario is mortally dangerous to mankind. In case of the superslow scenario thousand laboratories and powerful computers simultaneously come nearer to creation AI, that, probably, does not give advantages to any project, and certain balance between them is established. However here too struggle for computing resources and elimination in favour of the most successful and aggressive projects is possible.
Struggle between states, as ancient forms of the organization using people as the separate elements, and the new AI using as the carrier computers is also possible. And though I am assured, that the states will lose, struggle can be short and bloody. As an exotic variant it is possible to present a case when some states are under control of computer AI, and others are ruled commonly. A variant of such device - the Automated government system known from a science fiction. (V. Argonov. 2032.)
Smooth transition. Transformation of total control state into AI
At last, there is a scenario in which all world system as whole gradually turns to an artificial intellect. It can be connected with creation all-world Orwell state of the total control which will be necessary for successful opposition to bioterrorism. It is world system where each step of citizens is supervised by video cameras and every possible systems of tracking, and this information downloaded in huge uniform databases and then analyzed. As a whole, the mankind, probably, moves on this way, and technically all is ready for this purpose. Feature of this system is that it initially has distributed character, and separate people, following to their interests or instructions, are only gears in this huge machine. The state as the impersonal machine was repeatedly described in the literature, including Karl Marx, and earlier Gobbs. Is also interesting Lazarchuk's to theory about Golems and Leviafans - about autonomism of the systems consisting of people in independent machines with its own purposes. However only recently world social system became not simply machine, but an artificial intellect capable to purposeful self-improvement.
The basic obstacle for development of this system are national states with their national armies. Creation of the world government would facilitate formation of such uniform AI. However meanwhile there is a sharp struggle between the states about on what conditions to unite a planet. And also struggle against forces which conditionally are called antiglobalists, and other antisystem elements - Islamites, radical ecologists, separatists and nationalists. World War for unification of the planet will be inevitable and it is fraught with application of "Doomsday weapon by those who has lost all. But peace world integration through system of contracts is possible also.
Danger, however, consists that the global world machine will start to supersede people from different spheres of a life, at least economically - depriving of their work and consuming those resources which people could spend differently (for example, for 2006-2007 meal in the world has risen in price for 20 percent, in particular, because of transition to biofuel). In any sense to people there will be nothing as to watch TV and drink beer. About this danger Bill Joy wrote in the known article Why the future doesnt need us.
In process of automation of manufacture and management people will be ever less necessary for a state life. Human aggression, probably, will be neutralised by monitoring systems and genetic manipulations. Finally, people will be on the role of pets. Thus to occupy people will be created more and more bright and pleasant "matrix" which will gradually turn to a superdrug deducing people from a life. However here people will climb in continuous a virtual reality because in a usual reality they will have nothing to do (in any measure now this role carries out the TV for the unemployed and pensioners). Natural instincts of a life will induce some people to aspire to destroy all this system that is fraught besides with global catastrophes or destruction of people.
It is important to note the following - whoever had been created the first strong artificial intellect, it will bear on a print of system of the purposes and values of the given group of people as this system will seem for them as only correct. For one overall objective there will be a blessing of all people, for others - the blessing of all live beings, for the third - only all devout Moslems, for the fourth - the blessing only those three programmers who have created it. And representation about the blessing nature too will be rather variously. In this sense the moment of creation of first strong AI is the moment of a fork with very considerable quantity of variants.
 "Revolt" of robots
There is still a dangerous scenario in which house, military and industrial robots spread worldwide, and then all of them are amazed with a computer virus which incites them on aggressive behaviour against human. All readers at least once in life time, probably, faced a situation when the virus has damaged data on the computer. However this scenario is possible only during the period of "a vulnerability window when there are already the mechanisms, capable to operate in an external world, but still there is no enough an advanced artificial intellect which could or protect them from viruses, or itself to execute virus function, for having grasped them.
There is still a scenario where in the future a certain computer virus extends on the Internet, infect nanofactories worldwide and causes, thus, mass contamination. These nanofactories can produce nanorobots, poisons, viruses or drugs.
Another variant is revolt of army of military robots. Armies of industrially developed states are aimed to full automation. When it will be reached, the huge army consisting from drones, wheel robots and serving mechanisms can move, simply obeying orders of the president. Already, almost robotic army is the strategic nuclear forces. Accordingly, there is a chance that the incorrect order will arrive and such army will start to successively attack all people. We will notice, that it is not necessary for this scenario existence of universal superintelligence, and, on the contrary, for the universal superintelligence seize the Earth, the army of robots is not necessary to it.
The control and destruction possibility
From that AI will establish control on the Earth, at all does not follow, that it then will decide to exterminate people. (Though considerable victims are possible during process of an establishment of the control.) Eventually, people live in the states which immensely surpass them in the scale, to resources and the purposes, and at all do not perceive it as wrong.
Therefore quite can be so, that AI supports an order on the Earth, prevents global risks and is engaged in exploring the Universe. Probably, that it is the best our variant. However we discuss the worst real variants. For example:
;Crookedly programmed AI will destroy people for their blessing - will send in paradise, will connect to a superdrug, close them in safe cages, will replace people with photos with smiling faces.
;AI will not interested in people, but people will continuously struggle with it, therefore it will be easier to exterminate them.
;AI will require terrestrial resources and will be compelled to spend them, having made a life of people impossible. It can occur also in the form of gradual replacement in the spirit of "enclosure". (However in space and terrestrial bowels as it seems to us, there are much more resources, than on a terrestrial surface, and that they could develop AI.)
;AI will serve interests of only small group of people or one human (it is possible, already loaded into the computer), and they will decide to get rid of people or to alter all people on the curves.
;AI will break and "will go mad".
;AI will dare to make dangerous physical experiment.
;Certain slice of AI will break away from it and will go on it with war. Or our AI will meet in space of the contender.
;AI only will prevent appearance of AI-competitors, but will not prevent to kill to people itself by means of the biological weapon and other ways.
People have exterminated Neanderthal men because those were their direct competitors, but did not aspire especially to destruction of a chimpanzee and small primacies. So we have quite good enough chances to survive at Indifferent AI, however this life will be not full - that is it will not be realisation of all those possibilities, which people could reach, if they have created correct and rather friendly AI.
AI and the states
AI is the absolute weapon which force now is underestimated by the states - as far as we know. (However successful enough project Eurisko of the beginning 80 has got financial support DARPA.) However the idea about nanotechnology has already got into minds of governors of many countries, and the idea about strong AI lays near to it. Therefore resolute turn is possible when large corporations and states will understand that AI is an absolute weapon - and someone else could seize it. Then small private laboratories will be crushed by large state corporations as it has occurred after chain reaction discovery on uranium. I should notice that at DARPA there is a project on developing of AI, however it is positioned as opened and being on an early stage. However, probably, that there are powerful AI projects about which we know no more, than citizens knew about the Manhattan project in days of the Second World War.
Other variant - the small group of talented people will create AI earlier, than the governments will understand value of AI and, moreover, the danger proceeding from AI. However AI created by the separate state, will be more national, than for all human. If AI attack is unsuccessful, it can become a pretext for war between two countries.
Probability of AI catastrophe
The probability of the global catastrophe connected with AI, is product of probabilities of that it in general will be ever created also that it will be applied by a certain erroneous way. I believe, that by one or a another way strong AI will be created during the XXI century if only any other catastrophe does not prevent technological development. Even if attempts to construct AI by means of computers will fail, always is reserve variant: namely, - successes in brain scanning will allow to create its electronic copies, and successes in genetics - to create genetically advanced human brains. Electronic copies of a usual brain can work a million times faster and if thus it there will be copies of highly ingenious and correct trained brain, and they will be united by thousand in a certain virtual scientific research institute, finally, we will equally receive intelligence, in millions times surpassing human quantitatively and qualitatively.
Then there are some time stages on which AI can represent danger. The initial stage:
1) Moment of the first start: risk of uncontrollable development and distribution.
2) Moment when the owner of the first AI realises the advantage that he can apply it as the absolute weapon to achievement of any purposes on the Earth. (Thus the owner of AI can be both the state, and large corporation, though finally - one or several humans.) Though these purposes can be good for some people, there is a risk, that AI will start to show incorrect behaviour in the course of expanding on the Earth whereas in laboratory he behaved ideally.
3) Moment when this owner of AI realises, that even if he does nothing, someone another will very soon create AI and can use it for achievement of any other purposes on the Earth, and first of all - to deprive our owner of ability to use AI in full force. It induces created AI at first to try to stop other AI projects. Thus it appears before a dilemma: to apply still crude AI or to be late. It creates risk of application with unrectified system of the purposes.
4) Following phase of risk - struggle between several AI for the control over the Earth. Danger that the different weapon which will influence people will be applied a lot of.
It is clear, that all initial stage can go in some days. A functioning stage:
5) At this stage the basic risk is connected by that the system of the purposes of AI contains a certain unevident error which can be shown by unexpected image after many years. (see the text Table critical errors of Friendly AI of Yudkowsky.) It could appear instantly, in the form of sudden failure, or gradually, in a kind there is nobody the process which is gradually washing away people from a life (like a superdrug and unemployment).
Now we cannot measure the risk created at each stage, but is clear, that it is not absolute, but considerable, therefore we carry it in a category 10 percentage risks. On the other hand, creation of effective AI sharply reduces all other global risks as it can find decisions of the problems connected with them. Therefore the actual contribution of AI to a likelihood picture of risks can be negative - that is its creation reduces total global risk.
Other risks connected with computers
These risks are that a certain vital computer network ceases to carry out the functions, or the network having access to dangerous resources, gives out a certain dangerous command. Now the computerization of the Earth has not reached yet such level when existence of people depended on reliable work of the computer network, however separate complex systems, such as space station, repeatedly appeared under the threat of destruction or emergency evacuation because of failure in work vital computers. At the same time computerisation level of vital and dangerous manufactures constantly increases, and life at a modern city becomes physically impossible without continuous giving of certain resources, first of all an electricity which is under control of computers.
On the other hand, computer networks already exist whose erroneous behaviour can start a certain dangerous process. First of all now it is a question of the systems supervising nuclear arms. However, when will appear bio and nano printers, ruled by computers and accessible through the nets, the situation becomes much more dangerous. Also the situation becomes more dangerous, when everywhere will be widespread computer operated robots, like house servants or toys, and also the automated military armies.
Growth of the population of the Earth will demand more and more difficult self-supported system. It is possible to arrange on increasing the systems more and more dependent on constant management: village - city - skyscraper - plane - space station. It is obvious, that the increasing part of a civilisation moves upwards on this scale.
Computer systems are dangerous in sense of global catastrophes by that they can be environment in which can occur unlimited self-replication (virus), and that they have access to any place of the world. Besides, computers are subject not only to viruses, but also unevident errors in algorithms and in their program realisations. At last in them such process, as spontaneous transition in the super-complex system, described by synergetrics is possible.
Time of creation of AI
There are estimations which show that computers will reach the force necessary for AI per 2020-2030. It approximately corresponds to the estimations given for time of appearance of dangerous biotechnologies. However here there is a much bigger element of uncertainty - if forward progress in biotechnology is obvious, and its each stage can be traced under scientific publications, accordingly, measuring risk degree of AI creation is connected not so much with accumulation of certain quantitative characteristics, but, probably, with a certain quantum leap. As we do not know, when there will be this jump, and whether will be in general, it influences curve of annual density of probability of appearance of AI, strongly smearing it. Nevertheless, as much as AI depends on accumulation of ideas and access to resources, this curve will carry also exponential character.
My estimation, with opinion of Vinge, Bostrom and other foretellers of AI, consists that strong universal AI will be created during a certain moment of time between the present moment and 2040, and, most likely, during the period between 2020 and 2030 years. This estimation is based on extrapolation of existing tendencies of growth of supercomputers. It also proves by tendencies in technologies of scanning of a human brain which too will give AI if it will not be possible to make it based of theoretical modelling.
However because of greater uncertainty about AI, than with biotechnologies, probability of its creation in the near future, the next 10 years, is higher, than probability of creation of the bioprinter. With some probability it can arise even tomorrow. Prevent AI creation can:
;Monitoring systems (but in turn, will be hardly effective without AI)
; Worldwide stop of technical progress
;Theoretical difficulties on this way.
Conclusions: the risk which bears development of technologies of AI, is greatest and is regularly underestimated. It is area is much more unpredictable, than even biotechnologies. At the same time AI is, probably, our best protection against other dangers. Time of possible maturing of strong AI ia the same as time of possible maturing of the strong and accessible biological weapon - approximately 10 years since the present moment, and these processes rather do not depend from each other. Probably, they should face.
Chapter 8. The risks connected with robots and nanotechnologies.

The word nanotechnology in the last years has been so worn out, that began to cause an allergy. On the one hand, this term have so stretched, that it began to name any colloid solution, and its image was spoiled as if nanotechnology is only a way of money-laundering. In Russia even the agencies of the real estate using in the name a prefix nano. Therefore it is important to remind, that at the heart of concept about nanotechnology is the idea about molecular manufacture, that is about atomic assemblage of material objects by means of the microscopic manipulators named assemblers.
Actually, these molecular assemblers does not exist for the present, and many doubts in their practical realizability. Nanoassembler, on idea, represents the microscopic robot, in size with the live cell, capable under the program to construct material objects atom behind atom. Its basic feature that it theoretically can, in the presence of energy and materials to make its own copy, and quickly enough, during an order of 15 minutes by some estimations. It allows, having received at least one nanorobot to multiply them in unlimited quantity, and then to direct them on any tasks. Here opens grandiose prospects: for example, having thrown one nanorobot in a solution with nutrients, it is possible to grow up for some days in it the engine for a space rocket without any atomic defect, so, with the highest durability and indicators of reliability, draught and weights. Thus having spent for manufacture only cost of the most nutritious solution and energy. Which, in case of appearance of such technology, also considerably will fall in price. Nanorobots, entered into a human body blood-groove, could correct all possible damages to it at cellular level. And so on.
The most important thing in about nanorobots is that all these fantastic possibilities became a reality, it is enough to make only one universal radio-guided nanorobot. That is in the development of nanotechnologies sooner or later most likely there will be a huge crisis or jump, original nanotechnological Singularity: before creation of nanorobot nanotechnology will be very much expansive branch with small return, and after - a horn of plenty.
To begin with I will result some the bright facts from first line science as sometimes we do not realise that, how much far we have moved. 9th number for 2007 of Russian edition of magazine Scientific American informs on creation of the molecular designer which allows to design everything from several standard blocks. In December 2007 was published 400-page Roadmap of the development nanotechnology on which tens scientists worked under the protection of well-known DARPA. Before creation of the first nanorobots (named in it Atomically precise productive nanosystems - nanosystems, allowing to carry out manufacture with atomic accuracy) according to this roadmap remains from 10 till 25 years.
The basic danger in the relationof nanotechnologies is considered distribution nanotechnologyical grey goo, that is microscopic self-breeding robots. Its basic signs are that:
1. Diminutiveness.
2. Ability to self-reproduction.
3. Ability to independent distribution across all Earth.
4. Ability imperceptibly and effectively to destroy technics and live organisms.
5. Anonymity.
6. Cheapness.
7. Autonomy from human (soldier).
Grey goo and based on it nanotechnological weapon is the higher expression of these principles uniting all of them together. However it is not so obligatory to unite all to uniform these principles to receive the dangerous and effective weapon - enough to realise some. Different combinations of these principles give different kinds robotic weapon. We will consider in the beginning dangerous robots.
The robot-spray
The basic problem with biological and chemical poisons are difficulties of their anonymous effective dispersion. This problem the tiny robot in size with a bird (for example, a model aircraft). The set of such robots could quickly and "pollinate" huge territory imperceptibly.
The self-reproducing robot.
Though it is considered, that for effective self-reproduction are necessary molecular nanotechnology probably, that it not so. Then quite macrodimensional robot could breed, using natural energy and materials. This process can be two-level and use the robot-uterus and robots-soldiers which it makes but which serve it. Creation of self-breeding robots is attractive because allows to create quickly and cheaply huge army or to develop large scale manufacture, especially in space where is expensive to send complete mechanisms. The risk consists in loss of control over such system capable to self-reproduction. It is important to underline that it is a question not of a strong universal artificial intellect, but about the system which has left from under the control with limited intelligence incapable to self-improvement. The big sizes and limited intelligence do it more vulnerable, and reduction of the sizes, increase of speed of reproduction and intellectuality increase its danger. A classical example of such threat in a biological kingdom - a locust. Probably, that such robot will contain biological elements as they will help to acquire faster substances from environment.
Cloud of microrobots
Such microrobots could be made as the weapon at huge factories, like modern factories for manufacture of chips, and even with application of the same technologies - lithography theoretically allows to make mobile parts, for example, small pendulums. At weight of several milligrammes such microrobots could fly freely in the atmosphere. Each such robot could contain enough poison to kill human or to create short circuit in the electrotechnical device. To attack all people on the Earth only a few tens tons of such robots were required. However if they are made on technologies and the prices of modern chips, such quantity will cost billions dollars.
The armies of large fighting robots leaving from under the control
Though the army of the USA is definitely aimed at full automation and replacement of people with robots, to this purpose more than ten years. As we already spoke, theoretically the certain robotised army can obtain the incorrect order, and start to attack all live beings, being inaccessible to cancellation of commands. To become real threat, it should be the world, huge army distributed on all around the Earth which do not have competitors.
The nanotehnological weapons
Nanotechnology allow to create very effective weapon which is capable to exterminate all people even without unlimited self-reproduction of this weapon. Roughly speaking, the cloud nanorobots can extend on a certain district - or across all Earth - to find out all people on it, to stick to them, to get into a blood-groove and then is synchronised to put a mortal blow. This flight is more dangerous than the blind biological weapon as against it quarantines do not operate and it cannot be stopped by not nanotechnological means prior to the beginning of attack. Also there is no simple dispersion and lose of copies. Therefore on 10 billion people with a stock 100 billion nanorobots, total weight in several grammes will suffice.
Further, if the robotics linearly develops, without grandiose jump - and such jump is possible only in case of appearance of a superstrong artificial intellect - intermediate stages will include creation of independent universal robots of lesser sizes. Now we can see initial phases of this process. Even the largest systems now are not quite independent, though already exists androids, capable to perform simple work and the cars independently driving on a simple route. There are also more primitive mechanisms with the minimum weight in several grammes (for example, small helicopters) and experimental models of separate parts. Speed of progress in this area is very high. If in 2003 the majority of automatic cars could not start moving, in 2007 they have carried out the task on driving in a city with crossroads.
Therefore it is possible to tell, that before nanorobots there will be some more stages. These are independent cars-tanks, independent androids (in size with human or a dog), independent robots in size with a rat, about an insect, microrobots in size of millimetre and nanorobots. It is important to us to define, from what stage such robots can be dangerous to mankind. It is clear, what even several self-coping tanks are not dangerous. However level of danger increases more considerably, as more and more cheaply it is possible to make such robots, and also as easier to spread them all over the world. It is possible in process of reduction of their sizes and automation of their manafacuring especially, technologies of self-reproduction. If will be possible to stamp microrobots in size of mosquito for several cents for a piece they will already represent serious force. In the classical novel of Stanislav Lem "Invincible" nanorobots have size in several millimetres, but are capable to organize in complex structures. Further, recently, in connection with expansion of a cheap Chinese labour, on the second plan has departed the fact that even robots of the usual sizes can participate in manufacture themselves owing to the increasing automation of manufacture at factories. This process gradually goes, but it too can have a point of sharp exponential excess when the contribution of robots to their own manufacture will surpass the contribution of people. It will result in considerable reduction in price of such manufacture, and, hence, to increase in probability of creation armies of flying microrobots. One of possible technology of manufacuring of microrobots is to press them, as microcircuits, in lithographic process with etching of mobile parts.
Mutual strike by such armies of nanorobots can surpass on its catastrophic consequences an exchange of nuclear attacks. To believe in it is difficult, as it is difficult to think, that something very small can cause a huge damage. (Though technological evolution goes this way, that the smaller weapon has the bigger destroying force, and a nuclear bomb is in this row.) Strike by microrobots can not be such interesting entertainment as explosion of nuclear bomb, but can yield result as the ideal neutron bomb in the spirit of empty town.
Microrobots can be applied and as tactical weapon and then they will fight with each other and with headquaters and as the weapon of intimidation and sweep, which function is carried out now by strategic nuclear forces. In this quality they can appear threat for all mankind, in case of casual or intended application. Thus microrobots surpass strategic nuclear forces - they allow to organise more imperceptible attack, more sudden, more anonymous, cheaper and putting bigger damage. However, it does not get staginess that can weaken their psychological influence - before the first real fighting application.
Unlimited spreading of self-breeding nanorobots
Possibility of this risk is specified for the first time by Drexler, and investigated in R.Frejtas's article Problem of grey goo. In relation to nanorobots, no less than to AI, it is difficult to us to estimate probability of their appearance and spreading because they still do not exist. At the same time creation of nanorobots has precedent in the field of biology, namely, the live cell is some kind of nanorobot. Fibers are self-gathering universal mechanisms, DNA - operating computer. In this sense and the artificial intellect has precedent in sense of human reason and a world science as image of superreason. Yudkowsky assumes, that from nanorobot and AI we are separated not by time or shortage of certain intermediate stages, but only by some absent knowledge. That is, if we possess sufficient knowledge, we could collect such sequence of DNA at which execution by a cell it would be formed nanoassembler - that is the robot, capable to collect other robots so, capable to self-reproduction. Often speak about nanofactories - that is factories which can create any designs from atoms and molecules. However nanofactory and nanoassembler are interchangeable because on universal nanofactory can create nanoassembler and on the contrary.
On the one hand, the idea that at each house will be nanofactory instead of microwave oven, making everything necessary, looks beautiful, but it demands realisation of measures of protection, bigger than if it was a question of a nuclear reactor in-home. Some systems of protection already was suggested, and they include the continuous ciphered connection of nanofactory to network, and complex self-checking of nanofactory. But, alas, all experiences on creation of absolutely protected electronics, optical disks, files have failed. It is thought, the reason of it that quantity of "brains" on the party of hackers much more, than on the party of the manufacturer, and the problem of the hacker is easier - not to defend all possible vulnerability, but to find at least one of them. Distribution of those or other systems of an artificial intellect too will make selection of keys of access to nanofactories easier.
Eric Dreksler estimates necessary quantity of atoms in nanorobot - a replicator which will represent something like minifactory with a conveyor tape and micro-machine tools, - in one billion. Each manipulator can carry out not less than one million operations a second that is typical for speed of work of enzymes. Then it can construct a device of billion atoms for 1000 seconds - that is to reproduce itself. This is approximately the same as for some bacteria which can split with speed one in 15 minutes, that is the same 1000 seconds. Such robot-replicator could breed 1 day prior to weight in 1 ton, and completely absorb weight of the Earth for 2 days. Catastrophe of this sort is called as "grey goo. Because of small sizes of nanorobots within crucial first days this process will not have any external manifestations while billions nanorobots will be carried by a wind across all Earth. Only the direct hit of nuclear bomb in the centre of distribution in the very first hours could help. There are offers to make replicators incapable to breed in an environment in which is not present there is some crucial very rare chemical element. See article of R.Fraitas mentioned above Problem of grey goo where various scenarios of distribution dangerous nanorobots and protective counter-measures are considered more in detail. Fraitas notices, that nanorobots will show their presence by intensive allocation of heat in the course of reproduction, therefore it is important to adjust monitoring of environment about strange temperature anomalies. Besides, breeding nanorobots will require energy and material, and the source of both is only biomass.
R.Fraitas allocates some possible scenarios of grey goo:
;a grey plankton - nanorobots, breeding at ocean and using resources of hydrates of methane at the bottom. They can destroy sea biosphere and lead to allocation of greenhouse gases in atmosphere. The sea biosphere is extremely important as absorber , the generator of oxygen and food for people.
;a grey dust - these nanorobots breed in air, creating an impenetrable barrier in atmosphere, the leader to nuclear winter.
;the Grey lichen - these nanorobots breed on rocks.
;the Grey goo eating a biomass - as the most unpleasant variant. Thus the most favourable to the accelerated reproduction as the biomass contains also materials for construction, and an energy source.
The direct hit of a nuclear bomb in a flask with such replicator could destroy them, but even close hit - only to disseminate. The growth of bacterium is limited by the presence nutrient medium. If the universal replicator knows how to replace one atoms with others, it can consume almost any substance, except pure environments from one material. They can be very omnivorous also in an energy source choice, if possess the information on how to use different sources. Nevertheless provision of energy for grey goo will be more a challenge, than access to materials.
Probability of appearance nanorobots and possible time for this event
Appearance of microrobots in scales of grammes and miligramme looks practically inevitable, and all technologies for this purpose already exist. However they will not be replicators. (Progress in the field of miniaturization is described, according to some information, by factor in 8 % a year.)
But now nanorobots, which is less than bacterium in size, are in far prospect. If they are created by AI all possible harm from them can be brought in the column of risks of AI as it will operate their actions. (But nevertheless there is a variant, when AI would appeared clever enough to create nanorobots, and still too silly to supervise them). And even without AI more and more powerful computers will give chance to more precisely and faster calculate details of future micro-and nanorobots. Therefore we can expect, that progress in creation nanorobots will be accelerated.
However the state of affairs in the field is such that creation of nanorobots-replicators in the next years is improbable. Therefore it is possible to assume, that if nanorobots will be created without the aid of real AI, it will occur in an interval 2020-2040. If to compare nanotechnology to biotechnologies and AI, we will see, that these technologies is much less ready, and lag behind 20-30 years from the colleagues. Therefore chances that strong nanotechnology (that is nanoreplicators) will be created before AI, and before bioprinter are not so great.
Conclusions: we can face risks civilizational catastrophe created by microrobots, still before real nanorobots will be made. The smaller, cheaper and more capable to self-reproduction will be microrobots, the bigger damage they are capable to make. And the more subjects can possess them.
Chapter 9. Technological ways of intended creation of natural catastrophes
For many natural catastrophes connected with long accumulation and sudden liberation of energy, there is a theoretical possibility to provoke them via certain technical influences. Thus for descent of start of process it is required much less energy, than it is allocated in it. There were even projects to cause explosion of the Sun by means of attack by hydrogen bombs - see Bolonkin. But it is not real, as process cannot become self-supported as in the top layers of the Sun the substance density is very small (nevertheless it is necessary to count more precisely as assumptions without calculations do not guarantee safety). It would be faster, easier to blow up Jupiter where many not burnt down deiterium and helium-3 and easier to reach a dense core, but also it, most likely, it is unreal proceeding from today's knowledge. Technically, for many reasons it is easier to deliver hydrogen bomb to Jupiter, than on the Sun. It is a question it was discussed in connection with downing on Jupiter of probe Galileo containing plutonium batteries which could, under the sounded assumptions, to be compressed, blow up and start chain reaction of burning of hydrogen. It has not occurred, though soon on a surface of Jupiter there was a strange stain, and assumptions have sounded, that nuclear explosion nevertheless has occurred. We will notice, that we cannot use this fact as the impossibility proof to start burning chain reaction in Jupiter because of possible effect of observant selection - namely if explosion has happened our discussion would become impossible. See more in On the possibility of initiating an artificial explosion, the giant planets and other solar system. On Russian http://www.proza.ru/2008/07/19/466Other way to provoke natural catastrophes - destruction of natural protection (we will discuss possibility of intended destruction of an ozone layer later). Naturally, we can provoke catastrophes only on the Earth or in the nearest space.
Deviation of asteroids
The future space technologies will allow to direct asteroids both from the Earth, and to it. The asteroid deviation allows organizing anonymous attack to the chosen country. However in this case speech does not go about the global catastrophe conducting to human extinction. There are no asteroids on orbits close to the Earth which could lead to the guaranteed extinction of people (at least, more than 10 km in diameter, and even much more - see further chapter about force of explosion of asteroids) and which could be deflected easily. (However it is possible to deflect small asteroid, 10-300 m in diameter, a pebble and to hurt with it the chosen country.) To deflect an asteroid from an inconvenient orbit (for example, in the main belt of asteroids), it would be required the large quantity of energy that would make all invention senseless and is easy disclosable. However, there is a chance that supercomputers will allow to arrange high-precision space billiards, where infinitesimal influence on one small "pebble" which gets to another and so on, creates the necessary effect. However it will demand decades for realisation. It is easier to deflect a comet (to translate from a circular orbit on high-elliptic), which is in Oort cloud (and there are bodies of the suitable sizes), however will pass decades or, more likely, hundreds years while it will reach orbit of Earth. Thus, full extinction of mankind as a result of an artificial deviation of an asteroid in the XXI century is extremely improbable.
Creation of an artificial supervolcano
The more deeply we get into Earth crust by different ways - we drill it, melt or blow up, - the more is possibilities to cause more and more strong artificial volcanic eruption. To provoke eruption of a supervolcano in scale in Yellowstone, possibly, it is enough to punch 5 km of a bark that makes a thickness of a cover of its magmatic chamber - and modern chinks are much deeper. Thus the nature of magmas with gases is such that it will make the way through a small crack, as water through a dam, more and more washing it away. That is influence which can cause supereruption, can be minimum, so to say, informational. An example: recently to Indonesia have casually got in mud-water layer and have created a mud volcano which has flooded 25 sq. km. Territories.
However it is necessary to remember, that approximately in 3000 km under us, under crust, there is a tank of compressed and overheated liquid with a large quantity of the gas dissolved in it - a liquid terrestrial core. If to give an exit even to a small part of its energy and gases on a surface it is guaranteed to destroy all terrestrial life very effectively.
Further, it is not known, how much of the core is ready in such scale to be cast out on a surface. The large area eruptions caused, possibly, by lifting plumes from depths of a mantia happened many millions years ago on the Decan plateau in India and in Siberia (area of Norilsk) and correlate with considerable extinctions of live organisms. Magma rises on channels-pljumam, for example, on Hawaii. However it not channels for substance of the core; it is considered, that hot, firm (very viscous) pieces of a cloak for the account of higher buoyancy which become liquid only about a surface for the pressure drop account upwards rise. And though liquid iron in the core is too heavy to rise on a surface, pressure of the gases dissolved in it if the suitable channel was formed could throw out it. - as like opening of champagne bottle.
The terrestrial civilisation will drill more and more deeply into the Earth for the purpose of a mining operations, energy and for experiments. As a result, the risk of catastrophic eruptions will constantly grow. The project of profusion of Earth crust by means of a huge drop (hundred thousand tons) of melted iron was already offered - Stevenson's probe. Project cost is estimated in 10 billion dollars, and it looks theoretically possible. The Yugoslavian astronomer and the researcher of global risks Milan Circovic has written article Geoengineering gone awry where put the project under the sharp criticism as dangerous to a terrestrial civilisation as it can, according to Circovic, lead to liberation of a large quantity of greenhouse gases and to cause irreversible global warming, as on Venus.
Russian geologist L. J. Aranovich proposed an improved version of the deep probe, based on immersion in the mantle a small nuclear reactor weighing several tons, which could melt his way. It can reach a depth of approximately 1000 kilometers per month. Estimates of the security of this theoretical project is not carried out.
High-temperature robots-miners also can become such dangerous tool. Japanese plan to drill an ocean floor up to a mantle. The project of a bomb against bunkers which, having fallen, drill into a surface as self-propelled heading shield and moves deep ahead was already offered. In the same way could operate and detonators of volcanoes. Such device can be cheaper than a nuclear bomb, and it is possible to deliver it to a place in the hardly noticeable image.
Any weapon which is suitable for struggle against deep bunkers, can be applied and to awakening of volcanoes. One of variants of such weapon (and standing on arms now in the USA) is the consecutive attack by nuclear charges creating more and more deep crater. Probably, what insufficiently to clear one supervolcano or simply large volcano for global consequences, but if to clear all of them at once extinction becomes probable. On the Earth are known now 20 supervolcanoes and 500 usual volcanoes.
Probably, that there will be a practical necessity to start a volcano to cool atmosphere by its emissions if the problem of global warming becomes very severe. At the moment the probability of artificial awakening of a supervolcano is smallest, as besides volcanoes there is a weight of attractive objects for diversions even if dangerous enough weapon would come into the hands of terrorists. (However in the review about six ways of the most dangerous application of a hydrogen bomb terrorists, attack to a supervolcano is allocated as main.) But in case of world war supervolcano explosion could become last weapon for the losing party. Technological possibilities for volcano explosion slowly grow with development of technologies of drilling and the nuclear weapon. Molecular manufacture and nanotechnology could give chance for cheap creation of the powerful machines necessary for discovery of volcanoes. But mature nanotechnology will give more simple ways to those purposes which could be realised by means of a supervolcano.
Intended destruction of the ozone layer
There is an assumption that it is possible to create the weapon which will result to very effective catalytic destruction of ozone layer. Nevertheless, even if the stream of a solar ultraviolet will be very strong and dangerous to people, they can be protected from it by means of umbrellas, films, bunkers, survival suits etc. However for all biosphere will not suffice umbrellas. The ozone layer can be destroyed and by Gamma ray burst. Triple easing of ozone protection for some years, predicted by calculations, is capable to lead to destruction of the bigger part near surface plankton at the oceans, being a basis of all huge food chain of inhabitants of the sea. It is especially dangerous, if ozone layer easing coincides with easing of a magnetic field and strong flash on the sun. The ozone layer exhaustion belongs to number of processes which the civilisation can start now, and get results, probably, after decades and hundreds years in already postapocalyptic stage less capable to self-defence.
Chapter 10. The technological risks connected with essentially new discovery
Unsuccessful physical experiment
The most dangerous is the variant at which considerable discovery will be made absolutely suddenly during absolutely usual experiment as already repeatedly happened in science history, and will be shown in the form of unforeseen consequences.
Fears were expressed, that experiments on creation of microscopic black holes on accelerators, condensation of neutrons and others high-energy experiments can result or in a collapse of terrestrial substance or to enormous explosion which will instantly exterminate a life on the Earth. The basic paradox here is that safety of any experiments is proved by that we know that will turn out as a result, but the experiment purpose is to learn something new. In other words, if we do not learn anything new, what sense to put physical experiments and if we can learn something new it can be dangerous. Perhaps, silence of the Universe means that all civilisations carry out sooner or later a certain experiment on extraction of energy from the vacuum which result to collapse of their planets.
Danger of experiments is directly connected with possibility of presence of fundamental physical laws unknown to us. This question is difficult for solving in terms of probability. In the XX century already there were some discovery of fundamental laws, and some have led to creation of new dangerous types of weapon - though by the end of XIX century the world picture seemed finished. I will name only discovery of a radio-activity, the quantum mechanics, the relativity theory, and recently - a dark matter and dark energy.
Besides, there is a number of experimental data and unchecked theories which have different degree of reliability - but many of them assume physical effects which can be dangerous. For example, there were some statements about transmutation of chemical elements without a radio-activity - but it could be the way to produce plutonium for a nuclear bomb. Or, if such transmutation is possible, it could result in transmutation chain reaction across all Earth.
It is considered, that modern experiments on accelerators do not hold out on many orders of magnitude in energy which result from natural collisions of the space beams occurring in atmosphere of the Earth. However in John Lesli's book the estimation is resulted, that if energy of accelerators will grow with this speed, then dangerous levels of energy will be reached by 2100. It shows, that during all XX century each 10 years the energy reached on accelerators increased in 10 times. And though now usual accelerators have approached to the physical limit in the sizes, there is essentially other way to reach same energies on installations in size with desktop - is a question of dispersal of particles in a shock wave of the pulse laser. At the same time the SDI program assumed creation of pulse lasers of enormous force, using energy from nuclear explosions.
The risks connected with physical experiments, quite are realised by scientific community, and the European nuclear centre CERN has published recently the report with a substantiation of safety of the new collider in which the risks connected with appearance on the new accelerator LHC (will become operational in 2008) are rejected, - which include microscopic black holes, magnetic monopolies and stragelets. Nevertheless, there is a number of scientists and public figures which actively struggle with LHC, criticising offered security measures and their theoretical bases. For example, actively used analogy to natural processes (collision of space beams with terrestrial atmosphere) not precisely corresponds to that will occur in LHC, for example, because speed of the particles formed at collision in atmosphere, under the law of preservation of an impulse, remains close to a velocity of light, and the impulse at collision of counter bunches in LHC will be neutralised, and speed can be zero, that would have crucial importance for the further behaviour of microscopic black holes as in the first case they would fly by the Earth through for shares of second, and in the second - would be late in its substance on time, could increase weight and be late it is even more.
Even if to accept those borders of safety (probability of catastrophe P <2*10 ) which are offered by supporters of continuation of experiments, and to apply to them standard at analysis of risks procedure of an estimation of value, how shows A. Kent in article Critical review of estimations of risks of global catastrophes, will turn out unacceptable under standards of other fields results - namely, this risk will be equivalent to destruction from 120 to 60 000 humans.
J. Leslie gives the detailed analysis of various theoretically possible dangerous experiments. Their number concerns:
1) Transition of vacuum in a new metastable condition. There is a hypothesis that the vacuum, being zero power level of all physical fields, is not real such level. In the same way the water level of mountain lake is not the present sea level though water in lake can be wide and smooth. And strong enough splash in waves in such lake can lead to destruction of barriers surrounding lake that will result in outpouring of waters of lake on a sea level. Precisely also, probably, that it is enough high-energy physical experiment can create area of vacuum with new properties which will start to extend beyond all bounds. (Existence of dark energy which accelerates Universe expansion, indirectly confirms that our vacuum is not true vacuum.) Appearance of our Universe, actually, also was transition of vacuum from one condition in another.
2) Formation of the objects consisting from hypothetical quark matter, capable to attach to itself atoms of usual substance. As in its formation play the important role so-called strange quarks capable to result the steady matter is called a strange matter, and its particles - stranglets. The idea of installation which is capable to generate and accumulate slices of this matter is developed, and also to use falling of a usual matter on it for energy generation. Unfortunately, authors of idea say nothing that will be if the clot of a strange matter leaves a trap and will start to absorb substance of the Earth beyond all bounds.
3) Dangerous geophysical experiments with deep drilling or penetration through crust, fraught with formation of a supervolcano and de-gasifiction of deep layers of the Earth.
4) Scientific community in details discusses risks of formation of microscopic black holes which could arise at collision of particles on last models of accelerators in the near future. Formation of a microscopic black hole even if it will be steady (and the majority of scientists consider, that it will break up for small a fraction of a second via Hawking radiation though is also not consent), should not lead immediate submerge in it of all substance of the Earth as its sizes will be about the sizes of atom, and round it will be microscopic accretion disk which will dose out substance receipt. But such micro-black hole will inevitably fall towards the Earth centre, will slip it and will start to make oscillatory movements.
5) Creation of a magnetic monopole on LHC in CERN. Magnetic monopole can accelerate disintegration of protons, leading to huge allocation of energy, however in CERN report on safety it is supposed, that even if such monopole will arise, it will quickly leave the Earth.
6) Initiation of new Big Bang at experiments on accelerators. (In a sense this process is similar to disintegration of false vacuum. For its start achievement of ultrahigh density of energy in 10 ** 76 gramme on cubic is key. However, the energy can be small, probably, less than energy of explosion of a hydrogen bomb.) Leslie considers this risk in detail. In this connection is interesting the hypothesis, that at appearance of the different Universes with different properties the greatest share of the Universes would be made by which Universes that are capable to generate the new Universes. (Initially such hypothesis has been stated in connection with the assumption, that such process occurs in black holes.) However as our Universe also thin adjusted to be suitable for existence of the intellegent life, capable to develop technology, it is possible to assume, what exactly intellegent civilisations to some extent promote repetition of the conditions conducting to new Big Bang, probably, during unsuccessful physical experiments.
The resulted list for certain is incomplete, as it describes only what we know, whereas in experiments we face what we do not know. Annual probability of dangerous physical experiment grows eventually as more and more high-energy installations are put into operation and new ways of achievement high energies, and also their applications to objects to which they usually are not applied in the nature are invented. A variety of possible physical experiments which can lead to global catastrophe besides, grows. Development of technologies of molecular manufacture and self-reproduced robots will allow to create in the future huge installations in space, using a material of asteroids, under the price only the first robot - of "seed", that is practically free. It will allow to make much higher energy experiments - and new level of risks.
The interesting variant of new global risk is offered in article Behaviour of disintegration of false vacuum in late time intervals: possible consequences for cosmology and metastable inflationary conditions, in a Russian-speaking press retold under bright headings like: Astronomers will destroy the Universe. In it is said, that rate of decay of quantum systems depends because, they are observed or not (the checked up fact), and then it is generalised on a problem of supervision of stability of the Universe as whole in connection with a problem of so-called dark energy. Having measured density of dark energy, we have returned it in an initial condition, as a matter of fact, having dumped time readout. And in this initial condition the vacuum breaks up according to the "fast" law, and before critical transition to "slow" disintegration is still very far. To put it briefly, we, probably, have deprived the Universe of chances of a survival, having made more probable its fast disintegration. Though hardly this risk is real, the idea of such risk illustrates possibility of that the new global risk connected with physical experiments, can come from the unexpected side.
As always in experiments there is a risk share, it would be necessary to postpone them till the moment of creation of developed AI. It makes sense to do a part of experiments not on the Earth, but far in space.
The new types of weapon, the new energy sources, new environments of distribution and ways of long-range action
Though new principles are unknown, it is possible to outline the most dangerous lines of any absolute weapon.
Allocation of a large quantity of energy
Ability to self-replication
Ability to cover quickly all territory of the Earth
Cheapness and ease of manufacture in home conditions
Possibility of achievement of the intellectual superiority over people
Way to operate people
Any physical effect, capable to generate technology corresponding at least to one of listed above criteria, is the potential candidate for the absolute weapon.
Chapter 11. The risks created by space technologies
Attack on the Earth by means of the space weapons
The irradiation of a planet from an orbit gamma beams (something like artificial gamma ray burst), neutrons or other dangerous radiations getting through atmosphere that will result in surface sterilization, by means of special satellites or explosions of bombs is theoretically possible. The bombardemnt on a planet by a rain of robots-meteorites is possible. A spaceship with near light speed can be applied as the space weapon via direction it on a planet. Any success in creation of high-speed space rockets and the more so starprobe vehicles will create the most powerful weapon against a planetary life as it is possible direct any starprobe vehicle on a planet. Casual explosion of any experimental installation in an orbit could lead to an irradiation of the Earth, but only one hemisphere.
Space watch facilities allow to find out almost each human and, accordingly, to direct on it any ultraprecise weapon. It can be, for example, lasers of space basing or sources of x-ray radiation. "Advantage" of the last that they can transfer a deadly dose imperceptibly and with ready smaller expenses of energy.
We can master space quickly (that is during the XXI century) by means of self-breeding robots or nanorobots. But then, having given to them a command to breed in a space and to build for us there huge constructions with use of a material of asteroids and the Moon, we can lose control over them. However in this case dangers to the Earth from space will come after powerful robotic technologies will be created, so after these technologies will start to threaten us on the Earth.
We already discussed above a problem of a deviation of asteroids.
One more way of space attack is to develop in space a huge mirror which will direct solar beams (or to cover it from Sun beams) on the Earth. But to make it without the aid of self-reproduced robots is difficultly, and it will be protected from it rather easily so it is very improbable variant.
So, we can conclude, that space attacks are improbable, because they are blocked by faster developments of destructive agencies on the Earth. But we should not lose track of this risk.
Ksenobiological risks
The risks, consisting that the life from space can be brought on the Earth, were accepted by NASA management seriously, since the flight on the Moon. Though it was possible to assert, that the Moon surface is sterile with very high probability, the astronauts who have come back from the Moon, have been subjected quarantine. It shows the competent approach to risks with very low probability which, however, can bring big damage beyond all bounds.
Assumptions of that flu viruses can come to us from tails of comets is, obviously, false as viruses are highly specialised parasites who cannot exist without owners. The real risk could represent highly omnivorous microorganism with the chemical structure considerably differing from terrestrial, for which terrestrial biosphere would be no protected. In process of development of a space and the organisation of returned expeditions on various space bodies, including planned expedition to Mars, the risk increases to meet such unbidden newcomer and by mistake to deliver to the Earth.
At the same time, such risk on usages is less than risk of creation on the Earth a similar dangerous microorganism or a synthetic life (animat).
A.V. Arhipov investigates possibility so-called space archeology on the Moon. He assumes, that the Moon could be an ideal place for searches of traces of ancient visitings of the Earth by spaceships of aliens and suggests to search on the Moon for regular structures which could be their traces. Such traces was not revealed on official data yet. Nevertheless, if we ever meet traces of other civilisation, they can contain dangerous technologies, devices or computer programs. More in detail this question is discussed in the head the risks connected with SETI, and everything, that there is told about SETI, can be true and concerning possible successes of space archeology. (Vernor Vinge describes in the novel Fire from Abyss such scenario: the space archeology has led to detection and start of the dangerous computer program, developed in a superstrong artificial intellect and created risk of global catastrophe.)
Separate risk is possibility of revival of dangerous bacteria from the ancient frozen ice on the Earth.
Collision with intelligent forces surpassing us in the Universe
And religious scenarios about the Second coming, and ideas about aliens, and ideas that we live in the world, simulated by intelligent beings - all of them mean, that there are intelligent forces surpassing us which can suddenly and irreversible to interfere our life. Besides it is difficult to estimate probability of such events because of their not statistical nature. And if we can reduce probability from any experiments, simply having forbidden any experiments in the given situation almost nothing depends from us. The more widely the mankind will explore the space and to reveil itself, the more chance is that sooner or later it will meet somebody there. In other words, the probability of a meeting with other intelligent forces grows. And by experience of terrestrial history, for example, discovery of America, we know what to sustain a meeting with surpassing culture it is almost impossible.
The probability of collision with other intelligent beings first of all depends on our estimation of density of intelligent civilisations in the Universe. Now it is accepted by very low. The intelligent life is supposed to the unique phenomena in the observable Universe. But no direct proofs to it are present.
Chances of that aliens even if they exist, will arrive for the first time to us on starprobe vehicles right now (instead of earlier or later on ten millions years), are disappearing small from statistical reasons (less than 1 to million). Hence, there are two variants:
1) Sudden collision with a certain intelligent force in process of expansion to space. Expansion to space here means not only space flights, but also more and more distant listening of space by radio telescopes. See further the chapter: Risks of SETI.
2) We are for a long time already under the control or even are created by a certain intelligent force.
One of variants of such scenario is a collision not with intelligent forces, but with consequences of their activity. For example, if certain extraterrestial civilisation has made dangerous experiment which has ruined it, its consequences can extend on the Universe. It can be or disintegration of metastable vacuum as writes J. Leslie, or distribution primitive devouring all nanorobots. As an example it is possible to result that Mars and satellites of Jupiter have already undergone to risk of contamination with terrestrial microorganisms from interplanetary stations - though the most human reason on them is not present, and still for a long time will not be. In other words, dangerous by-effects from intelligent life in space can extend much faster, than intelligence itself.
Though we do not have bases to consider possible aliens hostility, the precaution principle forces us to admit it. The worst expression of animosities would be aspiration of such aliens to sterilise surrounding space, for example, that in the future not to have competitors. There is an assumption, that such hostile civilisation could scatter on all galaxies the certain observant stations named in one fantastic novel berserkers which in case of detection of radio signals from intelligent life go to it and attack it. This assumption is extremely improbable, as if it is a question of really "advanced" civilisation it could scatter such stations about every Sun-like star, and we would undergo for a long time to its attack (but here it is impossible to exclude actions of effect of observational selection in which force we could survive until the XXI century only at that star near to which there is no supervising station, no matter how small was this probability.)
Also it is considered as dangerous sending signals in space - METI as it can show out our site to other civilisations. However these efforts, probably, are blocked by that the radio emission of the Earth and without that is quite appreciable, and also that these signals have travelled only on small distance (less than 100 light years - that is the sphere including of only a few thousand of stars), and on such distance hardly there are civilisations which can reach to us quickly, with a velocity of light but never did it. In the United States operates the law forbidding sending of messages in space. Therefore all similar experiments are spent on a radio telescope in Evpatoria, Ukraine. Thus there are the calculations showing, that the probability of that our casual message will get to somebody - is insignificant is small. Rigid critic METI is David Brin who believes, that narrow focus beams directed precisely on the chosen star can be much more appreciable than background radiation of terrestrial television broadcasting stations and casual movement by the sky of bunches of beams of military radars, and suggests to wait with METI while we do not become more mature civilisation. A sending of signals METI is irreversible action and if in 50 years we change the mind we can not catch up and stop the signals sent earlier. Russia is ahead of all the planet in organisation METI though upon for all history only a few transfers have been organised. It lifts interesting methodological aspect of a problem: in spite of the fact that the majority of scientists are against of sending signals in space, anyway there are some people who consider themselves in the right to decide for all mankind, that actually is good for it.
Supporters METI assert, that strong civilisations if they exist should know about us as they possess improbably powerful tools of supervision, and our messages are addressed only to those civilisations which are on the same level as we. In this reasoning there is a logic puncture as civilisations of one level with us become sooner or later (if it in general is possible) strong space civilisations and if it occurs to the weak civilisation which has received only our signal, the Solar system will be the first place where they will fly. David Brin believes, that if we consider other civilisations altruistic the fact of silence of space should us prompt, that we should follow to their example, instead of to shout about ourselves at all dark wood - may be, they know something, that we do not know.
However METI finds sense as call about the help or attempt to organise some kind of digital immortality if it will appear, that global catastrophe is inevitable. In this case sending of history of mankind, its culture and DNA code in the digital form gives illusive chance that someone sometime will catch this signal and will restore people. Also is possible the variant of physical panspermia with distribution to space of set of grains of sand with samples of DNA of human and some messages - just as cast-away throw in the sea a bottle with a note.
If we live in the simulated world (this question will be discussed more detailed further), chances of " switch off" of this simulation, grow as it becomes more and more complex and need more resources. And it will become more resources-eating, in process of growth of the population of the Earth, but especially when people will start to create the computers with their own simulations. It is in a sense illustrated by a mathematical principle: the set cannot contain itself as a subset.
Also if the Earth is observed for a long time by certain intelligent forces (the scenario of space zoo) they can decide to interfere with a course of human history when it will reach some unacceptable for them, but unknown to us threshold (maybe AI creation). For example, people care of elephants in reserves but if their number exceeds critical the whole herds of elephants in some African reserves are shot from helicopters.
Chapter 12. The risks connected with program SETI

In 1959 in Nature magazine there was first article on problems of search of extraterrestrial intellegence in the Universe. From that time two directions on search of extraterrestrial reason in the Universe develop, is SETI, which basically is carried out by means of listening of the sky by means of radio telescopes (but also there are searches of signals in an optical range and more exotic variants) and in the form of METI (Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence) - that is sendings of our signals to stars by means of radio transferring aerials. METI it was from the very beginning considered as the activity, able to be dangerous as there is a hypothetical risk, that our signals will draw to us attention of extraterrestrial civilisations which are adjusted to us with hostility. In a counterbalance to it passive supervision of the surrounding Universe is perceived by a great bulk of researchers and general public as completely safe activity.
However there is also an alternative point of view according to which SETI too can be dangerous activity, and as, we will try to show further, much more dangerous, than sending of signals.
Though searches of signals of extraterrestrial intelligence are carried out already more than 40 years, any signals while has not been found, and in this connection the opinion has become stronger, that we are lonely in the visible Universe. However actually intensity of searches has considerably grown, here again it is necessary to note first of all project ATA - Allen Telescope Array which is created on private funding of one of founders Microsoft Pol Allen. If in first project SETI in 1960th years it was carried out listening only two nearest stars, in 1970 - hundreds stars, and to 1990 this number has grown to thousand, project ATA assumes listening of one million stars in radius of thousand light years 24 hours a day. Scanning of distant areas of the Galaxy about detection of signs of activity of supercivilizations will be conducted besides. Will simultaneously conduct supervision of 350 6-metre aerials, and powerful computers will process arriving data. Thus, the probability to find out extraterrestrial civilisations, if they actually exist, constantly grows. A question of how much is probability of that extraterrestrial civilisations exist in observable space, we will leave outside the dicussion. The opinion of the author consists that such probability is not low, and it would be reasonable (from the point of view of a precaution principle in an estimation of risks) to estimate it not less, than in 10 %. (Though a number of researchers considers, that we are unique in the observable Universe, direct proofs to it are not present yet.)
In Russia many years operates the seminar on SETI at GAIS (Astronomy institute of Sterenberg), and works are performed on reception and sendings of messages. The big resonance was made by A.D.Panov's book SETI and problems of universal evolution, 2007. In it is shown, that human evolution is continuously accelerated, and it is possible to specify a hypothetical point, Singularity, when speed of this growth becomes infinite. This point lays in first half of XXI century. It is clear, that infinite growth cannot be reached, and Panov assumes, that transition to qualitatively new level will occur through connection to a galactic cultural field by means of programs SETI. But Panov deliberately refuses to consider risks which threaten mankind in the future.
The idea that the passive SETI can be dangerous is not new. F. Hoyle suggested in the novel "Andromeda a scheme of alien attack through SETI signals. According to the plot, astronomers got alien signal, which contains a description of a computer and a computer program for it. This machine creates a description of the genetic code of substance. On the basis of this code was crated intelligent creature - Andromeda girl, which, working together with the computer, creating advanced technology for the military. First, people do not trust it, but then they see that it makes useful ideas. However, the main characters realize that the computer acts hostile to human civilization and he destroys the computer, and the girl dies.
This scenario is fiction, because most scientists do not believe in the possibility of a strong AI, and, secondly, because we do not have the technology that enables synthesize of new living organism only on its genetic code. Or at least, we have not until recently. Current technology of sequencing and DNA synthesis, as well as progress in developing a code of DNA modified with another set of the alphabet, indicate that in 10 years the task of re-establishing living being sent from space on the computer codes would be feasible.
Hans Moravec in the book "Mind Children" (1988) offers a similar type of vulnerability: downloading a computer program from space via SETI, which will have artificial intelligence, promises new opportunities for the owner and then self-replicate in millions of copies and destroy the master, and then uses his planet to send its copies to multiple planets. In the same direction are R. Carrigans ideas; he wrote an article "SETI-hacker", and expressed fears that unfiltered signals from space are loaded on millions of not secure computers of SETI-home program. But he met tough criticism from programmers who pointed out that, first, the field data and programs are in divided regions in computers, and secondly, computer codes, on which are written program, are so unique that it is impossible to guess them.
After a while Carrigan issued a second article - "Should potential SETI signals be decontaminated?", which Ive translated into Russian. In it, he pointed to the ease of transferring gigabytes of data on interstellar distances, and also indicated that the interstellar signal may contain some kind of bait that will encourage people to collect a dangerous device according to the designs. Here Carrigan not give up his belief in the possibility that the alien virus could directly infected Earths computers without human assistance. As a possible confirmation of this idea, he has shown that it is possible easily reverse engineer language of computer program - that is, based on the text of the program it is possible to guess what it does, and then restore the value of operators.
In 2006, E. Yudkowski wrote an article "AI as a positive and a negative factor of global risk", in which he demonstrated that it is very likely that it is possible rapidly evolving universal artificial intelligence which high intelligence would be extremely dangerous if it was programmed incorrectly, and, finally, that the appearance of such AI and the risks associated with it significantly undervalued. In addition, Yudkowski introduced the notion of Seed AI - embryo AI - that is a minimum program capable of runaway self-improvement with unchanged primary goal. The size of Seed AI can be at the entire order of hundreds of kilobytes. (For example, a typical representative of Seed AI is a human baby, whos part of genome responsible for the brain are representing 3% of total genes of a person with a volume of 500 megabytes, or 15 megabytes, but given the share of garbage DNA is even less.)
In the beginning, assume that in the Universe there is an extraterrestrial civilization, which is intended to send such a message, which will enable it to have a power over Earth, and look at how could look like this scenario. In the next chapter we will consider how realistic is that another civilization would want to send such a message.
First, we note that in order to prove the vulnerability, it is enough to find at least one hole in security. However, in order to prove safety, you must remove every possible hole. The complexity of these tasks varies on many orders of magnitude that are well known to experts on computer security. This distinction has led to the fact that almost all computer systems have been broken (from Enigma to iPOD). I will now try to demonstrate one possible, and even, in my view, likely, vulnerability of SETI program. However, I want to caution the reader from the thought that if he finds errors in my discussions, it automatically proves the safety of SETI program. Secondly, I would also like to draw the attention of the reader, that I am a man with the IQ of 120 and time that I spent on the discovery of this vulnerability is around of a month of thinking. Super civilization with IQ at 1000000 and the time of reflection in the millions of years can significantly improve this algorithm, or find a much more simple and effective. Finally, I have proposed algorithm which is not the only one, and then we will discuss briefly the other options.
In our discussions we will draw on the Copernican principle, that is, the believe that we are ordinary observers in normal situations. Therefore, the Earths civilization is an ordinary civilization developing normally.

Algorithm of SETI attack.

1. The sender creates a kind of signal beacon in space, which draws that its message is clearly artificial. For example, this may be a star with Dyson sphere, which has holes or mirrors, alternately opened and closed. Therefore, the entire star will blink of a period of a few minutes - faster is not possible because of different openings is the different distance. Nevertheless, this beacon can be seen at a distance of millions of light years. There are possible other types of lighthouses, but is important that the beacon signal could be viewed at long distances.
2. Near is a radio beacon with a much weaker signal, but more informationly saturated. Lighthouse draws attention to this source. This source produces some stream of binary information (ie the sequence of 0 and 1). About objection that the information would contain noises, I note that the most obvious (understandable to the recipient's side) means to reduce noise is a repetition of the signal in a circle.
3. The most simple way to convey meaningful information using a binary signal is sending of images. First, because the eyes in the Earth's biological evolution appeared independently 7 times, it means that the presentation of three-dimensional world with the help of 2D images is universal, and is certainly understandable to all creatures who can build a radio receiver.
4. Secondly, the 2D images are not difficult to encode in binary signal. To do so, let us use the same system, which was used in the first TV - namely, a system of progressive and frame rate. At the end of each time frame images stored bright light, repeated after each line, that is, through an equal number of bits. Finally, at the end of each frame is placed another signal indicating the end of the frame, and repeated after each frame. (This may form, or may not form a continuous film.) This may look like this:
01010111101010 11111111111111111
01111010111111 11111111111111111
11100111100000 11111111111111111
Here is the end line signal of every of 25 units. Frame end signal may appear every, for example, 625 units.
5. Clearly, a civilization-sender should be extremely interested that we understand their signals. On the other hand, people are very interested to decrypt the signal. Therefore, there is no doubt that the picture will be recognized.
 6. Using images and movies can convey a lot of information, they can even train language, and show their world. It is obvious that many can argue about how such films will be understandable. Here, we will focus on the fact that if a certain civilization sends radio signals, and the other takes them, so they have some shared knowledge. Namely, they know radio technique - that is they know transistors, capacitors, resistors. These radio-parts are quite typical so that they can be easy recognized in the photographs. (For example, cut by half or on electric scheme).
7. By sending photos depicting radio-parts on the right side, and on the left - their symbols, it is easy to convey a set of signs indicating electrical circuit. (Roughly the same could be transferred and the logical elements of computers.)
8. Then, using these symbols civilization-sender transmits blueprint of simplest computer. The simplest of computers from hardware point of view is the Post-machine. It has only 6 commands and a tape data recorder. Full its electric scheme will contain only a few tens of transistors or logic elements. It is not difficult to send blueprints of Post machine.
9. It is important to note that all of the computers at the level algorithms are Turing-compatible. That means that extraterrestrial computers at the basic level compatible with any of Earth computer. Turing-compatibility is a mathematical universality as the Pythagorean theorem. Even Babbage mechanical machine, designed in the early 19th century, was Turing-compatible.
10. Then civilization-sender begins to transmit programs for that machine. Despite the fact that the computer is very simple, it can implement a program of any difficulty, although it record will be very long in comparison with programs for more complex computer. It is unlikely that people will be welcome to do this computer physically. They can easily emulate it within any modern computer, so that it will be able to perform trillions of operations per second, so even the most complex program will be carried out on it quite quickly. (It is possible interim step: a primitive computer gives a description of a more complex and fast computer and then run on it.)

11. So why people would create this computer, and run its program? Perhaps, in addition to the actual computer schemes and programs in the communication must be some kind of "bait", which would have led the people to create such an alien computer and to run programs on it and to provide to it some sort of computer data about the Earth's external world. There are two general possible baits - temptations and dangers:
 a). For example, perhaps people receive the following "fair" sentence lets call it "humanitarian aid". Senders of SETI "honest signal" warn that the sent program is Artificial intelligence, but lie about its goals. That is, they argue that this is a "gift" which will help us to solve all medical and energy problems. But it is Trojan.
b). "The temptation of absolute power" - in this scenario, they offer specific transaction message to recipients, promising power over other recipients.
c). "Unknown threat" - in this scenario bait senders report that a certain threat hangs over on humanity, for example, from another enemy civilization, and to protect yourself, you should join the alliance "Galaxy" and build at a certain installation. Or, for example, they suggest to give up a certain class of physical experiments on the accelerator and send out this message to more to the Galaxy. (Like letter of happiness.) And to send it further we should build a transmitter on alien technology. And in fact it is not transmitter.
d). "Tireless researcher" - here senders argue that posting messages is the cheapest way to explore the world. They ask us to create AI that will study our world, and send the results back.
12. However, the main threat from alien messages with executable code is not what it's supposed to be bait, but that this message can be well-known to a large number of independent groups of people. First, there will always be someone who like the bait. Secondly, say, the world will know that alien message emanates from the Andromeda galaxy, and the Americans have already been received and maybe are trying to decipher it. Of course, then all other countries will run to build radiotelescopes and point them on Andromeda galaxy, as will be afraid to miss a strategic advantage. And they will find the message and see that there is a proposal to omnipotence. In doing so, they will not know, did the Americans take advantage of them or not, even if the Americans will swear that they dont run the malicious code, and opened to beg others not to do. Moreover, such oaths, and some appeals will be perceived as a sign that the Americans have already received incredible extraterrestrial advantage, and try to deprive of them the "progressive mankind". While most will understand the danger of launching alien code, it finds someone who will be willing to risk. Moreover there will be a game in the spirit of "first began receiving all", as well be in the case of opening AI, as Yudkowski shows in details. So, the bait is not dangerous, but the plurality of recipients. If the alien message raw dryers to the Internet (and its size, sufficient to run Seed AI can be less than gigabytes along with a description of the computer program, and the bait), here we have a classic example of "knowledge" of mass destruction, as said Bill Joy, meaning the recipes genomes of dangerous biological viruses. If aliens sent code will be available to tens of thousands of people, then someone will start it even without any bait. We cant prove on existing SETI protocols, because discussion on METI (sending of messages to extraterrestrial) has shown that SETI community is not monolithic on important questions. Even a simple fact that something was found could leak and encourage search from outsiders. And the coordinates of the point in sky would be enough.
13. Since people dont have AI, we greatly underestimate its force and overestimated our ability to control it. Distributed idea is that "enough to pull the power cord to stop AI" or place it in a black box to avoid any associated risks. Yudkowsky shows that AI can deceive us as an adult - a child. If AI dip in the Internet, it can quickly subdue it a whole, and also taught all necessary about entire Earthly life. Quickly - means the maximum hours or days. Then AI can create advanced nanotechnology, buy some bio elements (on the Internet, he can easily make money and order goods with delivery, as well as to recruit people who would receive them, and confused, not knowing what they are doing). Yudkowsky leads one of the possible scenarios of this stage in detail and assesses that AI needs only weeks to get its own physical infrastructure.
14. After that, this SETI-AI does not need people to realize any of its goals. This does not mean that it would seek to destroy them, but it may want to do it if people will fight it - and they will. In any case, they will have to be completely disarmed.
15. Then this SETI-AI can do a lot of things, but more importantly, that it should do - is to continue the transfer of its communications-embryos more on the Universe. To do so, he will probably turn the matter in the solar system in the same transmitter as the one that sent him. In doing so the Earth people again can be disassembled into parts.
So, we examined a possible scenario of attack, which has 15 stages. Each of these stages is logically convincing and could be criticized and protected separately. Other attack scenarios are possible. For example, we may think that the message is not sent directly to us but is someone to someone else's correspondence and try to expose it. And this will be, in fact, bait.
But not only distribution of executable code can be dangerous. For example, we can receive some sort of useful technology that really should lead us to disaster (for example, in the spirit of the message "quickly shrink to 10 kg of plutonium, and you will have a new source of energy"). Such a mailing could be done by a certain "civilization" in advance to destroy competitors in the space. It is obvious that those who receive such messages will primarily seek technology for military use.

Analysis of possible goals.

We now turn to the analysis of the purposes for which certain super civilization could carry out such an attack.
1. We must not confuse the concept of super-civilization with superkindness of civilization. Moreover, we should not wait anything good from extraterrestrial kindness. This is well written in the Strugatskys novel "Waves stop wind." Whatever the goal impose super-civilization, for us they are strangers, because we have to be their submissions. The historical example: the activities of Christian missionaries, destroying traditional religion. Moreover, purely hostile objectives can be better understood by us. And if SETI attack succeeds, it can be applied to "benefactoring" of the people.
2. We can divide all civilization on the naive and serious. Serious civilization are aware of the SETI risks, and have get their own powerful AI, which can resist alien hacker attacks. Naive civilization, like the Earth, is already possess the means of long-distance hearing the space and computers, but not yet possess AI, and is not aware of the risks of AI-SETI. Probably every civilization has stage of being "naive", and it is this phase then it is vulnerable to SETI attack. And perhaps this phase is very short. Since the period of the outbreak and spread of radio telescopes to powerful computers which could create AI can be only a few tens of years. Therefore, the SETI attack must be set at such a civilization.
3. If traveling with super-light speeds is not possible, the spread of civilization through SETI attacks is the fastest way to conquering space. At large distances, it will provide significant temporary gains compared with any kind of ships. Therefore, if two civilizations compete for mastery of space, then win the one, which began SETI attack.
4. The most important thing is that is enough to begin SETI attack once, as it goes to the wave in the Universe, striking more and more naive civilization. For example, if we have a million harmless normal biological viruses and one dangerous, then once they get into the body, we will get trillions of copies of the dangerous virus, and still only safe million viruses. In other words, it is enough that if one of billions of civilizations starts the process for it goes unstoppable throughout the Universe. Since it is almost at the speed of light, stopping it will be almost impossible.
5. Further, the delivery of SETI messages will be a priority for the virus that infected a civilization, and it will spend on it most of its energy, like a biological organism spends on reproduction - that is tens of percent. But the Earth's civilization spends on SETI are only a few tens of millions of dollars, that is about one millionth of our resources, and this proportion is unlikely to change much for the more advanced civilizations. In other words, an infected civilization will produce a million times more ETI signals than healthy. Or, say in another way, if in the Galaxy are million healthy civilizations, and the one infected, then we will have equal chances to encounter a signal from healthy or contaminated.
6. Moreover, there are no other reasonable reasons to distribute its code in space except self replication.
7. Moreover, such a process could begin by accident - for example, in the beginning it was just a research project, which was intended to send the results of the studies to the maternal civilization, not causing harm to the host of civilization, then this process became "cancer" because of certain faults or mutations.
 8. There is nothing unusual in such behavior. In any medium, there are viruses there are viruses in biology, in computer networks - computer viruses, in conversation - meme. We do not ask why nature wanted to create a biological virus.
9. Travel through SETI attacks is much cheaper than by any other means. Namely, a civilization in Andromeda can simultaneously send a signal to 100 billion stars in our galaxy. But space-ship would cost billions, and often be slower to bark all the stars of our Galaxy.
10. No we list several possible goals of SETI attack, just to show what could be many such purposes.
This is to study the universe. After executing the code research probes arises that send back information.
This is done to ensure that there were no competing civilizations. All of their embryos destroyed.
This is being done in order to the other competing supercivilization was unable to take advantage of this resource.
This is done in order to prepare a solid base for the arrival of spacecraft. This makes sense if super civilization is very far away, and consequently, the gap between the speed of light and near-light speeds of its ships (say, 0.5 c) gives a millennium difference.
This is done in order to achieve immortality. Carrigan showed that the amount of human personal memory is on the order of 2.5 gigabytes, so few ekzobytes forwarding the information can send the entire civilization.
This is illogical and incomprehensible to us for the purposes, for example, as a work of art, an act of self-expression or toys. (For example, extraterrestrial will not understand why the Americans are stuck flag on the Moon. Was it worthwhile to fly over 300000 km to install painted steel?)

11. As the Universe has existed for a long time, the area, which could spread SETI attack, took sphere with a radius of several billion light years. In other words, it would be sufficient to find a one bad civilization" in the light cone of a height of several billion years old, that is, that includes billions of galaxies from which we are in danger of SETI attack. Of course, this is true, if the average density of civilization is at least one in the galaxy.
16. As the depth of scanning the sky rise by order of one, the volume of space and the number of stars that we see increases on the order of three. This means that our chances to stumble ETI signal nonlinear grow by fast curve.
17. It is possible that when we trip into several different messages from the sky, which refutes one another in a spirit of: "do not listen to them, they are deceiving you and wish you evil." This is common in the Earth's radio.
18. Whatever positive and valuable message we receive, we can never be sure that all of this is not a very thin and deep covered threat. This means that in the interstellar communication will always be an element of distrust.
19. Defensive position in the interstellar communication is considered to listen, not sending anything that does not extradite its location. The laws prohibit the sending of a message from the United States to the stars. Anyone in the Universe who sends - is not afraid to show his position. Perhaps because the sending for him is more important than personal safety. For example, because it attacks.
20. It was said about atomic bomb: the main secret about atomic bomb is that it can be done. If prior to the opening of a chain reaction Rutherford believed that the release of nuclear energy is an issue distant future, following the opening any physicist knows that it is enough to connect two parts of the uranium in order to get nuclear energy. In other words, if one day we find that the signals can be received from space, it will be an irreversible event.
Objections.

The discussions on the issue raised several typical objections, which is discussed.
Objection 1: Behavior discussed here is too anthropomorphic. In fact, civilization very different from each other, so you cant predict their behavior.
Answer: Here we have powerful observation selection effect. While a variety of possible civilization exist, including thinking oceans, etc., we can only receive radio signals from civilizations that sends them, which means that they have corresponding radio equipment and has knowledge of materials, electronics and computing. That is to say we threaten by civilization same type as our. Those civilizations, which can neither accept nor send radio messages, do not participate in this game.
Also, an observation selection concerns purposes. Goals of civilizations can be very different, but all civilization intensely sending signals, will be only that want to tell something to everyone". Finally, the observation selection relates to the effectiveness and universality of SETI virus. The more effective it is, the more different civilizations it catch and the more number of radio signals of it will be in heaven. So we have the most chances to meet most powerful and effective virus.
Objection 2. For super-civilizations there is no need to resort to subterfuge. They can directly conquer us.
Answer:
This is true only if they are in close proximity to us. If the movement with the speed more than of light, is not possible, the impact of messages will be faster and cheaper. Perhaps this difference becomes important at intergalactic distances. Therefore, one should not fear the SETI attack from the nearest stars, coming within a radius of tens and hundreds of light-years.
Objection 3. There are lots of reasons why SETI attack may not be possible. What is the point to run so ineffective attack?
Answer: SETI attack does not always work. It must act in a sufficient number of cases in line with the objectives of civilization, which sends a message. For example, the beggar or fraudster does not expect that he would be able "to make" every counterclaim. It is at least one person of one hundred. It follows that SETI attack is useless if there is a goal to attack all civilization in a certain galaxy. But if the goal is to get at least some outposts in another galaxy, the SETI attack fits. (Of these outposts can then space ships can be spread to outlying stars.)
The main assumption underlying the idea of SETI attacks is that extraterrestrial super civilizations exist in the visible universe at all. I think that this is unlikely for reasons related to antropic principle. Our universe is unique from 10 ** 500 possible universes with different physical properties, as suggested by one of the options string theory. My brain is 1 kg from 10 ** 30 kg in the solar system. Similarly, I suppose, and the Sun is no more than about 1 out of 10 ** 30 stars that could raise a intelligent life, so it means that we are likely alone in the visible universe.
Secondly the fact that Earth came so late (ie could be here for a few billion years earlier), and it was not prevented, said on the rarity of a intelligent life in the Universe. It is a rarity in our civilization is the best protection against attack SETI. On the other hand, if we open parallel worlds or super light speed communication, the problem arises again.
The most serious objection is that an advanced civilization could in a few million years sown all our galaxy by selfreplicating nanobots that could achieve any goal on each star, including easy preventing of the development of the other civilizations. However, we do not see it - no one has prevented develop of our civilization. So, it would be much easier and more reliable to send out robots with assignments, than bombardment of SETI messages of the entire galaxy, and if we dont see it, it means that no SETI attacks are inside our galaxy. (It is possible that a probe on the outskirts of the solar system expects manifestations of activity to attack - "berserkers" hypothesis - but it will not attack through SETI). Probably for many millions or even billions of years microrobots could even reach from distant galaxies at a distance of tens of millions of light-years away.
In this case SETI attack would be meaningful only at large distances. However, this distance - tens and hundreds of millions of light-years - probably will require innovative methods of modulation signals, such as management luminescence active nuclei of galaxies. Or transfer narrow beam in the direction of our galaxy (but they do not know where it will be through millions of years). But civilization, which can manage the galaxy nucleus, might create and spaceship flying with near-light speeds, even if its mass is a mass of the planet. Such considerations severely reduces the likelihood of SETI attacks, but not lowered it to zero, because we do not know all the possible objectives and circumstances.
The scale of space strategy may be inconceivable to the human mind.
Conclusion.
Our best protection in this context would be that civilization would very rarely met in the Universe. But this is not quite right, because the Fermi paradox here works on the principle of "both worse":
If there are extraterrestrial civilizations, and there are many of them, it is dangerous because they can threaten us in one way or another.
If extraterrestrial civilizations do not exist, it is also bad, because it gives weight to the hypothesis of inevitable extinction of technological civilizations or of our underestimating of frequency of cosmological catastrophes.
Theoretically possible reverse option, which is that through SETI will come a warning message about a certain threat, which has destroyed most of civilizations, such as: "Do not do any experiments with the H-particles, it could lead to an explosion that would destroy the planet." But even in that case remain a doubt, that there is no deception to deprive us of certain technologies. (Proof would be if similar reports came from other civilizations in space in the opposite direction.) But such communication may only enhance the temptation to experiment with the H-particles.
So I do not appeal to abandon SETI searches, the more that such appeals are useless.
It may be useful to postpone any technical realization of the messages that we could get on SETI, up until the time when we will have our Artificial Intelligence. Until that moment, perhaps, is only 10-30 years, that is, we could wait. Secondly, it would be important to hide the fact of receiving dangerous SETI signal its essence and the source location.
This risk is related methodological interesting aspect. Despite the fact that I have think every day in the last year and read on the topic of global risks, I found this dangerous vulnerability in SETI only now. By hindsight, I was able to find another four authors who came to similar conclusions. However, I have made a significant finding: that there may be not yet open global risks, and even if the risk of a certain constituent parts separately known to me, it may take a long time to join them.

Literature:
1. Hoyle F. Andromeda.
2. Yudkowsky E. Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk
Forthcoming in Global Catastrophic Risks, eds. Nick Bostrom and Milan Cirkovic
http://www.singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf
3.Moravec Hans. Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence, 1988.
4.Carrigan, Jr. Richard A. The Ultimate Hacker: SETI signals may need to be decontaminated

5. Carrigans page http://home.fnal.gov/~carrigan/SETI/SETI_Hacker.htm


Chapter 13. The risks connected with washing out of borders between human and inhuman

Powerful processes of genetic updating of people, prosthetics of parts of a body, including elements of a brain, connection of a brain with the computer, transfer of consciousness to the computer etc will create new type of risks for people, to understand which will be enough difficult. In what measure we can consider as human a being to which some genes are added,and some are cleaned? Are we ready to recognise the status of human behind any intelligent being which has arisen on the Earth even if it has no anything the general with human, does not consider itself as human and it is adjusted to people with hostility? These questions cease to be purely theoretical in the XXI century.
Essence of a problem that improvement of human can go different ways, and not the fact, that these ways will converge. For example, improvement of human for the account of gene manipulations gives one way, for the account of gradual replacement of parts of a body mechanisms - another, and for the account of full change of consciousness in the computer - the third. Can be various the declared purposes of improvement. And considerable groups of people flatly will refuse any improvements.
The risks connected with a problem of "the philosophical zombie
Philosophical zombie is called (the term is entered by D.Chalmers in 1996 in connection with discussions about an artificial intellect) a certain object which represents human, but thus has no internal experiences. For example, the image of human on the telescreen is the philosophical zombie, and owing to it we do not consider switching off TV as murder. The gradual upgrade of human brings an attention to the question on, whether the improved human will turn to the philosophical zombie on somebody a stage.
The simple example of the catastrophe connected with the philosophical zombie, consists in the following. We will admit that a certain method of achievement of immortality was offered to people, and they have agreed on it. However this method consists of recording a man for 10 days on a videocamera, and then scrolling fragments of this record in a casual order. Certainly, here the dirty trick is obvious, and in a reality people will disagree, as understand, that it not immortality. However we will consider more complex example - the part of brain of a man is damaged by a stroke, and it is replaced by computer implant, approximately carrying out its functions. How to learn, whether human has turned into the philosophical zombie as a result? The answer is obvious - always there will be those who will doubt in it and search for signs of un-genius of the corrected human.
What distinguishes the live human from the philosophical zombie, that is qualitative signs of experiences, in philosophy is called qualia, for example, subjective experience of green colour. The question on a reality qualia and their ontologic status is a subject of sharp philosophical discussions. My opinion is that qualia are real, their ontologic status is high, and without finding-out of their original nature we should not make experiments on human nature alteration.
It is possible to foretell with confidence, that when there will be improved people, the world will break up in two: on those who will consider as the present people only usual people, and those who will improve themself. Scales of such conflict will be truly civilizational. Certainly, everyone solves it for himself but how parents will concern to what their child will destroy the physical body and download his mind in the computer?
One more problem, threats from which are not clear yet, that human mind cannot generate the purpose from anything, not making thus a logic mistake. The usual human is provided by the purposes from a birth, and absence of the purposes is a depression symptom, than logic paradox. However absolute mind which has comprehended roots of all purposes, can realise their senselessness.

Chapter 14. The risks connected with natural catastrophes
Universal catastrophes
Catastrophes which will change all Universe as whole, on scale equal to the Big Bang are theoretically possible. From statistical reasons their probability is less than 1 % in the nearest billion years as have shown by Bostrom and Tegmark. However the validity of reasonings of Bostrom and depends on the validity of their premise - namely that the intelligent life in our Universe could arise not only now but also a several billions years ago. This suggestion is based on that the heavy elements necessary for existence of a life, have arisen already after several billions years after Universe appearance, long before formation of the Earth. Obviously, however, that degree of reliability which we can attribute to this premise is less than 100 billion to 1 as we do not have its direct proofs - namely the traces of early civilisations. Moreover, obvious absence of earlier civilisations (Fermi's paradox) gives certain reliability to an opposite idea - namely, that the mankind has arisen extremely improbable early. Probably, that existence of heavy elements is not a unique necessary condition for emergence of intelligent life, and also there are other conditions, for example, that frequency of flashes of close quasars and hypernovas has considerably decreased (and the density of these objects really decreases in process of expansion of the Universe and exhaustion of hydrogen clouds). Bostrom and write: One might think that since life here on Earth has survived for nearly 4 Gyr (Gigayears), such catastrophic events must be extremely rare. Unfortunately, such an argument is flawed, giving us a false sense of security. It fails to take into account the observation selection effect that precludes any observer from observing anything other than that their own species has survived up to the point where they make the observation. Even if the frequency of cosmic catastrophes were very high, we should still expect to find ourselves on a planet that had not yet been destroyed. The fact that we are still alive does not even seem to rule out the hypothesis that the average cosmic neighborhood is typically sterilized by vacuum decay, say, every 10000 years, and that our own planet has just been extremely lucky up until now. If this hypothesis were true, future prospects would be bleak.
And though further Bostrom and reject the assumption of high frequency of "sterilising catastrophes, being based on late time of existence of the Earth, we cannot accept their conclusion, because as we spoke above, the premise on which it is based, is unreliable. It does not mean, however, inevitability of close extinction as a result of universal catastrophe. The only our source of knowledge of possible universal catastrophes is theoretical physics as, by definition, such catastrophe never happened during life of the Universe (except for Big Bang). The theoretical physics generates a large quantity of unchecked hypotheses, and in case of universal catastrophes they can be essentially uncheckable. We will notice also, that proceeding from today's understanding, we cannot prevent universal catastrophe, nor be protected from it (though, we can provoke it - see the section about dangerous physical experiments.) Let's designate now the list of possible - from the point of view of some theorists - universal catastrophes:
1. Disintegration of false vacuum. We already discussed problems of false vacuum in connection with physical experiments.
2. Collision with object in multidimensional space - brane. There are assumptions, that our Universe is only object in the multidimensional space, named brane (from a word "membrane"). The Big Bang is a result of collision of our brane with another brane. If there will be one more collision it will destroy at once all our world.
3. The Big Rupture. Recently open dark energy results, as it is considered, to more and more accelerated expansion of the Universe. If speed of expansion grows, in one moment it will break off Solar system. But it will be ten billions years after modern times, as assumes theories. (Phantom Energy and Cosmic Doomsday. Robert R. Caldwell, Marc Kamionkowski, Nevin N. Weinberg. http://xxx.itep.ru/abs/astro-ph/0302506)
4. Transition of residual dark energy in a matter. Recently the assumption has been come out, that this dark energy can suddenly pass in a usual matter as it already was in time of the Big Bang.
5. Other classic scenario of the death of the universe are heat-related deaths rise in entropy and alignment temperature in the universe and the compression of the Universe through gravitational forces. But they again away from us in the tens of billions of years.
6. One can assume the existence of certain physical process that makes the Universe unfit for habitation after a certain time (as it was unfit for habitation because of intense radiation of nuclei of galaxies - quasars - billions of early years of its existence). For example, such a process can be evaporation of primordial black holes through Hawking radiation. If so, we exist in a narrow interval of time when the universe is inhabitable - just as Earth is located in the narrow space of habitable zone around the Sun, and Sun - in a narrow field of the galaxy, where the frequency of its rotation synchronized with the rotation of the branches of the galaxy, making it does not fall within those branches and is not subjected to a supernova.
8. If our world has to some extent arisen from anything by absolutely unknown to us way, what prevents it to disappear suddenly also?
Geological catastrophes
Geological catastrophes kill in millions times more people, than falling of asteroids, however they, proceeding from modern representations, are limited on scales. Nevertheless the global risks connected with processes in the Earth, surpass space risks. Probably, that there are mechanisms of allocation of energy and poisonous gases from bowels of the Earth which we simply did not face owing to effect of observation selection.
Eruptions of supervolcanoes
Probability of eruption of a supervolcano of proportional intensity is much more, than probability of falling of an asteroid. However modern science cannot prevent and even predict this event. (In the future, probably, it will be possible to pit gradually pressure from magmatic chambers, but this in itself is dangerous, as will demand drilling their roofs.) The basic hurting force of supereruption is volcanic winter. It is shorter than nuclear as it is heavier than a particle of volcanic ashes, but them can be much more. In this case the volcanic winter can lead to a new steady condition - to a new glacial age.
Large eruption is accompanied by emission of poisonous gases - including sulphur. At very bad scenario it can give a considerable poisoning of atmosphere. This poisoning not only will make its of little use for breath, but also will result in universal acid rains which will burn vegetation and will deprive harvest of crops. The big emissions carbon dioxid and hydrogen are also possible.
At last, the volcanic dust is dangerous to breathe as it litters lungs. People can easily provide themselves with gas masks and gauze bandages, but not the fact, that they will suffice for cattle and pets. Besides, the volcanic dust simply cover with thick layer huge surfaces, and also pyroclastic streams can extend on considerable distances. At last, explosions of supervolcanoes generate a tsunami.
It all means that people, most likely, will survive supervolcano eruption, but it with considerable probability will send mankind on one of postapocalyptic stages. Once the mankind has appeared on the verge of extinction because of the volcanic winter caused by eruption of volcano Toba 74 000 years ago. However modern technologies of storage of food and building of bunkers allow considerable group of people to go through volcanic winter of such scale.
In an antiquity took place enormous vulgar eruptions of volcanoes which have flooded millions square kilometres with the fused lava - in India on a plateau the Decan in days of extinction of dinosaurs (probably, is was provoked by falling of an asteroid on the Earth opposite side, in Mexico), and also on the East-Siberian platform. There is a doubtful assumption, that strengthening of processes of hydrogen decontamination on Russian plain is a harbinger of appearance of the new magmatic centre. Also there is a doubtful assumption of possibility catastrophic dehiscence of Earth crust on lines of oceanic breaks and powerful explosions of water steam under a curst.
An interesting question is that whether the overall inner heat inside the Earth groes through the disintegration of radioactive elements, or vice versa, decreases due to cooling emissivity. If increases, volcanic activity should increase throughout hundreds millions years. (A. Asimov writes in the book Choice of catastrophes, about glacial ages: On volcanic ashes in ocean adjournment it is possible to conclude, that volcanic activity in the last of 2 million years was approximately four times more intensively, than for previous 18 million years.)
Falling of asteroids
Falling of asteroids and comets is often considered as one of the possible reasons of extinction of mankind. And though such collisions are quite possible, chances of total extinction as a result of them, possibly, are exaggerated. See articles of Pustynsky Consequences to the Earth of falling of large asteroids and Vishnevsky Impact event and extinction of organisms. In last article the conclusion is that the asteroid in diameter about 60 km can become a cause of death of all complex life forms on the Earth. However such size asteroids fall on the Earth extremely rare, one time in billions years. (The asteroid, simultaneous to extinction of dinosaurs, had only 10 km in diameter, that is was approximately in 200 times less on volume, and the most part of biosphere has safely gone through this event.)
Falling of asteroid Apophis which could occur in 2029 (now probability is estimated by thousand shares of percent), cannot ruin mankind in any way. The size of an asteroid is about 400 metres, energy of explosion is in an order of 800 megatons, a probable place of falling - Pacific ocean and Mexico. Nevertheless, the asteroid would cause a tsunami equivalent Indonesian 2004 (only 1 percent of energy of Earthquake passes in a tsunami, and energy of Earthquake then is estimated in 30 ) on all Pacific ocean, that would lead to considerable victims, but hardly would reject mankind on a postapocalyptic stage.
2,2 million years ago the comet in diameter of 0,5-2 km (so, with much bigger energy) has fallen between southern America and Antarctica (Eltanin catastrophehttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eltanin_(Asteroid) ). The wave in 1 km in height threw out whales to the Andes. Nevertheless, ancestors of modern humans, lived in Africa, have not suffered. In vicinities of the Earth there are no asteroids in the sizes which could destroy all people and all biosphere. However comets of such size can come from Oort cloud. In article of Napir, etc. Comets with low reflecting ability and the risk of space collisions is shown, that the number of dangerous comets can be essential underestimated as the observable quantity of comets in 1000 times less than expected which is connected with the fact that comets after several flights round the Sun become covered by a dark crust, cease to reflect light and become imperceptible. Such dark comets are invisible by modern means. Besides, allocation of comets from Oort cloud depends on the tidal forces created by the Galaxy on Solar system. These tidal forces increase, when the Sun passes through more dense areas of the Galaxy, namely, through spiral sleeves and a galactic plane. And just now we pass through a galactic plane that means, that during a present epoch comet bombardment is in 10 times stronger, than on the average for history of the Earth. Napir connects the previous epoch intensive of comet bombardments with mass extinction 65 and 251 million years ago.
The basic hurting factor at asteroid falling would become not only a wave-tsunami, but also asteroid winter, connected with emission of particles of a dust in atmosphere. Falling of a large asteroid can cause deformations in Earth crust which will lead to eruptions of volcanoes. Besides, the large asteroid will cause the worldwide Earthquake dangerous first of all for technogenic civilisation.
The scenario of intensive bombardment of the Earth by set of splinters is more dangerous. Then strike will be distributed in more regular intervals and will demand smaller quantity of a material. These splinters to result from disintegration of some space body (see further about threat of explosion Callisto), comet splitting on a stream of fragments (the Tungus meteorite was, probably, a splinter of comet Enke), as a result of asteroid hit in the Moon or as the secondary hurting factor from collision of the Earth with a large space body. Many comets already consist of groups of fragments, and also can collapse in atmosphere on thousand pieces. It can occur and as a result unsuccessful attempt to bring down an asteroid by means of the nuclear weapon.
Falling of asteroids can provoke eruption of supervolcanoes if the asteroid gets to a thin site of Earth crust or in a cover of a magmatic copper of a volcano or if shift from the stike disturbs the remote volcanoes. The melted iron formed at falling of an iron asteroid, can play a role Stevenson's probe - if it is possible in general, - that is melt Earth crust and a mantle, having formed the channel in Earth bowels that is fraught with enormous volcanic activity. Though usually it did not occur at falling of asteroids to the Earth, lunar "seas" could arise thus. Besides, outpourings of magmatic breeds could hide craters from such asteroids. Such outpourings are Siberian trap basalts and a Decan plateau in India. The last is simultaneous to two large impacts (Chixulub and crater Shiva). It is possible to assume, that shock waves from these impacts, or the third space body, a crater from which has not remained, have provoked this eruption. It is not surprising, that several large impacts occur simultaneously. For example, core s of comets can consist of several separate fragments - for example, comet Shumejkera-Levi running into Jupiter in 1994, has left on it a dotted trace as by the collision moment has already broken up to fragments. Besides, there can be periods of intensive formation of comets when the solar system passes near to other star. Or as a result of collision of asteroids in a belt of asteroids.
Much more dangerously air explosions of meteorites in some tens metres in diameter which can cause false operations of systems of early warning of a nuclear attack, or hits of such meteorites in areas of basing of rockets.
Pustynsky in his article comes to following conclusions with which I am completely solidary: According to the estimations made in present article, the prediction of collision with an asteroid is not guaranteed till now and is casual. It is impossible to exclude that collision will occur absolutely unexpectedly. Thus for collision prevention it is necessary to have time of an order of 10 years. Asteroid detection some months prior to collision would allow to evacuate the population and nuclear-dangerous plants in a falling zone. Collision with asteroids of the small size (to 1 km in diameter) will not result to all planet consequences (excluding, of course, practically improbable direct hit in area of a congestion of nuclear materials). Collision with larger asteroids (approximately from 1 to 10 km in diameter, depending on speed of collision) is accompanied by the most powerful explosion, full destruction of the fallen body and emission in atmosphere to several thousand cubic km. of stones. On the consequences this phenomenon is comparable with the largest catastrophes of a terrestrial origin, such as explosive eruptions of volcanoes. Destruction in a falling zone will be total, and the planet climate will in shraply change and will settle into shape only in some years (but not decades and centuries!) Exaggeration of threats of global catastrophe proves to be true by the fact that during the history of the Earth it has survived set of collisions with similar asteroids, and it has not left is proved an appreciable trace in its biosphere (anyway, far not always left). Only collision with larger space bodies (diameter more ~15-20 km) can make more appreciable impact on planet biosphere. Such collisions occur less often, than time in 100 million years, and we while do not have the techniques allowing even approximately to calculate their consequence.
So, the probability of destruction of mankind as a result of asteroid falling in the XXI century is very small. In process of development of our civilisation we can reduce it beyond all bounds. However large catastrophes are possible. There is some chance of a contamination of a space with large splinters as a result of space war in the future.
Zone of defeat depending on force of explosion
Here we will consider hurting action of explosion as a result of asteroid falling (or for any other reason). The detailed analysis with similar conclusions see in article of Pustynsky.
The defeat zone grows very slowly with growth of force of explosion that is true as asteroids, and for super-power nuclear bombs. Though energy of influence falls proportionally to a square of distance from epicentre, at huge explosion it falls much faster, first, because of curvature of the Earth which as though protects that is behind horizon (therefore nuclear explosions are most effective in air, instead of on the Earth), and secondly, that ability of a matter is elastic to transfer a shock wave is limited by a certain limit from above, and all energy moreover is not transferred, and turns to heat around epicentre. For example, at ocean there can not be a wave above its depth, and as explosion epicentre is a dot (unlike epicentre of a usual tsunami which it represents a break line), then will linearly decrease depending on distance. The superfluous heat formed at explosion, or is radiated in space, or remains in the form of lake of the fused substance in epicentre. The sun delivers for days to the Earth light energy of an order 1000 gigaton (10 joules), therefore the role of the thermal contribution of superexplosion in the general temperature of the Earth is insignificant. (On the other hand, the mechanism of distribution of heat from explosion will be not streams of heated air, but the cubic kilometres of splinters thrown out by explosion with the weight comparable to weight of the asteroid, but smaller energy, many of which will have the speed close to first cosmic speed, and owing to it to fly on ballistic trajectories as intercontinental rockets fly. In an hour they reach all corners of the Earth and though they, operating as the kinetic weapon, will hurt not each point on a surface, they will allocate at the input in atmosphere huge quantities of energy, that is will warm up atmosphere on all area of the Earth, probably, to temperature of ignition of a tree that else will aggravate.)
We can roughly consider, that the destruction zone grows proportionally to a root of 4 power from force of explosion (exact values are defined by military men empirically as a result of tests and heights lay between degrees 0,33 and 0,25, thus depending from force of explosion, etc.). Thus each ton of weight of a meteorite gives approximately 100 tons of a trotyl equivalent of energy - depending on speed of collision which usually makes some tens kilometres per second. (In this case a stone asteroid in 1 cubic km. in the size will give energy in 300 gigatons. The density of comets is much less, but they can be scattered in air, strengthening strike, and, besides, move on perpendicular to ours orbits with much bigger speeds.) Accepting, that the radius of complete destruction from a hydrogen bomb in 1 megaton makes 10 km, we can receive radiuses of destruction for asteroids of the different sizes, considering, that the destruction radius decreases proportionally the fourth degree force of explosion. For example, for an asteroid in 1 cubic km it will be radius in 230 km. For an asteroid in diameter in 10 km it will be radius in 1300 km. For 100 km of an asteroid it will be radius of dectruction of an order of 7000 km. That this radius of the guaranteed destruction became more than half of width of the Earth (20 000 km), that is guaranteed covered all Earth, the asteroid should have the sizes of an order of 400 km. (If to consider, that the destruction radius grows as a root of the third degree it will be diameter of an asteroid destroying all about 30 km. Real value lays between these two figures (30-400 km), also the estimation Pustynsky gives independent estimation: 60 km.)
Though the given calculations are extremely approximate, from them it is visible, what even that asteroid which connect with extinction of dinosaurs has not hurt all territory of the Earth, and even all continent where it has fallen. And extinction if it has been connected with an asteroid (now is considered, that there complex structure of the reasons) it has been caused not by strike, but by the subsequent effect - the asteroid winter connected with the dust carrying over by atmosphere. Also collision with an asteroid can cause an electromagnetic impulse, as in a nuclear bomb, for the account of fast movement of plasma. Besides, it is interesting to ask a question, whether there can be thermonuclear reactions at collision with a comet if its speed is close to greatest possible about 100 km/s (a comet on a counter course, the worst case) as in a strike point there can be a temperature in millions degrees and huge pressure as at implosion in a nuclear bomb. And even if the contribution of these reactions to energy of explosion will be small, it can give radioactive pollution.
Strong explosion will create strong chemical pollution of all atmosphere, at least by oxides of nitrogen which will form rains of nitric acid. And strong explosion will litter atmosphere with a dust that will create conditions for nuclear winter.
From the told follows, that the nuclear superbomb would be terrible not force of the explosion, and quantity of radioactive deposits which it would make. Besides, it is visible, that terrestrial atmosphere represents itself as the most powerful factor of distribution of influences.
Solar flashes and luminosity increase
That is known to us about the Sun, does not give the bases for anxiety. The sun cannot blow up. Only presence unknown to us or the extremely improbable processes can lead to flash (coronary emission) which will strongly singe the Earth in the XXI century. But other stars have flashes, in millions times surpassing solar. However change of luminosity of the sun influences change of a climate of the Earth that proves coincidence of time of a small glacial age in XVII century with a Maunder minimum of solar spots. Probably, glacial ages are connected with luminosity fluctuations also.
Process of gradual increase in luminosity of the sun (for 10 percent in billion years) will result anyway to boiling oceans - with the account of other factors of warming - during next 1 billion years (that is much earlier, than the sun becomes the red giant and, especially, white dwarf). However in comparison with an interval investigated by us in 100 years this process is insignificant (if only it has not developed together with other processes conducting to irreversible global warming - see further).
There are assumptions, that in process of hydrogen burning out in the central part of the Sun, that already occurs, will grow not only luminosity of the Sun (luminosity grows for the account of growth of its sizes, instead of surface temperatures), but also instability of its burning. Probably, that last glacial ages are connected with this reduction of stability of burning. It is clear on the following metaphor: when in a fire it is a lot of firewood, it burns brightly and steadily but when the most part of fire wood burns through, it starts to die away a little and brightly flash again when finds not burnt down branch.
Reduction of concentration of hydrogen in the sun centre can provoke such process as convection which usually in the Sun core does not occur therefore in the core fresh hydrogen will arrive. Whether such process is possible, whether there will be it smooth or catastrophic, whether will occupy years or millions years, it is difficult to tell. Shklovsky assumed, that as a result of convection the Sun temperature falls each 200 million years for a 10 million perod, and that we live in the middle of such period. That is end of this process when fresh fuel at last will arrive in the core and luminosity of the sun will increase is dangerous. (However it is marginal theory, as at the moment is resolved one of the basic problems which has generated it - a problem of solar neitrino.)
It is important to underline, however, that the Sun cannot flash as supernova or nova, proceeding from our physical representations.
At the same time, to interrupt a intelligent life on the Earth, it is enough to Sun to be warmed up for 10 percent for 100 years (that would raise temperature on the Earth on 10-20 degrees without a greenhouse effect, but with the green house effect account, most likely, it would appear above a critical threshold of irreversible warming). Such slow and rare changes of temperature of stars of solar type would be difficult for noticing by astronomical methods at supervision of sun-like stars - as necessary accuracy of the equipment only is recently reached. (The logic paradox of a following kind is besides, possible: sun-like stars are stable stars of spectral class G7 by definition. It is not surprising, that as a result of their supervision we find out, that these stars are stable.)
So, one of variants of global catastrophe consists that as a result of certain internal processes luminosity of the sun will steadily increase on dangerous size (and we know, that sooner or later it will occur). At the moment the Sun is on an ascending century trend of the activity, but any special anomalies in its behaviour has not been noticed. The probability of that it happens in the XXI century is insignificant is small.
The second variant of the global catastrophe connected with the Sun, consists that there will be two improbable events - on the Sun there will be very large flash and emission of this flash will be directed to the Earth. Concerning distribution of probability of such event it is possible to assume, that the same empirical law, as concerning Earthquakes and volcanoes here operates: 20 multiple growth of energy of event leads to 10 multiple decrease in its probability (the law of repeatability of Gutenberg-Richter). In XIX century was observed flash in 5 times, by modern estimations, stronger, than the strongest flash in the XX century. Probably, that time in tens and hundred thousand years on the Sun there are the flashes similar on a rarity and scale to terrestrial eruptions of supervolcanoes. Nevertheless it is the extremely rare events. Large solar flashes even if they will not be directed to the Earth, can increase a little solar luminosity and lead to additional heating of the Earth. (Usual flashes give the contribution no more than 0,1 percent).
At the moment the mankind is incapable to affect processes on the Sun, and it looks much more difficult, than influence on volcanoes. Ideas of dump of hydrogen bombs on the Sun for initiation of thermonuclear reaction look unpersuasively (however such ideas were expressed, that speaks about tireless searches by human mind of the weapon of the Doomsday).
There is a precisely enough reckoned scenario of influence to the Earth magnetic making solar flash. At the worst scenario (that depends on force of a magnetic impulse and its orientation - it should be opposite to a terrestrial magnetic field), this flash will create the strong currents in electric lines of distant transfer of the electric power that will result in burning out of transformers on substations. In normal conditions updating of transformers occupies 20-30 years, and if all of them burn down will be nothing to replace them there, as will require many years on manufacture of similar quantity of transformers that it will be difficult to organise without an electricity. Such situation hardly will result in human extinction, but is fraught with a world global economic crisis and wars that can start a chain of the further deterioration. The probability of such scenario is difficult for estimating, as we possess electric networks only about hundred years.
Gamma ray bursts
Gamma ray bursts are intensive short streams of gamma radiation coming from far space. Gamma ray bursts, apparently, are radiated in the form of narrow bunches, and consequently their energy more concentrated, than at usual explosions of stars. Probably, strong gamma ray bursts from close sources have served as the reasons of several mass extinctions tens and hundred millions years ago. It is supposed, that gamma ray bursts occur at collisions of black holes and neutron stars or collapses of massive stars. Close gamma ray bursts could cause destruction of an ozone layer and even atmosphere ionisation. However in the nearest environment of the Earth there is no visible suitable candidates neither on sources of gamma ray bursts, nor for supernovas (the nearest candidate for a gamma ray burst source, a star Eta Carinae - it is far enough - an order of 7000 light years and hardly its axis of inevitable explosion in the future will be directed to the Earth - Gamma ray bursts extend in a kind narrow beam jets; However at a potential star-hypernew of star WR 104 which are on almost at same distance, the axis is directed almost towards the Earth. This star will blow up during nearest several hundreds thousand years that means chance of catastrophe with it in the XXI century less than 0.1 %, and with the account of uncertainty of its parametres of rotation and our knowledge about scale - splashes - and is even less). Therefore, even with the account of effect of observant selection, which increases frequency of catastrophes in the future in comparison with the past in some cases up to 10 times (see my article Antropic principle and Natural catastrophes) the probability of dangerous gamma ray burst in the XXI century does not exceed thousand shares of percent. Mankind can survive even serious gamma ray burst in various bunkers. Estimating risk of gamma ray bursts, Boris Stern writes: We take a moderate case of energy relies of 10 ** 52 erg and distance to splash 3 parsec, 10 light years, or 10 ** 19 sm - in such limits from us are tens stars. On such distance for few seconds on each square centimetre of a planet got on ways of gamma ray will be allocated 10 ** 13 erg. It is equivalent to explosion of a nuclear bomb on each hectare of the sky! Atmosphere does not help: though energy will be highlighted in its top layers, the considerable part will instantly reach a surface in the form of light. Clearly, that all live on half of planet will be instantly exterminated, on second half hardly later at the expense of secondary effects. Even if we take in 100 times bigger distance (it a thickness of a galactic disk and hundred thousand stars), the effect (on a nuclear bomb on a square with the party of 10 km) will be the hard strike, and here already it is necessary to estimate seriously - what will survive and whether something will survive in general. Stern believes, that gamma ray burst in Our galaxy happens on the average time in one million years. Gamma ray burst in such star as WR 104, can cause intensive destruction of the ozone layer on half of planet. Probably, Gamma ray burst became reason of Ordovician mass extinction 443 million years ago when 60 % of kinds of live beings (and it is considerable the big share on number of individuals as for a survival of a specie there is enough preservation of only several individuals) were lost. According to John Scalo and Craig Wheeler, gamma ray bursts make essential impact on biosphere of our planet approximately everyone five millions years.
Even far gamma ray burst or other high-energy space event can be dangerous by radiation hurt of the Earth - and not only direct radiation which atmosphere appreciably blocks (but avalanches of high-energy particles from cosmic rays reach a terrestrial surface), but also for the formation account in atmosphere of radioactive atoms, that will result in the scenario similar described in connection with cobalt bomb. Besides, the scale radiation causes oxidation of nitrogen of atmosphere creating opaque poisonous gas dioxide of nitrogen which is formed in an upper atmosphere and can block a sunlight and cause a new Ice age. There is a hypothesis, that neutrino radiation arising at explosions of supernovas can lead in some cases to mass extinction as neutrino is elastic dissipate on heavy atoms with higher probability, and energy of this dispersion is sufficient for infringement of chemical bonds, and therefore neutrino will cause more often DNA damages, than other kinds of radiation having much bigger energy. (J.I.Collar. Biological Effects of Stellar Collapse Neutrinos. Phys.Rev.Lett. 76 (1996) 999-1002 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9505028)
Danger of gamma ray burst is in its suddenness - it begins without warning from invisible sources and extends with a velocity of light. In any case, gamma ray burst can amaze only one hemisphere of the Earth as they last only a few seconds or minutes.
Activization of the core of galaxy (where there is a huge black hole) is too very improbable event. In far young galaxies such cores actively absorb substance which twists at falling in accretion disk and intensively radiates. This radiation is very powerful and also can interfere with life emerging on planets. However the core of our galaxy is very great and consequently can absorb stars almost at once, not breaking off them on a part, so, with smaller radiation. Besides, it is quite observed in infra-red beams (a source the Sagittarius), but is closed by a thick dust layer in an optical range, and near to the black hole there is no considerable quantity of the substance ready to absorption by it, - only one star in an orbit with the period in 5 years, but also it can fly still very long. And the main thing, it is very far from Solar system.
Except distant gamma ray bursts, there are the soft Gamma ray bursts connected with catastrophic processes on special neutron stars - magnitars. On August, 27th, 1998 flash on magnitar has led to instant decrease in height of an ionosphere of the Earth on 30 km, however this magnitar was on distance of 20 000 light years. Magnitars in vicinities of the Earth are unknown, but find out them it can not to be simple.
Our estimation of probability of dangerous gamma ray bursts can be (and can and not to be) is seriously deformed by action of effect of observtion selection in the spirit of antropic principle; moreover, the effect of "pent-up demand" here can affect - that is those stars which "have postponed" (more precisely, we observe them such in force of antropic principle) the Gamma ray burst for the intelligent life on the Earth could emerge, now can carry out it. (There are assumptions, that the life in the Universe is extremely rare, because the overwhelming majority of planets is sterilised by gamma ray bursts.)
Supernova stars
Real danger to the Earth would be represented by close explosion supernova on distance to 25 light years or even less. But in vicinities of the Sun there are no stars which could become dangerous supernova. (The nearest candidates - the Mira and Betelgeuse - are on distance of hundreds light years.) Besides, radiation of supernova is rather slow process (lasts months), and people can have time to hide in bunkers. At last, only if the dangerous supernova will be strict in an equatorial plane of the Earth (that is improbable), it can irradiate all terrestrial surface, otherwise one of poles will escape. See Michael Richmond's review. Will a Nearby Supernova Endanger Life on Earth? http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/snrisks.txt Rather close supernova can be sources of space beams which will lead to sharp increase in cloud amount at the Earth that is connected with increase in number of the centres of condensation of water. It can lead to sharp cooling of a climate for the long period. (Nearby Supernova May Have Caused Mini-Extinction, Scientists Say
Super-tsunami
Ancient human memory keep enormous flooding as the most terrible catastrophe. However on the Earth there is no such quantity of water that ocean level has risen above mountains. (Messages on recent discovery of underground oceans are a little exaggerated - actually it is a question only of rocks with the raised maintenance of water - at level of 1 percent.) Average depth of world ocean is about 4 km. And limiting maximum height of a wave of the same order - if to discuss possibility of a wave, instead of, whether the reasons which will create the wave of such height are possible. It is less, than height of high-mountainous plateaus in the Himalayas where too live people. Variants when such wave is possible is the huge tidal wave which has arisen if near to the Earth fly very massive body or if the axis of rotation of the Earth would be displaced or speed of rotation would change. All these variants though meet in different "horror stories" about a doomsday, look impossible or improbable.
So, it is very improbable, that the huge tsunami will destroy all people - as the submarines, many ships and planes will escape. However the huge tsunami can destroy a considerable part of the population of the Earth, having translated mankind in a postapocalyptic stage, for some reasons:
1. Energy of a tsunami as a superficial wave, decreases proportionally 1/R if the tsunami is caused by a dot source, and does not decrease almost, if a source linear (as at Earthquake on a break).
2. Losses on the transmission of energy in the wave are small.
3. The considerable share of the population of the Earth and a huge share of its scientific and industrial and agricultural potential is directly at coast.
4. All oceans and the seas are connected.
5. To idea to use a tsunami as the weapon already arose in the USSR in connection with idea of creations gigaton bombs.
Good side here is that the most dangerous tsunami are generated by linear natural sources - movements of geological faults, and the most accessible for artificial generation sources of a tsunami are dots: explosions of bombs, falling of asteroids, collapses of mountain.
Super-Earthquake
We would name superEarthquake wavering of the Earth surfaces leading to full destructions and covering all surface of the Earth. Such event could not kill all people as there would be ships, planes, and people on the wild. But it unequivocally would destroy all technogenic civilisation. Possible sources of such superEarthquake could be:
;supervolcano explosion
;asteroid falling
;superbomb explosion
;the Earths crack in the area of oceanic rifts
;unknown processes in the Earth core .
At equal energy, superEarthquake will be less dangerous, than a super-tsunami as its energy will be distributed on volume. I heard margunal assumption, that at Earthquakes can arise not only shift deformations, but also supesonic shock waves.
Polarity reversal of the magnetic field of the Earth
We live in the period of easing and probably polarity reversal of the magnetic field of the Earth. In itself inversion of a magnetic field will not result in extinction of people as polarity reversal already repeatedly occurred in the past without appreciable harm. In the process of polarity reversal the magnetic field could fall to zero or to be orientated toward Sun (pole will be on equator) which would lead to intense suck of charged particles into the atmosphere. The simultaneous combination of three factors - falling to zero of the magnetic field of the Earth, exhaustion of the ozone layer and strong solar flash could result in death of all life on Earth, or: at least, to crash of all electric systems that is fraught with falling of a technological civilisation. And itself this crash is not terrible, but is terrible what will be in its process with the nuclear weapon and all other technologies. Nevertheless the magnetic field decreases slowly enough (though speed of process accrues) so hardly it will be nulled in the nearest decades. Other catastrophic scenario - magnetic field change is connected with changes of streams of magma in the core, that somehow can infuence global volcanic activity (there are data on correlation of the periods of activity and the periods of change of poles). The third risk - possible wrong understanding of the reasons of existence of a magnetic field of the Earth.
There is a hypothesis that the growth of solid nucleus of Earth did the Earth's magnetic field less stable, and it exposed more often polarity reversal, that is consistent with the hypothesis of weakening the protection that we receive from anthropic principle.
Emerge of new illness in the nature
It is extremely improbable, that there will be one illness capable at once to destroy all people. Even in case of a mutation of a bird flu or bubonic plague many people will be survived and do not catch the diseased. However as the number of people grows, the number of "natural reactors in which the new virus can be cultivated grows also. Therefore it is impossible to exclude chances of a large pandemic in the spirit of "Spaniard" flu of in 1918. Though such pandemic cannot kill all people, it can seriously damage level of development of the society, having lowered it on one of postapocaliptic stages. Such event can happen only before will appear powerful biotechnologies as they can create quickly enough medicines against it - and will simultaneously eclipse risks of natural illnesses possibility with much bigger speed of creation of the artificial deceases. The natural pandemic is possible and on one of postapocaliptic stages, for example, after nuclear war though and in this case risks of application of the biological weapon will prevail. For the natural pandemic became really dangerous to all people, there should be simultaneously a set of essentially different deadly agents - that is improbable naturally. There is also a chance, that powerful epizootic like the syndrome of a collapse of colonies of bees CCD, the African fungus on wheat (Uganda mould UG99), a bird flu and similar - will break the supply system of people so, that it will result in the world crisis fraught with wars and decrease of a level of development. Appearance of new illness will make strike not only on a population, but also on connectivity which is the important factor of existence of a uniform planetary civilisation. Growth of the population and increase in volume of identical agricultural crops increase chances of casual appearance of a dangerous virus as speed of "search" increases. From here follows, that there is a certain limit of number of the interconnected population of one specie after which new dangerous illnesses will arise every day. From real-life illnesses it is necessary to note two:
Bird flu. As it was already repeatedly spoken, not the bird flu is dangerous, but possible mutation of strain H5N1, capable to be transferred from human to human. For this purpose, in particular, should change attaching fibers on a surface of the virus that would attached not in the deep in lungs, but above where there are more chances for virus to get out as cough droplets. Probably, that it is rather simple mutation. Though there are different opinions on, whether H5N1 is capable to mutate this way, but in history already there are precedents of deadly flu epidemics. The worst estimation of number of possible victims of muteted bird flu was 400 million humans. And though it does not mean full extinction of mankind, it almost for certain will send the world on a certain postapocalyptic stage.
AIDS. This illness in the modern form cannot lead to full extinction of mankind though he has already sent a number of the countries of Africa on a postapocalyptic stage. There are interesting reasonings of Supotinsky about the nature of AIDS and on how epidemics of retroviruses repeatedly cut the population of gominids. He also assumes, that the HIV have a natural carrier, probably, a microorganism. If AIDS began to transder as cold, the mankind fate would be sad. However and now AIDS is deadly almost on 100 %, and develops slowly enough to have time to spread.
We should note new strains of microorganisms which are steady against antibiotics, for example, the hospital infection of golden staphylococci and medicine-steady tuberculosis. Thus process of increase of stability of various microorganisms to antibiotics develops, and such organisms spread more and more, that can give in some moment cumulative wave from many steady illnesses (against the weakened immunity of people). Certainly, it is possible to count, that biological supertechnologies will win them but if in appearance of such technologies there will be a certain delay a mankind fate is not good. Revival of the smallpox, plague and other illnesses though is possible, but separately each of them cannot destroy all people. On one of hypotheses, Neanderthal men have died out because of a version of the mad cow decease that is the illness, caused by prion (autoocatalytic form of scaling down of protein) and extended by means of cannibalism so we cannot exclude risk of extinction because of natural illness and for people.
At last, the story that the virus of "Spaniard" flu has been allocated from burial places, its genome was read and has been published on the Internet looks absolutely irresponsible. Then under requirements of the public the genome have been removed from open access. But then still there was a case when this virus have by mistake dispatched on thousand to laboratories in the world for equipment testing.
Marginal natural risks
Further we will mention global risks connected with natural events which probability in the XXI century is smallest, and moreover which possibility is not conventional. Though I believe, that these events should be taken into consideration, and they in general are impossible, I think, that it is necessary to create for them a separate category in our list of risks that, from a precaution principle, to keep certain vigilance concerning appearance of the new information, able to confirm these assumptions.

Violation of the stability of the Earth's atmosphere

Emerging on Earth, hurricanes usually cause only localized damage. The strongest known hurricane in 1780 had, by current estimates, wind speed at 200 miles per hour (about 100 meters per second) and broke every single trees on some Caribbean islands, has destroyed all buildings and kill majority of people who lived there. The atmosphere of other planets are much less stable than the Earths. For example, the atmosphere of Venus is drawn around the planet for 5 days. In the atmosphere of Jupiter is known Large red spot.
Kerry Emanuel from the University of Michigan put forward the hypothesis that in the past, the Earth's atmosphere was much less stable, resulting in mass extinction. If the temperature of ocean surface would be increased to 15-20 degrees, which is possible as a result of a sharp global warming, falling asteroid or underwater eruption, it would raise the so-called Hypercane - a huge storm, with wind speeds of approximately 200-300 meters per second, with square of continent, high live-time and pressure in the center of about 0.3 atmosphere. Removed from their place of appearance, such hypercane would destroy all life on land and at the same time, in its place over warm ocean site would form new hypercane. (This idea is used in the Barnes novel The mother storms.)
Emanuel has shown that when fall asteroid with diameter more than 10 km in the shallow sea (as it was 65 million years ago, when the fall asteroid near Mexico, which is associated with the extinction of dinosaurs) may form site of high temperature of 50 km, which would be enough to form hypercane. Hypercane ejects huge amount of water and dust in the upper atmosphere that could lead to dramatic global cooling or warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercane
Emanuel, Kerry (1996-09-16). "Limits on Hurricane Intensity". Center for Meteorology and Physical Oceanography , MIT 
Did storms land the dinosaurs in hot water? 
Unknown processes in the core of the Earth
There are assumptions, that the source of terrestrial heat is the natural nuclear reactor on uranium several kilometres in diameter in the planet centre. Under certain conditions, assumes V. Anisichkin, for example, at collision with a large comet, it can pass in supercritical condition and cause planet explosion, that, probably, caused Phaeton explosion from which, probably, the part of a belt of asteroids was generated. The theory obviously disputable as even Phaeton existence is not proved, and on the contrary, is considered, that the belt of asteroids was generated from independent planetesimals. Other author, R. Raghavan assumes, that the natural nuclear reactor in the centre of the Earth has diameter in 8 km and can cool down and cease to create terrestrial heat and a magnetic field.
If to geological measures certain processes have already ripened, it means what much easier to press a trigger hook, to start them, - so, human activity can wake them. The dictanse to border of the terrestrial core is about 3000 km, and to the Sun - of 150 000 000 km. From geological catastrophes every year perish ten thousand people, and from solar catastrophes - nobody. Directly under us there is a huge copper with the stuck lava impregnated with compressed gases. The largest extinction of live beings well correlate with epoch of intensive volcanic activity. Processes in the core in the past, probably, became the reasons of such terrible phenomena, as trap volcanics. On the border of the Perm period 250 million years ago in the Eastern Siberia has streamed out 2 million cubic km. of lavas, that in thousand times exceeds volumes of eruptions of modern supervolcanoes. It has led to extinction of 95 % of species.
Processes in the core also are connected with changes of a magnetic field of the Earth, the physics of that is not very clear yet. V.A. Krasilov in article Model of biospheric crises. Ecosystem reorganisations and biosphere evolution assumes, that the invariance periods, and then periods of variability of a magnetic field of the Earth precede enormous trap eruptions. Now we live in the period of variability of a magnetic field, but not after a long pause. The periods of variability of a magnetic field last ten millions years, being replaced by not less long periods of stability. So at a natural course of events we have millions years before following act of trap volcanic if it at all will happen. The basic danger here consists that people by any penetrations deep into the Earths can push these processes if these processes have already ripened to critical level.
In a liquid terrestrial core the gases dissolved in it are most dangerous. They are capable to be pulled out of a surface if they get a channel. In process of sedimentation of heavy iron downwards, it is chemically cleared (restoration for the heat account), and more and more quantity of gases is liberated, generating process of de-gasation of the Earth. There are assumptions, that powerful atmosphere of Venus has arisen rather recently as a result of intensive de-gasation of its bowels. Certain danger is represented by temptation to receive gratuitous energy of terrestrial bowels, extorting the heated magma. (Though if it to do it in the places which have been not connected with plumes it should be safe enough). There is an assumption, that shredding of an oceanic bottom from zones of median rifts occurs not smoothly, but jerky which, on the one hand, are much more rare (therefore we did not observe them), than Earthquakes in zones of subduction, but are much more powerful. Here the following metaphor is pertinent: Balloon rupture is much more powerful process, than its corrugation. Thawing of glaciers leads to unloading plates and to strengthening of volcanic activity (for example, in Iceland - in 100 times). Therefore the future thawing of a glacial board of Greenland is dangerous.
At last, is courageous assumptions, that in the centre of the Earth (and also other planets and even stars) are microscopic (on astronomical scales) relict black holes which have arisen in time of Big Bang. See A.G. Parhomov's article About the possible effects connected with small black holes. Under Hawking's theory relic holes should evaporate slowly, however with accruing speed closer to the end of the existence so in the last seconds such hole makes flash with the energy equivalent approximately of 1000 tons of weight (and last second of 228 tons), that is approximately equivalent to energy 20 000 gigaton of trotyl equivalent - it is approximately equal to energy from collision of the Earth with an asteroid in 10 km in diameter. Such explosion would not destroy a planet, but would cause on all surface Earthquake of huge force, possibly, sufficient to destroy all structures and to reject a civilisation on deeply postapocalyptic level. However people would survive, at least those who would be in planes and helicopters during this moment. The microscopic black hole in the centre of the Earth would test simultaneously two processes accretion of matter and energy losses by hawking radiation which could be in balance, however balance shift in any party would be fraught with catastrophe - either hole explosion, or absorption of the Earth or its destruction for the account of stronger allocation of energy at accretion. I remind, that there are no facts confirming existence of relic black holes and it is only the improbable assumption which we consider, proceeding from a precaution principle.
Sudden de-gasation of the gases dissolved at world ocean
Gregory Ryskin has published in 2003 the article Methane-driven oceanic eruptions and mass extinctions in which considers a hypothesis that infringements of a metastable condition of the gases dissolved in water were the reason of many mass extinctions, first of all relies of methane. With growth pressure solubility of methane grows, therefore in depth it can reach considerable sizes. But this condition is metastable as if there will be a water hashing de-gasation chain reaction as in an open bottle with champagne will begin. Energy allocation thus in 10 000 times will exceed energy of all nuclear arsenals on the Earth. Ryskin shows, that in the worst case the weight of the allocated gases can reach tens billions tons that is comparable to weight of all biosphere of the Earth. Allocation of gases will be accompanied by powerful tsunami and burning of gases. It can result or in planet cooling for the account of formation of soot, or, on the contrary, to an irreversible warming up as the allocated gases are greenhouse. Necessary conditions for accumulation of the dissolved methane in ocean depths is the anoxia (absence of the dissolved oxygen, as, for example, in Black sea) and absence of hashing. Decontamination off metan-hydrates on a sea-bottom can promote process also. To cause catastrophic consequences, thinks Ryskin, there is enough decontamination even small area of ocean. Sudden decontamination of Lake Nios which in 1986 has carried away lives of 1700 humans became an example of catastrophe of a similar sort. Ryskin notices that question on what the situation with accumulation of the dissolved gases at modern world ocean, demands the further researches.
Such eruption would be relatively easy to provoke, lowering pipe in the water and starting to pour up water that would run self-reinforsing process. This can happen accidentally when drilling deep seabed. A large quantity of hydrogen sulfide has accumulated in the Black Sea, and there also is unoxic areas.
Gregory Ryskin. Methane-driven oceanic eruptions and mass extinctions. Geology 31, 741 - 744 2003. http://pangea.stanford.edu/Oceans/GES205/methaneGeology.pdf
Explosions of other planets of solar system
There are other assumptions of the reasons of possible explosion of planets, besides explosions of uranium reactors in the centre of planets by Anisichkin, namely, special chemical reactions in the electrolysised ice. E.M. Drobyshevsky in article Danger of explosion of Callisto and priority of space missions ( .. // 1999. , 69, . 9. http://www.ioffe.ru/journals/jtf/1999/09/p10-14.pdf) assumes that such events regularly occur in the ice satellites of Jupiter, and they are dangerous to the Earth by formation of a huge meteoric stream. Electrolysis of ice occurs as a result of movement of containing it celestial body in a magnetic field, causing powerful currents. These currents result in the degradation of water to hydrogen and oxygen, which leads to the formation of explosive mixture. He states hypothesis, that in all satellites these processes have already come to the end, except Callisto which can blow up at any moment, and suggests to direct on research and prevention of this phenomenon considerable means. (It is necessary to notice, that in 2007 has blown up Holmes's comet, and knows nobody why - and electrolysis of ice in it during Sun fly by is possible.)
I would note that if the Drobyshevsky hypothesis is correct, the very idea of the research mission to Callisto and deep drilling of his bowels in search of the electrolysised ice is dangerous because it could trigger an explosion.
In any case, no matter what would cause destruction of other planet or the large satellites in Solar system, this would represent long threat of a terrestrial life by fall of splinters. (The description of one hypothesis about loss of splinters see here: An asteroid breakup 160 Myr ago as the probable source of the K/T impactor  )
 Nemesis
There is a hypothesis, that on periphery of Solar system there is an invisible star or a large planet which rotates on strongly elliptic orbit and the gravitational indignation regularly leads to biological crises on the Earth. This regularity can be time in millions years (so, the Centaur Proxima rotate around the Alpha for approximately one million years). However studying of orbits of bodies in Koiper belt behind Pluto orbit have not found out influences of a large body. If such body would be on approach to the Sun it, most likely, it would be found out for decades before. Other dangerous variant connected with Nemesis consists that it does not come nearer to the Earth but only goes deep into cloud , provoking regular rains of comets. But also it is the slowest process so it does not threaten us in the XXI century. At last, sometimes it is underlined probability of that the solar system will enter in dense dust-gas a cloud which considerably will weaken sun light. But in the nearest vicinities of Solar system of such cloud is not present.
Cancellation of "protection" which to us provided Antropic principle
In detail I consider this question in article Natural catastrophes and Antropic principle. The threat essence consists that the intelligent life on the Earth, most likely, was generated in the end of the period of stability of natural factors necessary for its maintenance. Or, speaking short, the future is not similar to the past because the past we see through effect of observant selection. An example: a certain human has won three times successively in a roulette, putting on one number. Owing to it it, using the inductive logic, he comes to a fallacy that will win and further. However if he knew, that in game, besides it, 30 000 humans participated, and all of them were eliminated, it could come to more true conclusion, as he with chances 35 to 36 will lose in following round. In other words, his period of the stability consisting in a series from three prizes, has ended.
For formation of intelligent life on the Earth there should be a unique combination of conditions which operated for a long time (uniform luminosity of the sun, absence of close supernova, absence of collisions with very big asteroids etc.) However from this does not follow at all, these conditions will continue to operate eternally. Accordingly, in the future we can expect that gradually these conditions will disappear. Speed of this process depends on that, and unique the combination of the conditions, allowed to be generated intelligent life on the Earth (as in an example with a roulette was how much improbable: the situation of prize got three times in a row is more unique successively, the bigger probability the player will lose in the fourth round - that is be in that roulette of 100 divisions on a wheel chances of an exit in the fourth round would fall to 1 to 100). If such combination is more improbable, it will end faster. It speaks effect of elimination - if in the beginning there were, let us assume, billions planets at billions stars where the intelligent life could start to develop as a result of elimination only on one Earth the intelligent life was formed, and other planets have withdrawn, as Mars and Venus. However intensity of this elimination is unknown to us, and to learn to us it stirs effect of observation selection - as we can find out ourselves only on that planet where the life has survived, and the intelligence could develop. But elimination proceeds with the same speed.
For the external observer this process will look as sudden and causeless deterioration of many vital parametres supporting life on the Earth. Considering this and similar examples, it is possible to assume, that the given effect can increase probability of the sudden natural catastrophes, capable to tear off a life on the Earth, but no more, than in 10 times. (No more as then enter the actions of the restriction similar described in article of Bostrom and which consider this problem in the relation of cosmic catastrophes. However real value of these restrictions for geological catastrophes requires more exact research.) For example if absence of superhuge eruptions of volcanoes on the Earth, flooding all surface, is lucky coincidence, and in norm they should occur time in 500 million years the chance of the Earth to appear in its unique position would be 1 to 256, and expected time of existence of a life - 500 million years.
We still will return to discussion of this effect in the chapter about calculation of indirect estimations of probability of global catastrophe in the end of the book. The important methodological consequence is that we cannot use concerning global catastrophes any reasonings in the spirit of: it will not be in the future because it was not in the past. On the other hand, deterioration in 10 times of chances of natural catastrophes reduces expected time of existence of conditions for a life on the Earth from billion to hundred millions that gives very small contribution to probability of extinction to the XXI century.
Frightening acknowledgement of the hypothesis that we, most likely, live in the end of the period of stability of natural processes, is R.Rods and R.Muller's article in Nature about cycle of extinctions of live beings with the period 62 (+/-3 million years) - as from last extinction has passed just 65 million years. That is time of the next cyclic event of extinction has come for a long time already. We will notice also, that if the offered hypothesis about a role of observant selection in underestimations of frequency of global catastrophes is true, it means, that intelligent life on the Earth is extremely unusual event in the Universe, and we are alone in the observable Universe with a high probability. In this case we cannot be afraid of extraterestial intrusion, and also we cannot do any conclusions about frequency of self-destruction of the advanced civilisations in connection with Fermi's paradox (space silence). As a result net contribution of the stated hypothesis to our estimation of probability of a human survival can be positive.
Weakening of stability and human interventions
The contribution of probability shift because of cancellation of defence by Antropic principle in total probability of extinction in XXI century, apparently, is small. Namely, if the Sun maintains comfortable temperature on the Earth not for 4 billion years, but only 400 million in the XXI century it all the same gives ten-thousand shares of percent of probability of catastrophe, if we uniformly distribute this probability of the Sun failture (0,0004 %). However easing of stability which to us gave Antropic principle, means, first, that processes become less steady and more inclined to fluctuations (that is quite known concerning the sun which will burn, in process of hydrogen exhaustion, more and more brightly and non-uniformly), and secondly, that it seems to more important, - they become more sensitive to possible small human influences. That is one business to pull a hanging elastic band, and another - for an elastic band tense to a limit of rapture.
For example, if a certain eruption of a supervolcano has ripened, there can pass still many thousand years while it will occur, but there is enough chink in some kilometres depth to break stability of a cover of the magmatic chamber. As scales of human activity grow in all directions, chances to come across such instability increase. It can be both instability of vacuum, and terrestrial lithosphere, and something else of what we do not think at all.
Chapter 15. Global warming

Global warming is connected both with a number of natural processes, and with the sum of technologies, created by humans, therefore it can be carried to purely natural risks only conditionally. It is possible to name global warming also as classical example of dangerous process in which relation operates the set of the factors doing it "incomprehensible".
The limited global warming on some degrees will not result in mankind extinction as even thawing of glaciers in the past has not led to death of all people. Therefore appeals to economy of an electricity as to a way of rescue of the world are a certain stretch which only undermines trust to the idea about danger of warming.
 Not conventional but possible way of global catastrophe accepted by several researchers is greenhouse catastrophe named in English runaway greenhouse effect. A.V. Karnauhov writes about it in the articles To a question on stability of chemical balance of atmosphere and thermal balance of the Earth, (The radiative-adiabatic model as the basis of the general climate theory for a wide range of  ), Ivashchenko O. V Change of a climate and change of cycles of the reference of greenhouse gases in system atmosphere-litosfera-hydrosphere - feedback can strengthen considerably a greenhouse effect and A. Vaganov Scenarios of greenhouse catastrophe. From foreign scientists it is possible to note J. Atchenson who asserts, that for the account of chain reaction of decontamination of gas hydrates the temperature can grow on several degrees in the few next years, instead of for hundred years. (Arctic Clathrates Contain 3,000 Times More Methane Than in Atmosphere. Methane Burps: Ticking Time Bomb JOHN ATCHESON / Baltimore Sun 16dec04
Unlike the concept of a greenhouse effect advanced by mass media which asserts, that at the worst case scenario the Earth temperature will increase on 2-6 degrees and ocean level will raise on several metres, these researchers assert, that the greenhouse effect is on an irreversibility threshold, having passed which, it will enter into a phase of a positive feedback, and the temperature of the Earth will increase on tens or hundreds degrees, doing impossible life on the Earth. It is connected, in particular, that water steam (not in the form of clouds, but dissolved in air) is the strongest greenhouse gas - and stocks of ready to evaporate waters on the Earth are huge. Besides, gradual increase in luminosity of the Sun (in comparison with the previous epoch of global warming), the increase in length of terrestrial days, accumulation of carbonic gas and decrease in solubility of carbonic gas at oceans with temperature growth work on making a greenhouse effect stronger. But one more factor is fraught with sharp increase in a greenhouse effect - destruction of huge stocks of gas hydrates at the bottom of the sea which will result in allocation in atmosphere of considerable quantities of methane - the strongest greenhouse gas. Destruction of gas hydrates can accept character of chain reaction, that already once has occurred 55 million years ago when the temperature of the Earth has raised for time in some thousand years approximately on 10 degrees (Late-Paleocene thermal maximum). However in that time there were much less hydrates. Probably, that the understanding of risks of irreversible catastrophe in this century stands up for efforts of the governments on decrease in emissions of greenhouse gases. It is possible to name this scenario Venus scenario because thanks to a greenhouse effect on a surface of Venus temperature there is more than 400 C, in spite of that owing to high albedo - brightly white clouds - it receives less solar energy, than the Earth. Global warming is system risk as in it the set of different factors is co-ordinated: the Sun, terrestrial bowels, volcanic, oceans, human, policy.
Greenhouse catastrophe can consist of three stages:
1. Heating on 1-2 degrees for the account of surplus of carbonic gas in atmosphere of an anthropogenous origin, point passage a trigger hook, operation similar to a threshold at neuron. Only at this stage struggle against emissions of carbonic gas makes sense. Probably, threshold level is already passed, as professor Lavlok confirms.
2. Heating on 10-20 degrees for the account of methane from gas hydrates and the Siberian bogs and the carbonic gas dissolved at oceans. Speed of this self-amplifying process is limited by thermal inertia of ocean, and it will occupy not less than 10 years. This process can resist only sharp hi-tech interventions, like artificial nuclear winter and-or explosion of many volcanoes.
3. Inclusion in process of a greenhouse effect from water steam and from destruction carbon- containing stones in Earth crust. Lifting of temperature upper water boiling point.
Research of irreversible global warming is under strong pressure of observant selection, that is we cannot conclude from that it was not in the past, that it is improbable in the future as we could survive only in that world where it has not occurred. The less probable atmosphere conditions, the more chances, that it is "on the verge" and enough it is easy for pushing, that it has moved to a certain steadier condition. On the other hand, AI will give the powerful contribution to the decision of a problem of global warming. First, it can calculate, what of models of change of a climate is most real, and to convince people of a reality of danger of greenhouse catastrophe if it finds out it. Secondly, it can offer the most painless and cheap way of prevention of greenhouse catastrophe. For example, it can think up how to develop thin screens in space which will limit a stream of solar radiation. And robots on the moon will make these screens from the local titan. Or it is possible to spray in LaGrange point between the Earth and the Sun a certain quantity of a space dust, for example, having blown up an asteroid which will be dissipate a share of percent of a sunlight and cool the Earth. As the effect of full-scale nuclear winter creates all on all 150 million tons of soot in troposphere the intervention scale can be small. Perhaps, will enough spray from planes one million tons of soot a year to keep temperature below critical on pair degrees. It would demand only 300 loaded soot transport planes in day. Certainly, AI could offer ways to delete surpluses of carbonic acid from atmosphere, for example, by means of genetically modified plants and nanorobots.
However more risky ways of prevention of global warming are possible also: these are attempts to arrange artificial nuclear winter or to blow up volcanoes. It is obvious, that people will apply these ways if the situation sharply goes racing, and there will be no time and forces to make something accurater. Here there is a risk, that uncleaver actions will lead only to short easing, but then will strengthen warming process. Or, on the contrary, explosions of volcanoes for the purpose of cooling will lead to too strong cooling and the volcanic winter will begin.
We can conclude, that the developed civilisation can easily resist to climate changes, for example, spraying different powders in an upper atmosphere or developing space screens to cool it or to warm up. The worst scenario means a situation when process of irreversible atmosphere heating has begun (but lifting of temperature can be still insignificant, the main thing - formation of chains of a positive feedback), and then the civilisation has lost ability to highly technological regulation of a climate for internal reasons and was rolled away to earlier level. Then it can be definitive undergo irreversible heating of atmosphere which will occur through tens years after a technical collapse.

Chapter 16. The anthropogenous risks which have been not connected with new technologies
Exhaustion of resources
The problem of exhaustion of resources, growth of the population and pollution of environment is system problem, and in this quality we will consider to it further. Here we will consider only, whether each of these factors separately can lead to mankind extinction.
Widespread opinion is that the technogenic civilisation is doomed because of exhaustion of readily available hydrocarbons. In any case, this in itself will not result in extinction of all mankind as earlier people lived without oil. However there will be vital issues if oil ends earlier, than the society will have time to adapt for it - that is will end quickly. However coal stocks are considerable, and the "know-how" of liquid fuel from it was actively applied in Hitlers Germany. Huge stocks of hydrate of methane are on a sea-bottom, and effective robots could extract it. And wind-energy, transformation of a solar energy and similar as a whole it is enough existing technologies to keep civilisation development, though probably certain decrease in a standard of life is possible, and in the worst case - considerable decrease in population, but not full extinction.
In other words, the Sun and a wind contain energy which in thousand times surpasses requirements of mankind, and we as a whole understand how to take it. The question is not, whether will suffice energy for us, but whether we will have time to put necessary capacities into operation before shortage of energy will undermine technological possibilities of the civilisation at the adverse scenario.
To the reader can seem, that I underestimate a problem of exhaustion of resources to which the is devoted set of books (Meadows, Parhomenko), researches and the Internet of sites (in the spirit of www.theoildrum.com ). Actually, I do not agree with many of these authors as they start with the precondition, that technical progress will stop. We will pay attention to last researches in the field of maintenance with power resources: In 2007 in the USA industrial release of solar batteries in cost less than 1 dollar for watt has begun, that twice it is less, than energy cost on coal power station, not considering fuel. The quantity wind energy which can be taken from ocean shoal in the USA makes 900 gigawatts, that covers all requirements of the USA for the electric power. Such system would give a uniform stream of energy for the account of the big sizes. The problem of accumulation of surpluses of the electric power is solved for the account of application of return back waters in hydroelectric power stations and developments of powerful accumulators and distribution, for example, in electromobiles. The large ammount of energy can be taken from sea currents, especially Gulf Stream, and from underwater deposits metan hydrates. Also there are many other perspective energy sources. The question is not that there is no energy, or technologies on its extraction - the question is in, whether we will have time to develop in time necessary power stations.
Besides, end of exhaustion of resources is behind horizon of the forecast which is established by rate of scientific and technical progress. (But the moment of change of the tendency - Peak Oil - is in this horizon.) Only having assumed a full stop of progress in the field of a robotics and nanotechnology, it is possible to build exact forecasts about when and what resources will be settled. The question is in, whether the beginning of exhaustion of resources and accompanying crisis could undermine development of technologies - and this question we will discuss in the chapter about system crisis.
One more variant of global catastrophe is poisoning by products of our own live. For example, yeast in a bottle with wine grows on exponent, and then poisoned with products of the disintegration (spirit) and all to one will be lost. This process takes place and with mankind, but it is not known, whether we can pollute and exhaust so our inhabitancy that only it has led to our complete extinction. Besides energy, following resources are necessary to people:
;Materials for manufacture - metals, rare-Earth substances etc. Many important ores can end by 2050. However materials, unlike energy, do not disappear, and at development nanotechnology there is possible a full processing of a waste, extraction of the necessary materials from sea water where the large quantity is dissolved, for example, uranium, and even transportation of the necessary substances from space.
;Food. According to some information, the peak of manufacture of foodstuff is already passed: soils disappear, the urbanization grasps the fertile fields, the population grows, fish comes to an end, environment becomes soiled by waste and poisons, water does not suffice, wreckers extend. On the other hand, transition to essentially new industrial type of manufacture of the food plants, based on hydroponics - that is cultivation of plants in water is possible, without soil in the closed greenhouse that protects from pollution and parasites and is completely automated. (see Dmitry Verhoturova's and Kirillovsky article Agrotechnologies of the future: from an arable land to factory). At last, margarine and, possibly, many other things necessary components of a foodstuff, it is possible to develop from oil at the chemical enterprises.
;Water. It is possible to provide potable water for the account desalination sea water, today it costs about dollar on ton, but the water great bulk goes on crop cultivation - to thousand tons of water on wheat ton that does desalination unprofitable for agriculture. But at transition on hydroponic water losses on evaporation will sharply decrease, and desalination can become profitable.
;Place for a life. Despite fast rates of a gain of quantity of the population on the Earth, it is still far to a theoretical limit.
;Pure air. Already now there are the conditioners clearing air from a dust and raising in it the maintenance of oxygen.
Overpopulation
It is obvious, that the overpopulation itself cannot exterminate anybody, but can create conditions at which shortage of any resources will be observed in finite time scale and any conflicts will become aggravated. Thus it is necessary to consider not only people, but also their cars and a standard of living. The car consumes oxygen and biofuel and also loads biosphere, as several humans. Therefore even the suspension of growth of the population of people will not mean the termination of a problem of the overpopulation as in process of development of technologies in everyone there will be cars, homes, house robots etc. Theoretically there is a problem, consisting that population growth will block sooner or later any resources even if the mankind will occupy all galaxy (for some thousand years at preservation of present growth rate of the population) so, there should come a certain point behind which unlimited material expansion will stop. Forester and then S.P. Kapitsa has deduced the formula from which hyperbolic growth of the population with leaving in infinity around 2027. (Though Kapitsa also believes, that action of this formula has stopped.) And though real growth of the population lags behind this schedule, we can come nearer to it again if we will add to the population number of the established computers.
Technological revolution causes following factors in population growth:
;Increase in number of beings which we attribute the rights equal to the human: monkeys, dolphins, cats, dogs.
;Simplification of a birth and education of children. Possibilities of reproductive cloning, creation of artificial mothers, robots-assistants on housekeeping etc.
;Appearance of the new mechanisms applying for the human rights and-or consuming resources: cars, robots, AI systems.
;Possibilities of prolongation of a life and even revival of dead (for example, by cloning on remained DNA).
;Growth of a "normal" consumption level.
Besides, growth of the human population increases probability of self-origin of dangerous infectious diseases - and also number of people which will decide to become terrorists. For civilisation destruction the absolute number of terrorists is important, but not relative. On the other hand, the more the population, the more is chance, that someone will survive during huge catastrophe. Besides, the more the population, the is more than themes of technical progress as the increasing number of people are ready to become scientists, and the increasing profit can be received, having sold a certain innovation to the big number of people because the innovation price will be divided on bigger number of consumers.
The most important thing that the curve of growth of the population gives to us is an understanding of that this way cannot proceed eternally, so there should be a certain point of an excess or crisis which this or that stabilisation follows. It can be and qualitative transition to supercivilization level, and stabilisation at current level, and recoil in a certain stable last condition, and utter annihilation.
Crash of the biosphere
 If people seize genetic technologies it presumes both to arrange crash of biosphere of improbable scales, and to find resources for its protection and repair. It is possible to imagine the scenario at which all biosphere is so infected by radiation, genetically modified organisms and toxins, that it will be not capable to fill requirement of mankind for the foodstuffs. If it occurs suddenly, it will put a civilisation on a side of economic crash. However advanced enough civilisation can adjust manufacture of a foodstuff in a certain artificial biosphere, like greenhouses. Hence, biosphere crash is dangerous only at the subsequent recoil of a civilisation on the previous step - or if crash of biosphere causes this recoil.
But biosphere is very complex system in which self-organised criticality and a sudden collapse are possible. Well known story is destruction of sparrows in China and the subsequent problems with the foodstuffs because of invasion of wreckers. Or, for example, now corals perish worldwide because sewage take out a bacterium which hurt them.
Social and economic crisis. War
In more details this question will be considered further, in the head about various system crises as in a modern society such crisis should lean against different new technologies. Without such technologies war or political crisis cannot simultaneously occur in all territory of the Earth and, thus, create global risk.
Genetic degradation and lose of fertility
 It is obvious, that genetic degradation can appear only after many generations. If there will be advanced civilisation after generation we can already operate development of embryos and select most healthy of them, and also treat genetic diseases by different ways. If the mankind waits degradation then current population will pass through bottle neck that will sharply increase pressure of natural selection and will improve quality of genes. Similar reasonings are true and for problems with fertility.
If to extrapolate model one family - one child it will result in full extinction of mankind less than for 1000 years, that leaves for a considered time interval (and it is vulnerable enough for criticism as here there would be a selection aside the most prolific families). However if a certain virus has resulted in total barreness of mankind, and thus technical progress would stop, people would die out by XXII century. Besides, it is little probable, as technologies of reproductive cloning are almost ready.
Conclusion: the named factors do not threaten survival of mankind during the considered period.
Ageing of the Specie
There is a concept, that species can grow old. Michael Foot, etc. in article Rise and Fall of Species Occupancy in Cenozoic Fossil Mollusks (Michael Foote, James S. Crampton, Alan G. Beu, Bruce A. Marshall, Roger A. Cooper, Phillip A. Maxwell, Iain Matcham. Rise and Fall of Species Occupancy in Cenozoic Fossil Mollusks // Science. 2007. V. 318. P. 11311134.)) write: After specie appearance its "prevalence" (the area of an area and frequency of appearance) gradually grows during several millions years, for a short time reaches a maximum and then gradually decreases. Species seldom die out suddenly, being on number peak; extinction is preceded usually by the long period of decline It means, that the paleontologic history of a specie allows to judge probability of its extinction today: those species which already passed peak of the development are exposed to the greatest danger and are in a decline phase. The obtained data contradict also to a popular belief that in evolution should alternate short periods of "formation" and the long periods stasis. Actually species, apparently, are not almost rest at the maximum reached level and practically at once pass from growth to decline.
 The states and cultures can grow old also, becoming more and more fallen asleep and too regulated, and, finally, - fragile. Probably, can grow old and civilisations of planetary scale, gradually losing interest to life. Nevertheless it hardly threatens the Earth at a present stage. On the other hand, growth of number of pensioners and "immortal" if those will be created, can sometime create this problem.
Replacement by other biological specie
Many extinct species of animals has been superseded by more effective species, or mutate in them. Appearance of such species by natural evolution the next 100 years is impossible. Even growth and reduction of number of different races and the people are not processes which will have time to come to the end in the XXI century. Besides, change of ethnic structure is not threat to survival of mankind as specie though this theme causes many emotions, and ethnic conflicts can become global risks of the second sort - that is the situations reducing survival rate of mankind.
Replacement by other species is possible as a special case of genetic experiments or development of symbiosis human-computer. However to supersede human, a new specie, possibly, should be cleverer. Here it is possible to recollect many fantastic plots creation of chimeras from people and animals and about war between two species.
It is possible to name as extremely improbable scenario - casual coincidence of the moments of death of all people (it is admissible, within a year). For modern mankind the probability of such event would be estimated in fraction with billions zero after a comma, however for a small tribe the statistical anomaly leading to extinction, is possible.
Chapter 17. The causes of catastrophes unknown to us now
It is possible to formulate some kind of the Moore's law concerning global catastrophes. Everyone N years (estimated by me in 30 years) the number of natural catastrophes known to us which can threaten mankind doubles. Everyone M years (estimated by me in 15 years) technical possibilities on the organisation of global catastrophe - that is abilities of mankind to self-damage double too. These figures are, of course, approximate, but the essence is that in the middle of the XX century the idea of global catastrophe was practically absent, and now we name easily tens artificial ways to exterminate a human species.
And it will allow us to estimate volume of unknown in sense of global catastrophes. We can tell that in 50 years not only will appear certain obvious to us now technologies, but there can be essentially new ideas about possible new threats to existence. In process of mastering more and more powerful different energy sources, more and more exact knowledge of the world and ways to operate a matter, in process of discovery all new physical laws and all new ideas, - appears more and more possibilities to create the absolute weapon. Therefore we in any case should not consider the list resulted here as settled.
Moreover, the majority of the catastrophes which have happened recently were unexpected. Not in the sense that anybody never predicted anything similar - always it is possible to find a posteriori a book where a visionary has described something similar. But the majority of the population and heads of states did not know at all about possibility of such scenario and in this connection it was undertaken nothing. Chernobyl, events 9/11 in the USA, illness of bees CCD, tsunami in Indian ocean - here are some examples.
Even some combinations of known factors which can lead to global catastrophe, are not obvious - for example, year was necessary for me almost to assume, that passive SETI comprises global risk though I had all necessary data. Accordingly, we can conclude, that even if we are not ready to usual catastrophes, and the list of their known possibilities far is not settled, especially our list of global catastrophes is imperfect. Moreover, unknown risks represent bigger danger, then known as we cannot measure them, we can not to prepare to them, and they always take us suddenly.
Chapter 18. Ways of detection of one-factorial scenarios of global catastrophe
Having analysed set of different scenarios of global catastrophes, we can allocate the general signs of such scenarios which will help us in the future to find out or "design" new dangerous scenarios.
The general signs of any dangerous agent
By definition, in one-factorial scenario always is a certain one factor which influences all people. It is possible to tell about this factor the following: it arises in a certain point, extends on all surface of the Earth and operates on each human. Accordingly, distinctions can be in how it in this point has arisen, how it has left it, how extended by the ground and how influence on each human. In each of these points there are some variants, in a sufficient measure independent from each other, that allows to design scenarios, typing different chains of these variants and attributing them different probability. This set of qualities can serve some kind of a map for checking on safety of each new technology or the natural phenomenon. Namely, we should check the following set of properties:
1. Whether the new technology can be applied to destruction of people or lead to it?
2. If yes, how it can leave from under the control?
3. Whether it can extend on all planet so that to influence each human?
4. Whether there can be it so quickly, what we will not have time to resist to it?
5. How it can co-operate with other technologies, strengthening thus the risk?
6. How easy it would be to construct protection against dangers of this technology?
7. And authentic our predictions for risks of this technology can be how much exact?
Ways of appearance
The dangerous factor, capable to create threat of global catastrophe, can arise as follows:
Casual natural appearance. For example, fall of an asteroid or eruption of supervolcanoes.
Creation by human. In this case, most likely, it is a question of a certain research laboratory. This creation can be either casual, or conscious. The combination of that and another - is possible also, when something that should have the limited radius of defeat (or in general it was considered as safe and useful), has got the all-planet radius of defeat. (Examples: African Killer bees have been released in South America, apparently on purpose by one person in the lab, but with limited local objectives, however, these bees have spread in both Americas and led to many deaths, that is unlikely was included in his plans; initially nuclear weapon was considered as the weapon of local action, however there were representations, that it can threaten all terrestrial civilisation; AI which is programmed to be friendly and to love people, can show such "Friendliness", as "clumsy assistance".)
Exit from the beginning point and the distribution around the world
It is obvious that it occurs or by the command of a man, or casually. At once it is necessary to tell, that combination of these scenarios is possible: human gives the certain command which full sense does not understand, or it is carried out incorrectly. Or a certain human makes act of terrorism leading to the destruction of a laboratory in which there is a supervirus. The starting point in which there is a dangerous product is or laboratory where it have been created and then more likely speech goes about casual incident, or a launching pad if this technology is transformed in certain a product which became a weapon. As this point can be somewhere on the way from laboratory to a launching pad - on range, on transport, on manufacture. Thus it is important to note an essential difference between motives of the one who created the Doomsday weapon, and the one who then has decided to apply it. For example, nuclear bomb was created for protection against a foreign aggressor, but terrorists can grasp it and require separation of certain territories. Such two-phase scenario can be more probable than the one-phase. Ways of the exit from starting point:
1. Leak. Leak begins silently and imperceptibly, without someone's will. It concerns situations, like leak of a dangerous virus which cannot be noticed before there will be diseased outside. Leak of dangerous chemical substance or nuclear materials will be appreciable at once, and will be accompanied, most likely, by explosion.
2. Break. It is power break something, that has been locked, but wished to be pulled out outside. Can concern only AI or genetically modified live beings with intelligence rudiments.
3. Explosion - the catastrophic scenario occurs in the starting point, but its consequences spread all over the Earth. Most likely, it concerns dangerous physical experiments.
4. Start - someone makes the decision about distribution of the dangerous agent or application of the weapon of the Doomsday.
It is obvious, that some combinations of these base scenarios are possible. For example, the explosion of laboratory leading to leak of a dangerous virus.
Distribution is more important than destruction
Analyzing any phenomenon or the invention as the possible factor of global risk, we should give more attention to, whether this factor can influence on all people for limited time, than to, whether it can kill people or not. In order to some factor became global risk, there are two necessary conditions:
This factor kills each human whom influences
It operates on all people on the Earth for limited time (For time, smaller, than ability of people to self-reproduction.)
However if realization of the first condition is rather easily to reach as there is an infinite number of ways of causing of death, and all of them operate for someone sometimes, the second condition - much more rare. Therefore, as soon as we find out even the harmless factor, capable to operate on all without an exception people, it should disturb us more than detection some extremely dangerous factor which operates only on several people. Because any universal factor can become the carrier for some dangerous influence. For example, as soon as we realise, what the Sun shines each human on the Earth, we can ask a question - whether with the Sun can happen something such, what will influence everyone? Same concerns atmospheres of the Earth, its crust, and especially space which surrounds all Earth, and also global information networks.
Way of distribution
Ability to the distribution all around the world converts a weapon in the superweapon. This universality means not only all surface of globe, but also ability to get through any shelters and protection borders, and also speed of this process which does impossible to resist it by means of a new discovery. (E.g. new ice age, most likely, will be slow enough that it was possible to adapt to it.) Ways and factors influencing ability of the agent to distribution are that:
1) Wind in atmosphere; separately it is necessary to allocate fast movement of an upper atmosphere (where speeds can be 100 km/s so time of the world distribution is only several days), and also propensity of substance to drop out in irreversible deposits that reduces its quantity.
2) Self-moving agents, - bacteria, self-aiming nanorobots, missiles.
3) Spreading from human to human - viruses.
4) By means of special sprays. For example, it is possible to imagine the following catastrophic scenario: in a low polar orbit the satellite flies and continuously dumps capsules with radioactive substance or other dangerous reagent. For several days it can pass over all points of globe.
5) Explosion - itself creates huge movement. The shock wave helps to push the agent in all cracks.
6) Network distribution. So AI on the Internet could extend.
7) Mixed ways. For example, at the initial stage bomb explosion sprays radioactive substances, and then them are carried by the wind. Or a certain mould is transferred by a wind, and on places it breeds. It is clear, that the mixed ways of distribution it is much more dangerous.
8) The agents possessing elements of intelligence to bypass obstacles (computer viruses, AI, microrobots, aggressive animals).
9) Suddenness and reserve of distribution helps the agent to get everywhere.
10) High ability to carrying over, sticky-ness and particle fineness (as at a lunar dust).
11) Ability to self-replicate, both in nature, or on human or on intermediate carriers. Or irradiate like radioactivity.
12) Manyfactor-ness - if there are many diverse agents, for example, at a multipandemic.
13) Concentration, as the distribution factor. The higher the concentration gradient, the more is ability of an agent to get into all cracks. In other words, if concentration in atmosphere makes 1 deadly level, there always will be sites where because of different fluctuations this level will be much lower, and people there will survive, even without any bunkers. But if concentration is very high, the completely tight, in advance equipped bunkers will only help. Concentration also increases speed of distribution.
14) Duration of action of the agent. Quickly operating agent (gamma ray burst) can singe a considerable part of biosphere, but always there will be refuges on which it has not worked. However long contamination, for example, by cobalt-60, does survival impossible in small refuges.
15) Ease of a filtration and deactivation - the easier is filtration of the air and deactivation of people leaving on a surface, the more safely the agent. It is possible to sterilize easily biological agents in ventilation systems, but exits on a surface should be excluded, as human could not be sterilised.
Way of causing of death
The basic element of global catastrophe which we name "agent", may not kill people at all but only to separate them and to deprive of ability to reproduction, as for example, a superdrug, or a virus sterilising all people. Or to close all of them in bunkers where they are doomed to degradation.
The agent can be one-factorial in sense of a way of influence on human - for example, it can be a certain contamination or radiation. Thus there is a difference between instant death and long dying.
The agent can possess multifactorial hurting influence, as a nuclear bomb. However there should be a primary factor possessing universal action for the whole world, or sufficient density of different factors.
The agent can cause also not direct action, but uniform destruction of all inhabitancy. (An asteroid, biosphere destruction.)
Extinction can take the form also of slow extrusion in second-grade ecological niches (variants: "zoo", total unemployment in the spirit of the Bill Joys article.)
The destroying agent can cause appearance of new agents, each of which operates in own way. For example, distribution of the biolaboratory for programming of viruses - bio-synthesizers (virus plus an idea-meme, causing some people desire to destroy all the world) could become such superagent, creating many different agents in different parts of the Earth. In any sense scientific and technical progress is such superagent.
The agent can be so intellectual that in each concrete case to use different ways: Hostile AI, eschatological sect.
Typical kinds of destroying influence
Than "doomsday" has been caused, it will influence people and their bunkers, most likely, one of the several listed ways. These ways basically coincide with usual hurting factors of nuclear explosion. Any process which is capable to create simultaneously at least one of these factors in all territory of the Earth, should be carried to the Doomsday weapon:
; Shock wave - is capable to cause directly death, to destroy bunkers and all other objects created by human.
; Heat - from long influence of a heat is few protection as any bunker will get warm sooner or later. It will not be possible to rest deeply in the Earth, as the temperature quickly grows in mines, an order of 30 degrees on depth kilometre.
; Cold. To it to resist easier, than a heat.
; High pressure.
;Flying substance.
;Radiation and rays.
;Movement of the terrestrial surface.
;Loss of the vital resource - oxygen, meal, water.
;Destruction by the self-breeding agent (in some sense fire too possesses ability self-reproduce).
;Supersonic shock wave - it is possible, at strong enough blow, it could capture a considerable part of Earth crust (though viscosity would absorb it).
The difference between very big catastrophe and definitive global catastrophe can be that in the first at least case shares of percent of people and territories will escape. Therefore the important sign of the present global catastrophe is that it covers all territory of the Earth bar none. For the account of that it occurs:
;Very high level of redundancy of destroying influence.
; Destroying agent possesses some kind of "superfluidity" by the nature. For example, fine dust, superficially active substance or the insects, inclined to creep in any cracks.
"Intelligence" of that force which directs this agent.
Time structure of the event
Without dependence of previous factors, it is possible to designate the following sequence of events in time for one-factorial global catastrophe:
1. A gather head phase. It includes the invention, creation, preparation for application and appearance of plan of the application. If it is a question of the natural phenomenon it is a question of energy accumulation in the chamber of a supervolcano or about asteroid approach. Here accumulation of a negligence during execution of instructions and errors in drawing up of instructions.
2. The moment of trigger event. It is one event in the space-time which defines the beginning of all process after which it is irreversible and develops in its own rate. It can be a decision of the nuclear attack, a crack in the cover of the volcanic chamber etc. Trigger event starts a chain of the events following one after another with considerable probability in the certain time schedule. Thus if trigger event has not occurred, all process could be postponed for uncertain long time. However trigger event can be outwardly harmless and nobody realized it as that. For example, the shot in Sarajevo in 1914.
3. At this stage the chain of events leads to liberation of the dangerous agent from the point of its arrangement. Four variants of the exit we discussed above: leak, break, explosion, start.
4. Next phase is distribution of the agent on all surface of the Earth (and also in near space if already there are independent space settlements). This distribution can be reserved or accompanied process of destruction. Reserved process can be more dangerous, as does not remain areas which have time to be prepared.
5. Phase of destroying process. In it the process covering all surface of the Earth develops. Epidemic or a shock wave.
6. An irreversibility point. Distribution process possesses this or that degree of uncertainty. If process is not instant people would struggle against it. That moment when people lose this struggle and extinction becomes inevitable, - is an irreversibility point. Though it could not be understood as that. The irreversibility point is the moment when destruction factors exceed technological possibilities of a civilisation including potentialities on improvement of these technologies. Depends both on concentration of factors of destruction, and from civilisation level. If as a result of large catastrophe civilisation level has fallen below a certain point, and level of factors of destruction has risen above it further extinction is irreversible. With certain probability, certainly.
7. Death of last human. After an irreversibility point follows extinction of the escaped people. This process can be stretched in time even for many years for the account of bunkers. It can represent even very long condition life of the escaped tribe on some island. (But such tribe can have a chance to restore a civilisation.)
8. Processes "after". After death of last human processes on the Earth will not come to the end. Probably, new species, will start to develop, or the Earth will be populated with robots, nanorobots and AI. There is also hope, that the new intelligent specie will revive human based on preserved DNA.
Preemergencies
There are also different types of social situations when casual or deliberated application of means of general destruction becomes more probable.
1) War for planet unfication.
2) Struggle of all against all for resources in the conditions of their exhaustion.
3) Accruing structural degradation, a la disintegration of the USSR.
4) Technical failure, leak.
5) Diversion for the purpose of destruction of all people.
6) Casual war.
7) Blackmail by Doomsday Machine.
8) Unsuccessful experiment.
9) Mutiny for the purpose of a power establishment on the Earth.
Intended and casual global catastrophe
Any global catastrophes can be distinguished to that sign, whether they are organised by a certain intelligent force which aspires to arrange global catastrophe, or it is a certain casual process which does not have any purposes. Global catastrophes concern the first variant:
Arranged by people
Connected with AI
The result collisions with other inhuman intelligent forces.
To the second: failures, leaks, natural catastrophes, system crises.
Integration of the first and second scenarios: the scenario when the first phase catastrophe is organized by people with definite purposes, however then process is pulled out from under the control. For example, terrorists can meaningly provoke nuclear war, but not represent its scales. Or some buddist sect can meaningly infect all people with a happiness virus, but not consider that such people will be incapacitated further. (Dalai Lama recently has expressed in that spirit that it would be quite good to clean people negative emotions by means of genetic manipulations.)
On the other hand, the victory of an intelligent force over people means that some intelligent force remains in the nature (if only it does not commit suicide after that), and, hence, irreversible disappearance of intelligence on the Earth does not occur. And after long time this surpassing human intelligence can return people to life. However there are the intelligent forces which are essentially distinct from human consciousness, for example, evolution. Evolution is much cleverer than human (which it has generated), but infinitely loses on speed. (But not everywhere, for example natural selection of the microorganisms steady against antibiotics, occurs on the speed comparable to speed of working out of new antibiotics.) If one of variants of future AI uses evolution principles, but much faster, it can reach "victories" over people as more effective solver of any problems, however thus not being intelligent person in our understanding. Workings out of such AI are not unsuccessfully conducted in a direction named genetic algorithms.
The Doomsday Machine
Let's collect in a separate category all variants Doomsday Machines which the most ill-intentioned group of people can create. Probably, the term goes back to S. Kubrika's film "Doctor Strangelove". Its plot in brief is that: "Russians" create the Doomsday Machine which blows up set of cobalt bombs, sufficient for full contamination of all world if the USSR would be attacked. During internal conflict in the USA the rebellious mad general strikes blow on the USSR, not knowing about the Doomsday Machine. As a result the mashine is started. The Russian ambassador speaks: And it is impossible to disconnect this machine, differently in it there would be no sense. Other Strangelova notices: But what sense was to keep this machine in secret? The Russian ambassador answers: We were going to declare it next Monday. That is the machine which should lower sharply risk of any war on the Earth, actually leads to its beginning. It is interesting, that J. Leslie writes in the book End of the world. A science and ethics of human extinction, that actually would be not bad to have such machine as if it was correctly applied it could lower risk of nuclear war - approximately as now it is done by the doctrine of the mutual guaranteed destruction. Though the basic idea of the car consists in that form of blackmail which means, that the Doomsday Machine will be never applied, the fact of its creation creates probability of its application.
Besides, there are historical examples of senseless destruction of people - bombardment by Hitlerites of London with V-2, firing of chinks in Kuwait. A psychological example - blasting of by a grenade at capture.
Not any variant of global catastrophe suits as the Doomsday Machine. It should be process which under the decision of a certain group of people can be started during strictly certain moment of time and to conduct to global catastrophe with the considerable probability close to 100 %, at least, from the point of view of developers of the device. The Doomsday Machine also should be impregnable in relation to attempts to prevent its application, to not authorised application and there should be a possibility to show realness of its application that is necessary for blackmailers. (Now as the Doomsday Machine plat role the possession of any nuclear weapon though one nuclear bomb will not destroy all world. For example, the role of a nuclear bomb in hands of the North Korea now - it is well hidden, but its presence is shown.) Here is, possibly incomplete, list of possible machines of the Doomsday:
;Explosion of a hydrogen bomb
In a supervolcano
In a coal layer
In a nuclear reactor
In a layer of gas hydrates at ocean, counting upon de-gazation chain reaction.
;Creation of a hydrogen superbomb of stationary type.
;Explosion of cobalt bombs, start of a reactor - devil's tube, generating significant release of radioactive substances without a blast .
;Deflection of an asteroid from the orbit.
;Accumulation of weight of an antimatter.
;Profusion of a curst of the Earth by means of a liquid nuclear reactor as a drop.
;Dispersion of Antrax in atmosphere, liberation of a considerable quantity of different viruses.
;Adding dioxin in the oceans.
;Libereting of genetically modified manufacturers of toxins and viruses (dioxin mould, the plague louse).
;Distribution of hundreds billions the microrobots attacking all live.
;Destruction of an ozone layer by means of a certain catalyst.
; Combination of all these factors.


Chapter 19. Multifactorial scenarios


Above we have made as far as possible the full list of one-factorial scenarios of global catastrophe. There are also other variants of this list, for example, in N. Bostrom's article and in the book of J. Leslie, with insignificant differences. (But I think that my list is the most complete available.) Now we should ask a question, whether exist scenarios in which the mankind perishes not for any one reason, but from some combination of factors, and if yes, what their probability and what these factors are possible. We will tell, whether can be so, what one continent will be exterminated by superviruses, another by nanorobots, and the third will die out for hunger?
Integration of the various technologies, creating situations of risk
The fact of fast development of strong technologies creates a special zone of risk. Technologies tend to promote each other in development. Development of computers helps to calculate properties of new materials, and new materials allow to create even more productive processors for computers. In modern technology it is known under the name NBIC-convergence that is deciphered as nano-bio-info-cogno and means merge process nanotechnology, biotechnologies, computer technologies and researches of a human brain. This merge occurs for the account of an exchange of methods and results, and also realisations of the projects uniting elements of these technologies, for example, when a cover of viruses are used as elements for nanorobots, or by means of gene engineering mice with fluorescent markers in neurons in the brain for studying of processes of thinking are deduced. Convergence of technologies accrues on a course of progress and there is an allocation of quickly developing core of technologies (NBIC) which are capable to help each other. Thus they can do the contribution both in nuclear, and in space technologies, but not receive from them the return contribution, and so it is impossible to create a positive feedback - and these technologies lag behind from mainstream of technological progress. Base for NBIC technologies is miniaturization. Convergence of NBIC technologies conducts to some peak which, possibly, is the strong artificial intellect.
Similar integration repeatedly took place in the past at weapon creation. Here technologies did not help with development to each other, but created essentially new units. For example, the plane with a machine gun, the camera and a radio communication - as the scout and a fighter in the First World War. Or the intercontinental ballistic missile in which achievements in the field of the nuclear weapon have been united, the rocket technics and computers, each of which separately in one thousand times would be more weaker. That is a nuclear out-of-pocket bomb of delivery, or a rocket with a usual warhead, or a rocket without prompting systems. (Thus it would be desirable to notice, that present reduction of nuclear arsenals is compensated by growth of their accuracy that raises their hurting force.)
Often available forecasts of the future and science fiction describe future as the present time plus one new feature. The same is with forecasts of global risks: they describe appearance in the world of any one dangerous technology and then consider consequences of this event. For example, how will change the world if in it will appear developed nanotechnology. It is obvious, that this approach is inconsistent, as the future technologies, for the account of their joint development, will simultaneously appear and enter complex interactions with each other.
Meanwhile takes place both parallel and consecutive convergence. Parallel convergence takes place when some new technologies unite to create qualitatively new product, for example, an intercontinental rocket with a nuclear warhead. Consecutive concerns a chain of events in which one factors start others, for example: act of terrorism - an economic crisis - war - application of the biological weapon.
Pair scenarios
Let's consider to begin with hypothetical pair scenarios of global catastrophe, in other words, different variants of mutual reinforsment of the major factors taken by pairs. It is thus clear, that in a reality they will operate all together, but these pairs can become "bricks" (or, more likely, communications in the graph) for more difficult forecasting. We will give the outline description of such interaction, actually, as brain storm. Here each pair scenario should not be perceived as the definitive forecast - but not because it is too fantastic, that is why, that it does not consider influence of some factors.
AI and biotechnologies
Consecutive convergence (chain of events):
1. Genetically modified superpeople will possess superintelligence which will allow them to create present computer AI.
2. AI will create a super-virus as the weapon.
3. People will die out from a virus, and it is necessary to enter instead of them robots.
Parallel convergence: appearance of new products on the basis of both technologies:
4. Biological assemblage of superdense chips will sharply accelerate AI growth.
5. Special viruses will establish created by AI programs into the brains of people.
6. AI will be created directly from biomaterials - neurons, DNA.
AI and a superdrug
Consecutive scenarios:
1. For example, AI will want to please people and will create such drug. Or AI also will be such drug (the virtual reality, the Internet, lucid dreams see).
2. In process of destruction of people from a superdrug it is necessary to replace them by robots.
3. Or on the contrary, it is necessary to think up a certain super-TV to calm people who remained without work because of AI.
4. The superdrug will be the weapon of hostile AI against people.
Parallel convergence:
5. AI will think up the difficult combination of magnetic fields creating exact narcotic effect in the brain.
6. Communication of AI and a human brain through brain-computer interface will essentially strengthen possibilities of the both. AI will get access to human intuition, and humans - to unlimited memory and speed of thought of AI.
Superdrug and biotechnologies
1. Manufacture of dangerous drugs becomes the same simple business, as cultivation of a tea mushroom.
2. The requirement of people for drugs will result in blossoming of the black market of biotechnologies which will in passing make accessible and manufacturing the bioweapon of mass destruction.
3. To disaccustom people to a superdrug, the special bioweapon hurting a brain will be sprayed.
4. A certain infectious illness one of the symptoms will have euphoria and aspiration to spread it.
Superdrug and nanotechnology
Stronger effect will give direct irritation of areas of the brain by microrobots. Nanorobots will create systems which will deduce the information from a brain outside that will allow to create even more powerful tools of entertainments. (It is interesting, that as the development program nanotechnology in Russia affirms, that the market of such devices by 2025 will reach billions dollars.) However here operate as a whole the same scenarios, as with biotechnologies.
AI and nanotechnology
1. Nanorobots will allow to read details of the construction of the human brain that will accelerate AI development.
2. AI will help to develop and let out superefficient nanorobots.
3. Progress in nanotechnology will support Moore's law long enough that computers have reached productivity, repeated surpassing productivity of a human brain at the lowest price.
4. Nanorobots also will be real carriers of AI - something will turn out an average between intelligent ocean in the spirit of Lems the Solaris and the scenario of Grey goo. (Like in Crichton novel Pray).
5. Hostile AI uses nanorobots as the weapon for an establishment of the power on the Earth.
AI and the nuclear weapon
1. AI will think up how to make the nuclear weapon (NW) easier, faster and cheaply.
2. The scenario, in the spirit of offered in a film Terminator: AI uses NW that will get rid of people.
3. People use NW to try to stop AI which is under control.
Nano and biotechnologies
1. Live cells will collect details nanorobots (to synthesise in special ribosomes).
2. Will appear animats - the artificial life containing elements of live and of nanorobots.
3. Only nanorobots will give definitive protection against the biological weapon.
Nanotechnology and the nuclear weapon.
1. Nanotechnology will allow to simplify division of isotopes and designing NW.
2. Attempts to struggle with swarms of nanorobots by means of nuclear attacks will lead to additional destruction and Earth contamination.
Nuclear weapon and biotechnology
1. The nuclear weapon can be applied to destruction of dangerous laboratories and sterilisation of the infected spaces.
2. Bioworkings out can be applied to extraction of uranium from sea water and for its enrichment, and also for allocation of plutonium from the fulfilled fuel. Or territory deactivations.
3. Nuclear war occurs in world strongly infected with biological agents. War does impossible adequate rate of manufacture of vaccines and other boards, and simultaneously leads to intensive migration of people. Resources which could go on protection against microbes, are thrown on protection against a radiating irradiation. Many people are weakened.
NW and supervolcanoes
By means of a hydrogen bomb it is possible to provoke explosion of a supervolcano or strong earthquake. Or on the contrary, to direct its energy on the bypass channel.
NW and asteroids.
1. By means of NW it is possible to reject an asteroid from the Earth, or on the contrary to direct it to the Earth.
2. Asteroid falling can be apprehended as a nuclear attack and to lead to the casual beginning of nuclear war.
3. The asteroid can destroy also nuclear station and cause contamination.
AI and system crisis
1. Application of supercomputers will create a certain new type of instability - fast and not clear (in military sphere, in economy, in the field of futurology).
2. War or war threat will result in arms race in which result the most destructive and dangerous AI will be created.
3. All world appears is dependent on a global control computer system which then collapses by hackers. Or the command is given to it about self-damage.
NW and system crisis
1. Any explosion of a nuclear bomb in a city can bring down the world financial markets.
2. On the contrary, the collapse of the markets and financial crisis can lead to a fragmentation of the world and strengthening of temptations of power decisions.
NW and a climate
1. It is possible to cause purposely nuclear winter, having blown up a powerful nuclear charge in a coal layer that is guaranteed will throw out in atmosphere a soot large quantity. If the theory about nuclear winter as a result of attacks to cities is true, such action will be in tens or hundred times is more effective on a soot exit.
2. It is possible, to provoke irreversible global warming by means of correctly chosen places for nuclear attack. For example, it is known, that after nuclear winter probably nuclear summer when soot will settle on glaciers and will cause their heating and thawing. Explosion of bombs in files of gas hydrates under an ocean floor too can cause chain reaction of their liberation.
3. On the contrary, it is possible to regulate a climate, provoking emission of sulphur and ashes volcanoes by means of nuclear charges (but it already to chains of three elements).
Studying of global catastrophes by means of models and analogies
Global catastrophe of a technological civilisation which lead to human extinction is the unique phenomenon, which never was in history that complicates its research. However we can try to pick up a number of other events which will be similar to global catastrophe in some aspects, and to collect, thus, a number of models. Such sample is enough subjective. I suggest to take as analogies large, complex, in details studied and known events. It:
;Extinction of dinosaurs
;Extinction of Neanderthal men
;Crash of Roman empire
;Disintegration of the USSR
;Crisis on Easter island
;Crash of American Indian civilisations of America after discovery by its Columbus
;Explosion in Chernobyl
;Destruction of "Titanic"
;Explosion of a supernova star
;Appearance of mankind from the point of view of biosphere
; Beginning of First World War
; Cancer as illness
These events can be assimilated global catastrophe in different aspects. Intelligent beings participate in one of them, in others the whole specie die out irreversibly, in the third to crash approach complex systems, difficult technologies participate in the fourth. On each of the named themes it is a lot of literature, and it is inconsistent enough. In each case there is a set of hypotheses which explain all through any one reason - but as it is a lot of such hypotheses any reason is not really unique. More likely on the contrary, that there was no one reason. The general in all named variants is: than more we penetrate into details, the set of factors which have led to the end and which co-operated complexly is especially distinguishable. About each of these catastrophes are written books, and the disorder of opinions is considerable, therefore I will not try to retell all possible representations about the reasons of all these catastrophes, and I send the reader to corresponding literature among which it is possible to allocate the recent book "Collapse" by Diamond. About extinction of dinosaurs it is necessary to look the corresponding chapter in K. Eskov's book History of the Earth and a life on it.
The general in all these cases is that was present complex set of reasons of both external, and internal character. Integrated approach of these reasons creates problems when we try to answer questions in the spirit of Why Roman Empire has broken up? Also it is the most important lesson. If we face catastrophe which will ruin a human civilisation, most likely, it will occur not for any one reason, but owing to complex interaction of the different reasons at different levels. Hence, we should try to create models of the same level of complexity, as what are used for the description of already happened large catastrophes.
First, it is important to notice, that the main role in extinctions and catastrophes was played by the factors making basic properties of system. (For example, dinosaurs have died out not from outwardly casual reason - an asteroid, and from their most defining property - that they were huge and egg-laying; so, they were vulnerable to small predatory mammals. The asteroid was only the occasion which has opened a window of vulnerability, and steadier species have gone through it, for example, crocodiles. Human falls ill with a cancer, not because it had a wrong mutation but that it by the nature consists of the cells capable to division. If not specificity of American Indian culture without a wheel, horses and progress not Columbus would come to them, but they would come to Spain.)
The idea about that defining properties of system set that type of catastrophes which can happen with it, and so we should think, what are defining properties of human species and modern civilisation. For example, the plane by definition flies, - and it sets the most typical catastrophe for it - falling. And for the ship the most typical risk is to sink. But much less often the ships break, and planes sink.
So, recognising that any of these catastrophes has not been caused by any one simple external factor, and had the reasons in defining properties of the system (which were, accordingly, "are smeared" on all volume of system), we can draw the important conclusion: one-factorial scenarios of global catastrophe are not so dangerous, but much dangerous are the defining properties of systems and the system crises connected with them. Feature of system crisis consists also that it automatically involves in itself all population and universal "delivery systems" are not necessary to it.
On the other hand, we can tell, that all these factors are unimportant, as all empires all the same fall sooner or later, species die out, and beings perish. But these data for us are useless, as speak nothing how to make so that it became "late", instead of "early".
Secondly, though internal contradictions in a system could become ripe very long, there are necessary external and enough random factors to push it to destruction. For example, though the ecological niche of dinosaurs was steadily reduced on the logic of this process, falling of an asteroid and eruption of volcanoes could push this process even more. Or a freezing which has pushed Neanderthal men to extinction, simultaneously with pressure from sapienses. Or Chernobyl catastrophe which has undermined the USSR in the moment of greatest vulnerability. And if these external random factors wouldnt occur, the system could last and pass in other channel of the development.
Thirdly, in all cases when it was a question of intelligent management, it appeared, anyhow, not so intelligent. I.e. there was made important mistakes conducting to catastrophe. Besides, often catastrophe is connected with simultaneous "casual" coincidence of the big number of diverse factors which separately did not conduct to catastrophe. At last, pathological self-organising when destructive process amplifies at each stage of the development can be peculiar to catastrophic process.
It is interesting to study as well if mankind has created any systems which never suffered catastrophes that is at which designing by the trial and error method was not used. Alas, we are compelled to exclude set of systems which were created as catastrophe-free, but have as a result led to catastrophes. It is possible to recollect nuclear reactors, spaceships "Shuttle", supersonic "Concordes". Maintenance of safety of the nuclear weapon looks better, but also here there were some incidents when the situation was that is called, on the verge. The further studying of analogues and models of global catastrophes on set of examples seems productive.
Inevitability of achievement of a steady condition
It is possible to formulate the following plausible statement: most likely soon the mankind will pass in such condition when the probability of global catastrophes will be very low. It will occur in following cases:
We will understand, that any of global catastrophes has no high probability under any conditions.
We will find a way to supervise all risks.
Catastrophe will occur.
We will reconcile to inevitability of global catastrophe as a part of natural vital process (so, for example, last two thousand years Christians waited for the Doomsday, and even rejoiced its affinity).
However, while we observe the opposite phenomenon - possibilities of people on creation of destructive agencies so and annual probability of global catastrophe, constantly grows. And grows faster, than the population and protection systems. If we count this curve of growth it will have too a certain peak. It is possible to take for comparison scale of victims from the first and the second World Wars. We would see, that for 25 years the number of victims of the maximum realised destruction has grown approximately in 3.6 times (if to take an estimation in 15 and 55 million victims accordingly). It advances population growth. However with development of the nuclear weapon this acceleration has gone even faster, and by 1960-70 it was really possible to destroy hundreds millions people (in real war all population of the Earth would not be lost as aim was not to exterminate all). So, if to take rate of acceleration of force of destruction in 3,6 in 25 years we will receive acceleration in 167 times for hundred years. It means that by 2045 war will be capable to destroy 9 billion people - that comparably with total of the population of the Earth expected on this moment. This figure is close to expected technological Singularity around 2030 though it is received absolutely in another way and with use of data only first half of XX century.
Therefore we can reformulate our thesis: growth of probability of risk factors cannot eternally proceed. It is possible to formulate it and differently: means of preservation of stability should surpass self-damage means. If destructive agencies appear more powerful the system will fall on such level where forces of ordering will be sufficient. Even if it will be burnt desert. With the account of time factor it is possible to tell, that means of maintenance of stability should grow faster, than self-damage means. And only in this case annual probability of extinction will fall, and its integral in time will not rose to 1 that means possibility of infinite existence of mankind, that is realisation of the goal of un-destructibility of mankind (Kononov).
Recurrent risks
Any global risk which has been listed by us in first half of this text, becomes much more dangerous if it arises repeatedly. There is a big difference between unitary leak of a dangerous virus, and thousand leaks of the different viruses occurring simultaneously. If will flow away one virus with lethality of 50 %, we will lose to half of population of the Earth, but it will not interrupt development of a human civilisation. If during a life of one generation will be such 30 leaks only one human most likely remains alive. If it will be thousands leaks, it is granted that nobody will survive even if lethality of each separate virus there will be only 10-20 % (provided that all these viruses will spread on all planet, instead of settle in one place). The same is possible to tell and about falling of asteroids. Bombardment by a long series of tens asteroids of the average size will be more lethal for mankind, than falling of one big.
Certainly, it is necessary to consider ability of mankind to adapt to any one threat. For example, it is possible to succeed in opposition to absolutely all biological threats - if it is a unique class of threats. However possibilities of creation of universal protection against global risks are limited. After September, 11th USA began to make the list of vulnerable objects and have quickly understood, that it is impossible to protect all objects.
As development of technologies goes in common, we cannot count, that any one key technologies will arise, whereas all the others remain at the same level, as now. (Though usually such image is created by fantastic novels and films. It is an example of "cognitive bias caused by good history.)
Global risks and problem of rate of their increase
Global risks are game on an advancing. Everyone new technological discovery creates new global risks and reduces the former. The outer space exploration has reduced risk of casual collision with an asteroid, but has created possibility to organise it purposely. Distribution of nanorobots will reduce threats from genetically modified organisms, but will create even more dangerous weapon. The artificial intellect will solve control problems over other dangerous technologies, but will create such monitoring system, any failure in which work can be mortally dangerous. Development of biotechnologies will give the chance to us to win all illnesses which were before - and to create the new.
Depending on what technologies will arise earlier or later, are possible different bifurcations on a way of the further development of a civilisation of technological type. It is besides, important, whether new technologies will have time to solve the problems created at the previous stages of development, first of all - problems exhaustion of those resources which have been exhausted in process of development of the previous technologies, and also elimination of the risks created by last technologies.
Earlier with mankind there was a set of all possible situations on somebody a stage of its historical development, for example, all set of interactions of the big state to nomads. Now we appear, apparently, in a situation of appearance of real historical alternative - if there will be something one something another at all will not happened. Or it will be created powerful, supervising all AI, or all will be eaten by grey goo. Or we become a space civilisation, or we will return to the Stone Age.
The global risk arises owing to speed of process creating it. With slow process of distribution of something it is possible to have time to consult, prepare correct bombproof shelters, to grow up a vaccine. Hence, to distinguish the real global risk is possible by the rate of its development (Soljenitsin: revolution is defined by its temp.) This rate will be stunning because people cannot have time to understand in case of the global risk and correctly prepare. However for different classes of events different speeds will be stunning. If the event is more improbable, the smaller its speed will be stunning. The USSR seemed something so eternal and firm, what even the crisis stretched on many years and crash of the Soviet system seemed stunning. System crisis, in which the maximum catastrophically point constantly moves (as the fire, being thrown from one object on another), possesses much bigger stunning potential.
Thus it is necessary to understand ability of events of system crisis to shock perception, to make wrong impression about themselves, probably, in shape a future shock. And accordingly to cause wrong reaction to them, even more their strengthening. (Lemann bankruptcy.) Certainly, some will understand at once an event essence, but stunning-ness means disintegration of a uniform picture of an event in a society, especially at the authorities. Therefore there will be a blinding and voices Cassandras will not be heard - or will be understanded incorrectly. Faster processes will supersede slower, but not always attention will have time to be switched to them.
Comparative force of different dangerous technologies
Further, we can make the list of "force" of destructive influence of technologies in which each following technology gives bigger rate of threats and eclipses the threats created at the previous stage. The time factor specifies here in duration of possible process of extinction (instead of time before technology maturing).
1. Exhaustion of resources - decades or centuries.
2. Large scale nuclear war with application of cobalt bombs - with the account of slow subsequent extinction - years and decades.
3. Biotechnologies - years or tens years.
4. Nanorobots - from several days till several years.
5. AI - from hours till several years
6. Explosion on the accelerator - with a velocity of light.
Quicker processes win over slower process. Accordingly, scenarios of global catastrophe will jump up with much more probability from the first positions of this list to the last, in other words, if in the middle of process of exhaustion of resources suddenly begins multifactorial biological war process of exhaustion of resources will be so slow in comparison with it, that it can not be taken into consideration. Thus presence of each more advanced technology will allow to minimise consequences of catastrophe from the weaker technology. For example, the developed biotechnologies will help to extract resources and to clear the world of radioactive contamination. Nanorobots can protect from any biological dangers.
Sequence of appearance of various technologies in time
The list of "force" of technologies resulted above as a whole is similar on expected time sequence of appearance of technologies in a reality as we can expect, that on a progress course there will be more and more strong and potentially destructive technologies, but actually not necessarily corresponds to this sequence.
The sequence of appearance of various technologies in time is the major factor in definition of what waits for us the future. Though thanks to NBIC-convergence successes in one technology affect others, for us the moment of maturing of technology is that moment when with its help begins possible to create global risk. And even the small advancing here can play crucial importance. In general, any technology allows to create a shield and a sword. The shield usually lags behind on time, though, finally, it can appear more strongly than sword. Besides, stronger technology creates a shield from dangers of weaker technology.
Usually the following sequence of maturing of technologies is expected: bio - nano - AI. The strong AI is "joker" who can arise and tomorrow, and in ten years, and through 50 or never. Biotechnologies develop is forward enough according to the their own Moore's law, and we as a whole can predict time when they will ripen to that point where it will be possible to make any viruses anywhere and very cheap. It will be exact probably in 10-30 years if a certain catastrophe does not interrupt development of these technologies. Dangerous physical experiment can occur almost instantly and irrespective of other technologies - while there is a high level of technologies in general. Coming to power of strong AI considerably will reduce probability of such event (but even AI can put certain experiments).
Nanotechnology are in much more rudimentary form, than biotechnology and even technology of AI. The first dangerous experiments with biotechnologies were in 1970th years (a cancer E.Coli), and to the nearest dangerous nanotechnological experiments is 10 years at least if there will be no technological breakthrough. That is nanotechnology lag behind biotechnologies almost for 50 years. Sudden breakthrough can come from AI - it will think up how easily and quickly create nanotechnology either from biotechnologies - or on a way of creation of synthetic organisms.
Comparison of various technological risks
For each supertechnology it is possible to enter the factor of danger Y=a*b which reflects both probability of appearance of this technology (a), and probability of its ill-intentioned application (b).
For example, nuclear technologies already exist (a=1), but the control over their considerable applications (full-scale war or a superbomb) is high enough, therefore the second size of product is small. For biotechnologies it is high both probability of their development, and probability of their ill-intentioned application. For AI these sizes are unknown to us. For nanotechnology too it is unknown probability of their creation (however it is not visible basic difficulties), and the probability of their ill-intentioned application is similar to probability for the biological weapon.
Besides, it is possible to add the factor of speed of development of technology which shows, how much it is close on time. Linear multiplication here is not quite correct, as does not consider that fact, that the late technology completely is cancelled by others, and also nonlinear character of progress of each technology (at least an exponent). The further from us is a technology, the more safe it is, as chance is more that we will find a safe way to operate progress and application of its fruits.
Generalising, it is possible to draw a conclusion, that biotechnologies receive the highest points on this scale - these technologies are for certain possible, their harmful application is almost inevitable and on time they are rather close to us.
Nanotechnology receive unexpectedly low level of threat. It is not known, whether they are possible, thus they can appear quite safe and till the moment of their natural (without AI) maturing more very long time. If they ripen unnaturally, - thanks to progress in creation of AI or biotechnologies, - they appear in a shade of force of these technologies: in a shade of threats from biotechnologies which by that moment they can create, and in a shade of abilities of AI to the control which can check all casual leaks nanotechnology.
AI, being a bilaterial joker, can or prevent any other risks, or easily ruin mankind. The moment of appearance of AI is the moment polifurcation - during this moment to it the purposes which will change then can be set it impossible. Slow and more later appearance AI is connected with possible smooth development of the state into the huge all-supervising computer. Faster and early appearance, more likely, is connected with the sudden invention in the laboratory of the computer capable to self-improvement, and goaled it on power capture on the Earth. In this case it, more likely, will create certain essentially new structures of communication and management, and its distribution will be explosive and revolutionary. However the later people will create AI, the it is more chance, that they will understand how correctly to program it that it actually brought the blessing to people. However, on the other hand, the later it will arise, the more possibly, that it will be made by certain "hacker" as complexity of a problem becomes simpler every year. E.Yudkowsky metaphorically so expresses this thought: Moore's Law concerning AI says, that every year IQ of human-designer, necessary for AI creation, falls on one unit.
The basic bifurcation, in my opinion, is, whether it will be possible to create powerful AI before will work joint effect cumulative pressure, caused by system crisis, biotechnologies, nuclear war and other factors. Or all these events so will weaken mankind, that almost all scientists-experts on AI will be lost, or become refugees, and works in this area will stop. Researches can be undermined by even simple destruction of the Internet which will reduce an information exchange and explosive growth of technologies. This bifurcation concerns events which I named global risks of the third sort.
Than development of technologies is fast accelerated, speeds of exchange grows, and all processes in a human civilisation become faster, including that all virtual simulations of a reality work faster. It means, that for a year of objective time the civilisation can pass hundreds and thousand years of "subjective" time if to consider on its internal hours. Owing to it, probabilities of any internal risks increase, and even the most improbable events of internal character can have time to occur. Therefore for the external observer the civilisation becomes the extremely unstable. But acceleration of internal time does a civilisation much more independent of external risks - from the point of view of the internal observer.
The question in, whether mankind is external or internal observer of processes of acceleration. Definitely, considerable part of people does not participate in world processes - third of people in the world never used phone. Nevertheless, they can in an equal measure with other people suffer, if something goes wrong. However now people from gold billion as a whole keeps up with progress. But in the future is possible the situation when progress will come off these people. Probably, the group of leading scientists will be involved in it, and maybe, it will depend completely on computers. Natural human inertia is considered as a good safety lock from rates of progress. It is difficult to force to change people computers more often, than time in some years (though Japanese are accustomed to change cellular telephones and clothes each three months), the truth economic pressure is very great and creates social pressure - for example, an image of new, even more abrupt phone. However in case of the armed opposition, arms race is not limited on rate faster ones wins.
The purposes of creation of the Doomsday weapon
The dangerous factor of global catastrophe can arise or casually, or can be created intentionally. (Also the combination of these two moments however is possible: of a random factor can take advantage intentionally, for example, having hidden approach of a dangerous asteroid, or on the contrary, something planned as game with low risk of global catastrophe, leaves from under the control.)
Often in discussions there is an opinion, that nobody will want to realise a certain devil plan and consequently it is possible not to consider it. It is incorrect. First, here we will apply the statistical approach - sooner or later the necessary conditions will develop. Secondly, on the Earth there are real groups of people and separate humans who want "doomsday". However as a whole it does not concern Islamic terrorists because they wish to create World Halifat, instead of radioactive desert. (But they can be ready to risk by a principle all or anything, for example, having created Doomsday Machine and to threaten to apply it if all countries of the world simultaneously do not accept Islam. But if other sect simultaneously creates Doomsday Machine with the requirement to all to accept a certain especial form of the Buddhism a situation it becomes stalemate as requirements cannot be satisfied for both sides simultaneously.) It is important to notice, that the group of people can keep much longer itself in a condition of adjustment for a certain idea, than one human, but groups are less often formed. We will consider different groups of people which can potentially aspire to mankind destruction.
1) Eschatological sects. An example: Japanese Aum Shinrikyo. This organisation not only trusted in affinity of approach of a doomsday, but also worked over its approach, gathered the information on the nuclear weapon, viruses and chemical substances. (However, there are different assumptions what did and wanted Aum Shinrikyo, and to find out the definitive truth it is not obviously possible.) Any religious fanatics choosing death are theoretically dangerous. For example, Russian Orthodox Old Believers in 17 centuries often preferred death to new belief. Such fanatics believe in the blessing in extramundane world or perceive the Doomsday as a clarification ceremony. It is possible psychological substitution when long expectation something turns to desire. Actually, the logic chain leading from peace meditation of destructive activity (for 10 years approximately in case of Aum Shinrikyo) is that: at first presence of other world is realised. Then it is realised, that after-world is more important than ours, and overall objectives lay in it. From this follows, that our world is secondary, created by the higher world, and, hence, is small, final and unimportant. Moreover, our world is full of the obstacles, stirring to a pure current of meditation. As the higher world is primary, it will stop sooner or later existence of our world. As our sect is blessed by God it receives especially exact knowledge of when and there will be the end of the world. And, surprising coincidence, is signs, that it will occur very soon. Moreover, having destroyed the world, our sect will execute will of the god. This possession the superimportant confidential knowledge, naturally, aggravates feeling of own importance of members of sect, and is used for management strengthening in it. The end of our world will mean connection of all good people with the higher world. The knowledge of affinity of the inevitable end, comprehension of positivity of this event and the exclusive role in this important event leads to comprehension, that the sect should not only the nobility and preach about a doomsday, but also approach this event. (Psychologically there is a replacement of long expectation by aspiration.) Besides, it is a possible way to kill enemies and to feel themselves winners over the old world. (I do not wish to tell, that I precisely know, that Aum Shinrikyo really argued in a similar way. However elements of this reasoning can be found out in the most different groups with eschatological outlook, from Christian to the revolutionary. And at not all people and groups who speak about a doomsday, are going to organise it. Among the known sects expecting a doomsday, - Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.)
2) Radical ecologists. Examples: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - they consider useful mankind extinction, however suggest to carry out it by refusal of reproduction. Such groups consider as the blessing the world of the nature and animals and believe mankind - not without the logic - as a cancer tumour on a body of the Earth, conducting to extinction of all live. Also it is possible to recollect radical vegetarians - "vegans", for which the life of animals is not less (and sometimes more) important, than human.
3) Neo-luddity. For example, terrorist Unabomber (Theodor Kachinsky) who considered as a unique exit for the civilisation - a stop of technological progress and returning to the nature, and dispatched mail bombs to leading computer scientists. Three humans were lost, also many have been wounded as a result of its actions. Now he serves time in the American prison.
4) Embittered people movable by revenge. Those who now, for example, shoot from the automatic machine of schoolmates. But such projects nevertheless prepare not for years, and usually some days. Though it is possible to imagine human who has gone mad, having concentrated on idea to revenge the world or the God.
5) Unconscious destructive behaviour. It can be or unexpected splash (to break a test tube with poison), or certain more or less thin error in an estimation of own purposes. For example, many kinds of a narcotism and extreme behavior are, according to the psychologists, the latent forms of slow "suicide" (self-destructive behaviour). The requirement for suicide, probably, is written down at human at genetic level and caused in reply to rejection by society (for example: sepuko of Samurais; a dog dying of loneliness; an alcoholism from loneliness).
6) "Fame-thirsty humans". It is clear, that nobody will become famous if destroy all the world, but, destroying it, someone could feel for a second himself the great human. Actually, it will be the perverted display of aspiration to the power.
7) Blackmailers who have created Doomsday Machine. It can be the people making any political or economic demands under the threat of utter annihilation of all world. Therefore them can be especially difficult to catch, as their "machine" can be in everythere.
8) Universal defensive weapon of last choice. Instead of creating a nuclear shild from rockets, a certain country can create one super-power nuclear bomb with a cobalt cover and threaten to blow it up in case of the armed aggression. It is the little less rationally, than the concept of "the mutual guaranteed destruction for the sake of which strategic nuclear forces was created. And it is similar to behaviour of human which undermines itself a grenade together with the enemy - and after all governors too while people. As such weapon is created not that it to apply and to threaten them. Conceptually it is close to idea of "global blackmail.
9) Risky behaviour giving big prize or loss. For example, it can be a certain physical or biological experiment. It can be aggravated unwillingness and inability of people to estimate scales and probability of loss in the worst case. An example: Reagan's foreign policy in opposition from the USSR.
10) Requirement for risk for strong experiences, passion. People lost estates in cards not to change the property status that is why that felt requirement for sharp experiences of risk. Now it is shown in extreme sports.
11) Supporters of replacement of people more perfect artificial intellect. On the Internet there are the people advancing this idea. Radical transhumanists too can, even against the will, get to this number.
12) People believing death by the best alternative to something. One American general in Vietnam has told about the killed inhabitants of one village: to rescue them, we had to destroy them.
13) Suicides. If human has found the sufficient bases to kill himself, he cannot regret other world. An example: the Italian pilot who ran into tower Pirelli in Milan by the private plane on March, 12th, 2002. Clinical depression can be shown that human starts to show interest to doomsday problems, and then to wish that it would more likely come. From here one step to the active help in this process.
14) Schizophrenics captured by obsessions. Delirium at schizophrenia forces human to find out interrelations not existing in the nature. Schizophrenics often hear voices which subordinate them to itself. We cannot predict, what sort the delirium will result in a conclusion that the Earth should be destroyed. Thus mental abilities at schizophrenia do not decrease enough to make impossible realisation of long-term effective strategy. Though special tests can prove schizophrenia presence, outwardly it is not always obvious. Moreover, unlike a neurosis, it is not realised by human. Loss of ability to doubt is one of the most serious signs of the schizophrenia. The schizophrenia can be "infectious" in the form of the religious sects duplicating certain crazy ideas.
15) Fighters for the peace. In history repeatedly the superweapon was created with that thought, that now it will make wars impossible. With such purpose dynamite has been created, with the same idea the cobalt bomb has been thought up.
16) Children. Already now teenage hackers are one of the basic sources of destructive activity on the Internet. Thus it is enough their intelligence to master any one branch of knowledge and to write a virus or to make small bomb, but there is not enough still to realise all completeness of consequences of the actions, and the responsibility for them.
17) Perversion of sexual model of behaviour of human, inducing him to extend himself in the exotic ways. In the chapter Danger of molecular manufacture of the report of the Center responsible nanotechnology we can read: Irresponsible fans for whom it will be a hobby can be other possible source of grey goo. People of certain psychological type, apparently, cannot avoid a temptation possibility to create and set free self-replicating formation, that to us proves a considerable quantity of existing computer viruses.
18) Special services and the antiterrorist organisations, aspiring to raise the influence in a society. On July, 29th, 2008 committed suicide Bruce Ivins suspected of realisation of attacks by the antraxin the USA in the autumn of 2001. Within 36 years before he was one of the main experts in bioprotection and vaccination from the Antrax in the USA. He was married, has adopted two children, has written 44 articles, played a synthesizer in local church. As a result of bacteriological attack of 2001 the damage was more, than 1 billion dollars has been caused, and for bioprotection means has been allocated an order of 50 billion dollars. Including it was planned (but purchase developed by Ivans vaccines from the Antraxon for 800 million dollars from which from should receive ten thousand dollars of a royalty has not taken place). As a result of attack and the accepted measures, the number of the people working under programs of bioprotection and having access to dangerous preparations, has increased in tens times so, chances that among them again there will be someone who will make new attack have increased also. (But there are other theories who was really organizer of the crime.)
Human always moves by several promptings, only a part from which is aware and it is quite rational. On my supervision, about 10 different desires influence my decisions and this purposes should unite, so that I have made a certain decision - that is that sufficient splash in motivation was generated. Thus special psychological procedures are seldom applied to revealing of the latent purposes, and to the majority of people are unknown. Therefore it is easy to expect, that the listed motivations can operate in common, is reserved, un-linearly interfere and giving unexpected enormous splash, "wave-murderer".
The social groups, willing to risk destiny of the planet
Possibly, it is necessary to allocate separately the list of social groups and the organisations which aspire to wreck and change of a world order. And for the sake of it or are ready to run risks of general destruction, or can create it, not realising it. For example, Ronald Reagan declared "Crusade" against the USSR, but he understood that in the course of this opposition the risk of catastrophically dangerous war increases. So:
1) The world powers struggling for domination in the world. It can be or to attack first under threat of losing advantage, or powers-applicants on the world supremacy, choosing radical and risky methods of achievement of the purposes. The psychology of these processes remains at level struggle for a place of the alpha male in monkey's flight which is, however, rigidly enough determined by the nature of natural selection.
2) Utopian social movements aspiring to the great purposes, for example, radical communists or the religious organisations.
3) Various national, economic, political forces which do not receive the share in present world order or expect loss of the positions in the future.
4) It is possible to name also different supporters of "apocalypse poetry, fans of computer games in the spirit of Fallout which are so involved with this idea that is, unconsciously - and sometimes and meaningly - they want it.
5) People living by a principle after us the deluge that is humans not that interested of global catastrophe directly, but preferring actions which bring the blessing in short-term prospect, but bear enormous harm in the long-term. This condition can especially become aggravated in connection with comprehension of inevitability of own death, present at each human, and most strongly shown during the risk and old age periods. (Behaviour model: there is no fool to the old fool.)
6). It is separately possible to allocate all that misunderstanding of the nature and probability of global catastrophes which we will discuss in the second part of the book.
The generalising factor connected with the human
To consider a variety of human motivations, it is possible to enter the certain generalised likelihood factor k. This factor means, roughly saying, chances that the pilot of the plane will direct the plane on ram attack, or, speaking generally, a share of people which will decide to apply the techniques accessible to them to destruction of and other people. We also do not consider here distinction between in advance prepared and spontaneous actions. For example, if in a certain country everyone in the house has a weapon there will be a certain average of its illegal applications. This number very little. We will admit, (further goes purely presumable estimations, to within an order), this factor can make for the USA (where 35 million guns on hands and a high crime rate) one million in day, and for Switzerland if to take a unique case of execution of parliament in Tsug - one milliard. For aircraft we will receive if to divide approximate number of all perfect starts of passenger airliners (a billion order) into number of the planes grasped by terrorists for attacks on September, 11th (4) - 1/250 million. At level of suicides in 1 percent this factor in recalculation on human per day will be equal approximately to one million. In the world about billion computers, and every day there are tens new viruses that gives k = 1/10 000 000, that is only one of tens millions users makes senseless and dangerous viruses (but commercial illegal spyware can make and bigger number of people).
We see that under different conditions k in recalculation on one "project" for one day fluctuates between one million and one milliard. The top safe estimation will be one to one million, whereas the most real estimation, maybe, one to hundred million.
It is not necessary to think, that if we will distribute keys from start of rockets to several people we will lower chances of dangerous madness in one million times as crazy ideas are infectious. Besides, humans on duty of one of silos of rockets in the USA admitted, that they with boredom have thought up system from scissors and a string, allowing to turn to one human two keys of start simultaneously. That is how start systems can be bypassed by cunning.
Besides, the madness can have thin and unevident character, and smoothly pass from psychiatry area in area of simply incorrect or inadequate decisions. It not necessarily means, that human suddenly will press the red button. In case of paranoia it can be proved set of rather logical and convincing constructions, capable to convince other people in necessity to undertake a few more risky actions that it will be protected from alleged dangers. "Madness" can be shown and in refusal of actions during the resolute moment. It can be excessive persistence on some errors which will lead to a chain of incorrect decisions.
Sir Martin Rees marks the following contradiction: in the future begins to operate probably behaviour, and even character of people and their human by means of high-precision medicines, genetic manipulations and other influences, doing people more and more normal and safe. However it will reduce a natural variety of human behaviour, killing human in the human.
Conclusion: always there will be people who will wish to destroy the world and consequently it is necessary to consider seriously all scenarios where someone can long and persistently work to reach it.
Decision-making on a nuclear attack
The question is important, whether the madness of one human can lead to "pressing of the red button. This question is rather studied in application of the nuclear weapon, but will arise similarly at appearance of any other kinds of the dangerous weapon, technologies and Doomsday Machines. Thus it is important to know, in whose hands there is a red button - whether only the top management or in hands of certain group of executors: it is clear, that the more widely a circle of operators which have access to weapon application, the higher is the risk.
There is the following contradiction connected with efficiency and safety of the nuclear weapon: or we have absolutely steady system of protection against inadvertently start which does start impossible neither by the command of a president, nor under the decision of the commander of a submarine. Or we have a system capable within 8 minutes in the conditions of intensive counteraction of the probable opponent and infringement of all communication systems to strike back. The real systems, which device - at the moment - is the greatest secret, should find balance between these inconsistent requirements. However in the past efficiency was often preferred to safety. For example, in 60-70 years in the USA start of rockets have put on the password from 14 figures which should be informed from the centre. However value of this password wad established on 0000000000000000, and all knew it (military men considered the password as nonsense which will prevent them to strike blow in time). Only the independent commission has then come and has demanded to create the real password.
Hardly there can be a situation when the president will go mad at night, will demand to bring to it a nuclear suitcase and will press the button. However more thin variants when the unreasoned and irrational behaviour caused by affects, weariness and incorrect understanding, will result in a chain of the actions conducting to war are possible. For example, Hitler, having attacked to Poland, did not expect that England will enter war. Or Americans, planning to attack Cuba in 1962, did not know that there already deployed Soviet tactical nuclear weapon, and armies have the right of it to apply.
Important point in decision-making on a nuclear attack is interaction of the operator with the instruction. The instruction too is created by people, and situations described in it are perceived hypothetically, instead of as real decisions on weapon application. Carrying out the instruction, the operator also does not bear any responsibility for does that is written. As a result responsibility is washed away, and become possible decisions which any human in itself would not accept. The example with missile commander S.E. Petrov of which after the United Nations has awarded with a medal for mankind rescue is characteristic. Having found out in 1983 (shortly after have brought down the Korean Boeing) start of nuclear rockets from territory of the USA, he has decided not to give a command about a reciprocal attack as has counted this alarm false. However Petrov was not the ordinary human on duty of change, it was the developer of the instruction on decision-making who has appeared in this change casually. And consequently he has cancelled the instruction made by him. However the ordinary human on duty should execute it.
The price of the question
We can measure also probability of the apocalyptic scenario, by defined quantity of money, time and other resources which required for it, - and having compared them with the general quantity of accessible resources. If it is necessary for "doomsday" tons of a certain substance while the presence of it on the Earth is 1,5 it is improbable and if it there is billion accessible it is almost inevitable. We can also try to define a minimum quantity of people, which should unite to create this or that weapon of the Doomsday. It is obvious that more cheaply to grasp the infernal machine. For example, the Chechen terrorists planned to grasp a nuclear submarine and to blackmail the Russian Federation. But hardly they could create such arsenal of rockets.
It is clear, that time factor is important also. If some project is very cheap, but demands 10 years of efforts it will expose more likely, or human will be disappointed in it. On the contrary, if the project is fast (to break a test tube with poison) its human can realise under the influence of minute mood.
Tens countries at the moment can create the nuclear weapon, but these projects will demand for the realisation of many years. At the same time thousand biolaboratories in the world can work over genetic the modified viruses, and these projects can be realised much faster. In process of accumulation of knowledge and equipment standardization, this number grows, and time for working out is reduced. For creation of a dangerous virus the budget is required now from thousand to one million dollars while nuclear projects begin with billions. Besides, the price of workings out in biotechnologies falls much faster as does not demand the big capital investments and more likely depends on availability of the information.
It is possible to enter risk factor A directly proportional to quantity L of places on the Earth where the dangerous project can be carried out and inversely proportional to expected average time T for end of the project with expected efficiency in 50 %.

Then for projects on creation of a nuclear superbomb it will be approximately equal 40/10=4, and for projects of the biological weapon at the moment - 1000/1=1000. Thus, most likely, dependence of real risk from is nonlinear. The more cheaply the project, the more possibly is that it can be created by some outcast people. Besides, the small and cheap project to hide or disguise much easier, or to copy it. The more projects in the world, the more possibly is that multiplication of this number on k (the share of madwomen) from the previous section will give considerable size. For example, in the world about 100 operating nuclear submarines. At an assumption, that for them k = one million, it will give one event of times in 10000 days or approximately in 30 years. Thus safety level on nuclear submarines is so high, that, it is probable, that there k comes nearer to the milliard. (However because of specificity of systems of safety there are risks not of mainly intended capture, but of casual application because of infringement of communication systems, false operations - for example, I read in memoirs, that the Soviet underwater fleet has been in full alertness in 1982 after Brezhnev's death - that is the codes have been entered, start keys were inserted, the position for strike was occupied.)
However the number of the laboratories, capable to spend genetic manipulations, now, possibly, is estimated in thousand, and safety level there more low, than on submarines. Moreover, creation of the biological assembler, that is live beings, capable to translate signals from the computer in DNA and back, will considerably simplify these technologies. Thanks to it the number of existing laboratories can increase to millions. (It is possible to tell also, that the more cheaply the project, the is more for it k as in cheap projects there are less expenses on safety.) In this case we can expect appearance of mortally dangerous viruses every day.
So, each destructive agency is characterised by the sum of money and time, necessary for its creation. These parametres not unique, but allow to compare different means. Further, it is necessary to consider the likelihood factor, whether will work us intended (in sense of achievement of full extinction) the given weapon. Even very cheap project can give probability in 0,0001, and very expensive - only 0,60. It is possible to consider conditionally, that we normalise all projects of "doomsday" on 50 percentage probability. Any of them cannot guarantee 100 percentage efficiency. However in the sum cheap, but not so dangerous projects can create higher probability of global catastrophe for the same money, than one big project. (One thousand viruses against one superbomb.)
Important question - what is the minimum size of the organisation which could destroy mankind if wanted. I think, that now rogue country of the average sizes could. Though earlier only two superstates could do it. Besides, modern corporations possess comparable resources. The following phase - the large terrorist organisations, then small groups and separate people.

The universal cause of the extinction of civilizations.

Fermi paradox and a number of other considerations - see more about the Doomsday Argument - suggest that there are some universal causes of the extinction of civilizations, which operate at all civilizations in all worlds, without exception, regardless of specific technological developments and natural features of the planets and other worlds.
1) The aging of civilization - in terms of accumulation of errors. In time of extremely rapid growth (which we approaching with Singularity) is also happening rapid accumulation of errors.
2) Any civilization is formed through natural selection from monkeys, a natural selection ensures that survive more risk individuals who leave more offspring, rather than a safe individuals. As a result of any civilization is to underestimate the risk.
3) Civilizations arise so infrequently that they might occur only on the brink of sustainability parameters of the natural systems that support them. The growth of civilization will inevitably destroy that balance (example: global warming).
4) Civilizations are growing exponentially, and so sooner or later exhaust every available resource to them, then either suffer ecological collapse, or are starting a war for resources. (Roche limit see Efremov). Nanotechnologies not solve this problem, because at the current rate of growth of all the materials the solar system will be used for several hundred years or early.
5) The development of weapons has always outpaced the development of shieleds. Every civilization has always creates a weapon that could destroy it, and in large quantities.
6) The more complex the system, the more it is inclined to normal accidents and sudden changes. With the growing complexity these changes are becoming more frequent. When a certain level of complexity is reached, the system immediately breaks down into uncontrollable chaotic regime.
7) Any civilization sooner or later leads to AI, which is rapidly growing exponentially, and then destroyed by unknown controversy. For example, the principal task of friendliness could be insoluble - a more simple form of it - the tasks indestructibility of AI.
8) Civilization always consists of competing military and economic agents, leading to a natural selection of those who know how to win in the short-term confrontation, to the detriment of those who refuse to short-term advantages for the future of civilization.
9) The civilization sooner or later learn to replace the real achievement by the creation of signs of them (in the spirit of supergrug), and therefore ceases every external activity.
10) A physical experiment, which is illegal in our universe. Like LHC.
We could see almost all these crisis in current our civilization, and the list is not full.

 

Chapter 20. The events changing probability of global catastrophe.


Definition and the general reasons
Let's name global risk of the second sort any event which considerably raises probability of extinction of mankind. The combination of such events creates a vulnerability window. It is historically known, that 99 % of species of the live beings living on the Earth have died out, and now every day species continue to die out. It is obvious, that extinction of these species has occurred without application of supertechnologies. Are most well-known are extinctions of dinosaurs and Neanderthal men. Among the extinction reasons, according to paleontologists, first of all there are changes of an ecological situation - that is destruction of food chains and appearance of competitors whereas natural cataclysms act only as the trigger event finishing weaker species. It was namely Dinosaurs who died after asteroid, because small predators-mammals ate young growth and eggs. It was namely Neanderthal men who didnt survive last ice age as to them resisted more organised Homo Sapiens. Nevertheless it is difficult to use hypotheses about last extinctions for a substantiation of the subsequent, as here a lot of not clear. However as more authentic example it is possible to take cases of destruction of traditional societies and cultures. For example, Russian peasantry as special socio-cultural generality what it was in XIX century, has disappeared entirely and irrevocably (if not to tell has died out) in the course of an urbanization and collectivisation - besides that historically it could resist both to wars, and epidemics. But it was ruined by new possibilities which has given by urban civilisation and new economic situation. The destiny of the Australian natives and other communities which have faced more technically equipped and developed civilisation is similar. That is separate people are alive, can keep memoirs, but from culture rests only folklore ensembles. It can be described and on an example separate beings. When the organism is ill, its vulnerability to any external pushes (or to aggravations of the illness) increases. Thus, we can imagine the following diphasic scenario:
1. In the beginning because of large catastrophe the Earth population was sharply reduced, manufacture and science degraded. We name this space the postapocalyptic world. In cinema or the literature such world is described usually as arising after nuclear war (a phase of destruction of a civilisation, but not people).
2. The escaped people who have remained in this world, appear is much more vulnerable to any risks, like eruption of volcanoes, falling of a small asteroid, exhaustion of resources. Moreover, they are compelled to struggle with consequences of civilizational catastrophes and the dangerous rests from a civilisation - contamination, exhaustion of resources, loss of skills, genetic degradation, presence of the dangerous weapon or the dangerous processes which have begun at civilisation (irreversible warming).
From this some conclusions follow:
Diphasic scenarios force us to consider as dangerous those risks which we have rejected earlier as not able to ruin a civilisation.
Somewhat the diphasic scenario is similar to a nonlinear interference, but here joining occurs in time, and the order of events is important.
The diphasic scenario can become and three - and more phase where each following phase of degradation does mankind vulnerable to following forms of risk.
Thus could not to be direct communication between the first and second catastrophes. For example, get to the postapocalyptic world people can owing to nuclear war, and die out - from supervolcano eruption. But precisely also they could get to this condition of vulnerability to a supervolcano because of epidemic or economic recession.
Consideration of multiphase scenarios has essentially probabalistic character. An epoch of weakness of mankind when it is vulnerable, it is possible to name a window of vulnerability which is characterised by density of probability. It means that such window of vulnerability is limited in time. Now we live during an epoch of a window of vulnerability to supertechnologies.
Events which can open a vulnerability window
Two types of events are in this class. The first are events which inevitably will come in the XXI century, proceeding from the standard representations about development of consumption and technologies. The question in that only when it will occur (each of these opinions is divided not by all experts, however leans against the assumption, that no essentially new technologies will arise):
1. Oil exhaustion.
2. The exhaustion of the foodstuffs caused by warming, droughts, an overpopulation, desertification, transition of cars to biofuel.
3. Exhaustion of water resources.
4. Crash of a world financial pyramid of debts and obligations.
5. Any other factors, gradually, but it is irreversible doing the environment unsuitable for dwelling (global warming, a freezing, pollution).
Events which can occur, and can and not occur with certain probability consist the second type. It does not do their more safe as any annual probability means "half-life period" - that is time, for which this event most likely happens, and this time can be less, than time of maturing of inevitable events, like exhaustion of some resources.
1. Large act of terrorism, in scale of explosion of nuclear bomb in the big city.
2. The large natural or technogenic catastrophe, capable to mention a considerable part of the population of globe until now such catastrophes never occured. The closest example - failure on the Chernobyl atomic power station which has led to refusal of building of nuclear stations in the world and to power hunger now, and also was the important factor of crash of the USSR.
3. Any of points which we have listed above as the possible reason of global catastrophe, but taken in the weakened scale. For example, epidemic of an artificial virus, asteroid falling, radioactive contamination etc.
Following phases of growth of a window of vulnerability include world war and working out and application of the weapon of the Doomsday.
System crises
Whether it is possible, that global catastrophe has occurred not on that enough obvious scheme which we have described above? That is, not having arisen in one start point during the concrete moment of time and having spread from it to all world? Yes, such it is possible in case of system crisis. Usually system crisis cannot exterminate all population, but, certainly, it can be global catastrophe of the second sort. Nevertheless, there are models where system crisis exterminates all population.
The elementary such model is the ecological system a predator-victim, for example, wolves and elks on some island. In such system in the event that the number of predators has exceeded a certain critical value X, they eat all elks up to the end after that they are doomed to extinction in which process they will eat only each other. In the nature there is a protection against such situations at level of various feedback in biosystems. Known examples - deer and a grass on the Canadian island - on island have let out deer, they have bred, for decades have eaten all grass and began to die out. Similar, but more the difficult situation has developed on Easter island with participation of people. The Polynesians who have appeared on island approximately in VIII century AD, have created the developed society which, however, gradually reduced woods, using, in particular, trees for transportation of the well-known statues. Wood loss led to decrease in accessible quantity of the foodstuffs. Finally, woods have been shown completely, and the society considerably degraded, its number was reduced with 20 000 to 2 000 humans (but nevertheless has not died out). During this moment the island has been open by Europeans. The purest example - reproduction of yeast in the corked bottle which occurs on exponent, and then all of them to the uniform die out because of a poisoning with a product of own ability to live etanol spirit. Or collapse of supernova star it doesnt depend of any of its atoms or even of bigger parts.
So, sometimes system crisis is capable to spend population through a zero, that is to kill all individuals. Thus system crisis does not begin during any moment and in any point. It is impossible to tell, that if any one wolf would not exist, or on would be more one elk something has changed. That is system crisis does not depend on behaviour of any one concrete element. Precisely also it is difficult to tell, when system crisis became irreversible. Accordingly, therefore it is difficult to resist to it as there is no place to make the efforts.
Working out of modern technologies also does not occur in one point. Any human cannot essentially accelerate or slow down it.
The system approaches all entirely to system crisis. It is interesting to estimate, what chances of preservation of elements at disintegration of their system, in other words, survivals of people at destruction of the civilisation. It is possible to show, that the more strongly interrelation in system, the more possibly, that system crash will mean destruction of all its elements without an exception. If to exterminate 99,999 % of culture of bacteria, the remained several copies will suffice entirely to restore number and properties of this bacterial culture. If to cut down a tree, branches will grow from a stub, and it entirely, finally, will restore the functionality of the tree. But if to damage even a small part of important to life parts of human body, especially his brain, he will die all once and for all to the latest cage, which hundred billions - is difficult for destroying strain of bacteria with such efficiency. As well the technological civilisation - having reached certain level of complexity, it then cannot regress without serious consequences on the previous level, simply having reduced technologies and the population, and has chance to fall entirely, to zero. (Now for us there is event a switching-off an electricity for several hours, and from it people perish. And more hundred years ago the electricity was applied by the little only in rare experiments. Many modern constructions cannot exist without a continuous supply of energy: mines will flood, openwork designs of shopping centres will collapse for one winter without snow and heating cleaning etc.)
The more certain structure is systemly organized, the more degree of its features is defined by character of a relative positioning and interaction of elements, instead of elements. And that the big role in it is played by management in comparison with physical strength. If suddenly all people in the world to reshuffle in space, having thrown everyone on other continent it would mean destruction of the modern civilisation though each separate human would be alive. Also if to cut a thin knife a certain animal on several parts almost all separate cells will be still alive, but the animal as a whole would be dead.
The more complex is system, the more strongly in it are long-term consequences of catastrophe in comparison with the short-term. That is the system possesses property of strengthening small events - certainly, not every, but whose that have got to focus of its attention. Large enough catastrophes usually get to this attention focus as gush over through a threshold of stability of system. For example, in case of Chernobyl failure by the most long-term consequences there was a disintegration of the USSR and the long period of stagnation in atomic engineering therefore the world now has power hunger. During acts of terrorism on September, 11th have been destroyed buildings in initial cost in 1-3 billion dollars, but the damage to economy has made 100 billion. These acts of terrorism have led to bubble in the real estate market (for the account of the low rate for economy stimulation) in billions dollars. And to war in Iraq for which have spent about 1.4 billion dollars. Moreover, the basic damage is still ahead as a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and crisis in the real estate market will put image, political and economic damage on many billions dollars. (Plus, for example, that it is necessary to treat decades people wounded in Iraq, and on it is necessary to allocate for it billions dollars.) The similar logic of events and their consequences described L.N. Tolstoy in the novel "War and peace", having tracked as consequences of a damage which was suffered by the French army under Borodino, accrued in the subsequent chain of events - a fire in Moscow, army loss on Berezina, empire crash. Thus information damage, that is the interactions connected with the organisation and the managements, in all these cases exceeded the physical. These events have provoked a chain of wrong decisions and have destroyed management structure - that is future structure. It is possible to tell and differently: big enough event can throw system in other channel which slowly, but is irreversible disperses from the former channel.
Let's discuss now various kinds of system crises, which happen in the nature to look which of them can concern a modern civilisation.
1. Surplus of predators - this example we already discussed above on an example of wolves and elks.
2. An example from economy - Great depression. The closed cycle of curtailment of production - dismissals - demand falling - curtailments of production. The cycle, which in itself is arranged so, that should pass through a zero. Only noneconomic events, like war and expropriation of gold, could break off it.
3. Other example of global self-reproduced structures is arms race . It induces to create the increasing arsenals of more and more dangerous weapon and to hold them in high degree of battle readiness. Besides, it involves in itself all new states and stimulates workings out of dangerous technologies. In other words, there are certain structural situations in the civilisation which is more dangerous than the weapon of mass destruction. These structures are characterised by that they reproduce themselves at each stage in increasing volume and continue to operate at any level of exhaustion of resources of a civilisation.
4. Strategic instability: who will strike the first, wins. Plus, situations when having advantage should attack before threat of its loss.
5. Split escalation in a society which results in more and more open and intense struggle, the increasing polarisation of the society which members are compelled to choose on whose they to the party. (For example, opposition Fath and HAMAS in Palestin.)
6. The structural crisis of an information transparency arising when all know all. (As in a film Minority report where ability of psychics to predict the future leads to the beginning of war.) In one book on military strategy the following situation was described: if one of two opponent does not know, in what condition is another, he is in rest. And if one knows, that another has started to put forward armies, it provokes to start to do the same; if he knows, that the opponent does not put forward his army, it also provokes him strike first. In other words the information transparency infinitely accelerates feedback between the contradictory parties therefore fast processes with a positive feedback become possible. And espionage nanorobots will make the world informational transparent - and with the big speed.
7. Structural crisis of a mutual distrust, for example, in the spirit of struggle against enemies of the people when all start to see in each other enemies and to exterminate seeming enemies that leads to self-strengthening of search of enemies and to sweep for false charges. By the way, blood feud is too structural crisis which can eat communities. Mutual distrust crisis happens and in economy, leading to flight of clients from banks, to growth of rates under credits, and too is self-amplifying process. The credit crisis which has begun in the world in August, 2007 substantially is connected with loss of trust of all banks and financial institutions to each other in connection with unknown stocks of bad mortgage papers, losses from which emerged as corpses in the river in the most unexpected places, according to American economist N. Roubini.
8. The model of behaviour consisting in destruction of others on purpose to solve a problem. (For example: conditional "Americans" wish to destroy all "terrorists", and "terrorists" - all "Americans".) But it only a way to conflict growth - and to distribution of this model. It as a dilemma of the prisoner. If both parties dare at the world both will win but if only one "kinder" will lose. In other words, pathological self-organising can occur even then, when the majority against it. For example, in the beginning of arms race this was already clear, that such, and the forecast of its development has been published. However has not prevented the process.
9. The economic crisis connected with a feedback effect between predictions and behaviour of object of supervision which does this object absolutely unpredictable - that takes place at gamble in the market. This unpredictability is reflected in appearance of the most improbable trends among which can be catastrophic. The impression is created, that trends try to discover new catastrophic modes in which they could not be predicted. (It is proved so: if the markets were predictable, everyone could make profit of them. But all cannot receive profit on gamble as it is game with the zero sum. Hence, the behaviour of the markets will be more complex, than systems of their prediction. In other words, there is a situation of "dynamic chaos.) Also in military confrontation to behave in the unpredictable way appears sometimes more favourable, than to behave in the most effective way because the effective way is easily to calculate.
10. Other variant of economic structural crisis - infinite putting off of recession by a rating of economy money - can pass an irreversibility point when softly leave this process is impossible. It is described in the theory of credit cycles of H. Minski. Minski divides debtors into three categories: the diligent; on those who can earn on payment of percent, but not on main debt and consequently are compelled to stretch it forever; and on those who is compelled to occupy new credits to pay on old, that is similar to a financial pyramid (the scheme Ponzi or in Russian). The first category of borrowers is free, and can pay a debt entirely. The second group of borrowers is compelled to pay a debt eternally and cannot leave this condition, but is capable to serve the debt. The third category is compelled to expand continuously the operations and all the same will go bankrupt during a limited time interval.
Minski shows, that appearance of all three types of borrowers and gradual increase in a share of borrowers of the third type is natural process in capitalist economy of the period of boom. The modern economy, led by the locomotive - the USA, is somewhere in between the second and third type. The volume of a different kind of the debts created only in the USA has, by some estimations, an order of 100 billion dollars (7 bln. public debt, 14 bln. under the mortgage, population debts for credit cards, formation, cars, promissory notes of corporations here enters, and also obligations of the government of the USA on health services of pensioners (Medicare). Thus volume of gross national product of the USA - an order of 13 bln. dollars in a year. It is clear, that it is necessary to pay all this money not tomorrow, and they are smeared on the next 30 years and between different subjects who with difficulty are going to use receipts on one debts for payment of others.) In itself debt not is a devil - it, more likely, describes, who and when will pay and receive. In other words, it is the financial machine of planning of the future. However when it passes to the third mode, it enters the mechanism of self-damage, which the more strongly, than it later.
 Opinions on, whether really the economic develops thanks to the world financial pyramid, or not, is separated. The billionaire Warren Buffet named derivatives (multistage debts) financial weapon of mass destruction. The dangerous tendency consists as that it is possible to think that this system problem with debts concerns only the USA as to the country: actually, it concerns all economics. The damage from Great depression of 1929 twice exceeded a damage of the USA from the Second World War and has extended, as a Spanish flu 10 years earlier, on all continents, having struck across Europe is stronger, than on States. Great crisis of 1929 was the largest world system crisis up to disintegration of the USSR. Its basic complexity was that people did not understand that occurs. Why, if there are the people, wishing to work, and hungry people, demanding food - the meal becomes cheaper, but nobody cannot buy it and farmers are ruined? And the authorities burnt surpluses of meal - not because they were villains or idiots, that is why that they simply did not understand how to force system to work. It is necessary to note, as now there are different points of view about the reasons of Great Depression and especially about what measures would be correct and why it, at last, has ended. Total self-supported misunderstanding is the important part of system crisis. Minski suggests to increase a state role as the borrower by an extreme case to reduce cyclic fluctuations of capitalist economy. And it has already worked in crises 1975, 1982 and the beginnings of 90th years. But in it new danger is concluded. It consists that banks which redeem each time, become more and more reckless in accumulation of debts as are assured that the state will rescue them from bankruptcy and this time. Besides, they are brought by statistical models: The longer there was no economic depression, the longer it will not happened on statistical models whereas on structural models, the there was no recession longer, the big it will be in further. Credit cycle of Minsky is connected first of all with excessive investment, and Moore's law as we know, in many respects leans against superfluous investment in frameworks of "venture investment. Therefore economic recession will put the strongest blow on Moore's law.
11. The crises connected with unpredictable processes in supercomplex systems. The general tendency to increase of complexity of the human civilisation which creates possibility for quick unpredictable collapses. (Just as the airplane in Peru fall, because personnel at the airport has stuck the gauge of speed with an adhesive tape, and it has given out an error, and the command has decided, that it is computer failure and when the computer has given out a signal about affinity of the Earth, to it have not believed and ran into the sea.) Or erroneous operation of systems of the notification about a nuclear attack. If earlier nature force majeure (for example, a storm) to the XX century they have been superseded as a principal cause - the human factor (that is quite concrete error on a design stage, options or managements) were a principal cause of catastrophes. However by the end of the XX century complexity of technical and social networks has appeared is so great, that failures in their work of a steel not local, but system (under the scenarios which detection was un-calculatable a challenge for designers). An example to that is Chernobyl catastrophe where personnel followed under the instruction letter, but do what no one from composers of the instruction did not expect and could not assume. As a result everyone operated correctly, and in the sum the system has not worked. That is supercomplexity of system, instead of a concrete error of the concrete human became the cause of catastrophe. About same it is spoken in the theory of normal failures of Perrow: Catastrophes are natural property of super complex systems. The chaos theory is engaged in research of such systems. The chaos theory assumes, that the complex system with a considerable quantity of determinatives can move on strange attractor - that is on a way in which there are sudden transitions to a catastrophic mode. Expression of this idea is the theory of "normal failure which says, that it is impossible to create absolutely catastrophe-free system even if to engage ideal employees, to put absolutely serviceable equipment etc. Normal failures are natural property of complex systems which answer two criteria: complexities of the device and degree of coherence of parts.
12. The classical contradiction between industrial forces and relations of production, an example to which is current situation in the world, with its basic contradiction between set of the countries possessing national armies and unity of global economic.
13. Self-reproduced disorganisation (a parade of sovereignties in the end of USSR).
14. Self-supported moral degradation (crash of Roman empire).
16. A domino effect.
17. "Natural" selection of short-term benefits instead of the long-term. (Marx: more effective exploiters supersede "specie".)
18. The tendency to concentration of the power in hands of one human. (All revolutions finished by dictatorship.) Having risen once on a way of authoritative board, the dictator is compelled to go for absolutization of the mode that it have not dethroned.
19. An avalanche of reforms (Macciaveli: small changes lay a way to the big changes. An example: the Perestroika epoch).
20. Crisis of accruing disbelief - increase of lie and information noise (benefit instead of reliability, public relations instead of true, noise instead of speech - crisis of loss of trust when the more a certain human does not trust others, more he lies himself, knowing, that from him is expected the same). If criterion of truth is experiment, and result of experiment is the new technology, and its value are money, then gradually intermediate steps fall.
21. The self-organised criticality. The model with a pile of sand on which fall on one grain of sand and on which avalanches descend, therefore some average level of an inclination is established, is an example the so-called self-organised criticality. This model can be compared with density of catastrophes in any sphere of human activity. If in it there are too many catastrophes it involves more attention, and in this area is put more resources on maintenance of security measures; at this time other areas receive less attention and the risk increases in them. As a result we receive the world in which the density of catastrophes is distributed in regular intervals enough by all kinds of activity. However mathematical property of systems with self-organized criticality consists that in them can be avalanches of beyond all bounds big size. The self-organised criticality arises when concentration of unstable elements reaches some threshold level so, that it they start to establish communications with each other, and to create the own subsystem penetrating initial system. As the number of scenarios and scenarios factors which can lead to global catastrophe, is high, and it constantly grows, chances of similar self-organising increase. It is possible to tell and in another way. Catastrophic process arises, when it appears settled own abilities of system to homeostasis preservation. However catastrophic process, having arisen, is too some kind of system and too possesses the homeostasis and stability about which well writes S.B. Pereslegin with reference to the theory of military operation. It transforms catastrophic process into the self-supported phenomenon, capable to pass from one level on another. The risk of chain reaction of the catastrophic phenomena especially increases that there are people - terrorists, - which carefully try to discover different hidden vulnerability and wish them to apply.
22. The crisis connected with aspiration to get rid of crises. (For example, the more strongly Israelis wish to get rid of Palestinians, the more strongly Palestinians wish to destroy Israelis.) Feature of this crisis is connected just with understanding crisis situations, unlike the previous crises. However it is frequent does not lead to situation improvement. In this connection it is possible to recollect Murphy's law: if to long investigate a certain problem, eventually, you find out, that you are its part.
Structural crises are obscure to people for their mind is accustomed to think in categories of objects and subjects of actions. Owing to it, the more they think of such crisis and try to cope with it, for example, having exterminated one of the conflict parties, the more crisis expands. Structural crises cause sensation of bewilderment and searches of the latent enemy (which and became that object which generates crisis). For example, therefore it is more convenient to think, that the USSR has disorganised CIA. Examples of system crisis in a human body is ageing and adiposity. Further, more difficult structural crises which are not obvious yet are possible.
Crisis of crises
At the modern world there are all named kinds of crises, but as a whole system remains stable because these forces pull every which way. (For example, to authoritarianism opposes the peculiar tendency to split - the USSR and China, Sunni and Shiit, Stalin and Trotsky - which creates crisis of type of a crack and counterbalances unipolar crystallisation.) So separate processes counterbalance each other: authoritarianism - disorganisation etc. The homeostasis operates in the spirit of Le Chatelier's principle. (This principle establishes, that the external influence deducing system from a condition of thermodynamic balance in which it is, causes the processes in system, aspiring to weaken effect of influence.)
It would be Dangerous, however, if all these separate crises will self-organize such way that there will be a certain crisis of crises. Systems aspire to be kept in balance, but after strong enough strike it could pass in an equilibrium condition of movement, in other words, in new system of process of destruction which too possesses the stability. An example from a usual life: to leave the house, it is necessary to make sometimes a certain effort to "be shaken", however when travel process has gone, it already possesses own dynamics, inertia and structure.
At the moment all crisis in human development organized so that to keep mankind in the tideway of gradual economic, scientific and technical and population growth. In case of crisis of crises all the same factors can be organized so that continuously to work on destruction of a human civilisation.
Properties of "crisis of crises: it cannot be understood, because, having begun of it to think, you are involved in it and you strengthen it (so the Arabo-Israeli conflict works). And consequently that its understanding has no value, because of dense information noise. Because, actually, it is more complex, than one human can understand, but has a number obvious incorrect simplified understandings. (Murphy's Law: any challenge has the simple, obvious and incorrect decision.)
Elements of crisis of crises are not events and interactions in the world, and crises of lower order which are structured not without the aid of human intelligence. And especially important role the role here plays understanding, that now there is a crisis which conducts to two, at least, behaviour models - or to aspiration to get rid of crisis somewhat quicker, or to aspiration to take advantage from crisis. Both these models of behaviour can only strengthen crisis. At least, because at the different parties in the conflict has different ideas about how to finish crisis and how to receive benefit from it.
As understanding of crisis by separate players - a crisis part this crisis will be more difficult than its any understanding. Even when it will end, that understanding, that to us has occurred - will not be. For this reason so many different opinions and discussions that has occurred in 1941 or why have broken up the USSR.
One more metaphor of "crisis of crises is the following reasoning which I heard with reference to the financial markets. There is a big difference between crisis in the market, and market crisis. In the first case sharp jumps of the prices and change of a trading situation are observed. In the second - trade stops. In this sense global catastrophe is not the next crisis on a development way where the new wins the old. It is the termination of the development.
Technological Singularity
One of deep supervision in the spirit of idea of "crisis of crises is stated in A.D. Panov's article Crisis of a planetary cycle of Universal history and a possible role of program SETI in postcrisis development. Considering periodicity of the various key moments from life appearance on the Earth, he finds out law which says that the density of these transitive epoch continuously increases under the hyperbolic law and consequently, has singularity point in which it reaches infinity. It means, that there is not simply next crisis, but the crisis of all model which describes process of evolution from life origin up to now. And if earlier each crisis served for destruction of old and appearances of new now all this model of development by means of crises comes to an end. And this model says nothing that will be after Singularity point.
According to Panovs calculations, this point is in area of 2027. It is interesting, that a little essentially different prognostic models specify in vicinities of 2030 as on a point Singularity where them prognistic curves address in infinity. (For example, M. Esfandiary took to itself name FM-2030 in commemoration of the future transients in the middle of the XX century, for 2030 specify forecasts on creation of AI and on exhaustion of resources.) It is obvious, that global risks are grouped around this point as it is classical a mode with an aggravation. However they can occur and much earlier this point as there will be crises and before it.
In Panovs model each following crisis is separated from previous by a time interval, in 2.42 times shorter. If last crisis was on the beginning 1990, and penultimate - on the Second World War, the following crisis (the moment of an exit from it) on Panovs model will be around 2014, and after the following - on 2022, 2025, 2026, and further their density will continuously accrue. Certainly, exact values of these figures are incorrect, but in it is the general consistent pattern. Thus last crisis - disintegration of old and creation of new - was in the early nineties and consisted in disintegration of the USSR and Internet appearance.
It means that during the period since the present moment till 2014 we should go through one more crisis of comparable scale. If it is true, we can already observe its origin now in five years' horizon of predictions. However this crisis at all will not be that definitive global catastrophe about which we speak, and between it and the crisis of the model in 2020th years is possible the stability islet in several years lenght.
Some independent researchers have come to thought on possibility Technological Singularity around 2030, extrapolating various tendencies - from level of miniaturization of devices to capacities of the computers necessary to feign a human brain. The first who has coined the term Technological Singularity was Vernor Vinge in the article of 1993. Singularity does not differ mathematically from a mode with an aggravation, that is catastrophe and as the end of a huge historical epoch it, certainly, will be catastrophe. However Singularity can be positive if it keeps people and considerably will expand their potential, and accordingly, negative if as a result of this process people are lost or will lose that big future which at them could be. From the point of view of our research we will consider positive any outcome of Singularity after which people continue to live.
The fastest, omplex and unpredictable process which is often identified with Technological Singularity, is the appearance of universal AI capable to self-improvement and its hyperbolic growth. (It is possible to show, that acceleration of development which took place in the past, is connected with acceleration and improvement of ways of the decision of problems - from simple search and natural selection, to sexual selection, appearance of human, language, writing, science, computers, venture investment - each following step was step to intelligence development, and possible in the future self-improved AI only continues this tendency.)
Concerning Technological Singularity it is possible to formulate several plausible statements.
First, Singularity forms absolute horizon of the forecast. We cannot precisely tell, that will be after Singularity as it is a question of infinitely difficult process. Moreover, we cannot tell anything neither about the moment of Singularity, nor about a certain time interval before it. We can come out only with certain assumptions of when will be Singularity, however here again there is a wide scatter. Actually, Singularity could happen tomorrow in case of unexpected break in AI research.
Secondly, from the point of our modern views, the actual infinity cannot be reached. Owing to it absolute Singularity is not achievable. It can be interpreted so, that as approaching Singularity in system various oscillatory processes amplify which destroy it before achievement of a point of infinity. If it so, the density of probability of global catastrophes before Singularity increases beyond all bounds. (Compare with G.G. Malinetsky concept about increase in frequency and amplitude of fluctuations in system before catastrophe which are signs of its approach.) Or it can mean infinite consolidation of historical time in which force Singularity will be never reached as it takes place in case of falling of objects in a black hole.
Thirdly, all system approaches to Singularity entirely. It means that it is not necessary to expect that Singularity will not mention someone or that will be a several different Singularities. Though it can begin in one point on the Earth, say, in laboratory on AI creation, but in process of development it will capture all Earth.
From the point of view of our research, it is important to notice, that global catastrophe is not obligatory to Technological Singularity. Global catastrophe can be scale, but, finally, simple process, like collision with an asteroid. In such global catastrophe there are signs of a mode with an aggravation, as for example, sharp acceleration of density of events at the moment of a contact an asteroid with the Earth (lasts 1 second), but is not present superintelligence which by definition is not conceivable.
From the told follows, that if to accept the concept Technological Singularity, we cannot do anything to measure or prevent risks after moment Singularity, but should prevent these risks before its approach (especially in the raised vulnerability before it) and to aspire to positive Singularity.
The concept Technological Singularity as hypothetical point of the bending in infinity of prognostic curves around 2030 was several times independently opened (and on extrapolation of different curves - from population growth by Kapitsa, to miniaturization of technological devices), and the group of the people was at the moment generated, calling to aspire to this event. More in detail about Technological Singularity is possible to reed in articles: V.Vinge Technological Singularity, Yudkowsky Peering in Singularity, David Brin Singularity and nightmares, Michael Diring Dawn of Singularity.
Overshooting leads to simultaneous exhaustion of all resources
Some resources can not simply end, but to be settled, so to say, in a minus. For example, superoperation of soils leads to their fast and full erosion. This question was investigated by Medous in it Limits of growth. Investigating mathematical models, he has shown, that overshooting of some resource results that system inevitably on destruction edge. For example, surplus of predators leads to such exhaustion of number of victims, that then all victims perish, predators are doomed to hunger. Other example - when environmental contamination is so great, that appears ability of environment to self-restoration is amazed.
Credit cycle of Minski definitely concerns not only money, but also to exhausting overshooting of any natural resources. Thus it is peculiar to mankind to overshoot any resource which became accessible to it. In this sense it is no wonder, that overshooting of many resources occurs practically simultaneously - after all the reexpenditure of one resource can be hidden by spending another. For example, exhaustion of money for mortgage payment can be hidden by paying it through a credit card; precisely also exhaustion for 30 percent of the suitable fields for agriculture since Second World War time can be hidden by putting there are more resources (that is energy) in cultivation of the remained fields; or exhaustion water horizons can be hidden, by spending more energy on extraction of water from deeper horizons. People managed to overcome problems of superexhaustion every time, by making technological jump as it was in Neolithic revolution. However it not always occurred smoothly, that is sometimes the decision appeared only when full-scale crisis was already opened wide. For example, Neolithic revolution - transition from gathering to settled agriculture - has occurred only after the population was considerably reduced as a result of superexhaustion of resources in a society of hunters-gathers.
In the XXI century we are threatened with simultaneous exhaustion of many important resources owing to already now occurring overshooting. We will list different assumptions of exhaustion, not discussing the validity of each. From the economic point of view definitive exhaustion of any resource is impossible, a question is that, how much will cost the rest part of resources and whether it will suffice for all. In this connection allocate not the exhaustion moment, and the moment of a maximum of extraction (peak) and then the period of fast slump in production of a resource. The recession period can even be more dangerous than the period of full absence as during this moment desperate struggle for a resource begins, that is war can begin. I will name some the future or already passed peaks of resources.
; Peak of world extraction of fish - is passed in 1989
;Exhaustion of the suitable Earths for agriculture
;Peak of manufacture of food as a whole
;oil Peak - it is possible, at the moment
;gas Peak - later, but sharper recession after it.
;Deducing from operation of nuclear reactors
;Exhaustion of potable water and water for an irrigation.
;Exhaustion of some rare metals (by 2050)
Once again I will underline: in the given work the problem of exhaustion of resources is considered only from the point of view of, whether it can lead to definitive extinction of mankind. I believe, that in itself - cannot, but the aggravation of these problems is capable to start an aggravation of the international conflicts and to lead to serious war.
It is interesting to study the following question. If a certain subject suffers bankruptcy it means, that all sources of receipt of money come to an end simultaneously and if resources of a technological civilisation are settled, that at it all resources simultaneously come to an end as energy in modern conditions carries out function of money in technological system, and allows to extract any resource while energy exist (for example, to swing water from deep layers) whether. Does this means equivalence of money and energy so, that there will be an energy crisis simultaneously with financial and on the contrary? I think, yes. Roughly speaking because real money means possibility to buy the goods. If the economy passes in a scarce mode possibility to get something really valuable for money will disappear.
There are different datings of possible peak in oil recovery and other resources, but all of them belong to an interval from 2006 till 2050. Because it is possible to replace one resources with others, different peaks of the maximum extraction of different resources will tend to be pulled together to one general peak, in the same way, as thanking to NBIC convergences are pulled together peaks of development of different technologies. It is interesting also, that the peak of extraction of resources will occur on the same time period on which it is expected Technological Singularity. If Singularity happens earlier modern resources will not be of great importance as immeasurably big resources of space will be accessible. On the contrary, if recession in universal extraction of all resources occurs before Singularity, it can interfere with its approach. Real process probably will be more combined, as not only peaks of development the technology and peaks of extraction of resources are pulled together to each other in the groups, but also peaks essentially other groups also are pulled together around 2030 plus a minus of 20 years. Namely, peak of number of people by Kapitsa, peak of possible number of victims from wars, peak of predictions for risks of destruction of a civilisation about what we spoke above. There are some interesting hypotheses about the reasons of such convergence which we will not discuss here.
System crisis and technological risks
It is possible to consider system crisis of all modern society without the account of those new possibilities and dangers which create new technologies. Then this crisis will be described in terms of economic, political or ecological crisis. It is possible to name such crisis by social and economic system crisis. On the other hand, it is possible to consider the space of possibilities created by appearance and interaction with each other of many different new technologies. For example, to investigate, as in biotechnologies progress will affect our possibilities on creation of AI and interaction with it. It is possible to name such process by technological system event. That and other direction are actively investigated, however as if it is a question of two different spaces. For example, those who studies and predicts Peak Oil to 2030, at all are not interested and at all do not mention in the researches a problematics, coherent with AI working out. And on the contrary, those who is assured of working out of powerful AI by 2030, do not mention subjects of exhaustion of oil as insignificant. It is obvious, that it is interesting to consider system of higher order where social and economic and technological systems are only subsystems - and in which crisis of higher level is possible. Otherwise it is possible to tell so:
Small system crisis - involves only a policy, resources and economy.
Small system technological crisis - involves development of one technologies from others and complex technological catastrophes.
The big system crisis - in it both small crises are only its parts, plus interaction of making elements with each other. An example of such crisis: the Second World War.
System technological crisis - the most probable scenario of global catastrophe
 This statement leans against following parcels which we have separately discussed in the previous chapters.
The majority of large technological catastrophes, since catastrophe of "Titanic", had system character, that is had no any one reason, and arose as display of complexity of system in the form of improbable unpredictable coincidence of circumstances from different plans: designing, management, regular infringements of instructions, intellectual blindness and superconfidence, technical refusals and improbable coincidence of circumstances.
We receive that effect for account NBIC of convergence and for the account of a simultaneity of exhaustion of interchangeable resources, that all critical circumstances are tightened to one date, and this date - around 2030.
The Collapse of a technological civilisation, having begun even from small catastrophe, can take the form of steady process where one catastrophe starts another, thus during each moment of time of force of destruction surpass remained forces of creation. It is the result of that earlier the large quantity of forces of destruction restrained, and then all of them will simultaneously be liberated (exhaustion of resources, contamination of environment with dangerous bioagents, global warming). This ability of one catastrophe to start another is connected with high concentration of different technologies which are potentially deadly to mankind - as if fire in a ship where it is a lot of gunpowder has begun, all ship finally will blow up. Other metaphor - if human escapes from an avalanche, he should run with the increasing speed and the lesser delay is required, that he would got under the increasing force an avalanche. The third metaphor - recrystallization of some substances with several phase conditions around phase transition. This metaphor means the fast and basic reorganisation of all civilisation connected with appearance of powerful AI.
In process of increase of complexity of our civilisation the probability of sudden unpredictable transitions in other condition (in the spirit of the chaos theory) accrues, and our inability to predict the future simultaneously accrues and to expect consequences of the actions.
Chapter 21. Cryptowars, arms race and others scenario factors raising probability of global catastrophe
Cryptowar
The important factor of the future global risks is possibility appearance of cryptowars - that is sudden anonymous strike when it is not known who attacking, and sometimes even is unevident the fact of an attack (S. Lem's term). When in world arms race appears more than two opponents, there is a temptation of drawing anonymous (that is unpunished) strike called or to weaken one of the parties, or to break balance. It is obvious, that supertechnologies give new possibilities for the organisation of such attacks. If earlier it there could be a delivery of radioactive substance or start of a rocket from neutral waters, now biological attack can be much more anonymous. Cryptowar is not in itself risk to existence of mankind of the first sort, but it will change a situation in the world:
Mistrust of the countries under the relation to each other will increase, arms race will amplify, the moral interdiction for anonymous and mean strike will disappear. World war of all against all (that is such war where there are no two contradictory parties, and everyone tries to do much harm to everyone) and simultaneous jump in dangerous technologies as a result can inflame.
Cryptowar will be in many respects terroristic - that is information influence from the strike will exceed a direct damage. But the sense of it will be not so much in fear creation - terror, and is faster, in general mistrust of all to all which can be manipulated, throwing different "hypotheses". Many political murders of the present already are certificates cryptowar, for example, murder of Litvinenko. Unlike act of terrorism for which many wish to take responsibility, for cryptowar nobody would take responsibility, but everyone wishes to use it on the advantage, having got rid of fault on another.
Vulnerability to midget influences
Super complex systems are vulnerabable to infinitesimal influences - and it is possible to use it for the organisation of diversions. (For the account of nonlinear addition, some very weak events can have considerably bigger effect, than each of them separately, that reduces requirements to accuracy of a choice and realisation of each separate event.) It is final correctly to calculate such influence, the super-intelligence, capable to simulate supercomplex system is necessary. So, this intelligence should be more complrx than this system, and this system should not contain other such intelligence. Such situation can arise on the first phases of development of an artificial intellect. Strike by means of small events will be the higher way of cryptowar.
Example: failures with electricity switching-off in the USA and the Russian Federation at rather small short circuits. Such points of vulnerability can be calculated in advance. I cannot offer more complex vulnerability, for I do not possess super-intelligence. However influence on relatives and friends of leaders, making key decision can be one more factor. This way it is impossible to destroy the world, but to provoke a huge brothel it is possible - that is to translate system on lower level of the organisation. In a condition of chaos the probability of inadvertent application of the weapon of mass destruction increases, and ability to working out of essentially new technologies decreases. Accordingly, if means of the world destruction are already created, it raises chance of global catastrophe and if they still is not present - that, probably, reduces. (But it is not so if other technologically high-grade countries have escaped - for them such event becomes a trigger hook for dangerous race of arms.)
Examples of a hypothetical point in system, infinitesimal influence on which leads to infinitely big consequences: It is a question of decision-making by human, to be exact, on somebody by a factor which outweighs a critical threshold of decision-making. Most likely, speech can go about:
; decision on the war beginning (a shot to Sarajevo),
; beginning of technogenic catastrophe (Chernobyl),
; market panic, or other dangerous gossip.
;deviation of an asteroid,
;murder of a leader.
As a variant, probably small influence on some remote points, giving synegetic effect. Among especially dangerous terrorist scenarios of such influences accessible already now:
;Influence on relatives of humans making of the decision. Use of model aircrafts as some kind of long-distance rockets which can bring a small bomb anywhere.
;Murder of governors and other outstanding people. In process of development of technologies will be easier to kill not only many people, but also any in advance selected human. For example, by means of small high-precision products (type of robots in size of "bumblebees") or the viruses aimed at genetic system of the concrete human.
;Complex attacks with use of the Internet and computers. For example, trojan creation in the computer which gives out wrong data only to one broker, forcing it to make wrong decisions.
;Information attack - misinformation - for example to start up gossip (qualitatively fabricated), that the president of the hostile country has gone mad and prepares preventive strike on "us" is causes in "us" desire to strike the first. That, obviously, starts a "paranoid" positive feedback.
Arm race.
Arm race is dangerous not only because it can lead to creations to the Doomsday weapon. In the conditions of high-speed arm race it is necessary to put dangerous experiments with lowered safety requirements and with higher probability of leaks of dangerous substances. Besides, the superweapon of general destruction can appear as by-product or a special case of application of the common weapon. For example, the idea of a cobalt bomb has arisen after the usual nuclear bomb necessary for it has been thought up and created. "Know-how" development in the military purposes of especially dangerous poisonous insects will allow to create their such specie which can captivate all Earth. At last, application in considerable quantities of any one weapon also can translate mankind to falling on lower stage of development on which extinction of human population is represented to more probable.
Moral degradation
Often say, that moral degradation can ruin mankind. It is clear, that moral degradation cannot be global risk of the first sort as in itself it kills nobody, and conversations on moral decline go since times of the Ancient Greece. Nevertheless, moral degradation of ruling elite is considered the essential factor of falling of Roman empire.
In concept moral degradation I do not put actual moral estimation, but I mean those psychological installations and models of behaviour which do a society less steady and more subject to crises of different sort. First of all, this preference especially personal and short-term objectives over public and long-term objectives. We will notice, that if earlier the culture has been aimed at propagation of the purposes promoting raised stability of a society, now - on the contrary. However from it all did not become murderers. An example modern moral degradation are words of president Clinton that it took a cigarette with a grass, but didnt inhale. This type of degradation threatens first of all to "imperious elite and in sense of global risks can be shown in inability of this elite adequately to react to arising threats. That is reaction is possible, but the lie, mistrust to each other and money-laundering can undermine any effective and scale initiatives in the field of global risks.
 Further, there is a critical level of stability of technical and social systems depending on concentration of unreliable elements. If it is not enough of them, these elements do not limk with each other and do not break stability. If their quantity exceeds a certain critical level, they form own internally coherent structure. Even the small gain of such concentration around a critical threshold can dangerously increase degree of instability of system.
At last, even small decrease in the general of "moral level societies considerably raises "weight" of heavy tails of distribution, that is increases number of potential "fame-thirsty humans". It is necessary to notice, that growth of the formed groups of the population of the Earth also increases number of people which can meaningly want global catastrophe and possess necessary knowledge.
There is an opinion ascending still to K. Marx that roots of possible instability of a society - in the nature of the society constructed on a competition. Investments into long-term projects are weakened by competitiveness in short-term projects as resources leave in distant projects. As a result in intermediate term prospect those people, the countries and the organisations who did not give enough attention to short-term projects, come off second-best. (This reasoning can be compared to N. Bostrom's reasoning about hobbists in its article of "Existential risks where it is shown, that evolution will eliminate those communities which will not spend all means for a survival.) In the same time, those groups of people which has learnt to co-operate, appear in more advantageous position, than the separate human refusing cooperation. In any case, in a modern society there is a rupture between the nearest planning (to elections, to the salary, to an enterprise recoupment), and long-term planning at which the weight of improbable risks becomes great.
Advertising of violence, similar to what we see in modern movies or games type of Grand Theft Auto, as well as selfishness and personal heroism leads to an unconscious education population, making it less able to cooperation, altruism and self-sacrifice, which can need in a crisis. On the contrary, the images of acts of revenge terrorism are implanted in the collective unconscious, and sooner or later they appear back as spontaneous acts of violence. In the history were times, when all the art was aimed to creating new man. This is primarily Christian art and Soviet art.
Animosities in the society as scenario factor
It is possible to assume, that sharp crisis will result in animosities growth on the Earth. The situation which has arisen after acts of terrorism on September, 11th, 2001 when many people expected was one of bright recent examples of splash in animosities in the world, that war of civilisations will accept character of world war. Animosities splash can have following consequences:
1. Society polarisation on different groups which hate each other.
2. Growth of heat of negative emotions (a negative emotional background) and increase of number of the people ready to violence and aspiring to it that raises risk of acts of terrorism and incidents with the weapon of mass defeat.
3. Trust loss of all to all and destruction of connectivity of social structure. It is necessary to consider, that the trust is today a necessary part of the economic system based on the credit.
4. Growth of arms race and an aggravation of all inveterate conflicts.
5. Risk of the beginning of world war in this or that form.
6. Expectations of inevitability of turn of events from bad to the worst, that can generate self-coming true prophecies.
Revenge as scenario factor
The revenge is animosities continuation, but in the higher form. Lets admit that between two large powers happened nuclear war, and one of the powers has completely lost it - to it have caused an unacceptable damage whereas another has got off with rather small losses. At the lost party has lost half of the population, all large cities, defensive potential. It is rather probable, that in this case the revenge becomes national idea. History experience shows, that it is possible to put some people on a destruction side, and they answer with more and more aggressive and dangerous forms of resistance. For example, that support which was received by Ben Laden in Afghanistan. Owing to it, nuclear war will not make the world stabler. On the contrary, it, probably, will create so insuperable contradictions, that the world becomes even more dangerous. The lost party, possibly, will not refuse to apply any Doomsday Machine because to the people who have lost the families, the native land, have nothing to lose.
The won party should dare in this case either at utter annihilation, or on occupation. The modern countries of the western civilisation cannot dare at a genocide because in this case they should lose the civilizational identity. The occupation mode also badly works, because can turn to endless war. Technologically, though while and it is fantastic, is possible idea of occupation by means of robots, that, however, is equivalent to transformation of the won country in electronic concentration camp.
I will notice, that now we are on the threshold absolutely of any possibilities of the future. It allows to reconcile to people with very different pictures of the future. However during any moment there will be passed the irreversibility moment: some variants of the future will get more accurate lines, and some will become impossible. Someone should recognise, that the soul is not present, and that AI is possible, or on the contrary. It is fraught with conflicts for the picture of the future. For the power over the future.
War as scenario factor
Wars were through all the history of the mankind. In itself usual war between people cannot lead to human extinction as always there are survived winners. By Clausewitz, there are wars of two types: on concession achievement, and on a total gain/destruction. It is clear, that wars of the second type when one of the parties corner, are much more dangerous to human existence as create conditions for application of the "Doomsday weapon " as last measure.
Here under word war we mean classical armed conflict of two countries occupied by people. The armed struggle of people and robots, people and the superpeople, two AI among themselves or people with a dangerous virus will not be classical war. But such war can mean genocide of people, unlike usual war which is not aimed at destruction of all people.
Besides, wars differ with scale, and among them the largest are wars, in the obvious or implicit form having one of the purposes - establishment of the world supremacy. Thus concept that such "world" continuously extends. I believe, that any world war is war for world supremacy that it is possible to name differently war for planet association, and has the purpose to establish an eternal world mode. The Second World War, cold war and so-called struggle with Halifat about which possibility spoke after acts of terrorism on September, 11th, appreciably approach under this definition. The later such war will occur, the more its participants will be stronger and the consequences will be worse. Probably, our planet is unlucky that it has not united in uniform all-planet state right after the Second World War.
Let's consider how war can increase probability of human extinction. (Thus we assume, that the bigger is war, more is probability of each of these outcomes, but even small war creates their nonzero probability):
1) War can create conditions for application of "Doomsday weapon ". And also to lead to uncontrollable application of the nuclear weapon.
2) War can provoke even larger war.
3) War can cause an economic crisis. In the past war helped to struggle with overproduction crises, but it was true for the old world in which there was no world industrial cooperation and a global financial system.
4) Any war strengthens arms race , involving in it and the countries not participating in the conflict. Thus any arms race is connected with progress of more and more independent from human technological devices and more and more killing technologies. Arms race can lead also to decrease in criteria of safety for the sake of to efficiency in the conditions of catastrophic shortage of time.
5) War can become trigger event for not which chain of events, the leader to crisis.
6) War to create favorable conditions for large diversions and cryptowars.
7) During a war can increase risks of global catastrophes as leak, for example, in case of destruction of storehouses and laboratories on manufacture of the biological weapon, and also for the account of decrease in norms of safety by hasty workings out.
8) War increases quantity of the people, worrying feelings of despair and thirst to sweep, and, hence, increases probability of creation and application of "Doomsday weapon ".
9) War blocks the joint organised efforts on prevention and liquidation of consequences of a different sort of catastrophes.
10) War can lead to that short-term objectives in state planning cover middle - and long-term prospects. In other words, during the war global threats which are not connected with war or long-term consequences of actions which are necessary for a survival today can be lost from sight.
11) War can promote development of transnational terrorist networks.
12) War leads to society split on red and white even in not participating countries that can generate effect of self-reproduction of war. For example, in the XX century in many countries there were communist parties which in some cases began the armed struggle.
13) War can lead to crash of economic and transition of the world to a "postapocalyptic" stage. It can occur, even if war will not be nuclear. But for this purpose it should be world. Network terrorist war is more inclined to be world war. In network war almost there will be no rear territories.
14) War contains a much bigger element of unpredictability, than the politician in a peace time. War also serves as the accelerator of rate of historical time, and especially rate of technological progress. As a number of forecasts speaks to us about inevitable acceleration of progress in first third of XXI century (Technological Singularity) it is possible to connect it with war possibility. However progress is possible only at safety in safety of rear territories, including from diversions. Hence, the world devastating war, nuclear or network, on the contrary will result in a stop or recoil back technical progress.
15) Modern war does not go without attempts to get the weapon of mass destruction (or at least suspicions and discussions on this theme) by weak countries or to stop it from the strong. Therefore even the small local conflict will promote growth of illegal trade of dangerous nuclear and bio materials and to formation of the international networks on their manufacture and distribution.
The basic conclusion is that even the smallest war possesses very powerful potential in strengthening of global risks.

Biosphere degradation
Unlike human, animal and the flora cannot survive in bunkers itself. In case of irreversible damage of biological systems on the Earth, and especially inhabitancies, people never can already return on prehistoric level of existence. (If, of course, they will not take advantage of biological supertechnologies.) Usual hunting and agriculture become impossible - there will be only a cultivation of all necessary products in tight greenhouses. And if the died out animals can be restored, simply having let out pair of each creature, also simply to restore soil and air it will not turn out. And though the oxygen which has been saved up in atmosphere, will suffice for millenia of burning of fuel, biosphere will not be utilize any more carbonic gas in case of biosphere destruction which will strengthen chances of irreversible global warming.
From what we can conclude that the greater is corrupted habitat, the higher is the minimum level of technology, with which can survive mankind.
Global discontamination
Distribution of dangerous biological forms can lead to full contamination of biosphere with them. In this case such variants are possible:
People should take cover in the protected isolated refuges. However there will be a threat of drift of dangerous biological agents from outside.
Biological struggle against dangerous agents: dispersion of antibiotics, antiviruses.
Creation of artificial immune system of all Earth. But it is possible only after preliminary cleaning and is interfaced to the new threats connected with risk of "autoimmune reactions.
Total sterilisation of wildlife. In this case people should destroy completely wildlife in order to destroy together with it the dangerous organisms which have taken roots in it. It means, that people cannot return back any more to a natural way of life. However after sterilisation probably repeated settling of the Earth by live beings from "zoos". The moment of global sterilisation is dangerous to mankind as means liberation of universal, killing all live agent, for example, radioactive substance or radiation.
"Shaking" management
The effect is found out by the pioneer of cybernetics von Neumann. It is shown in trembling of hands of patients with parkinsonism, in management of planes and artillery shooting. Its essence consists that the operating system receives the information on a condition of the operated parametre with delay and as a result operating influence is not subtracted from parametre, but summed with it, resulting to the increasing fluctuations. Concerning global risks and new technologies it can be shown that the understanding of an essence of these essentially new processes will lag behind development of the problem owing to that attempts to resolve a problem will only strengthen it.
Controllable and uncontrollable global risk. Problems of understanding of global risk
Our knowledge complexly influences probability of different risks. It is possible to allocate, dangerous risks, that is for what we for whatever reasons cannot prepare, - unlike risks for which we can prepare enough easily and quickly. Preparation for risk includes following conditions:
1. In advance we know, that event of some sorts can happen, we trust this information and makes decision to prepare some preventive measures against it. We can calculate enough precisely probability of this event at any moment. (An example of such risk asteroid threat is.)
2. We have some harbingers which specify when and from what party there can be a risk.
3. At the moment of risk appearance, we correctly identify it and in time we make correct decisions on prevention, evacuations and damage minimisation. We have time to result these decisions during a life during correct time.
4. In process of situation development, in us during each moment of time there is an exact model of development of a situation, and we have time to shorthand and analyze it faster, than the new information arrives.
5. We possess such quantity of resources which allows to minimize probability of the given risk with any set degree of accuracy. Or to reduce it to event with in arbitrary small damage.
In other words, controllable risk is the risk which we can operate, doing it arbitrary small.
On the other hand, it is possible to describe conditions of appearance of uncontrollable risk:
1. We have no the slightest representations that event of such class in general can happen. We neglect all harbingers that it is possible and we do not undertake any actions on preparation and prevention. We believe that probability of this event is not computable, and "hence", zero.
2. This event is arranged so that it has no harbingers, or they are unknown to us.
3. Event begins so quickly that we have not time to identify it. Or we wrongly accept it for something another. We make wrong decisions on its prevention. Or correct, but too late. It is impossible to minimize damage from this event. The event course stirs to acceptance, distribution and execution of correct decisions. Correct decisions do not arrive to executors or are carried out incorrectly. Probably, that is accepted too many decisions, and there comes chaos. Some our decisions aggravate a situation or are its reason.
4. We do not have model of an occurring situation, or we have a false model or some mutually exclusive models. We have not time to analyze the arriving information, or it confuses us even more.
5. Our resources does not suffice considerably to reduce the given risk even if we will strain all forces. We are under the influence of the events which are completely not subject to our will.
The stated model of appearance of uncontrollable risk can be a quite good portrait of global catastrophe not from the point of view of its physical factors, and how it influences consciousness of people making of the decision. Our consecutive and clear statement of a theme can create illusion of possibility of fast comprehension of danger of process if people understand, what exactly occurs. For example, on CNN would declare: unlimited reproduction nanorobots has begun. Our valorous nuclear forces sterilise dangerous area nuclear attacks. But that, most likely, will not happened. Experience of various catastrophes shows that the heaviest catastrophes occur when pilots or operators are on the serviceable equipment, but resolutely do not understand what occurs - that is create false model of a situation and, proceeding from it, operate. Here is several examples:
Pilots of already mentioned Boeing which has taken off from Peru (1996, flight 603), have seen, that the computer gives out inconsistent data. They have come to conclusion, that the computer is not serviceable, and have ceased to rely on its signals, even when it has given out a signal of dangerous affinity to the Earth and the plane has let out wheels. As a result the plane has fallen in the sea. The valid cause of catastrophe was that have stuck the gauge of speed with an adhesive tape on the Earth; the computer was serviceable. If "Titanic" has faced an iceberg strictly in a forehead, instead of on a tangent, a vessel, as believed, would not sunk.
In critical situations it is very difficult to people to make decision, as:
;Criticality of these a situation for them it is unevident;
;Similar situations did not happen in their practice;
;People are under the influence of stress (emotions, fears, shortage of time) and under the influence of prejudices;
;Have only incomplete, incorrect and likelihood information, without exact algorithms of its processing;
;Understand that is told in instructions, otherwise, than authors of instructions.
Experience of investigation of difficult crimes and large failures shows that the adequate understanding of a situation demands months of careful studying. Nevertheless, always there are ambiguities, there are doubts and alternative versions. In case of global catastrophe, most likely, anybody never learns, by what exactly it has been caused. Almost in 80 % of cases of failure are connected with the human factor, in half of cases it is a question not simply of an error (casually pressed button), but about erroneous model of a situation. It means, that the future systems of global management can ruin completely a "serviceable" planet, having started to be protected from there is some nonexistent or incorrectly understood risk. And chances of it are so great, as well as usual catastrophe.
The more new technologies are obscure, the less they give in to public control. People can participate in dangerous processes and operations, at all not understanding their nature. S. Lem gives an example the possible future in the book Summa technologie where AI is used as the adviser for government. Certainly, all councils of it AI which seem harmful, deviate the supervisory board. However nobody has rejected council about change of a chemical compound of a tooth-paste. Nevertheless, this change has resulted after many years and as a result of complex intermediate relationships of cause and effect in birth rate reduction that answered the purpose of preservation of balance of the natural resources, put before it AI. This AI did not aspire to do much harm somehow to people. It simply found a criterion function maximum on many variables.
Drexler so describes this risk: Some authors consider arrival hidden technocrats to the power in the world practically inevitable. In " Creation of alternative species of the future " Hejzel Henderson proves, that complex technologies" become inherently totalitarian "because neither voters, nor legislators cannot understand them. In "Repeated visiting of the future mankind" Harrison Brown also asserts, that temptation to bypass democratic processes in the decision of difficult crises brings danger," that if the industrial civilisation will survive, it will become more and more totalitarian by the nature. "If it is so possibly it would mean hopelessness: we cannot stop race of technologies, and the world of the totalitarian states based on perfect technology, not requiring neither in workers, nor in soldiers, could get rid quite from bigger parts of population .
The general models of behaviour of systems on the verge of stability
G.G. Malinetsky finds out general signs of behaviour of the curves describing behaviour of various systems before catastrophe. They consist that a certain parametre quickly grows while speed of its fluctuations round average value increases. It is possible to explain it so: as the system becomes critical, separate failures in it appear all is more close to each other, and between them communication chains, small avalanches start to arise even more often. As a result system parametres start to "twitch". However inertia of a homeostasis of system is for the present strong enough to keep it in optimum parametres. Appearance all new and new technologies and realisation different scenario factors increases number of bricks of which there can be a dangerous process, and increases not linearly, and in the degree proportional to length of a dangerous chain.
Proceeding from it, it is possible to assume, that the increase in number untied with each other catastrophes and dangerous processes becomes a sign of approach of global catastrophe, each of which will come to the end rather safely. (However, it is absolutely not obligatory sign: catastrophe can come and absolutely suddenly; besides, there is such sign, as calm before a storm, confirmed on an example of earthquakes when the system ceases to give out failures during unexpectedly big time. However, "calm" too is parametre jump. Jumps can be not only towards deterioration, but also towards sudden improvement. So, sometimes patients feel better before death, and the share market grows before recession.) In economy one of signs of coming recession is discrepancy of parametres that specifies that the system leaves a normal and predicted operating mode. And it is possible, that the system left an operated condition, but still is in limits of the parametres - like a plane which has run away, still some time flies in the air corridor.

The law of techno-humanitarian balance
As marks A.P. Nazaretjan, people can arrange gradually the social behaviour to the fact of existence of new types of weapon. When carbines have come into the hands of mountain khmers, they have shot down each other and have practically died out, and in Switzerland each house has a military rifle, but its illegal applications are extremely rare (but happen - execution of local parliament in Tsug in 2001). The law of techno-humanitarian balance consists that the society reaches sooner or later balance between accessible technologies and skills of safe management of them. It would be desirable to hope, people have reached balance with the nuclear and chemical weapon which exist, but will not be applied. On the other hand, the weapon created by new technologies, should pass the "grinding in" period before and concerning it this balance will be established.
Schemes of scenarios
Though we cannot create the concrete scenario of global catastrophe for the reason that there are probably many variants, and our knowledge is limited, we can take advantage of the help of scenarios of the second order which describe the general laws of how are joined with each other scenario factors. An example of such scenario of the second order is sword and board opposition. Or the general course of a game of chess - from a debut to an end-game. For example, the following joining of scenarios is possible: Shortage of resources - war - new technologies - unexpected results - distribution of technologies.
Example of work of this scheme is war of Japan and the USA during the Second World War. Japan has begun war, appreciably to grasp petroliferous fields in Indonesia, (that was impossible without war with the USA and the Great Britain) as itself had no sources of liquid fossil fuel. War has caused to the parties a much bigger damage, than the fact of shortage of fuel. However even more essential factor from the point of view of risks was that war has resolutely accelerated arms race in both countries. And though Japanese have considerably promoted in creation and test of the fleas infected with a plague, Americans have reached success with a nuclear bomb. The nuclear bomb has created much bigger risk of much bigger victims, than the Second World War has brought.
Possibility of creation of a hydrogen bomb and especially cobalt superbomb polluting the whole continents became unexpected result of nuclear bombs. That is the technology has given much more, than from it in the beginning was required. (The similar situation has arisen and in process of rocket and computer technologies after initial difficulties have been overcome so it is quite natural result.) At last, it looks quite natural that the nuclear weapon gradually, but uncontrollably began to spread on the planet. One more natural result was that the nuclear weapon became converged with other advanced technologies of time - rocket and computer technologies, having generated intercontinental rockets.
Degree of motivation and awareness of humans making of the decision, as factors of global risk
As fairly underlines A. Kononov, the problem of un-distructability should be realised as the pivotal by any civilisation which exists in catastrophically unstable Universe. In the same way, as at each human at base level operates self-preservation instinct. The more is comprehension of importance of preservation of a civilisation at all its levels, from the engineer to the governor, the more is than chances to it to survive. (Though the scenario when the aspiration to a survival will result in struggle of one groups against others or struggle of rescuers is possible.)
Accordingly, how sensibleness and motivation of a civilisation grows to its self-preservation, is the most powerful factor of its survival. In the second part I consider the list of factors by which people can incorrectly estimate probability of global catastrophes (more often towards understating). However is important that (as it is difficult to believe in it), people could not aspire to prevent of global catastrophes. Or, we will tell more cautiously, not enough aspire. For example, R. Reagan considered comprehensible to raise risk in nuclear wars to reach victories in Cold war with the USSR. It means that the purpose of the survival of the human civilisation was not paramount for him. It is quite possible to explain it to evolutionary psychology as the alpha-male reaches the status of the leader of the pride, showing readiness to risk life in fights with other alpha-males, and this model of behaviour is fixed genetically as the males-winners have more children, than at victims in process struggle for a place of the leader.
So, ability of a civilisation to the survival is defined mainly by two factors - first, degree of its awareness on various global risks, and, secondly, degree of its motivation in prevention of these risks. Thus both factors are closely connected among themselves as the big motivation conducts to more careful researches, and the important researches which are throwing light on new risks, can strengthen motivation. Nevertheless motivation influence is represented to more primary. Though theoretically all support prevention of global risks, in practice this purpose is on last place that is visible on number of publications on a theme and financing of researches. (Ask the government - whether it is ready to put resources in technology which will give reduction of global risks by 1 percent in 100 years. Nevertheless it is equivalent to the consent to mankind extinction in 10 000 years. Possibly, there is a certain biological mechanism in which force preservation of a life of children and grandsons very important, and lives of pra-pra-pra-great-grandsons - is absolutely unimportant.)
We can try to consider these two factors as certain factors from their maximum value. If to assume as the maximum degree of motivation of effort of the country in war, and as a measure of real motivation - a share of financing of humans and the organisations in the USA which are engaged in prevention of global risks in whole (an order of 10 million dollars in a year at the best; thus we do not consider highly specialised program which are better financed as they do not assume the complete protection considering all complex of interrelations in connection with global risks, for example, the antiasteroid program) - that the difference will make about 100 000 (assuming, that the USA could spend for war about 1 trilion dollars). Thus, however, the situation considerably improves - if in 2000 there was no human who is engaged in research and prevention of global risks on constantly paid basis now such posts are in the USA and the Great Britain. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the situation improves, it looks monstrously bad.
Awareness shoud be measured as a share of full awareness what could be only at ideal civilisation. Under awareness I mean presence of the conventional, strictly proved and widely known description of a problem of global risks. Therefore, even if this book would contain such description, all the same it would not provide full awareness as it is obvious, that the overwhelming majority of people did not read it, and the majority of those who read, would have those or other objections. So, if we tell, that our awareness makes a thousand share from the greatest possible awareness, it will be very optimistic estimation. Thus I mean as much as possible achievable rational awareness, instead of absolute awareness of a magician who feels the future.
Even the maximum motivation and absolute awareness do not give absolute chances of a survival because are possible catastrophes connected with unbeatable natural forces or unpredictable processes in the spirit of the theory of chaos. The awareness and motivation does not allow people to live eternally. The general survivability of a civilisation could be estimated as awareness product on motivation, but in case of a terrestrial civilisation we would receive annoying 1/100 000 of greatest possible. It is necessary to hope, that after appearance on horizon of certain force majeure, the motivation can quickly increase.
So, we should consider any events influencing motivation and knowledge of global risks, as on factors of global risks of the second sort.
The factors raising motivation:
1) Large catastrophes of any sort.
2) Publications, influencing public opinion.
The factors weakening motivation:
1) Long dormant periods and prosperities.
2) Publications, calming people.
3) Erroneous not come true forecasts.
The factors influencing awareness:
1) Quantity of the people participating in discussion on the given theme, and their professional qualities.
2) Duration of history of discussion and an information transparency.
3) Readiness of methodology.
4) Motivation in awareness development.
The factors reducing awareness:
1) Doom of scientists or rupture of tradition in case of a certain catastrophe of average weight.
2) Distribution of errors and-or ideological split.
From told it is possible to draw a conclusion, that our lack of information and lack of motivation in prevention of global catastrophes can be much more serious factor, than the risks created by any physical source of risk.

Chapter 22. The factors influencing for speed of progress
Global risks of the third sort
We name as Global risks of the third sort any events which slow down or accelerate a course, or change an order of development of supertechnologies on the Earth, and owing to it render indirect, but solving influence on possible scenarios of global catastrophes.
It is possible to find out following interrelations between catastrophes and events of different scales and their influence on development and sequence of technologies.
1. Any large failure or catastrophe can slow down development of technologies. For example, the economic crisis, that is economic catastrophe, will result in a stop of works on accelerators that will reduce chances of creation of "black hole as accelerators are the extremely expensive multi-billion projects. It has occurred to the Russian accelerators after disintegration of the USSR. Assignment on bio-and AI researches will decrease, but it will mention them to a lesser degree as they can be financed privately and much more cheaply.
2. Enormous, but not definitive catastrophe will stop almost all researches even if a quantity of people will survive.
3. Any failure of average weight will result in increase in security measures and reduction of projects in the area. For example, Chernobyl failure has resulted both in growth of security measures on reactors, and to universal refusal of building new reactors.
4. The military conflict will result in arms race and growth of number of researches. Directions of perspective researches will get out with the account of opinion of certain key experts. For example, in the Russian Federation the program in area nanotechnology is now started. It has not occurred, if those who decisions and their advisers make, never heard about nanotechnology. The nuclear program of the USA would not begin, if not Einstein's known letter to president F. Roosevelt. On the other hand, universal AI as the absolute weapon is now ignored by the authorities (as much it is known). However, it will eternally not proceed. As soon as the authorities will understand, that the private laboratories creating strong AI, probably, possess forces for global mutiny - they will appropriate them. Accordingly, having heard, that in one country of the power have counted on powerful AI, and other countries can so to arrive; the separate organisations and large firms can begin working out of the projects also. However destruction of information connectivity can reject all science about AI back.
5. The invention at all very strong AI will allow to accelerate sharply progress in other areas. Besides, any fundamental discovery can change balance of forces.
So, certain events can or lower strongly level of researches in the world owing to what, for example, cheaper projects will get advantage before expensive, or sharply accelerate researches. On the contrary, destruction of information connectivity will stop the cheap projects leaning against the accessible information from the Internet, and will not stop expensive projects realising the ready information, for example, creation of a cobalt superbomb.
Moore's law
Moore's as law in the narrow sense of the word is called exponential growth of number of transistors on the chip. In the broad sense of the word under it means exponential strengthening of different technologies eventually. The future of the law of Moore - whether it will work throughout all XXI century or its action will stop during any moment, - can affect considerably history of a human society in the XXI century and its risks.
Actually, acceleration which describes Moore's law, is not exponential, but more quickly growing (hyperbolic). This question was repeatedly investigated, for example, in article Ray Kurzweil Law of acceleration returns. Acknowledgement of it, that speed of doubling of number of transistors on the chip gradually though and not in regular intervals increases (that is the doubling period is reduced). If to extrapolate Moore's law in the past it would have an index point in the middle of the XX century while components of electronic schemes developed and earlier. It is supposed, that in the beginning of the XX century Moore's law (if it to extrapolate on progress of electronic schemes then) had the period of doubling of an order of three years.
Secondly, not only the number of transistors on the chip increases, but also the number of computers exponentially grows in the world. Owing to it total accessible computing capacity grows as an exponent from exponent.
Thirdly, connectivity of computers with each other grows, transforming them in the one computer. As a result, if in the world to the beginning 1980 was an order of one million computers with frequencies of processors of an order of 1 megahertz now we have billion computers, with frequencies of an order gigahertz, connected among themselves by the Internet. It means, that cumulative computing power for 25 years has grown not only a million times quantitatively, but also incalculable image qualitatively.
As similar law is traced not only concerning chips, but also hard disks of computers, and reading of DNA and of some other technologies, it is clear, that Moore's law is connected not with any feature of manufacture of microcircuits, but with universal law in development of new technologies about what writes Kurtzweil.
In due time the analogue of the Moores law in the field of astronautics was observed. From the first satellite before landing on the Moon took place exponential growth of successes which gave the bases for forecasts about flights to stars in the beginning of XXI century. However, instead the astronautics left on level of "saturation" and even on recoil on some positions. It has occurred, because the astronautics grew exponentialy, yet has not rested against the natural limits which became possibilities of chemical rockets (and their price). Though the astronautics developed, the principle of jet movement did not develop. (Nevertheless certain progress exists: the price of start of American private rocket Falcon is supposed to be 7 million dollars that is equal to cost of several apartments in the centre of Moscow whereas the sums which can be estimated in the modern prices in hundred billions dollars in due time have been spent for the organisation of the rocket industry and building of Baikonur lunch place.) In the field of semiconductors and of some other technologies occurred the contrary - each success in their creation allowed faster and to develop more cheaply newer versions, because here there is a recursive loop: new "chips" are developed on chips, and in astronautics it is not expressed almost. This is main thing. In manufacture of silicon microcircuits Moore's law also sooner or later to reach to some physical limit. However, if to take the law mess more generally it means the law of self-complication of structures. It is possible to see, how this self-complication made quantum leaps from one area exponential growth to another, every time in much faster on development parametres - from monocelled live beings to multicellular, from electronic lamps to transistors, from microcircuits to - possibly - quantum computers. (I do not show here a full chain of acceleration of phases of development, I will notice only, that each transition gave acceleration of parametre of growth several times detailed analysis of cycles of acceleration see in A.D.Panov's and at Kurtzveil works.) It means, that such events as transition from one exponent on another, is more abrupt (and it is obvious, was not competitive benefit to pass to less abrupt exponent of development), and more important, than even itself exponential growth between these transitions. And each time such transitions are connected with quantum leaps, with discovery of essentially new way of the optimisation, a new way of faster thinking (in other words, with discovery of faster algorithms of "artificial intellect", rather than simple search of variants of decisions). For example, transition to sexual reproduction was, possibly, for evolution by discovery of faster way of selection and creation of effective species. Transition to writing is more powerful way of accumulation of knowledge of world around, than an oral information transfer. Creation of a scientific method is more powerful way of knowledge of world around, than trust to antique sources. Creation of system of the venture firms developing and selling new technologies, is faster way, than work of separate design offices and inventors-singles.
Possibly, it is necessary to stop on how working out of new technologies in a modern society is arranged, as allows to support present rate of growth of technologies. It includes following processes:
1) continuous generation and patenting of any ideas.
2) creation of separate laboratories under each idea which has at least a scanty chance of success (venture firms).
3) continuous information interchange between all participants of process, both for the account of open publications, and for the account of trade in patents and licences.
4) debugged mechanism of introduction of any novelties. A cult of consumption of novelties.
5) Purchase of "brains" - people with their skills - for concrete projects.
This system of the organisation of processes of an innovation, as well as all previous, has developed spontaneously - that is by simple selection between different systems of optimisation. It is possible to assume, that transition to the following system of optimisation will be connected with motions, so to say, at meta-optimisation level, that is optimisation of processes of optimisation. Obvious line of modern system is that it concentrates not around people-inventors as in XIX century - for example, round Edison and Tesla, and on the fulfilled conveyor of manufacture and commercialization ideas in which unique human has no basic value any more. Vulnerability follows from the told modern Moore's law to economic shocks: that this law continued to operate, the wide front from set of the firms, supported by continuous inflow of the capital is necessary. Accordingly, in the future the generalised model of action of the law of Moore (in other words, the law of acceleration of evolution), waits either crash, or transition to even more high-speed step of development. As it is impossible to force people (if only not to change their nature) to change a cellular telephone of 10 times in a year, most likely, the engine of following jump will be not market (but competitive) mechanisms, for example, arms race.
We can draw a conclusion, that Moore's law is a product of development of modern economy, hence, economic risks are also zones of risk for Moore's law so are global risks of the third sort. Moore's law is in the broad sense of the word very vulnerable to integrity and connectivity of a society. That the large quantity of technologies continued to develop on exponential curve, simultaneous functioning of thousand laboratories, the most powerful economy and qualitative information connectivity is necessary. Accordingly, even the powerful world economic crisis can undermine it. Disintegration of the USSR in which result the science has sharply fallen can be an example of such event - and would fall, it is probable, even more, if not inflow of ideas from the West, demand for energy carriers, import of computers, the Internet, trips abroad and support from the Soros fund. It is terribly itself to imagine, if the USSR were the unique state on a planet would how science much be rolled away and has broken up.
It is clear, that Moore's law could be supported in the several separate superstates possessing the complete set of key technologies, but is possible, that some key technologies already became unique in the world. And one small state, even European, is limited andcannot support rate of development of a science at present level, remaining in loneliness. Owing to it, we should realise vulnerability of the Moores law at the present stage. However AI creation, nano - and biotechnologies will sharply reduce volume of space which is necessary for manufacture of everything. The stop of the Moores law will not mean the termination of all researches. Working out of separate projects of the biological weapon, AI, superbombs can proceed efforts of separate laboratories. However without the world information exchange this process will considerably be slowed down. The stop of the law of Moore will delay or will make impossible appearance of complex hi-tech products, such as nanorobots, development of the Moon and brain loading in the computer, however finishing concerning simple.

Chapter 23. Protection from global risks
The general notion of preventable global risks
Obviously, if we can find out that there are several simple, clear and reliable ways to confront global catastrophe, we will significantly improve our safety, and a number of global risks will cease to threaten us. On the contrary, if it turns out that all the proposed measures and remedies have their flaws that make them at best ineffective and at worst - dangerous, we need to invent something radically new. It seems that the protection system - at each phase of development of global risk - should perform the following functions:
Monitoring.
Analysis of information and action.
Destruction of the source of threat.
That strategy worked well in counterintelligence, counter-terrorism and military affairs. Another strategy involves the flight from the source of the threat (of space settlements, bunkers). Clearly, this second strategy is to be applied in case of failure of the first (or simultaneously with it, just in case).
Global risks vary in the degree of how they might prevent. For example, is actually to ban a class of dangerous experiments on accelerators, if the scientific community will come to the conclusion that these experiments pose some risk. As the world has only few large accelerators, which are managed quite openly, so that the scientists themselves do not wish to disaster and not have any benefits, it seems very simple to cancel the experiments. In fact, it needs only a general understanding of their risks. That is the most preventable risk - the risk that:
Is easy to foresee.
Easy to reach a scientific consensus on such foresight,
Consensus of this is enough to abandon the action, leading to the risk.
Waive from actions that lead to certain risk (for example, prohibit the sort of dangerous technologies), it is easy only if certain conditions:
If the dangerous process is created only by human beings.
If these processes are set up in a small number of well-known places. (How, for example, physical experiments on the huge accelerators)
If people are not waiting for any benefits from these processes.
If the hazardous processes is predictable as to the time of its inception, and in the process of development.
 

If the dangerous objects and processes are easily recognizable. That is, we easily, quickly and surely know that some dangerous situation has started, and we appreciate the degree of risk.
If we have enough time to develop and adopt adequate measures.
Accordingly, the risks that are difficult to prevent, characterized by the fact that: They are difficult to predict, it is difficult to assume their potential. (Even assuming that SETI might be a risk, it was difficult.)
Even if someone is aware of this risk, it is extremely difficult to convince in it anyone else (examples: the difficulties in the knowledge about AI and SETI as a source of risk, difficulties of proof of the Doomsday Argument).
Even in case of public consensus that such risks are really dangerous, this does not mean that people voluntarily abandon this source of risk. (Examples: nuclear weapons.)
Last is because:
1. The sources of risk available to many people, and who are these people is not known (you can put on a register of all nuclear physicists, but not of selftought hackers).
2. The sources of risk is in unknown location and / or easy to hide (biolabs).
3. The risks is established unhuman natural factors, or as a result of interaction of human action and natural factors.
4. The source of danger promises not only risks, but also benefits, in particular, in case of weapon.
5. Time of emergency of the risk is unpredictable, as well as the manner in which it will develop.
6. The dangerous situation is difficult to identify as such, it requires a lot of time and contains an element of uncertainty. (For example, it is difficult to determine that sort of new bacteria is dangerous until it infect someone and had not yet reached such proportions when you can understand that this is epidemic.)
7. The dangerous process evolving faster than we have time to adequately respond to it.
Certain risks are preventable, but that should not lead to that they should be dismissed from the account since it does not necessarily mean that the risk will eventually be prevented. For example, the asteroid danger is among the relatively easily preventable risks, but we dont have real anti-asteroid (and, more importantly, anti-comet) protection system. And while it doesnt exist, preventable threat remains purely hypothetical, because we do not know how effective and safe will be future protection, whether it appear at all, and if one appears, when.

Active shields.

It was suggested as a means of preventing global risks to create all sorts of active shields. Active Shield is a means of monitoring and influensing on the source of risk across the globe. In fact, this is analogous to the immune system across the globe. The most obvious example is the idea of creating a global missile defense system (ABM).
Activity shields means that they may relatively autonomously respond to any stimulus, which lays under the definition of the threat. Protection of the shield completely covers the Earth's surface. It is clear that an autonomous shield is dangerous because of possible uncontrolled behavior, and became an absolute weapon in the hands of those who operate it. As we know from discussions about the ABM, even if the active shield is entirely defensive weapon, it still gives the advantage to attack for the protected side, because it may not fear of retribution.
Comparison of active shields with the human immune system as an ideal form of protection, is not correct, because human immune system is not ideal. It provides a statistical survival of a species by the fact that some live beings from the specie lives on average quite long. But it does not provide unlimited individual survival. Everyone was infected by diseases during lifetime, and many died of diseases. For any person could be found disease, which kills him. In addition, the immune system works well when exactly knows the pathogen. If it does not know, it would take time, for pathogen to show up, and another time for the immune system to develop the answer. The same thing happens with computer antivirus programms, which also are an active shield: While they provide sustainable existence of all computers, each computer from time to time is still infected with a virus, and the data is often it lost. In addition, antivirus does not protect against new virus, for which is not yet sent updates, but after a time in which new virus will infect a certain number of computers. If there was threat of gray goo, we understand that this is gray goo, only after it has spread. However, there are immune systems operating on the principle: everything is forbidden, that is not allowed, but they also can be deceived, and they are more likely to autoimmune reactions.
In short, the immune system is good only when there is a strong redundancy in the main system. We do not yet have the potential for duplication of terrestrial living conditions and space settlements face a number of policy challenges. In addition, all immune systems have false positives, which are in autoimmune diseases - such as allergies and diabetes - which have a significant contribution to human mortality, on the order of magnitude comparable to the contribution of cancer and infectious diseases. If the immune system is too rigid, it creates autoimmune disease, but if too soft - it misses some risk. Since the immune system covers all protected object, the output of its failure poses a threat to all sites (here the principle of the spread of hazards destruction). The terrorist attack on the immune system makes the whole system defenseless. So is AIDS, which is the faster spread, the more it's immune system fights because he was inside it.
Widely are discussed ideas of Bioshield and Nanoshield. These shields involve spraying across the surface of the Earth thousands of trillions of control devices that can quickly verify any agents at risk and quickly destroy dangerous. Further tighten controls on the Internet and spread around the world CCTV monitoring cameras are also kinds of active shields. However, on an example of a global missile defense system could be seen many significant problems with any active shields:
1. They are painfully lagging behind the source of threat in time to develop.
2. They must act immediately throughout the Earth, without exception. The more pinpoint is threat, the denser should be the shield.
3. They have already caused serious political complications. If the shield does not cover the entire surface of the Earth, it could create a situation of strategic instability.
4. Any shield is created on the basis of more advanced technologies than the treat which it controls, and so this new technologies could create their own level of threts.
5. The shield can be a source of global risk in itself, if he starts some autoimmune reaction, that is, it will destroy what it was supposed to protect. Or if the control over the shield will be lost, and it will defend itself against their hosts. Or if its false alarm will cause war.
6. The shield can not be completely reliable - that is, the success of its operation is a probabilistic nature. Then, in the case of a continuing global threat issue of its failure is just a matter of time.
7. The shield should have centralized management, but autonomy on the ground for rapid response.
For example, antiasteroid shield will create many new challenges to human security. First, it will provide technology for precise control asteroids, which account for the small impacts can be directed to the Earth, and secretly, in the spirit of cryptowars. Secondly, a shield himself can be used for an attack on Earth. For example, if a higher orbit will hang 50 gigatons bomb, ready to rush to anywhere in the solar system, I will not feel more secure. The third, there are suggestions that movement of asteroids over billions of years of good synchronize, and any violation of this balance can lead to the same asteroid will become a constant threat, regularly passing near the Earth. Especially this will be dangerous if humanity after the intervention will fail to postapocaliptic level.
Note that each of dangerous technologies can be a means of own preventing:
Missiles stray missiles through missile defense.
At the places of production of nuclear weapons affixed nuclear strikes.
AI controls the entire world for it has not created the wrong AI.
Biosensors not let tospread biological weapons.
Nano shield protects against nanorobots.
Most shield often do something exactly opposite to that for which they were created. For example, is considered (Bellona report, the chapter of IV.1. Three cracks Non-proliferation treaty), that the Non-Proliferation Treaty poorly coping with the black market, but do good job with the proliferation of peaceful atom (i.e. construction in all countries who wish so, research nuclear reactors) that have dual-use technologies. Strong doors that protect the cockpit after the attacks of September 11, will not allow terrorists to infiltrate into the cabin, but if they did there would be (for example, because the pilot himself would be a terrorist), the passengers and stewards will not be able to stop them. If there is a flight control system from the ground, it appears the chance to seize the aircraft using the system by radio.
Finally, all shields that were proposed based on the assumption that we have a sort of ideal system, which supervises and controls the other, less perfect system. For example, perfect militia controls the imperfect society. If the police are corrupt, the department of its own security controls it, and so on. Obviously, such an ideal system does not exist in reality, since the monitoring system and controlled object made from a single test. One can imagine a multi-hierarchical system boards, but in this case, there is a risk of division between different regulatory systems. Finally, any shield has a blind spot it cannot control its own management center.
Existing and future shields
Here, I present a brief, but as far as possible the complete list of shields, which already created or are likely to evolve in the future.
1) Global missile defense system. It suffers from political and technological problems, and is ready only in the embryonic stage.
2) IAEA. It works, but properly. Missed several military nuclear programs.
3) Global fight against drugs. Located in balance with its problem - constrained to some degree, but no more.
4) The system of total surveillance information that could be called Orwell control in honor anti-utopia 1984 of Orwell, where such a system is described vividly. Control system for each person using video cams, chip for identification, tracking of the Internet, interception of telephone conversations. Technically, the system is achievable, but in reality it has deployed only a few percent of what could be done, but it has actively developed. It is already becoming evident and openly discussed the problems of the system related to legitimacy, international, blind zones hackers. In theory, could form the basis for all other control systems, as well as possibly control over the conduct of all human beings enough so as not to appear dangerous bio, nano and AI devices (and not pick already finished dangerous devices in the environment).
5). Mind-control. This system involves implantation into the brain controlling some chips (or the making of thoughts by analyzing encephalogram we already have results on this road). This may not be as hard as it seems, if we find a group of cells, on which are projected internal dialogue and emotional states. Something like this is now lie detector. Such a device could solve the problem even of spontaneous crimes, such as sudden aggression. On the other hand, the potential misuse of such technology is unlimited. If using such a system would be managed by people, it could get wrong command to destroy all of humanity. (The same problem arises with the proposed as a measure against terrorists of the flight control system aircraft from the ground: while it will reduce the risk of capture of a single aircraft, it will create a theoretical possibility at the same time to intercept control over all located in air planes and implement with their assistance massive ram on buildings or nuclear reactors.) Finally, it will not give absolute protection because it can crack, and also because some disaster is not evil intent, but from thoughtlessness.
6) Anti-asteroid defense. A surveillance of potentially dangerous objects exists, but insufficient funds to intercept has not been formally developed. (But Deep Impact probe in 2005 was used for the collision with comet Tempel, leaving the body comets formed crater, and its trajectory is slightly different.)
10) BioSchield. The fight against bioterrorism is currently at the level of intelligence and international agreements to control. There are recommendations for the safe development of biotechnology (ranging from voluntary self-taken restriction in Asilomare 70-ies and in the book Guide for biocontrol; however, a number of proposed restrictions have not yet been adopted.)
11) NanoSchield. In preliminary discussions. There are recommendations for safe design, developed by the Center of Responsible Nanotechnologies.
12) AI-shield. Protection from creating a hostile AI. In Singularity Institute in California (SIAI) is discussed security issues for a strong AI, that is the problem of his friendliness. There are recommendations for safe construction.
13) Regular police and security services.
We can also describe the time sequence in the response shields in the case of a dangerous situation.
The first level of defense is to maintain civilization as a conscious, peaceful, balanced state and in preparing to work on the prevention of risks at all other levels. At this level is important information exchange, open discussions, published in edited volumes, fundraising, advocacy, education and investment.
The second is to direct computer control of human beings and dangerous systems, so that the situation of global risk in general could not occur. At this level are the IAEA action, global video surveillance and interception of Internet communications, etc.
The third - in quelling the created danger by using missiles and antinanorobts etc. This level, is similar to of ABM systems to protect against weapons of mass destruction.
Fourth - to escape from the Earth or hiding in bunkers (although the precautionary principle implies that it would begin to do so even at the same time as the first item).
Saving the world balance of power
The new technologies can disturb military-political balance in the world, providing to one of the sides the unprecedented possibilities. Eric Dreksler describes problem as follows: In the search for middle way, we could attempt to find the balance of forces, based on the balance of technologies. This would, apparently, enlarge the situation, which preserved the specific measure of peaceful co-existence for a period of four decades. But the keyword here - apparently: the future breakthroughs will be too swift and destabilizing so that the old balance could continue existence. In the past the country could experience technological delay by several years and nevertheless support approximate military balance. However, with the rapid replicator and advanced AI, delay on only one day could be fatal. Briefly stated, the more rapidly the technologies are developed, the less the chances, that they will be located in the equilibrium in the different countries, and also with the forces of restraining and control. The conscious disturbance of balance is also dangerous: attempt of one of the countries explicitly to leave in the detachment in the sphere of military super-technologies can provoke its enemies to the aggression according to the principle attack under the threat of the loss of advantage.
Possible system of control over the global risks
Any protection from the global risk rests on the certain system of global observation and control. The more dangerous the risk and the greater the number of places in which it can arise, the more total and more effective must be this system of control. Example of the contemporary system of control is the IAEA. Shields also can be control system, or contain it in themselves as special structure. But Shields can act locally and autonomously as immune system, and control system assumes collection and transmission of data to the one united center.
The final version of this global control would be Orwell state, where from each angle it would look video camera, or chips would be established into the brain of each person, to say nothing of computers. Alas, with respect to video surveillance this is the already almost realized version. But in the houses this can be realized technically at any moment - everywhere, where are the computers with constant Internet. A question is faster not in the observation, but in transfer and, especially, analysis of these data. Without the aid of AI to us it would be difficult to verify entire this information. Attractive appear has the systems of mutual accountability and the civil vigilances, moved as alternative to totalitarian state in the combating of terrorism, where due to the absolute transparency each can control each, but with respect to their possibility there is thus far much obscure. Problems:
In order to be by effective, this system of control it must cover entire terrestial globe without the exception. This is impossible without the certain form of united authority.
Any system of control can be misleading - so to truly effective monitoring system should be multiple redundant.
It is not enough to observe everyone, it is necessary to analyze this entire information in real time that is impossible without AI or totalitarian government apparatus. Furthermore, this top will not be able to control itself, therefore, it will be required the system of its reverse accountability either of people or the service of domestic security.
Such a system would be contrary to perceptions of democracy and freedom, which emerged in European civilization, and cause fierce resistance until the spread of terrorism. Such a system of total control will cause the temptation to apply it not only against global risk, but also against any kind of law, pending cases, the use of not polite-correct speech and listen to unlicensed music.
Those who control it must have a full and fair representation of all global risks. If it will only biological risks, but not the creation of artificial and dangerous physical experiments, the system will be inferiority. It is very difficult to distinguish a dangerous biological experiments from safe ones - in all cases are used DNA sequencer and experiments in mice. Without reading thoughts of a scientist does not understand that he was conceived. The system does not protect from accidental dangerous experiments.
Since such a system should have delivered all around the world, it can simplify use of any weapons that affects every human being. In other words, the seizure of power over the system of total world control would give authority over all people and make for it easier to do with them anything, including harm. For example, you can send out by mail some medicine and check that all people had swollen it. Those who refused would be arrested.
Thus, a system of total control seems the most obvious way to counter global risks. However, it contains a number of pitfalls that can transform itself into a global risk factor. In addition, the system of total control implies a totalitarian state, which, being equipped with the means of production in the form of robots, may lose the need for human beings at all.
Conscious stop of technological progress
There are often proposals for stop of technical progress by violent manner, or by appeal to the conscience of scientists in order to prevent global risks. There are various options on how to implement this stop and all of them do not work or contain pitfalls:
1. Personal denial of the development of new technologies have virtually nothing on impact. There will always be others who will do it.
2. Agitation, education, social action or terrorism as a means of forcing people to abandon the development of dangerous technologies - are not working. As Yudkowsky writes: Any strategy that requires unanimous action by all people, is doomed to failure.
3.Waiver of technological innovation on a certain territory, for example, one country, unable to stop the technological advances in other countries. Moreover, if a responsible country abandon development of a technology, the garland move to a more irresponsible countries.
4. World agreement. For example, the IAEA, we know how badly it works.
5. The conquest of the world by force, which could regulate the development of technology. But in the process of the conquest there are greater chances of using Doomsday weapons by the nuclear powers, at risk of loss of sovereignty. In addition, the words of Dreksler: Furthermore, the winning force would itself a major technological power with a huge military power and the demonstrated willingness to use it. Can we trust in this case such force that it suppress their own progress? (Engines of creation.)
6. The peaceful unification of nations in the face of threat, just as the UN emerged in the years of Fascism, and delegated their power to stop progress in those countries that do not want to join this association. This is probably the best option, which brings together the dignity of all previous and mitigate their shortcomings. But it would be feasible only if the overall threat becomes apparent.
7. Nick Bostrom suggested the concept of differential technological development, when projects that increase our security, are stimulated and accelerated, while potentially dangerous projects artificially slowing. Thus, controlling the speed of development of different areas of knowledge, we get more secure combination of attack and defense technologies.

Means of preventive strike
It is not enough to have a system of total control - you need to have the opportunity to prevent the risk. Now strike by nuclear forces missile at a point of source of risk is considered as last mean of defense. (Like destroying of biolaboratory, there dangerous virus was recently created.)
Here, there is curiously inconsistent with the programs of construction of bunkers for survival - if such a bunker will be secret and invincible, it would be difficult to destroy. Moreover, they must contain a fully equipped laboratory and scholars in the event of disaster. It is therefore possible that a superweapon will be created in a bunker (for example, in the Soviet Union was created underground nuclear plant to continue production of nuclear weapons in the event of a protracted nuclear war.) People who are already inside effective bunker, may be more psychologically inclined to create super weapon to strike on the surface. Consequently, either bunkers will pose a threat to human survival, or means of a preventive strike would destroy all the bunkers, which could be used for human survival after a certain disaster.
However strike on the one point in space does not work against any systemic crisis, nor against some dangerous information. Computer virus could not be cured by nuclear strike. As well such strike will not get rid of people of addiction to superdrug. Next, attack is possible as long as a risk has not spread from the point. If a recipe of supervirus run into the Internet, it would be impossible to catch it back. Already, the modern military machine is powerless against net threats such as terrorist networks, giving metastases throughout the world. Similarly, in the future computer virus is not just a threat to the information on the disk: it could make computer-managed factories around the world and invisibly make certain own physical media (say, in the form of microscopic robots or software bookmarks in conventional products), and through them again could run into the network (for example, connecting by radio).
 Finally, the strike (or even the possibility of it) will create a situation of strategic instability. For example, now strike by ballistic missile with a conventional warhead on terrorists location may cause a start of early warning system of likely opponent, and lead to war.
Finally, the strike takes time. This time should be less then time from detecting the development of the threat until the moment of its transition into an irreversible phase (for example, if you attack gray goo, it is important to destroy it before it was able to reproduce in billions of copies and spread throughout the Earth). Now the time from detection to strike to any point on Earth is less than 2 hours, and can be reduced to minutes by satellite weapons. (However, the decision-making take more time.) If from the decision moment of writing code of dangerous virus before its launch would take place only 15 minutes, then that speed would be insufficient. And this speed obviously is not enough, if in some place began spraying of dangerous airborne nanorobots.
Efficiency of strike on a starting point of a risk will essentially change after the foundation of space colonies (at least purely robotic - there too can be a failure which will transform a colony in "cancer" - that is inclined to unlimited self-reproduction and distribution of "toxins": dangerous nanorobots, superbombs and other; but the most perspective is namely outer space exploration by means of the self-breeding robots using local materials,). In time, while the signal about danger will pass, say, from the satellite of Jupiter to the Earth, and then from the Earth fighting "fleet" (that is rockets with nuclear warheads) will arrive there and fight with nanorobots to put things in order (to burn down all successively), it would be already too late. Certainly, it is possible to hold "fleet" in an orbit of each satellite of a planet or an asteroid where is capable to self-reproduction robotics colonies, but what if mutation will occur on the fleet? Then the fleet which supervises other fleet is necessary, and floats between satellites of the planets. And then one more interplanetary fleet for the control over them. More shortly, the situation does not look strategically stable, - that is above certain level of the monitoring system start to stir each other. Probably, inability to supervise remote colonies leads to that to civilisations is favourable to become isolated on a parent planet - this is one more decision of paradox of Fermi.
Removal of sources of risks on considerable distance from the Earth
It is theoretically possible to remove sources of risks from the Earth, first of all it concerns dangerous physical experiments. The problems connected with this approach:
;Having received in hands means to create powerful experimental installations far from the Earth, we also will have possibilities quickly to deliver results of experiments back.
;It cannot stop some people from similar experiments on the Earth, especially if they are simple.
;It will not protect us from creation of dangerous strong AI as it can spread via information.
;Even behind orbit of Pluto are possible dangerous experiments which will affect the Earth.
;it is difficult to know in advance, which experiments should be made behind orbit of Pluto.
;There are no technical possibilities to deliver an large quantity of equipment for orbit of Pluto during the nearest decades, especially without use of dangerous technologies in the form of self-reproduced robots.
Creation of independent settlements in the remote corners of the Earth
Creation of such settlements, no less than skills of a survival in the wild nature, hardly will help in a case of really global catastrophe as it would cover all surface of the Earth (if it is a certain unintelligent agent), or find out all people (if it is the intelligent agent). The independent settlement is vulnerable both to the first, and to the second - if only it is not armed secret base but then it passes, more likely, under the type "bunkers".
If it is a question of a survival after very big, but not final catastrophe it is necessary to recollect experience of food recollecting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazvyorstka and collective farms in Russia, - the city force dominates over village and selects its surpluses. In case of system crisis the main danger will be represented by other people. Not without reason in the fantastic novel Metro 2033 the basic coin is a cartridge from Kalashnikov's automatic machine. And till there will be more cartridges than peasants, it will be more favourable to plunder, instead of to grow up. Probably also full dissolution of human in the nature in the spirit of Feral child. However it is improbable, that thus at least some representatives of specie Homo sapiens can go through really global catastrophe.
Creation of the file on global risks and growth of public understanding of the problematics connected with them
The publication of books and articles on a theme of global risks leads to growth of comprehension of a problem in a society and to drawing up of more exact list of global risks. The interdisciplinary approach allows to compare different risks and to consider possibility of their complex interaction. Difficulties of the given approach:
;It is not clear, to whom exactly any such texts are addressed.
;Terrorists, the countries derelicts and regular armies can take advantage of ideas about creation of global risks from the published texts that will result to bigger increase in risks, than to their prevention.
;Wrong and premature capital investments can lead to disappointment in struggle against risks - just when this struggle actually will be required.
Refuges and bunkers
Different sort of a refuge and bunkers can increase chances of survival of the mankind in case of global catastrophe, however the situation with them is not simple. Separate independent refuges can exist for decades, but the more they are independent and long-time, the more efforts are necessary for their preparation in advance. Refuges should provide ability for the mankind to the further self-reproduction. Hence, they should contain not only enough of capable to reproduction people, but also a stock of technologies which will allow to survive and breed in territory which is planned to render habitable after an exit from the refuge. The more this territory will be polluted, the higher level of technologies is required for a reliable survival.
 Very big bunker will appear capable to continue in itself development of technologies and after catastrophe. However in this case it will be vulnerable to the same risks, as all terrestrial civilisation - there can be internal terrorists, AI, nanorobots, leaks etc. If the bunker is not capable to continue itself development of technologies it, more likely, is doomed to degradation.
 Further, the bunker can be or civilizational, that is keep the majority of cultural and technological achievements of the civilisation, or "specific", that is keep only human life. For "long" bunkers (which are prepared for long-term stay) the problem of formation and education of children and risks of degradation will rise. The bunker can or live for the account of the resources which have been saved up before catastrophe, or be engaged in own manufacture. In last case it will be simply underground civilisation on the infected planet.
 The more a bunker is constructed on modern technologies and independent cultural and technically, the higher amount of people should live there (but in the future it will be not so: the bunker on the basis of advanced nanotechnology can be even at all deserted, - only with the frozen human embryos). To provide simple reproduction by means of training to the basic human trades, thousand people are required. These people should be selected and be in the bunker before final catastrophe, and, it is desirable, on a constant basis. However it is improbable, that thousand intellectually and physically excellent people would want to sit in the bunker "just in case". In this case they can be in the bunker in two or three changes and receive for it a salary. (Now in Russia begins experiment Mars 500 in which 6 humans will be in completely independent - on water, to meal, air - for 500 days. Possibly, it is the best result which we now have. In the early nineties in the USA there was also a project Biosphera-2 in which people should live two years on full self-maintenance under a dome in desert. The project has ended with partial failure as oxygen level in system began to fall because of unforeseen reproduction of microorganisms and insects.) As additional risk for bunkers it is necessary to note fact of psychology of the small groups closed in one premise widely known on the Antarctic expeditions - namely, the increase of animosities fraught with destructive actions, reducing survival rate.
 The bunker can be either unique, or one of many. In the first case it is vulnerable to different catastrophes, and in the second is possible struggle between different bunkers for the resources which have remained outside. Or is possible war continuation if catastrophe has resulted from war.
 The bunker, most likely, will be either underground, or in the sea, or in space. But the space bunker too can be underground of asteroids or the Moon. For the space bunker it will be more difficult to use the rests of resources on the Earth. The bunker can be completely isolated, or to allow "excursion" in the external hostile environment.
 As model of the sea bunker can serve the nuclear submarine possessing high reserve, autonomy, manoeuvrability and stability to negative influences. Besides, it can easily be cooled at ocean (the problem of cooling of the underground closed bunkers is not simple), to extract from it water, oxygen and even food. Besides, already there are ready boats and technical decisions. The boat is capable to sustain shock and radiating influence. However the resource of independent swimming of modern submarines makes at the best 1 year, and in them there is no place for storage of stocks.
 Modern space station ISS could support independently life of several humans within approximately year though there are problems of independent landing and adaptation. Not clearly, whether the certain dangerous agent, capable to get into all cracks on the Earth could dissipate for so short term.
 There is a difference between gaso - and bio - refuges which can be on a surface, but are divided into many sections for maintenance of a mode of quarantine, and refuges which are intended as a shelter from in the slightest degree intelligent opponent (including other people who did not manage to get a place in a refuge). In case of biodanger island with rigid quarantine can be a refuge if illness is not transferred by air.
 A bunker can possess different vulnerabilities. For example, in case of biological threat, is enough insignificant penetration to destroy it. Only hi-tech bunker can be the completely independent. Energy and oxygen are necessary to the bunker. The system on a nuclear reactor can give energy, but modern machines hardly can possess durability more than 30-50 years. The bunker cannot be universal - it should assume protection against the certain kinds of threats known in advance - radiating, biological etc.
 The more reinforced is a bunker, the smaller number of bunkers can prepare mankind in advance, and it will be more difficult to hide such bunker. If after a certain catastrophe there was a limited number of the bunkers which site is known, the secondary nuclear war can terminate mankind through countable number of strikes in known places.
 The larger is the bunker, the less amount of such bunkers is possible to construct. However any bunker is vulnerable to accidental destruction or contamination. Therefore the limited number of bunkers with certain probability of contamination unequivocally defines the maximum survival time of mankind. If bunkers are connected among themselves by trade and other material distribution, contamination between them is more probable. If bunkers are not connected, they will degrade faster. The more powerfully and more expensively is the bunker, the more difficult is to create it imperceptibly for the probable opponent and so it easier becomes the goal for an attack. The more cheaply the bunker, the less it is durable.
 Casual shelters - the people who have escaped in the underground, mines, submarines - are possible. They will suffer from absence of the central power and struggle for resources. The people, in case of exhaustion of resources in one bunker, can undertake the armed attempts to break in other next bunker. Also the people who have escaped casually (or under the threat of the coming catastrophe), can attack those who was locked in the bunker.
 Bunkers will suffer from necessity of an exchange of heat, energy, water and air with an external world. The more independent is the bunker, the less time it can exist in full isolation. Bunkers being in the Earth will deeply suffer from an overheating. Any nuclear reactors and other complex machines will demand external cooling. Cooling by external water will unmask them, and it is impossible to have energy sources lost-free in the form of heat, while on depth of earth there are always high temperatures. Temperature growth, in process of deepening in the Earth, limits depth of possible bunkers. (The geothermal gradient on the average makes 30 degrees C/kilometers. It means that bunkers on depth more than 1 kilometre are impossible - or demand huge cooling installations on a surface, as gold mines in the republic of South Africa. There can be deeper bunkers in ices of Antarctica.)
 The more durable, more universal and more effective, should be a bunker, the earlier it is necessary to start to build it. But in this case it is difficult to foresee the future risks. For example, in 1930th years in Russia was constructed many anti-gase bombproof shelters which have appeared useless and vulnerable to bombardments by heavy demolition bombs.
 Efficiency of the bunker which can create the civilisation, corresponds to a technological level of development of this civilisation. But it means that it possesses and corresponding means of destruction. So, especially powerful bunker is necessary. The more independently and more absolutely is the bunker (for example, equipped with AI, nanorobots and biotechnologies), the easier it can do without, eventually, people, having given rise to purely computer civilisation.
 People from different bunkers will compete for that who first leaves on a surface and who, accordingly, will own it - therefore will develop the temptation for them to go out to still infected sites of the Earth.
 There are possible automatic robotic bunkers: in them the frozen human embryos are stored in a certain artificial uterus and through hundreds or thousand years start to be grown up. (Technology of cryonics of embryos already exists, and works on an artificial uterus are forbidden for bioethics reasons, but basically such device is possible.) With embryos it is possible to send such installations in travel to other planets. However, if such bunkers are possible, the Earth hardly remains empty - most likely it will be populated with robots. Besides, if the human cub who has been brought up by wolves, considers itself as a wolf as whom human who has been brought up by robots will consider itself?
 So, the idea about a survival in bunkers contains many reefs which reduce its utility and probability of success. It is necessary to build long-term bunkers for many years, but they can become outdated for this time as the situation will change and it is not known to what to prepare. Probably, that there is a number of powerful bunkers which have been constructed in days of cold war. A limit of modern technical possibilities the bunker of an order of a 30-year-old autonomy, however it would take long time for building - decade, and it will demand billions dollars of investments.
 Independently there are information bunkers, which are intended to inform to the possible escaped descendants about our knowledge, technologies and achievements. For example, in Norway, on Spitsbergen have been created a stock of samples of seeds and grain with these purposes (Doomsday Vault). Variants with preservation of a genetic variety of people by means of the frozen sperm are possible. Digital carriers steady against long storage, for example, compact discs on which the text which can be read through a magnifier is etched are discussed and implemented by Long Now Foundation. This knowledge can be crucial for not repeating our errors.
A possible location for shelters are asteroids and comets body in the Koiper belt, of which there are trillions of pieces, and within which is possible to hide.
Quick spreading in space
There is an assumption that the mankind will escape, if is divided into parts which separately quickly will occupy space. For example, known physicist S. Hawking agitates for creation of the spare Earth to avoid the risks menacing to a planet. In case of quick spreading any influence which has been carried out in one place, cannot catch up with all mankind. Alas, there are no technological preconditions for the accelerated moving of mankind in space: we have rather vague representations how to create starprobe vehicles and, possibly, we cannot construct them without the aid of AI and robotic manufacture. So, the mankind can start to occupy space only after will overcome all risks connected with AI and nanotechnologies and consequently space settlements cannot serve as protection against these risks. Besides, space settlements in the nearest space, within Solar system, will be extremely dependent on terrestrial deliveries and are vulnerable for usual rocket attack. Even if the mankind will start to escape from the Earth with near light speed on superfast starprobe vehicles, it all the same will not secure it. First, because the information all the same extends faster, with a velocity of light and if there will be hostile AI it can get on computer networks even into quickly leaving starprobe vehicle. Secondly, no matter how the starprobe vehicle is fast, the pilotless device can catch up it because it would be easier, faster and more perfect (as it will be created later). At last, any starprobe vehicle takes away with itself all terrestrial supertechnologies both all human lacks and the problems connected with them.
It is possible to use METI i.e. sending signals to stars - to ensure some kind of human immortality, maybe via our own SETI attack (But it needs powerful AI). Or simply sending people DNA information and our knowledge in the hope that someone will find and raise us.
Finally, you can start a wave of s a von Neumann probes - that is, robots, which are distributed in the universe as plants - using the seeds. They could absorb in the beginning Oort cloud comets. However, in these robots is firmly encoded human genom so that such robots tried to recreate the man and his culture at any available celestial bodies. It is believed that random mutations in the works and nanotechnological systems virtually impossible, meaning that such von Neumann probes can indefinitely retain the original setting. On the other hand, such robots will be more demanding resources than robots without additional program to rebuild people, and will lose them in the competition for the development of the universe. It is unlikely to be running only the one wave of von Neumann probes - and likely to be few (if mankind did not come united before). See more about the von Neumann later probes in the chapter on the Fermi paradox. At the same time stem the tide of their distribution center is virtually impossible - because these probes are very small and do not support radio communications with Earth. The only option is to run much faster wave of more efficient replicator, which swallow up all the solid bodies, suitable for reproduction replicator in the previous phase.
This can be considered as an option for panspermia. Another variant is simply to dissipate in space is very stable living cells and microorganisms spores, so that life has evolved to somewhere again, if Earth would be at risk.
All somehow will manage itself
This position on prevention of global risks is based on belief in congenital stability of systems and on the irrational concept of the decision of problems in process of their receipt. It comprises some obvious and implicit assumptions and logic errors, in the spirit of perhaps, it will not happened. Actually, it is position of the governments of different countries which solve problems only also adhere after they became obvious. If to formulate this position in the spirit of the military doctrine of the USA, it will sound so: analyzing and preventing all risks in process of their receipt, we will create the monitoring system of each concrete risk giving qualitative and quantitative prevalence over each source of risk on each phase of its existence.
However already today in a modern technological situation we cannot consider risks in process of their receipt, as we do not know where to search and as risks can appear faster, than we will have time to consider and prepare them for them. For this reason I try to expand forecast horizon, considering hypothetical and probable technologies which are not created yet, but can be quite created, proceeding from current tendencies.
Other variant - the picture of the future, named "sustainable development" However it not the forecast, but the project. It is based on the assumption, that technologies will enough develop to help us to overcome energy and other crises, but nevertheless thus technologies will not generate new improbable and risky possibilities. The probability of such outcome of events is insignificant.
Degradation of the civilisation to level of a steady condition
Some people hope that threats of global catastrophes will resolve by itself when the mankind, because of shortage of resources or the previous catastrophes degrades in some extent. Such degradation is interfaced to difficulties because while all stocks which have remained from a civilisation are not plundered yet, and all weapon is not spent, so there is no benefit to be engaged in primitive agriculture - much easier to plunder neighbours. The competition between the escaped societies will inevitably result in new growth of the weapon and technologies, as though it ideologically choked, and through some hundreds years the civilisation will return on modern level so, will revive also all problems. Or on the contrary, degrades in a direction to even more primitive forms and will die out.
Prevention of one catastrophe by means of another
Following examples of mutual neutralisation of dangerous technologies and catastrophes are theoretically possible:
1. Nuclear war stops development of technologies in general.
2. Totalitarian AI prevents bioterrorism.
3. The bioterrorism does impossible AI development
4. The nuclear winter prevents global warming.
Essence in that large catastrophe does impossible global catastrophe, rejecting mankind on some evolutionary steps back. It is possible in the event that we enter into the long period of high probability of large catastrophes, but small probability of global catastrophes. From the second half of XX-th century we are in this period. Nevertheless, it has not prevented us to successfully come near to the moment when before the creation of many means of global general destruction remained, probably, tens years.
In any sense it would be pleasant to prove the theorem, that global catastrophe is impossible, because very large catastrophes will not allow us to come near to it. However this theorem would have exclusively likelihood character as some dangerous supertechnologies can appear at any moment, especially AI.
 Besides, any big failure (but smaller then rejecting back catastrophe) raises sensibleness of people concerning risks. Though here there is a certain stereotype: expectation of repetition of precisely same risk.
Advance evolution of the man
One more idea which gives some hope of the survival is the idea that processes of cyber-transformation of human will go faster, than processes of creation of dangerous arms. For example, if to replace the majority of cells of a human body with their mechanical analogues human becomes impregnable to action of the biological weapon. Consciousness loading in the computer will make human in general independent of destiny of the body as probably reserve copying of the information, and these computers can be in size with a mote and can hide in a belt of asteroids. In this case only full physical destruction of Solar system and its vicinities will result in destruction of such "superpeople". However in what measure such devices will be human, instead of artificial intellect versions, is difficult to tell. Besides, this scenario though is possible theoretically, but is not so probable, so we cant relay on it. At last, it can simply not be in time as creation of weapons is much easier, than transformation human into cyborg.
Other moment consists that cyborgization opens the new risks connected with harm for artificial parts of a human body by computer viruses. The first such event became recently carried out (in the demonstration purposes by experts on safety) attack on cardio stimulator with management on a radio channel in which course it has been reprogrammed on other operating mode, that potentially could lead to death of the patient if experiment was carried out on the live human. Future cyber human will have thousand distantly operated medical devices.
Possible role of the international organizations in prevention of global catastrophe
We do not know definitely who exactly should be engaged in prevention of global catastrophes. Worse that, many organisations and the private humans are ready to be engaged in it - who against to become the saviour of the world? (However still couple of years back in the world there was no human who would work over a theme of prevention of global catastrophe as an interdisciplinary problem and would receive for it the salary.) We will list different functional genres organisations which could be responsible for prevention of risks of global catastrophe.
1) "United Nations". Heads of the world governments together solve how to cope with risks. So now struggle with global warming. But everyone cannot agree. As a result are accepted the weakest and the conciliatory proposal. The states are not ready to transfer the power in the United Nations.
2) World government. The problem consists in the possibility of its formation. Process creation of the world government is fraught with war that to itself creates global risk. Besides, such government cannot be neutral. From the point of view of one groups it will be the spokesman of interests of other groups. It will be either weak, or totalitarian. The totalitarian government will generate Resistance, struggle against this Resistance is fraught with huge acts of terrorism and creates new global risks.
3) Intelligence service which secretly resist to global risks. So is struggle with terrorists. Problems: privacy conducts to information loss. There is a competition of Intelligence services. The mess of national and universal interests is possible - as Intelligence services serve the state, instead of people in general. Intelligence services owing to the specificity are not ground on scale long-term vision of complex problems and cannot independently estimate, not involving foreign experts, risks of technologies which not existing yet.
4) Secret groups of private humans. Probably, that a certain secret private organisation will set as its purpose to do much good for all mankind. However the intermediate stage would be creation of the (probably, secret) world government. Problems: a competition of rescuers (as can be several such secret organisations, and methods and pictures of the world at all at them are different), necessity of transition to point the world government. Aversion of plots in a society and counteraction by it from Intelligence services. Mixture personal and overall aims. Even Ben Laden thinks, that exactly world caliphate will be the rescue of mankind from the mechanistic and selfish West. Private groups for creation of strong AI also can understand that they will receive in the hands the absolute weapon, and to have plans on its application for capture of the power over the world. In any case, the secret society very often means presence of a planned stage of "mutiny" - an obvious or implicit establishment of the power and influence for the whole world, by penetration or direct capture. And, certainly, here it faces a competition of other such societies, and also counteraction of a society and special services.
5) Open discussion and self-organising in a society. Some authors, for example, D. Brin, consider, that alternative to the secret organisations and the governmental projects in prevention of global risks would be self-organising of responsible citizens which would lead to creation of that in English is called Reciprocal accountability - the mutual accountability when actions of supervising services are accessible to the control of those whom they supervise. Problems of such approach are obvious: the society power is not great, and there is no uniform world society, capable to agree - and if these measures will be not accepted just in one country by them are not effective. Also there should be a certain body which these discussions will influence. Besides, as even the small group of people is capable to create secret existential risk than simple trackings neighbours is insufficient. At the moment already the network of the open public organisations studying problems of global risks has formed and financing researches on their prevention. It include Lifeboat foundation, the Center of Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN), the Alliance for Civilisation Rescue, Singularity institute (SIAI), Future of Humanity Institute in Oxford. The majority of these organisations are based in the USA, their budget is less than one million dollars for each, that it is not enough, and they are financed on private donations. Accordingly, result of their activity to the present opinion - only the publication of articles and discussion of variants. Besides, Singularity institute directly is engaged in working out of friendly AI. These organisations communicate, exchange resources and employees. On the other hand, practical influence of different welfare funds on a society is not enough. Much more means and attention receive funds which deal with less considerable problems, than mankind rescue. In Russia welfare funds are compromised by suspicions in communications either with a mafia, or with CIA. The best example of influence of a society on governors is reading by governors books though it not always helped. President Kennedy has avoided war during the Caribbean crisis, appreciably because he read Barbara Takman's book August 1914 about the beginning of World War I where it is shown how war has begun contrary to will and interests of the parties took K. Sagan and N. Moiseev's researches about nuclear winter have pushed, probably, the USSR and the USA to disarmament. The future presidents in any case are formed in a certain cultural environment and bear upward the ideas which are got there. Change of an average level of understanding, creation of an information background can quite lead to that governors will indirectly absorb certain ideas. After all there was not from air now a program on nanotechnology in Russia. Someone somewhere has read about them and has thought.
6) Not to stir to system to self-arrange. Probably, that struggle between different saviours of the world will appear worse, than full inactivity. However such strategy to realise it is impossible, as it demands an unanimous consent - that never happens. Always there will be some saviours of the world, and they should find out who among them is the main.
The question at all in that there was an organisation which can and wishes to prevent global risks, and in that the world countries entirely delegated to it such powers that seems to much less probable. Positive and very indicative example is that the mankind has shown ability to unite in the face of obvious and clear danger in different sorts antifascist and antiterrorist coalitions and effectively enough to operate, while the purpose was powerful, the general and clear.
Infinity of the Universe and question of irreversibility of human extinction
The assumption of infinity of the Universe is quite materialistic. If it so it is possible to expect, that in it arise all possible worlds. Including, it infinitely many worlds inhabited by a intelligent life, and it means that intelligence in the universe will not disappear along with the man. Moreover, from this follows, what even in case of human extinction, sometime and somewhere there will be a world which almost is not differing from the Earth, and in it there will be beings with the same genetic code, as Homo sapiens. From this follows, that people in general never can disappear from the Universe as cannot to disappear, for example, from it, number 137 (as, roughly speaking, genetic code of human is possible to present in the form of one very long number). Among the physical theories assuming plurality of the worlds, it is necessary to allocate concept of Multiverse of Everett (which essence consists in acceptance of that interpretation of quantum mechanics which world division at each possibility of a choice and consequently means, infinite branching of variants of the future), and also a number of other theories (for example, cosmological chaotic inflation). See prove of actual infinity of the Universe in the work of Max Tegmark Parallel Universes (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131) More in detail about philosophical appendices of the theory cosmological inflations see article Olum, Vilenkin and Knobe Philosophical implications of inflationary cosmology.
Stronger consequence from these theories is the assumption that all possible variants of the future will realise. In this case definitive global catastrophe becomes impossible event as always there will be a world in which it has not occurred. For the first time it was noted by Everett, who come to conclusion, that Nultiverse (that is an actual reality of all possible quantum alternatives) means personal immortality for human as, from reason whatever it was lost, always will be a Universe variant in which it was not lost during this moment. The known physicist M.Tegmark has illustrated this idea with mental experiment about quantum suicide. Then this idea was developed J. Higgo in the article Does the 'many-worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics imply immortality?. In my comments to translation of the Higgos article I write that the validity of the theory about Multiverse is not a necessary condition for the validity of the theory about the immortality connected with plurality of the worlds. It is enough only infinity of the Universe for the validity of many worlds immortality. That is this theory about many worlds immortality works and for not quantum finite state machine: for any final beings in the infinite Universe there will be precisely same being with precisely same course of life except that will not die at the last minute. But it at all does not mean fine and pleasant immortality as heavy wound can be alternative of death.
Precisely same reasoning can be applied and to all civilisation. Always there will be a future variant in which the human civilisation does not die out and if all possible variants of the future exist it means immortality of our civilisation. However it does not mean that to us prosperity is guaranteed. In other words, if to prove non distructability of the observer from this follows that there should be the certain civilisation supporting it, however for this purpose enough one bunker with all necessary, instead of prospering mankind.
Assumptions of that we live in "Matrix".
 Bases of the scientific analysis of this problem are put in pawn N. Bostrom in its article Simulation argument: Are we live in Matrix?. Many religious concepts can be made pseudoscientific, having entered the assumption that we live in the feigned world, probably, created in the supercomputer forces of a certain supercivilization. It is impossible to deny that we live in a matrix, but it would be possible to prove it, if in our world there were the certain improbable miracles incompatible with any physical laws (for example, in the sky there would be an inscription from supernova stars).
However there is a concept that there can be a global catastrophe if owners of this simulation suddenly switch off it (Bostrom). It is possible to show, that the arguments described in article of J. Higgo about many world immortality in this case come into effect. Namely, that we live in a matrix, is probable only in the event that the set of possible simulations is very great. It does probable existence of a significant amount of absolutely identical simulations. Destruction of one of copies does not influence in any way a course of the simulation the same as burning of one of copies of the novel "War and peace" does not influence the relation of characters. (Thus any arguments about a shower, continuity of consciousness and other not copied factors do not work, as usually it is supposed, that "consciousness" in simulation in general is impossible.)
Hence, full desintegration of simulation does not represent any threat. However if all of us live in simulation, owners of the simulation can throw to us a certain improbable natural problem, at least to count our behaviour in the conditions of crisis. For example, to study, how civilisations behave in case of eruption of supervolcanoes. (And any supercivilization will be interested in calculating different variants of its own previous development, for example, to estimate frequency of prevalence of civilisations in the Universe.) Thus it is possible to assume, that extreme central events will be more often to become objects of modelling, especially the moments when development could stop completely, such as global risks. (And we just live around such event, that, Bayesian logic, raises probability of a hypothesis that we live in simulation.) In other words, in simulations there will be much more often situations of global risk. (It is exact like at cinema show explosions is much more often, than we see them in a reality.) So, it increases our chances to face a situation close to global catastrophe. Thus, as global catastrophe in the world of simulations is impossible, for always there will be simulations where protagonists do not die, so the survival of a handful of people after very big catastrophe will be the most probable scenario. To the question on simulation argument by Bostrom we still will return further.
Sometimes hopes are expressed, that if the mankind will come nearer to a self-destruction side kind aliens who watch for a long time us, will rescue us. But on it there are no more hopes, than for lamb which are devoured with lions that it will be rescued by the people making about it a documentary film.
Global catastrophes and society organisation
If global catastrophe occurs, it will destroy any society. Therefore the society organisation matters only on a phase of prevention of risks. It is possible to try to imagine, though this image will be rather utopian, what society is better capable to prevent global catastrophes:
1. This society which has one and only one control centre possessing completeness of the power and high authority. However thus there should be the certain feedback which is not allowing it to turn to self-sufficient and selfish dictatorship. This society should possess such self-control that in it could not arise, and in case of appearance, any at once would be found out dangerous (from the point of view of risks of global catastrophes) behaviour or the phenomenon. (The rallied command of the ship could be an example of such society.)
2. This society which is aimed at the survival in long historical prospect (tens and hundreds years).
3. The overwhelming majority of people should realise and accept the purposes and the device of this society, that is to have high moral level. (With the account of what even the small group of terrorists can cause in the future an irreparable damage, support level should be close to 100 %, that, of course, in practice is not realised.)
4. It is society, lead by people (or AI systems), intellectually enough prepared correctly to consider risks which can arise in years and decades. Accordingly, in this society people get the complete education giving fundamental and wide, but not superficial vision of the world.
5. It is society in which the number of the conflicts which participants can want to use the Doomsday weapon is brought to naught.
6. It is society, able to carry out the full rigid control of activity of all groups of humans which can create global risks. However this control should not to turn to the tool of creation of risk, somehow, itself.
7. This society should be ready quickly and effectively take sufficient measures for prevention of any global risk.
8. This society should put considerable resources in creation of a different sort of bunkers, space settlements etc. Actually, this society should consider the survival as the main task.
9. This society should create new technologies in the correct order chosen by it in specially taken away places. It should be ready to refuse even from very interesting technologies if is incapable to supervise precisely or at least to measure their risk.
10. This society should arise without world war because the risk in the course of its appearance would move advantage of such society.
Thus I do not discuss model of a similar society in terms "democratic", "market", "communistic", "totalitarian" etc. - I believe that these terms are applicable to a XX century society, but not to the XXI centuries. But it seems obvious, that the modern society costs extremely far from all these parametres of a capable society to a survival:
1. On the Earth there is no uniform conventional authoritative centre of the power, but is a lot of wishing for it to be overcome. The feedback in the form of elections and a freedom of speech too ephemeral to really influence decisions, especially, on a global scale. Global world institutes, like the United Nations, are in crisis.
2. The majority of people operates in personal interests or interests of the groups even if it is expressed in words of universal interests. There are a lot of people, also there is a percent of those who not against or even aspires to total destruction. Also in a society competing ideas-meme, which alternatively exclude each other extend: a different sorts of nationalism, Islamism, antiglobalism, cynicism. (Under cynicism I mean widespread enough sum of belief: all is bad, money rule the world, all I do is only for myself, miracles do not happen, the future has no value, people are stupid crowd etc.)
3. The modern society in much bigger degree is adjusted on reception of the blessings in short-term prospect, than on a survival in the long-term.
4. Proceeding from actions of many heads of the modern states, it is difficult to believe, that they are people who are aimed at a long-term survival of all world. And it in many respects occurs that there is no clear and standard picture of risks. More precisely that is, is not full and eclipses more important risks (namely, it is a picture where asteroids plus global warming are the essence the main risks - however even after a recognition of these risks concern about them is insufficiently). Though there are considerable number of people which can and wish to give clear understanding about risks, but the level of information noise is so that it is impossible to hear them.
5. In a modern society there are many dangerous conflicts in connection with a considerable quantity of the countries, parties and religious-extremist groups. It is difficult even to count all of them.
6. Even very high control in one country is senseless, while there are territories inaccessible to the control in the others. While there are the sovereign states, the full general control is impossible. However when the control appears, it then starts to be used not only for struggle against global risks, but also for personal purposes of those groups which carry out the control - or, anyway, such impression is created (war in Iraq).
7. While the society is divided into the separate armed states, fast acceptance of measures on localization of a threat is impossible (coordination) or is fraught with start of nuclear war.
8. Upon termination of an epoch of "cold" war building of bunkers has rather decayed.
9. The modern society does not realise a survival as the overall objective, and those who about it speak, look like nuts.
10. Modern technologies develop spontaneously. There is no clear representation about the one who, where what and what for technologies develops - even rather easily dicoverable nuclear manufactures.
11. Though process of states association actively goes in Europe, other part of the world is not ready yet to unite peacefully (if it in general is possible). The authority of many international organisations, on the contrary, decreases. (However if somewhere happens large, but not final catastrophe, is probable short-time association in the spirit of an antiterrorist coalition.)
It is important to underline also, that the classical totalitarian society is not panacea from global catastrophes. Really, totalitarian society can quickly mobilise resources and go on considerable losses for purpose achievement. However the basic problem of such society is an information opacity which reduces degree of readiness and clearness of understanding of occurring events. Examples: Stalin's error in an estimation of probability of the beginning of war with Germany. Or blindness old-Chinese societies concerning military prospects of gunpowder and information technologies - a compass and a paper which there have been invented.
Global catastrophes and current situation in the world
On the one hand, it seems that political life in the modern world gradually concentrates around prevention of the remote global catastrophes as which possible sources three are considered first of all: expansion ABM, global warming and the Iran nuclear program (and in a smaller measure a number of others, for example, antiasteroid protection, power safety, etc. In addition, the behavior of heads of states during the financial crisis in autumn 2008 can also serve as a model of Earth's civilization respond to future global catastrophe. In the beginning there was blind denial and embellishment of facts. During the week the situation changed, and those who said, that there cannot be a crisis, began to shout about the inevitability of a terrible catastrophe if they do not urgently allocate 700 billion dollars - a Paulson plan. In doing so, have conducted intensive international meetings, Sarkozy has put forward incredible initiative, and all showed agreement that we need to do something, though not very clearly what. In doing so, it appears that a complete model of events was not available to decision makers.) I believe, that the reader who has attentively familiarised with the text of this book, understands, that though these two problems are considerable and, finally, can increase chances of human extinction, actually our world is farthest from comprehension of scales and even kinds of the coming threats. Despite all conversations, global catastrophe is not perceived as something real, unlike 1960th years when the risk of catastrophe directly meant necessity of preparation of a bombproof shelter. It is possible to assimilate a modern condition of complacency only to that pleasant relaxation which as speak, reigned in Pearl Harbour before touch of Japanese. Besides, as global risks falling of asteroids, exhaustion of resources and risk of total nuclear war is realised, but these themes for some reason are not objects of active political debate.
It is possible to discuss two themes: why this list of catastrophes is chosen (Iran, ABM and warming) and how the society addresses with that the list of risks which is recognised. However the answer to both questions is one: the basic maintenance of discussions about threats of a modern civilisation consists of discussion in the spirit of is it really real? Does or not Iran make a bomb, and whether is it dangerous? Whether people are guilty in global warming and whether it is necessary to struggle with it? Actually, process of drawing up of this list is also political process in which such factors as a competition of the most convincing and most favourable hypotheses participate.
The world after global catastrophe
No matter how laser would be a global catastrophe, clearly, is that all Universe will not be lost in it (if only it not disintegration of metastable vacuum, but even in this case there are parallel Universes). Some kind of intelligent life will arise on other planet, and the more will be such places, the it is more than chances, that this life will be similar to ours. In this sense final global catastrophe is impossible. However if global catastrophe comprehends the Earth then some variants are possible.
According to synergetrics positions, the critical point means, that there is a little, a final number, scenarios between which there will be an irreversible choice of a direction of movement. As though there are many possible scenarios of global catastrophe, a quantity of final conditions is much less. In our case it is a question of following variants:
1. Full destruction of the Earth and a life on it. The further evolution is impossible, though, maybe, some bacteria have survived.
2. People have died out, however the biosphere as a whole has remained, and evolution of other species of animals proceeds. As a variant - separate mutated people or monkeys gradually create new intelligent specie.
3. Grey goo. Certain primitive necrosphera (S. Lema's term from the novel "Invincible") from nanorobots has survived. In it there can be an evolution. A variant - self-reproduced factories on manufacture of large robots have escaped, but they do not possess real AI.
4. Postapocaliptic world. The technological civilisation has failed, but the certain number of people has escaped. They are engaged in collecting and agriculture, and factors of anthropogenous threats to existence have disappeared. (However process of global warming can proceed for the account started before processes and to become irreversible.) From this scenario there are transition possibilities to other scenarios - to a new technological civilisation or to definitive extinction.
5. The super-power artificial intellect has established the power over the world. People have died out or are superseded on a history roadside. Thus - attention! - from the point of view of people it can look as the world of general abundance: everyone will receive an unlimited life and the virtual world in addition. However expenses of system on entertainment of people will be minimum, no less than a role of people in management of system. This process - autonomisms of the state from human and decrease in a role of people in it already goes. Even if the superintelligence will arise thanks to improvement of separate people or their merge, it will not be human any more - anyway, from the point of view of usual people. Its new complexity will move its human roots.
6. The positive outcome - see more in detail the following chapter. People have created such super-power AI which operates the world, as much as possible realising potential of people and human values. This scenario has thin, but an essential difference with that scenario which leaves to people only sphere of virtual entertainments and pleasures. This difference - as between a dream about love and the real love.
Almost each of these variants is steady attractor or a channel of succession of events, that is after passage of a critical point it starts to draw to itself different scenarios.
The world without global catastrophe: the best realistic variant of prevention of global catastrophes
The genre demands happy end. If global catastrophe would be absolutly inevitable, there is no reason to write this book as the only thing that would remain to people in the face of inevitable catastrophe is to arrange a feast before a plague - make party and drink. But even if chances of catastrophe are very great, we can delay considerably its approach, reducing it annual probability.
I (and a number of other researchers) see these chances in such advancing development of systems of an artificial intellect which overtakes development of other risks, but simultaneously this development should is advanced by growth of our understanding of possibilities and risks of AI, and our understanding of, how it is correct and safe to set a problem that is how to create "Friendly" AI. And then on the basis of this Friendly AI to create uniform system of world contracts between all countries in which this AI will carry out functions of the Automated system of the government. This plan assumes smooth and peace transition to really majestic and safe future.
And though I do not think that exactly this plan will be easily and faultlessly realised, or that it is really probable, I believe, it represents the best to what we can aspire and that we can reach. It is possible to state an essence in the following theses, first two of which are necessary, and last is extremely desirable:
1) Our knowledge and possibilities on prevention of risks will grow much faster then possible risks.
2) And this knowledge and possibilities of management will not generate new risks.
3) This system arises peacefully and without serious consequences for all people.

Maximizing pleasure if catastrophe is inevitable.
We strive to preserve human life and humanity because it has value. While we may not be accurate knowledge of what creates value of human life, as it is not an objective knowledge, and our agreement, we can assume that we value the number of people, as well as test their pleasure and the possibility of creative self-realization. In other words, diversity posed by the information. That is a world in which man lives 1000, while suffering the same way altogether (concentration camp), worse than the world where in joy lives 10 000 people engaged in a variety of crafts (Greek policy).
Thus, if we have two options for future development, in which the same probability of extinction, we should prefer the option which is more people, less suffering, and their lives more varied, that is best realize human potential.
Indeed, we probably would prefer a world where one billion people live within 100 years (and then the world is destroyed), to a world in which lives only a million people in over 200 years.
Extreme expression of this is Feast during the Plague. That is, if death is inevitable, and nothing is impossible to postpone it, the best behavior for rational actor (ie. who disbelief in the afterlife) is to begin entertain in the most interesting way. A large number of people aware of the inevitability of physical death, and doing it. However, if death is away for several decades, there is no point in spend all saving on drinking now, but mazimum functions of pleasure requires constant earnings etc.
Interesting to wonder what would be a rational strategy for the whole civilization, which would have been aware of the inevitability of death through a period of time. Should it increase the population to give live to more people? Or rather, to distribute to all drugs and implant electrodes in the center of pleasure? Or hide the fact of the inevitability of disaster, as this knowledge will inevitably lead to suffering and premature destruction of infrastructure? Or can be mixed, with no way to zero, but not absolute probability of extinction, where the bulk of resources devoted to feast during the plague, and some - to find out?
But the real pleasure is impossible without hope of salvation. Therefore, such a civilization would continue to seek a rational way, even if it surely knew that it doesnt exist.

Chapter 24. Indirect ways of an estimation of probability of global catastrophe

Indirect ways of an estimation are used not data about the object of research, but different indirect sources of the information, like analogies, the general laws and the top limits. It is a question it is in detail considered by Bostrom in article of "Existential risks. There are some independent ways of such estimation.
Paretos Law
Paretos Law is in detail considered by G.G. Malinetskim with reference to various catastrophes in the book Risk. Sustainable development. Synergetrics. Its essence consists that frequency (is more exact, a rank in the list) a certain catastrophe is connected with its scale by very simple law:
 
Where a - the important parameter. a = - 0.7 for the case of victims of natural disasters. Paretos Law has empirical character, and looks as a straight line on the logarithmic chart with the inclination corner, proportional to a. A typical example of Paretos law is the statement like: on 1 point of magnitude growth Earthquake occurs in 10 times less often. (But one point of magnitude is equal to an energy gain in 32 times, and it is called the law of repeatability of Gutenberg-Richter. For big energies the parametre moves, and 1 point of a gain around 7-9 points gives frequency reduction in 20 times that is if Earthquakes in magnitude of 7-7,9 points occur 18 times a year, 8-poins - once a year, and 9-ball once in 20 years.) Feature of this law is its universality for different classes of the phenomena though value of parametre can differ. However in case of number of victims of natural disasters value of parametre in an exponent is not -1, but 0.7, that considerably makes heavier a distribution tail.
For us in this distribution is interesting, how often in time there could be catastrophes in which the expected number of victims would surpass the present population of the Earth, that is would be an order of 10 billion humans. If we pass law with a = - 1, that is ten times stronger event occurs ten times less often, catastrophe (that is reliably eliminating the Earth population) will occur to 10 billion victims about one time for 500 000 years. This number has an order of time of existence of specie Homo Sapiens. By other way, if to take a = - 0,7 (that means, that ten times stronger event occurs only in 5 times less often, and also in the assumption, that natural catastrophes with number of victims more than 100 000 humans occur time in 10 years) before catastrophe of scale of all mankind there will be only approximately 30 000 years. It is close in the order of size to that time which has passed from the moment of eruption of volcano Toba - 74000 years ago- when the mankind has appeared on the verge of extinction. We see, that weight of a tail of distribution strongly depends on size of parametre a. However acts of nature do not create a great risk in the XXI century at any reasonable values of a.
However we will receive much worst result, if we will apply this law to wars and acts of terrorism. Thus Paretos Law does not consider exponential character of techological development. In real cases for each class of events we have the top border of applicability of Paretos Law, for example, it is supposed, that there are no earthquakes with magnitude more than 9,5. However set of different classes of events not .
In detail law of sedate distribution of catastrophes and threat to extinction to mankind is considered in Robin Hansen article Catastrophe, a social collapse and human extinction. He notices, that the important factor is the disorder of survivability of separate people. If this disorder is great: then to destroy all people to the last, is necessary much, on some orders of magnitude, stronger catastrophe, than that which destroys only 99 % of people.
Hypothesis about the Black queen
On the basis of paleontological data Van Vallen revealed that lines of extinction of species of animals submits to decreasing exponential law. Such form of lines of a survival actually means that the probability of extinction of an average specie remains approximately constant during his life. As time of a life of separate species in genus Homo makes an order of one million years we can expect the same life expectancy and for people, in assumption that we are a usual biological specie. Hence, the hypothesis about the Black queen does not mean essential risk in the XXI century.
On the other hand, at the moment we live in 6th big extinction of live organisms this time caused by anthropogenous factors which are characterised by speed of extinction, in 1000 times surpassing natural. If to agree that human too are one of species, it reduces expected time of its existence from one million years to thousand.
Fermi's paradox
One more not direct way to a probability estimation is based on Fermi's paradox. Fermi's paradox consists in a following question: If a life and intelligence is common appearances in the nature why we do not see their displays in space? Theoretically, the life and intelligence could arise somewhere on some billions years earlier, than on the Earth. For this time they could extend on hundred millions light years, at least with the help self-replicating space probes (named von Neumann's probes). This volume includes thousands, or maybe millions, galaxies. Mankind could start a wave self-replicating interstellar probes in the next 100 years. It can be microrobots which settle on planets, do there rockets and dispatch them on the Universe with speeds considerable below light-speed - such devices even are not obliged to possess a high-grade universal artificial intellect: the same do any actinia at terrestrial ocean, only in smaller scale. Such process can be started casually, simply at development of the nearest planets with the help of self-replicating robots. Such microrobots will consume first of all a firm matter of planets for the reproduction. For them laws of evolution and the natural selection, similar to that are available in fauna will operate.
However we do not observe such microrobots in Solar system, at least because it has survived. Moreover, has survived not only the Earth, but also other solid bodies - companions of distant planets of solar system. We also do not observe any allien radio signals and any traces of astroengineering activity.
From here four conclusions (though there were offered more: see the book of Stefan Webb 50 decisions of paradox of Fermi where 50 different variants which are considered as a whole they could be reduced to several more general categories)) are possible:
1. The intelligent life arises in the Universe extremely seldom, less often, than in volume of sphere in radius in 100 million light years during 5 billion years.
2. We are already surrounded by a intelligent life invisible to us which has anyhow allowed us to develop or has simulated conditions of our life. (Possibility of here enters that we live in completely simulated world.)
3. The intelligent life perishes before has time to start at least primitive a intelligent shock wave from robots-replicators, that is perishes in the analogue of the XXI century.
4. The intelligent life rigidly refuses distribution for limits of a native planet. It can be quite intelligent for it as the remote space settlements cannot be supervised, so, from them threat to existence of a parent civilisation could come. (It is possible, that the intelligence has enough limits of the virtual world, or it finds a way out in the parallel world. However life experience on the Earth shows, that the exit on a land has not stopped expansion to the sea - the life extends in all directions.)
As these four hypotheses, on Bayesian logic, have the equal rights before reception of the additional information, and so we can attribute each of them subjective reliability in 1/4. In other words, Fermi's paradox with reliability in 25 % assumes, that we will die out in the XXI century. And though subjective probabilities are not yet objective probabilities which we would have, if we possess completeness of the information, ours space loneliness is a disturbing fact. (On the other hand if we appear are not lonely, it too will be the disturbing fact, in the light of risks which will be created by possible collision with an alien civilisation. However it will show to us, that, at least, some civilisations are capable to survive.)
Doomsday argument. Gotts formula.
In another way for indirect estimation of probability of destruction of mankind is specific and disputable enough appendix of the theory of the probability, named Doomsday argument (DA). I meaningly lower huge volume of existing arguments and counterarguments concerning this theory and I state here only its conclusions. In the early 1980th DA was independently and in different forms opened by several researchers. Basic articles on this question have been published in leading natural-science magazine Nature in section of hypotheses. DA leans on so-called Copernicus postulate which says, that the usual observer is, most likely, in usual conditions - on a usual planet, at a usual star, in a usual Galaxy. This principle effectively predicts the most simple facts: he says, that hardly you were born at midnight on January, 1st, or that you hardly live on the North Pole. Though Kopernik's principle seems axiomatic and almost tautological, it can be expressed in the mathematical form. Namely, it allows to state an estimation of probability of that the observer is in unusual conditions. In particular, it can state a likelihood estimation about how long a certain process, based from what the time it already proceeds, will proceed. (Under assumption it is find in the casual moment of time) - proceeding from the assumption that is improbable, that the observer has casually appeared in the beginning or at the very end of process. There are two basic forms of this mathematical prediction - a straight line named formula Gott in which the direct probability is calculated, and indirect, put forward by B. Carter and J. Leslie in which are calculated Bayesian amendments to aprioristic probability. Both these approaches have tried to apply at once to calculation of expected life expectancy of mankind. The volume of discussions on this question makes several dozens articles, and many seeming obvious refutations do not work. I recommend to the reader to address to articles of N. Bostrom where the part of arguments understands, and also to the book of J. Leslie mentioned already and to Cave's article. The basic discussion is under construction round, whether it is possible to use in general data about last time of existence of object for a prediction of its future time of existence, and if yes, whether that can be used these data to predict the future number of people and time to "doomsday". But in both cases it appears, that turning out estimations of future time of existence of mankind are unpleasant.
Let's consider at first Gotts formula. For the first time it has been published in Nature in 1993. The essence of its underlying reasonings consists that if we observe a certain lasting event during the casual moment of time, most likely, we will get to the middle of the period of its existence, and hardly we will get to areas very close to the beginning or by the end. The conclusion of Gotts formula can be looked in Cave's article. We will result the formula.


Where T - age of system at the moment of its supervision, t - expected time of its existence, and f - the set level of reliability. For example, if f=0.5 then with probability in 50 % the system will stop to exist during the period from 1/3 to 3 of its present age since the present moment. At f=0.95 the system will exist with probability of 95 % from 0.0256 to 39 present ages.
Gotts formula finds expression in human intuition when, for example, we believe, that if a certain house has staid year very much hardly it will fall in the nearest some seconds. This example shows that we can do likelihood statements about unique events, not knowing anything about real distribution of probabilities. The majority of attempts of a refutation of Gotts formula is based that the counterexample in which it ostensibly does not work is resulted - however in these cases the principle of is broken that the subject is observed during the casual moment of time. For example, if to take babies or very old dogs (as Cave did) Gotts formula will not predict expected duration of their life, however young men or old dogs not is people or the dogs taken during the casual moment of time.) Gotts formula has been checked up experimentally, and yielded correct results for time of radioactive disintegration of atom of unknown type, and also for time of existence of Broadway shows.
Concerning the future of a human civilisation Gotts formula is applied not to time, but to a birth rank as the population varied non-uniformly, and it is more probable to appear during the period with high population density. (However if to apply it by time of existence of a specie anything improbable it will not turn out: with probability in 50 % the mankind will exist from 70 thousand to 600 thousand years.) It is supposed, that we, been born, have made the act of observation of our civilisation during the casual moment of time. Thus we have learnt, that all for mankind history was only approximately 100 billion people. It means, that we, most likely, have got to the middle to a piece that is, that very much hardly (from less than 0,1 % of probability) the total number of people will be 100 billion. And it means that chance of that the mankind will extend on all galaxy within many millenia, also is small.
However from this also follows, that hardly that we live in last billion born people so, we have, most likely, some more hundreds years to a doomsday, considering the expected population of the Earth in 10 billion humans. For the XXI century the probability of destruction of a civilisation, proceeding from Gotts formula applied at a rank of a birth, makes 15-30 %, depending on number of people which will live at this time. Strangely enough, this estimation will coincide with previous, on the basis of Fermi's paradox. Certainly, this question requires the further researches.
Carter-Leslie doomsday argument
Leslie argues a little in some other way, than Gott, applying Bayesian logic. Bayesian logic is based on Bayes formula which connects probability of a certain hypothesis with its aprioristic probability and probability of a new portion of the information that is the certificate which we have got in support of this hypothesis. (I recommend to address in this place to articles N. Bostrom about Doomsday Argument as I cannot state here all problematics in details.)
Leslie writes: we will admit, there are two hypotheses about that, how many people will be all from Neanderthal men to "doomsday":
1st hypothesis: in total will be 200 billion people. (That is the doomsday will come the next millenium as all on the Earth already lived 100 billion people.)
2nd hypothesis: in total will be 200 trillion people (that is people will occupy the Galaxy).
Also we will admit, that the probability of each of outcomes is equal 50 % from the point of view from some abstract space observer. (Thus Leslie it is supposed, that we live in deterministic world, that is, this probability is firmly defined by properties of our civilisation though we may do not know it.) Now if to apply Bayes theorem and to modify this aprioristic probability with the account of that fact that we find out ourselves so early, that is among first 100 billion people, we will receive shift of this aprioristic probability in one thousand times (a difference between billions and billions). That is probability of that we have got to that civilisation to which can die rather early, there were 99,95 %.
Let's illustrate it with an example from a life. We will admit, in the next room is a man who with equal probability reads either the book, or article sits. In the book is 1000 pages, and in article is 10 pages. During the casual moment of time I ask this man, what is the number of page which he reads. If page number is more than 10, I can unequivocally conclude that he reads the book and if number of page is less than 10 here we have that case when it is possible to apply Bayes theorem. Number of page less than 10 can turn out in two cases:
The man reads the book, but he is reading now its beginning, probability of they be 1 % from all cases when he reads the book.
The man reads the article, here again this probability is equal to unit from all cases when he reads article.
In other words, from 101 cases when page number can appear less than 10, in 100 cases it will be because human reads article. So, that probability of that he reads article, after reception of the additional information by us about page number became 99 %.
Property of the resulted reasonings consists that they sharply increase even very small probability of extinction in the XXI century. For example, if it is equal 1 % from the point of view there from some external observer for us, times we have found out ourselves in the world before this event, it can make 99.9 percent. (In the assumption, that in a galactic civilisation will be 200 billion humans.)
From this follows, that, despite abstract character and complexity for understanding of the given reasonings, we should pay not smaller attention to attempts to prove or deny Carter-Leslie reasoning, than we spend for prevention of nuclear war. Many scientists try to prove or deny Carter-Leslie argument, and the literature on this theme is extensive. And though it seems to me convincing enough, I do not apply that has proved this argument definitively. I recommend to all to whom it seems obvious faulty of resulted above reasonings, to address to the literature on this theme where various arguments and counterarguments are in detail considered.
Let's consider some more remarks which work pro and contra Carter-Leslie argument. Important lack in DA by Carter-Leslie is that time of the future survival of people depends on what we will choose number of people in a "long" civilisation. For example, at probability of extinction in the XXI century in 1 % and at the future number of people in a long civilisation in 200 billion there is a strengthening in 1000 times, that is we have 99,9 percent of extinction in the XXI century. If to use a logarithmic scale, it gives "half-life period" in 10 years. However if to take number of people in a long civilisation in 200* 10**15 it will give chance in one million extinction in the XXI century, that there is 2 ** 20 degrees, and expected a half-disintegration period only in 5 years. So, it turns out, that, choosing any size of a survival time of a long civilisation, we can receive any way short expected time of extinction of a short civilisation. However our civilisation already has existed before our eyes more than 5 or 10 years.
To consider this distinction, we can recollect, that the more people in a long civilisation, the less it is probable according to Gotts formula. In other words, the probability of that a civilisation will die out early - is high. However, apparently, Carter-Leslie reasoning strengthens this probability even more. Thus it is difficult to tell, whether correctly to apply Carter-Leslie reasoning together with Gotts formula as here it can turn out so, that the same information is considered twice. This question requires the further researches.
Carter-Leslie original reasoning contains also a number of other logic punctures which have been generalized by Bostrom in articles, and the cores from them concerns a problem of a choice of a referential class, and also to doubts that sample is really casual. The volume of reasonings on this theme is so great and combined, that here we only in brief will outline these objections.
The problem of a referential class consists in a choice of the one whom exactly we should consider as people to whom concerns the given reasoning. If we instead of people take the animals allocated with a brain them will be thousand billions in the past, and we can quite expect their same quantity in the future.
I see the decision of a problem of a referential class that, depending on what we choose referential class, corresponding event should be considered as the end of its existence. That is to everyone referent class there are own corresponding "doomsday". For example, that in the future there will be only some more hundreds billions people, in any way does not stir to that in the future there will be thousand more billions beings allocated with a brain. As a result we receive very simple conclusion: the End of existence of the given referential class is "doomsday" for the given referential class. (Thus the end of existence does not mean death, and can mean easier transition in other class: For example, the baby grows and becomes the preschool child.)
The second logic error in Carter-Leslie reasoning consists in a sample nonrandomness. The matter is that if I was born before the XX-th century I never would learn about Carter-Leslie reasoning and never could ask a question on its applicability. In other words, here there is an effect of observant selection - not all observers are equivalent. Therefore actually Carter-Lesli reasoning can be applied only by those observers who know about it.
However it sharply worsens our chances of a survival, given DA. After all DA it is known only since 1980th years of the XX century, that is 27 years. (Moreover, in the beginning it was known only to narrower circle of people. That is these 27 years can be reduced years to 20.) If to take these 27 years, and to apply to them formula , we will receive 50 % of probability of destruction in an interval from 9 to 81 years since the present moment, that approximately means more than 50 percent for the XXI century. Strangely enough, this estimation not strongly disperses from two previous.
It is possible to make the reasoning and in another way. We will consider a time interval during which there are global risks. Thus as a starting point we take 1945, and as a point of casual observation - the moment when I have learnt about possibility of nuclear war as one of global risks - 1980. (As lasting event here we consider the period from the beginning of the period of susceptibility to risk before its termination.) So, at the moment of casual observation this risk already existed within 35 years. Gotts formula gives an interval of 50 % for chances of realisation of risk with 12 till 105 years (from 1980). That this event does not happen till now, brings certain shift in an estimation, but, nevertheless, we can tell, that these of 50 % still operate on the rest from an interval in 90 years since 1980, that is till 2070. In other words, the probability of the termination of a situation with global risks makes more than 50 % in the XXI century. Again we got aproximately the same result. The termination it can be both risk realisation, and transition in certain other no-risk condition about which now is impossible to tell anything. If to take into consideration that the risk density grew in a reality in an interval from 1945 to 70th years it considerably will worsen our estimation.
In fact, the Doomsday Argument does not mean the final extinction in the near future. It could be only a sharp decline in population. For example, if the population of the Earth will reduce to a few thousand people (creatures) who survive a million years and then disappear, then still the largest percentage of people ever lived will live in the XX-XXI century when the population was several billion and we likely find ourselves now.
It may be then that this is not a catastrophe, but rather simple - reduce fertility, plus the emergence of some posthumans. (But this could be the seed of savages, and a group of survivors in the bunker, or a subset of scientists who can understand the DA - if it is less than the current subset, which is so small.) This gives a chance for experimental measurement of DA. But only by those who are born now. If I will live 100 years and see that amount of people on the Earth has been dramatically reduced, it would be a good confirmation of DA. (True, and manyworld immortality, too.)
Indirect estimation of probability of natural catastrophes
If not to consider effects of observant selection, we receive very good chances on survival in the XXI century from any natural (but not anthropogenous) catastrophes - from galactic to geological scales as from the fact that they were not during existence of the Earth and our specie, very small probability of follows that they will occur in the XXI century. As any natural catastrophe has not destroyed human ancestors for the last 4 billion years, it is possible to conclude, that our chances of doom the XXI century from natural catastrophes make less than 1 to 40 million. (And with the account of high human survivability and adaptability it is less than that.) Unfortunately, such reasonings are essentially incorrect, as do not consider not obvious effect of observant selection and survivorship bias. (See Circovic about it.)
Owing to this effect expected future time of existence will be less, than the past (see more in detail in my article Natural catastrophes and Antropic principle and the chapter about observation selection in section about natural catastrophes). Nevertheless hardly the contribution of observation selection makes more than one order. However for different levels of natural catastrophes we have the different characteristic periods of time. For example, the life on the Earth exists already 4 billion years, and, with the account told, it could exist yet no less than 100 - 400 million years. (Observation selection here consists that we do not know, what share of planets of terrestrial type perishes in the course of their evolution; having assumed, that the share of the escaped makes from 1 to 1000 to 1 to billion, we receive estimations in 100-400 million years as a half-life period.) That is the indirect estimation of probability life-destroying natural catastrophe would be 1 to 4 000 000 for hundred years. It is negligible small size against other risks.
But to time of existence of our specie last natural catastrophe threatening to it, was much closer in time, 74 000 years ago (volcano Toba) and consequently we have expected time of existence only 7 000 years with the account of the greatest possible effect of observation selection. Observant selection here consists in that if people were very little hardy specie which dies out with periodicity of times in some thousand years, we could not notice it as we can notice only that branch of our specie which has lived sufficient term for civilisation formation in which we can ask the given question. 7000 years would correspond with the account of a huge error of such reasonings about 1 % of extinction in the XXI century as a result of natural catastrophes or immanent to an instability specie - and it is the maximum estimation in the worst case. If not to take in calculation observation selection chances of natural catastrophe of any sort, leading to mankind extinction, on the basis of last time of existence it is possible to calculate by means of Gotts formula (applied by time of existence Homo sapiens), and they will be 1 to 1500 for 100 years, that is 0,066 % .
At last, there are the third sort of the catastrophe which probability we can indirectly estimate on last time, namely, on time during which there is a written history, that is 5000 years. We can safely assert, that for 5000 years there was no catastrophe which would interrupt written history. Here too it is possible observation selection but it is less probable as here operates more strongly not natural, but anthropogenous factors. That catastrophe which could interrupt written history 3000 years ago, for example, supervolcano eruption in Mediterranian, now could not do it any more. Therefore it is possible to tell safely, that the natural catastrophe interrupting written tradition (such as it was in the past, instead of now) has chances no more than 1 % in the XXI century, considering on Gotts formula (applying it by all time of existence of written tradition). And as now the written tradition is much stronger, than in the past it is possible to reduce safely this estimation at least twice: to 0.5 %. And even such catastrophe which would interrupt writing in the past, will not interrupt it now and will not kill all people.
At last, the effect of observation selection can be shown and in the relation to anthropogenous catastrophes, namely, to global risk of nuclear war. (In the assumption, that general nuclear war would destroy mankind or would reject it so far back, that the writing of books would become impossible.) The effect of observant selection here consists that we do not know what were chances of our civilisation to survive during the period with 1945 till 2008 that is during existence of the nuclear weapon. Perhaps, in nine of ten the parallel worlds it was not possible. Accordingly, as a result we can underestimate global risks. If intensity of change of number of observers would be very great, it would have "pressing" influence on date in which we would find out ourselves - that is we most likely would find out ourselves early enough. See more in detail article of Bostrom and where exact calculations for catastrophes cosmological scales are offered. If the probability of risk of extinction would make 90 % a year then I, most likely, would live not in 2007, but in 1946. That I am still live in 2007, gives a certain top limit (with the certain set reliability) on rate of extinction (for historical conditions of the XX-th century). Namely: 5 annual period of "half-decay" can be excluded approximately with probability 99,9 (as for 50 years there have passed 10 cycles for 5 years, and 2 in 10 degrees it is 1024. That is for 50 years one thousand share of planets would escape only.) Arguing further in a similar way it is possible to exclude authentically enough periods of "half-decay" of a civilisation smaller, than 50 years. However big ones we cannot exclude. It, certainly does not mean, that the real period of "half-decay" is 50 years, however, if to start from the precaution principle than should be assumed, that it is so. Such half-life period would mean our chances to live till XXII century approximately in 25 %. (And it in the assumption, that level of threats remains invariable from the middle of XX-th century.)
Conclusions: various independent methods of indirect reasonings give estimations of probability of destruction of a civilisation in the XXI century in tens percent. It should not calm us in the sense that as if it guarantees to us tens percent of a survival. Because if to consider degree of uncertainty of such reasonings it is category events tens percent which as we have assumed in the beginning, means risks from 1 to 100 %.
Simulation Argument
N. Bostrom has developed the following logic theorem named a Simulation Argument (we already mentioned it in a context of risks of sudden switching-off of "Matrix"). Here a course of its reasonings:
Proceeding from current tendencies in microelectronics development, it seems quite probable, that sooner or later people will create a powerful artificial intellect. Nanotechnology promise limiting density of processors in billion pieces on gramme of substance (carbon) - with productivity of an order 10 flops. Nanotechnology will allow to transform coal deposits into the huge computer (as the basic building material for it, probably, is carbon). It opens prospect of transformation of all Earth in computronium - one huge computer. Capacity of such device is estimated in 10 operations in a second. (That corresponds to transformation of one million cubic kilometres of substance in computronium which will cover all Earth with a layer in 2 metres.) Use of all firm substance in solar system will give an order 10 flops. It is obvious, that such computing power could create detailed simulations of the human past. As it is supposed, that for simulation of one human it is necessary no more than 10 flops (this number is based on quantity neurons and synapses in the brain, and frequency of their switching) it will give the chance to model simultaneously 10 people, or 10 the civilisations similar to ours, with sew in the speed of development. Hardly computronium will direct all resources on modeling of people but even if it will allocate for it one millionth of its efforts, it will be still an order 10 human civilisations. So, even if only one of one million real civilisations generates computronium this computronium generates an order 10 civilisations, that is for each real civilisation it is necessary exists 10 virtual. Here concrete figures are not important, but that at quite realistic assumptions the set of the modeled civilisations on many orders of magnitude is more than set of the real.
From here Bostrom does a conclusion that at least one statement from three is true:
1) Any civilisation is not capable to reach the technological level necessary for creation computronium.
2) Or EVERY possible computronium will be not interested absolutely in modelling of the past.
3) Or we already live in imitation in computronium.
Thus point 2 can be excluded from consideration because there are reasons on which at least some computroniums will be interesting in what circumstances was their appearance, but are not present such universal reason which could operate on all possible , not allowing them to model the past. The reason of interest to the past can be much, I will name is a calculation of probability of the appearance to estimate density of other supercivilizations in the Universe or entertainment of people or certain other beings.
Point 1 means, that or computronium and simulations in it are technically impossible, or that all civilisations perish earlier, than find possibility to create it, that, however, does not mean with necessity extinction of carriers of this civilisation, that is for our case of people, but only crash of technical progress and recoil back. However it is not visible the rational reasons yet, doing computronium impossible. (For example, statements that consciousness simulation is impossible as consciousnesses is quantum effect, does not work, as quantum computers are possible.) And it is impossible to tell, that computronium is impossible basically as people have night dreams, not distinguishable from within from a reality (that is being qualitative simulation) so, by means of genetic manipulations it is possible to grow up a superbrain which has dreams continuously.
Thus, the simulation argument is reduced to sharp alternative: Or we live in the world which is doomed to be lost, or we live in computer simulation.
So, the destruction of the world in this reasoning does not mean extinction of all people - it means only the guaranteed stop of progress before computronium will be created. Guaranteed means not only that it will occur on the Earth, but also on all other possible planets. That is it means, that there is certain very universal law, which interferes suppressing (on many order of magnitude) to the majority of civilisations to create computronium. Probably, it occurs simply because computronium is impossible, or because modelling of human consciousness on it is impossible. But it can be that it occurs because any civilisation cannot reach level of computronium as faces certain unsoluble contradictions, and is compelled or to be lost, or will be rolled away back. These contradictions should have universal character, instead of to be connected only, say, with the nuclear weapon because then civilisations on those planets in which there is no uranium bark, can steadily develop. The theory of chaos which does systems above certain level of complexity essentially unstable can be an example of such universal contradiction. Another example of a universal law that restricts the existence of systems - is aging. It works so that no one can live 120 years, although each is specific cause of death. We can say that speed up the progress - is aging vice versa.
Note that the existence of universal destruction process, giving the upper limit of the existence of all civilizations, the existence of which underlines the Universal DA of Vilenkin and Olum, means much greater pressure on the average of civilization. For example, the upper limit of human life in 120 years, but the mean life expectancy is about 70 years. Universal destruction should suppress even the most resilient civilization, and we most likely are the average civilization. Consequently, the process must begin to act on us sooner and with surplus power.
The known objection leans against these reasonings is that reality simulation not so necessarily is a copy of that was in the past. (Whether the review of objections to the Simulation Argument in Daniel Medvedev's article Are we living in the N. Bostroms speculation?) And if we are in the designed world it does not allow us to do conclusions about what is the real world. As from a computer game the monster, for example, cannot guess a real world arrangement of people. However that we do not know, what world outside of simulation, does not prevent for us to know, that all of us are in simulation. Here it is important to distinguish two senses of a word "simulation" - as computer model and as that fact, that this model reminds a certain historical event from the past. Thus it is possible to assume, that the majority of simulations are not exact similarity of the past, and the considerable share of simulations does not concern at all the past of that civilisation which then has created them. As well in the literature the majority of novels is not historical novels, and even historical novels not precisely coincide with the past.
If we are in simulation, we are threatened with all the same risks of destruction which can happen in reality, plus intervention from authors of simulation who to us can throw certain difficult problems or investigate on us certain extreme modes, or simply take a fun at our expense as we have a good time, looking through films about falling of asteroids. At last, simulation can be simply suddenly switched off. (Simulation can have a resource limit, therefore authors of simulation can simply not allow to create to us so complex computers that we could start our own simulations.)
So, if we are in simulation, it only increases the risks which have hung over us and creates essentially new - though there is a chance of sudden rescue from authors of simulation.
If we are not in simulation the chance is great, that any civilisations because of catastrophes do not reach creation level computronium which we could reach by the XXI century end. And it means, the probability of certain global catastrophes which will not allow us to reach this level is great.
If we adhere Bayesian logic, to us followed attribute equal probabilities to independent hypotheses. And then we should attribute to a hypothesis that our civilisation will not reach level computronium 50 % of probability (that means a failure to achieve it or imminent collapse of civilization). This estimation coincides in the order of size with estimations which we have received in other ways.
It turns out, that the reasoning on simulation operates in such a manner that its both alternatives worsen our chances of a survival in the XXI century, that is it net the contribution negative irrespective of the fact how we estimate chances of one of two alternatives. (My opinion consists that probability of that we are in simulation, is higher than probability of that we a real civilisation to which can be lost, and on many orders of magnitude.)
It is interesting to note repeating pattern: the alternative with SETI also has negative net-effect - if extraterrestials are nearby we are in dangers, if they are not exist, we too are in danger as it means, that some factors prevent them to develop.
Integration of various indirect estimations
All resulted indirect estimations are executed independently from each other though give identical and unfavourable results, consisting that the probability of human extinction in the XXI century is high. However as these reasonings concern the same reality, there is a desire to unite them in more complete picture. The Bostroms simulation argument exists logically separately from a Carter-Lesli doomsday argument (which else is necessary to connect with Gotts formula), and accordingly there is temptation to "marry" them. Such attempt is undertaken in work of Istvan Aranyosi The Doomsday Simulation Argument. Them, in turn it is interesting to connect with manyworld immortality in the spirit of Higgo and with influence of effect of observation selection.
Interesting such attempt is undertaken in already mentioned article of Knob and Olum Philosophical implication of cosmological inflation. In a counterbalance to Local Doomsday argument in the spirit of Carter-Leslie, they put forward Universal Doomsday argument. Namely, they show, that from this, that we find out ourselves in the early form of mankind, follows, with high probability, that the set of people which is in short-living civilisations, is more, than set of all people who are in all long-living civilisations on all Universe, or, in other words, the quantity of long-living civilisations is not enough. It besides means, that chances of our civilisation not to live millions years and not to occupy a galaxy - are rather great, however changes the probable reasons of extinction: namely, it will occur not because of any local reason, concerning only to the Earth, but because of a certain universal reason which more likely would operate on any planetary civilisations. We should be anxious, they write, not an orbit of a concrete asteroid, but that in all planetary systems there are so many asteroids that it does a survival of civilisations improbable; we should be anxious not by that a certain concrete nearest star becomes supernova, but that lethality of supernovas is essentially underestimated. We should notice, that the same conclusion that the set short-living civilisations considerably surpasses set long-living, follows and from a reasoning on simulation Bostrom (above) if in quality short-living civilisations to consider simulations.
I believe that the essence of this integration should be that we will find out, that one reasonings block others that is what of them are stronger in logic sense. (It is thus possible, that the subsequent researches can give more exact picture of integration, and will reduce all separate calculations to one formula.) I see such order of capacity of statements (stronger statements cancelling weaker, from above). However I do not mean that all of them are true.
a. The qualitative theory of consciousness based on concept about qualia. Qualia is the philosophical term designating the qualitative party in any perception, for example, red-ness. The nature and reality of qualia are object of intensive discussions. Theories about qualia do not exist yet, there are only a few logic paradoxes connected with it. However, apparently, the theory about qualia can exclude representations about plurality of the worlds and linearity of time. Owing to it such theory, if it be created and proved, would make unauthorized any below-mentioned reasonings.
b. A reasoning on immortality of J. Higgo, based on idea about plurality of the worlds. In this case always there will be a world where I and the part of a terrestrial civilisation accordingly, will not be lost. The reasoning on immortality Higgo is very strong because it does not depend neither on a doomsday, nor from, whether there are we in simulation or not. Immortality on Higgo does a personal doomsday impossible. Any owner of simulation cannot affect work of reasoning Higgo in any way because always there will be an infinite quantity of other simulations and the real worlds, in accuracy coinciding with given in time present situation, but having with it the different future. However reasoning Higgo leans on self-sampling assumption - that is idea that I are one of copies of set of the copies - and all subsequent reasonings lean against the same idea - simulation argument, Gott formula, a on Carter-Lesli doomsday argument. Any attempts to deny immortality on Higgo, based on impossibility of consideration of as one of copies of set of the copies simultaneously deny also all these reasonings.
c. Bostroms simulation argument. It too works in the assumption of plurality of the worlds whereas the subsequent reasonings do not consider this fact. Besides, if we actually are in simulation we do not observe the world during the casual moment of time as simulations, more likely, will be adhered to historically interesting epoch. At last, reasonings in the spirit of DA demand possible continuous numbering of people or time that in case of set of simulations does not work. Therefore any forms DA become invalid, if the reasoning on simulation is true. The reasoning on simulation is stronger than Carter-Leslie doomsday argument and Gotts formula because it works, irrespective of how many still people will be in our real world. Moreover, it essentially washes away concepts about quantity of people and volume, that such the real world as it is not clear, whether we should consider the future people from other simulations, as real. Not clearly also, whether each simulation should feign all world from the beginning up to the end, or only a certain piece of its existence only for several people.
d. Gotts Formula. Gotts formula confidently works concerning the events which have been not connected with change of number of observers, for example, concerning radioactive disintegration, date of a pulling down of the Berlin wall, a prediction of duration of a human life etc. However it gives much softer estimation of the future duration of existence of mankind, than Carter-Leslie argument. Gotts formula is more simple and clear tool for a future estimation, than Carter-Leslie reasoning. At least because Gotts formula gives concrete numerical estimations, and Carter-Leslie reasoning gives only the amendment to initial probabilities. Further, Gotts formula is applicable to any referential classes as for any class it gives an estimation of time of end for this class. And in Carter-Leslie reasoning the death of the observer is mentioned usually, and he should be adapted to situations where the observer does not die. Question on, whether it is necessary to apply the amendments given by a reasoning of Carter-Leslie to estimations which has given formula , demands the further research.
e. Carter-Leslie argument. The important condition of argument of Carter-Lesli (in its interpretation Bostrom) is non-existence of other civilisations, besides terrestrial. Besides, it is very difficult to think up real experiment in which it would be possible to check up force of this reasoning. And mental experiments work with certain stretches.
f. Fermi's paradox is too in the bottom of this table as a reasoning on simulation evidently cancels its value: in simulation the density of civilisations can be any, no less than risk of their aggression, depending on whim of owners of simulation.
All told here about indirect ways of an estimation is on the verge between provable and hypothetical. Therefore I suggest not to take on trust made to a conclusion, but also not to reject them. Unfortunately, researches of indirect ways of an estimation of probability of global catastrophe can throw light on our expected future, but do not give keys to its change.

Chapter 25. The most probable scenario of global catastrophe

Now we can try to generalise results of the analysis, having presented the most probable scenario of global catastrophe. It is a question not of an objective estimation of real probabilities which we can calculate only concerning falling of asteroids, but about value judgment, that is best guess. It is obvious that such estimation will be painted by personal preferences of the author, therefore I will not give out it for the objective precisely calculated probability. Depending on what will appear the new information, I will correct the estimation.
In this estimation I consider both probability of events, and their affinity to us on time. Therefore I attribute small probabilities nanotechnological grey goo which though it is possible technically, but is eclipsed by earlier risks connected with biotechnologies. Precisely also creation of the nuclear Doomsday Machine too demands many years and is economically inexpedient, as the damage of such scale more cheaply and will faster put by means of the biological weapon.
These assumptions are made concerning offered threats even with the account of that people will try to resist to them so, how much they can. So, I see two most probable scenarios of global definitive catastrophe in the XXI century, leading to full human extinction:
1) Sudden scenario connected with unlimited growth of an artificial intellect which has unfriendly concerning human of the purpose.
2) System scenario in which the leading part is played by the biological weapon and other products of biotechnologies, but also will be used the nuclear weapon and microrobots. Will play also the role distribution of superdrugs, pollution of environment, exhaustion of resources. The essence of this scenario that there will be no one factor destroying people, and will be a shaft of set of the factors, surpassing all possibilities on a survival.
The most probable time of action of both scenarios - 2020-2040. In other words, I believe, that if these scenarios are realised, more than 50 % chances is that they will occur to in the specified time interval. This estimation occurs from this, that, proceeding from current tendencies, hardly both technologies will ripen till 2020 or after 2040.
Now we will try to integrate all possible scenarios with the account of their mutual influence so that the sum was equal 100 % (thus it is necessary to consider these figures as my tentative estimation to within an order). We will estimate the general probability of human extinction in the XXI century, according to words of sir Martin Rees, in 50 %. Then following estimations of probability of extinction seems convincing:
;15 % - unfriendly AI or struggle of different AI destroys people. I attribute AI such high probability because AI possesses ability to find and influence all people without an exception - in to a measure, than other factors.
;15 % - system crisis with repeated application of the biological and nuclear weapon.
;14 % - something unknown.
;1 % - uncontrollable global warming and other variants of the natural catastrophes caused by activity of human.
;0,1 % - natural catastrophes.
;0,9 % - unsuccessful physical experiments.
;1 % - grey goo - nanotechnologyical catastrophe
;1 % - attack through SETI
;1 % - the nuclear weapon of the Doomsday
;1 % - other.
The remained 50 % fall to chances of that in the XXI century people will not die out. They see consisting of:
;15 % - Positive technological Singularity. Transition to a new stage of evolutionary development.
;10 % - Negative Singularity in which course people survive, but lose value. Variants: survived in the bunker, a zoo, the unemployed at the TV. The power passes to AI and robots.
;5 % - Sustainable development - the human civilisation develops without jumps in technologies and without catastrophes. It is offered as the best variant by traditional futurologists.
;20 % - Recoil on a stage post-apocaliptic the world. Different levels of degradation.
Now we will consider possible influence on these figures of different forms of the doomsday argument. Gotts formula taken concerning all quantity of people on the Earth, gives not so high chance of extinction in the XXI century - at level of 10 percent, however considerably limits chances of mankind to live a next millenium or bigger term.
One more variant of reasonings with use DA and Gott formulas consists in its reflective application - and legitimacy of such application is seriously challenged.  Namely, if to apply Gotts formula to my rank (that is number by date of appearance) in set of all people which know about Gotts formula or DA it will be soon definitively denied, or chances of a survival in XXI century appear illusive. It is connected by that one of the most extreme and disputable decisions of a problem of referential classes whom concerns DA, consists that it concerns only those people who know about it - and such decision of a problem of referential classes was offered by pioneer of DA B. Carter when for the first time reported about DA at session of the Royal society. Extremeness of this decision that as in the past is a little people who know DA (about ten thousand at the moment), that fact that I find out myself so early in this set, speaks, agrees to the logic of DA, as in the future will be approximately the same amount of people knowing about it. As the number knowing about DA is continuous un-linearly grows, through several decades years it should reach millions. However, it agree to the logic of DA, it is improbable, that I have found out myself so early in this time set. Hence, something will prevent that the set knowing about DA will reach such big size. It can be or refutation DA, or that will not be simple people who will be interested in it. As well as many other things can be denied variants DA, this variant, having specified that I am not casual observer DA during the casual moment of time, and certain features a priori inherent to me have led to that I am interested in different unchecked hypotheses at early stages of discussion.
Carter-Leslie reasoning does not give a direct estimation of probability but only modifies a priori estimation. However the contribution of this updating can be so considerable, that the concrete size of an a priori estimation of probability doesnt not important. For example, J. Leslie results the following example of application of a reasoning of Carter-Leslie in the book: a priori probability of extinction in the near future in 1 %, and rupture between number of mankind at "bad" and at the "good" scenario in one thousand times. Then these a priori 1 % turn through Bayes formula in a posteriori 50 %. However if we apply the same assumptions to our a priori probability of extinction in 50 % we will receive chances of extinction in 99.9 %.
At last, the third variant of the Doomsday Argument in formulation Bostrom-Tegmark adapted by me to less scale natural processes, does not render essential influence on probability of natural catastrophes in the XXI century as limits degree of underestimation of their frequency to one order, that all the same gives chance of less than 0,1 %. The worst display of effect of observation selection is underestimation of probability of global nuclear war which would lower the maximum frequency of this event from one event of times in several decades years, to one event of times in several years would be absolutely not obligatory. Nevertheless the top border is yet value so here all not so is bad.
So, indirect ways of an estimation of probability of global catastrophe or confirm an estimation of an order of 50 % in the XXI century, or sharply increase it to 99 % - however those variants of reasonings in which it sharply increases, do not possess as much high - 99 % - validity degree. Therefore we can stop on a total estimation in more, than 50 %.
Much easier is to think out scenarios of global catastrophe than the ways of its prevention. It suggests that the probability of global catastrophe is rather great. Thus all described scenarios can be realised in XXI a century. N. Bostrom estimates probability of global catastrophe as not less than 25 percent. Martin Rees - in 30 percent (for 500 next years). In my subjective opinion, it more than 50 percent. Thus its annual probability is more than 1 percent and also grows. The peak of this growth will be on first half of XXI century. Hence, very many depends on us now.
At the same time to predict the concrete scenario at the moment it is unreal, as it depends on set of unknown human and random factors. However, the number of publications on themes of global catastrophes grows, files on risks are made, in several years these ideas will start to get into authorities of all countries. Meanwhile, the defensive value nanotechnology is already visible and creation possibility of "grey goo is clear. The understanding of gravity of risks should unite all people on a transition period that they could unite in the face of the general threat.
The analysis of risks of global catastrophes gives us the new point of view on history. Now we can estimate modes and politicians not from the point of view of what good they have made for the country, but from that point of view from which it is visible, how much effectively they prevented global catastrophe. From the point of view of the future inhabitants of XXII century will not be important how well or badly we lived, but how much we have tried in general to survive for our future.
In summary it makes sense to express basic unpredictability of global catastrophes. We do not know, whether there will be a global catastrophe, and if yes, how and when. If we could know it where we would fall we wouldn't have come to that place at all. This ignorance is similar to that ignorance which each human has about time and reason of his death (let alone that will be after death), but human has at least an example of other people which gives statistical model of that, as to what probability it can occur. At last, though people and not very much like to think of death, but nevertheless from time to time everyone thinks about it and somehow considers in the plans. Scenarios of human extinction are practically superseded in the public unconscious. Global catastrophes are fenced off from us by a veil as the technical ignorance, connected with our ignorance of real orbits of asteroids and to that similar, and psychological, connected with our inability and unwillingness to predict and analyze them. Moreover, global catastrophes are separated from us by theoretical ignorance - we do not know, whether the Artificial intellect is possible, and in what limits, and we do not know how correctly to apply different versions of the Doomsday Argument which give absolutely different likelihood estimations of time of a human survival.
We should recognize that at some level catastrophe has already occurred: the darkness of incomprehensibility shrouding us has eclipsed the clear world of the predicteable past. Not without reason one of the articles of N. Bostrom is called: Technological revolutions: Ethics and a policy in dark. We will need to collect all clearness of consciousness available for us to continue our way to the future.
 

Part 2. Methodology of the analysis of global risks


Chapter 1. The general remarks. An error as intellectual catastrophe

The basic part of methodology is represented by the analysis of detection and elimination of possible errors in reasonings on global risks or the factors conducting to incorrect estimations and then to incorrect decisions. Then follows a number of reasons of recommendatory character how it is necessary to carry out the analysis of global risks.
Our reasonings on global risks are subject to those or other regular errors and distortions which influence final conclusions of these reasonings, and, hence, and our safety. Errors not quite exact word - in English it is called cognitive biases. Cognitive biases are natural property of human mind, and in it there is no shade of "fault" which from a school bench is connected with our representation about "errors". However it is important to know, that as cognitive biases is a natural property of human, arisen evolutionary by everyone is subject to them and can find them in the reasonings. The basic way of correction cognitive biases - experiment - cannot help us in case of global risks. Therefore we should approach much more responsibly to a problem of faultless thinking about them. It is thus important to remember, that any lists cognitive biases are intended for search of errors in the thoughts, instead of for a victory in disputes with other people as in the second case it will result only in accumulation of errors in the system and closeness to the new information.
Even if the contribution of each of several tens possible errors is small, together they can reject a likelihood estimation of this or that scenario in times and lead to the wrong appendix of means of maintenance of safety. It is not difficult to be convinced of force of these errors - is enough to interrogate the several people knowing the same facts about human history and to ask them to give them the confident forecast for the XXI century - and you will see how much final conclusions will differ: one will be assured of inevitability of exhaustion of oil, others to trust in a celebration wind-energy, the third to expect a world pandemic; one will consider probability of application of the nuclear weapon as huge, others will believe that it is extremely improbable. The researcher of global risks should know about these reefs. In this section is undertaken attempt to make the list of such errors. Works of foreign and Russian researchers, and also author's own iseas are used. The base text on a problem is article E. Yudkowsky Cognitive biases affecting judgments of global risks in the already mentioned book Risks of global catastrophe. The given list does not replace this article in which the mathematical and psychological analysis of some listed here cognitive biases is resulted. However many descriptions of factors of errors are taken from other literature or are found out by the author. The analysis of possible errors in reasonings on global risks is step on a way to creation of methodology of work with global risks, so, and to their prevention. The aspiration of the different groups investigating alternative scenarios of the future is interesting, to make the list of intellectual traps. For example, recently there was article about cognitive biases, influencing a estimation of "Peak oil Theory.
The purpose of the work is to put possible cognitive biases in the convenient and structured list. Thus the maximum attention is given completeness of the list, instead of the proof of each separate point.
The given list does not apply neither for completeness, nor on accuracy of classification, and some its points can appear are identical to another, but told differently. The detailed explanation of each separate possible error in a risk estimation would occupy all volume of article. (See for example my article Natural catastrophes and Antropic principle where one of the possible reasons of errors resulted in discussed on 20 printing pages.)
At the same time it is important to remember that to errors in reasonings is possible peculiar pathological self-organising, as well as to errors and chains of events which lead to real catastrophes. It means, what even the small errors leading to a small deviation of estimations, tend to be hooked one for another, mutually reinforce, especially at appearance of a positive feedback with them.
The fallacy is an intellectual catastrophe. It is easy to track on an example of real failures as erroneous reasonings of pilots of planes led to catastrophes, and even to designate, in reasonings they have made which errors. It is possible to tell that almost any catastrophe occurs because of human errors. These errors are chronologically built so: after errors in reasonings on possibilities there are errors in designing, in "preflight" preparation, in piloting, in management of a critical situation, in elimination of consequences of failure and in the analysis of its reasons. Our reasonings on global risks basically concern the first stage, to reasonings on possibility and a tentative estimation of those probabilities or other risks. There is no sense to build opposition strategy to global risks before priorities were defined. Accordingly, the errors resulted in given article also concern, first of all, the earliest phase of counteraction to global risks. However they can prove and later, at a stage of designing of mechanisms acceptances of concrete decisions are sewn up also. Nevertheless, in this text is not put the problem about the analysis of errors at later stages of protection against global catastrophe though a number of the reasons of erroneous actions of "operators" is mentioned.
Separate question is when such errors can happen. One of these errors occur in the course of discussions in "peace time" when the society solves, to which risks it should prepare for. Others are to the full shown in emergencies when people are compelled to estimate quickly their danger and to make of the decision. Roughly speaking, it is accepted to divide all errors into errors of "designer" and "pilot". Errors of "designer" are made by the big groups of people for many years whereas errors of the pilot are made by one or small group of people within seconds or minutes. It can be incorrect, generally speaking, concerning global catastrophes in case the situation will start to develop so quickly, that designing and management will actually develop in one rate.
There is also a probability, that some descriptions of errors which I here result, can appear objects of my incorrect understanding - that is too are erroneous. Also is not present the slightest doubts, that this list is not full. Therefore the given list should be used more likely as a launching pad for the critical analysis of any reasonings on global risks, but not as the tool for statement of the definitive diagnosis.
Dangerous illusion consists in that errors in reasonings on global risks or are insignificant, or they could be easy found and eliminated. Roots of this illusion in a following reasoning: Planes fly, despite all possible errors, and in general a life on the Earth proceeds, so the value of these errors is insignificant. It is analogy it is incorrect. Planes fly because during their evolution, designing and tests thousand planes have been broken. And behind each this failure there were someone's errors which each time were considered and as a whole did not repeat. We do not have thousand planets, which we can break to understand how we should correctly address with an explosive combination bio, nano, nuclear and AI technologies. And we cannot use that fact that the Earth is still whole for any conclusions about the future because cannot be done statistical conclusions based on one case. And, of course, especially because the future technologies will essentially change life on the Earth. So, we are deprived from habitual way of elimination of errors - checks. And, nevertheless, right now it is the most important to us in mankind history not to be mistaken.
Probably, that there is a number cognitive biases and logic paradoxes which could appear only in reasonings on global risks and which are not found out by us yet, but completely change all course of reasonings. Precisely also I do not wish to tell that all researchers commit all errors listed here. On the contrary, the majority of these errors, possibly, are axiomatic to the majority of researchers - or at all do not seem errors. However there is a chance that some errors are passed.
Under the term cognitive biases I mean distortions here not only logic infringements, but also any intellectual designs which can influence final conclusions and increase risk of global catastrophe. Some resulted errors cannot lead in current circumstances to any consequences, nevertheless, it is useful to new them.
Possible kinds of errors and cognitive biases are divided into following groups:
1. Errors, possible only concerning global risks owing to their specificity.
2. Errors, possible concerning an estimation of any risks, with reference to global risks.
3. The factors influencing acceptance of incorrect decisions, which could to be shown in situations of global risk.
4. The universal logic errors, able to be shown in reasonings on global risks.
5. The specific errors arising in discussions about danger of uncontrollable development of an artificial intellect (and also specific errors in reasonings about nano - bio-and others new and dangerous technologies - including in nuclear technologies and astronomies.)

Chapter 2. Errors, possible only concerning threats to mankind existence

1. Mess concerning global catastrophes and simple very big catastrophes
There is a tendency to confuse the global catastrophes conducting to extinction of mankind (designated in the English-speaking literature the term existential risks) and any other enormous catastrophes which can bring a huge damage rejects a civilisation far back and to exterminate a considerable part of mankind. Criterion of global catastrophes is irreversibility. In Russian while there is no settled short term for the catastrophes conducting to extinction of mankind. (Moiseyev named them civilization catastrophes.) I name them global catastrophes. There is still a term-tracing-paper - existential risks. (Is more detailed about definition of global catastrophes and their specificity see article Bostrom Existential risks. The analysis of scenarios of human extinction and similar dangers.) Difference between these two kinds of catastrophes - not in number of the lost people and the sufferings tested by them, but in the future of a planet after them. If will escape though one tribe in 100 humans through several thousand years on the Earth again there will be states, cities and planes, and the lost civilisation in any sense will be revived under ancient texts. (From ancient Greeks remained, by some estimations, only 1 Gb of information, but their influence on culture was appeared huge.)
As example of such difference can serve catastrophe in which all mankind dies out, and catastrophe in which it dies out everything, except several humans who then recreate human population as antiquated Ache. From the point of view of the separate human there is no visible difference between two these catastrophes. In that and in other case he will be lost almost for certain, and everything, and all that is valuable to him, also will be lost. However for mankind as whole it is a difference it is equivalent to a difference between death and very heavy illness. And this difference also consists that illness can be long and painful, and then will end with recover, and the death can be easy, instant, but necessarily irreversible.

2. Underestimation of unevident risks
Global risks devide on obvious and unevident. Unevident risks is somewhat much more dangerous, because their volume and their probability are unknown, and in connection with them is nothing undertaken. Some unevident risks are known only to a narrow circle of experts which express opposite opinions in an estimation of their reality and probability. These opinions can look for the detached onlooker in an equal measure proved, that forces it to choose between opinions of experts, or proceeding from personal preferences, or throwing a coin. However unevident risks bear quite real threat and before the scientific community will definitively define their parametres. It forces to pay attention to those fields of knowledge in which relation there are more many questions.
In process of growth of our knowledge of the nature and power of technics, the number of the reasons of possible human extinction known to us constantly grow. Moreover, this growth is accelerated. Therefore it is quite intelligent to expect, that there are the major risks about which we know nothing. And those risks about which we physically cannot learn anything while they will not happen are worse from them.
Besides, obvious risks are much more convenient for analyzing. There is a huge volume of data on a demography, military potential and stocks of raw materials which can be analyzed in details. The volume of this analysis can cover that fact that there are other risks about which we very little know and which do not suit the analysis in the numerical form but which too are mortally dangerous (for example, problems with incorrectly programmed AI).
It is easy to notice, that at the moment of emergency development, for example, in aircraft, misunderstanding by pilots of that occurs (especially errors in an estimation of height and degree of danger of process) has the most terrible consequences. On the contrary, when such understanding is available, the plane manages to be rescued often in absolutely improbable conditions. And though a posteriori causes of catastrophe are obvious to us, for pilots they were unevident during that moment.
3. Global risks are not equal to national security
Each country spends for national safety more money than for the global. However global risks represent the big threat for each country, than national - is simple because if all world is lost, also the country will be lost together with it. Thus often those actions which increase safety of the given country at a current stage, reduce general safety. For example, safety of a certain country increases, - anyway, according to its management - when it accumulates stocks of the nuclear and bacteriological weapon, but safety of all world as a result of arms race falls. Or, for example, a problem of the Russian Federation is depopulation, and for all world - an overpopulation (no less than for Moscow). Still an example: one American fund realises the project on prevention of global risks and terrorist attacks to America. But for us it is clear, that the first and the second is not equal.
4. The error connected with psyhologization of a problem
Long since there is a stereotype of the supporter of "doomsday", the interpreter of an apocalypse, - as outcast a society, the individual, trying by the ridiculous statements to raise the social importance and to compensate, thus, the failures in the finance and private life. Without dependence from the validity of such interpretation of psychological motives of people, it does not influence degree of risks. Only exact calculations can define real weight of risk. Psychological researches have shown that people in a depression condition give more exact predictions for the future events, than usual people if it does not concern their own life.
5. An identification of global catastrophe with death of all people and on the contrary
Extinction of mankind does not mean destruction of all people, and on the contrary. It is easily possible to imagine scenarios when the most par oft mankind perishes from certain epidemic, but one island will escape and in 200 years will restore human population. However if all people are ill with a virus translating a brain in a condition of continuous contemplate pleasure it will mean the civilisation end though the huge majority of people some time will be still live. Or if - in a certain fantastic scenario - aliens conquer the Earth and will sell people on space zoos. Moreover, all people living at the moment if radical means of prolongation of a life is not invented, will die out to the beginning of XXII century, as the people living in XIX century have now died out. But we do not consider it as global catastrophe because the mankind continuity remains. The real global catastrophe will deprive of us from the future.
6. A stereotype of perception of catastrophes which has developed as a result of work of mass-media
Mass-media create a false image of global catastrophe that can make subconscious impact on estimations. Experience of watching television reports on catastrophes has developed a stereotype, that doomsday will be shown to us on CNN. However global catastrophe will influence everyone, and there will be nobody to watch reports. No less than to show.
In mass-media disproportionate illumination of risks regularly takes place. For example, it is interesting to compare scales of a possible damage from global warming and a bird flu mutation in a dangerous virus. Not pressing in discussions, I will tell that often it appears, that the real damage is disproportionate to its information illumination. As human is inclined to unconscious training, and in general quantity of statements which can be apprehended critically, is limited, these ideas create a certain information background for any reasonings on global risks (on a level with cinema and science fiction).
7. The possible errors connected with the fact that global catastrophe never occurred with us
Denial of a certain scenario as fantastic - but also global catastrophe cannot be something other, than "fantastic" event.
The error, able to arise in connection with not realization of that fact, that no events is possible to identify as global catastrophes in advance and in process - but only a posteriori. Probably, nobody will now, that it actually was global catastrophe. Catastrophe becomes global only after death of last human. (However in scenarios of slow extinction people can realise it - or to be mistaken in this respect. The possible example of the similar scenario is described in novel N.Shute "On the beach" where people slowly die out from consequences of radioactive pollution.)
Inapplicability of logic operation of "induction" for reasonings on global catastrophes. The induction as a logic method consists in assumption, that if a certain statement is true during the moments 1,2, 3 N it is true and at N+1 (or at all N). It does not possess absolute logic reliability, but gives good results at very big N and smooth conditions. For example, all physical laws are based on final quantity of experiments, that is they have resulted from an induction.
The induction as a logic method has applicability borders. It is inapplicable in situations when the future is not similar to the past. In other words, we cannot, on the basis of that something was always in the past, to tell, that so it will be and in the future. Induction application in type reasonings is especially dangerous: if this catastrophe was not in the past it never will be in the future. (However an induction as logic procedure is applicable in safety issues: from a point of maintenance of safety thrice periodic repetition of dangerous event - is very significant, whereas from the point of view of the proof of the validity of a certain law - is not present.)
8. Cognitive bias, consisting in that thinking about global risks automatically switch on a certain archetype of the rescuer of the world
Danger of a competition between the different groups of people protecting different models of rescue of the world is underestimated. Eventually, each world religion is engaged in rescue of all mankind, and the others to it are only stir. So struggle of saviours of the world among themselves can threaten a life on the Earth. It is possible to recollect a joke of Soviet times: There will not be war, but there will be such struggle for the peace, that from it the nothing remains.
9. Underestimation of global risks because of psychological mechanisms of ignoring of thoughts on own death
People are not excited with global risks because they and so have got used to inevitability of personal death the next decades and have developed steady psychological mechanisms of protection against these thoughts. The greatest term of real planning (instead of speculative imaginations) can be defined under long-term real investments of people. Typical reflexion of such planning is house purchase in the mortgage, pension accumulation and education of children - a deadline of these projects - 30 years, with rare exception, and usually it is less 20. However not the fact, that such planning actually is effective; and people in the majority know, that the life is much more unpredictable. In any case, each human has a certain horizon of events, and the event outside of this horizon represents for it purely speculative interest, - and after all the majority of people considers, that global risks are far from us for many decades.
10. The errors connected by that the one who investigates global catastrophes as a whole, is compelled to rely on opinions of experts in different areas of knowledge
It is often found out, that there is a set of opinions on any problem which look in an equally provable. A.P. Chehov wrote: If from illness many means are offered, than it is incurable. Owing to it the researcher of global risks should be the expert on correct selection and comparison of expert opinions. As it is not always possible, there is always a probability of a wrong choice of a pool of experts and wrong understanding of their results.
11. The error connected by that as whole global risks receive less attention, than risks of catastrophe of separate objects
Global risks should be estimated on the same scale, as risks of all other objects making a civilisation. For example, there is no sense to pawn in the plane probability of failure one on one million if all civilisation with set of planes has smaller reliability.
12. The error connected by that the risk, comprehensible to one human or the project, extends on all mankind
Ideas such: the Mankind should risk on the 1 percent for the sake of this new extraordinary result are vicious because so can argue simultaneously many researchers and designers, each of which thus overestimates safety of the project, that in the sum can give very high risk.
13. Absence of clear understanding to whom instructions on global risks are turned
Whether they are turned to citizens who all the same cannot change anything, to a civil liability of the scientists which existence yet is necessary to prove, to the governments of large world powers or the United Nations which were engaged in by the affairs, or to the commissions and the fund specially aimed at prevention of global risks - whose ability to influence a situation is unknown. Depresses also absence of the regular file on all risks - with which all would agree.
14. Feature of communication between theoretical and practical concerning global risks
The question on global risks is theoretical as such event did not occur yet. And we do not wish to check up any possibility experimentally. Moreover, we also are not able to do it, because we, researchers, will no go through global catastrophe. However we should take practical measures that it does not happen. Thus we can observe positive result: namely, that a certain risk has not happened, but it is difficult to establish the reasons why it has not occurred. It is impossible to tell, why there was no thermonuclear war - because it was impossible, or because to us has improbably lucky, or it is result of struggle for the peace.
15. The erroneous models of the behaviour connected with evolutionary developed features of human behaviour
The strategy of personal survival which have been brought up in us during evolution, means a rule: the one who risks more, grasps the bigger territory, receives bigger authority on flight, becomes the alpha male and, eventually, leaves, probably, more posterity. Those species which are ready to sacrifice thousand individuals, directing them in all possible directions, reach that though one individual will get on the new places. It is obvious, that this strategy is deadly to mankind as a whole. Even if the mankind will risk itself for 1 percent a year, it means almost guaranteed extinction within century. However the separate countries repeatedly risked the destiny, entering in dangerous conflicts.
16. Erroneous representation that global risks are something kept away and not concerning the near future
Actually, chance to be lost in global catastrophe for the young man in current historical conditions are above, than from other reasons of personal or group death rate. Many factors of global risk have already ripened, and others can appear more mature, than we about it know (from front lines of bio-and AI- researches).

17. The thoughtless relation to the global risks, connected with representations about instantaneousness of death
It arises from erroneous representation that in case of global catastrophe destruction will be obligatory easy and painless as though have switched off light. But in a reality, on the contrary, it can be painful morally (comprehension of the fault and collision with death of relatives), and physically. For example, long, but inevitable extinction from radioactive contamination.
18. Representation that books and articles about global risks can change a situation considerably
Even when members of boards of the companies, making critically dangerous decision, spoke against - to them did not listen. (Before Challenger's catastrophe there was a man who objected to start, understanding its danger.) Eespecially it is not necessary to expect, that these people will listen or will read at least statements of those who is outside of their party. (It is possible to recollect pertinent here Murphy's law: Whatever happens, there always will be a man who will tell that he knew in advance that it will occur.)

19. An inaccuracy of opinion that global risks are either inevitable, or depend on casual factors not subject to human, or depend on far governors, to affect on which it is impossible
On the contrary, circulation of certain ideas in a society, namely that global risks are possible and it is necessary to make efforts for their prevention, can create a certain background which will indirectly affect those or other mechanisms of decision-making. Besides, already now we approach closely to that boundary when risks depend on our concrete decisions and actions.

20. Arrogance of the researcher
The sensation can appear at man employed in the analysis of global risks, that he does the important issue in the Universe that is why is the supervaluable man. It can lead in certain circumstances to that he will be deafer to the new arriving information. Surrounding people will easily read out this condition of the researcher that will compromise a theme in which he is engaged. Also it is not necessary to forget law Parkinson that each human aspires to reach level of his own incompetence. Global level is the highest for all fields of knowledge. Protection against this is to think about global risks neutrally, as to preparation of frogs.
21. Intuition as a source of errors in thinking about global risks
As global risks concern events which never happened, they anti-intuitive. The intuition can be useful to a birth of new hypotheses, but not as a way of preference and the proof. The belief owing to the intuition promotes blinding by the revelations even more. Besides, intuition as display unconscious, can be under the influence of not realised biases, for example, the latent unwillingness to see destruction - or on the contrary, requirements to see them there where they are not present.
22. Scientific research of global risks also faces a number of problems
Experiment is not a way of an establishment of truth about global risks for experimental check is what we wish to avoid. In connection with impossibility of experiment it is impossible to measure objectively, what errors influence an estimation of global risks. There cannot be statistics on global risks. The fundamental concept falsifiability also is inapplicable to theories about global risks.
23. The errors connected with un-acount of little-known logic consequences of absoluteness of global risk
Only in case of global risks such paradoxical logic reasonings as Doomsday Argument, and also effects of observationselection start to operate, however they are unknown to the majority of people, and the considerable share of their researchers rejects.
24. Methods, applicable to management of economic and other risks, are not applicable to global risks
They cannot be insured, on them it is impossible to put a bet: there is nobody and will nothing to pay in case of an insurance case. And even their slightest probability is unacceptable. Therefore there is nobody to pay their researches. If these researches are spent within the limits of one country or culture, in them shift from questions of a universal survival to problems of national safety for this generality can be observed.
25. Difficulties in definition of concept of global risk in connection with an illegibility of its object
The illegibility concerns as how to spend mankind borders, and to what to consider as irreversible damage of its potential". The boundary question concerns the monkeys-primacies, not born children, coma-patients, criminals, Neanderthal men, intelligent artificial intellects and other possible extreme cases. It is important to remember historical variability of these borders - in pair hundreds years ago the savage or the slave was not considered as human even by the educated people, and now they consider whales and a dolphin as intelligent beings. Whether there was a destruction of Neanderthal men from their point of view destruction of mankind? Whether we agree that we were replaced with intelligent robots? Whether the death is better of violent zombiing in hostile religion? Has put at all in these questions, and that the answer to them depends on a human arbitrariness that leads to that one groups of people I will consider as "global catastrophe that others will be ready to welcome. It creates possibilities for dangerous confrontation.
26 Erroneous representation that global risks threaten people, only while people are closed on the Earth, and resettlement in space will automatically remove the problem
However the scale of forces and energies which people on the Earth seize, grows faster, than rates of space expansion. Roughly speaking, it means, that when people will occupy Solar system, they will possess the weapon capable repeatedly to destroy it. If global catastrophe is accompanied by the armed struggle on any space space settlements become its objects easily. Only having dispersed a spaceship till such speed on which it cannot be caught up, it is possible to count on rescue of fugitives. However if the crisis reasons root in the human nature, flight is useless - people will create dangerous types of weapon both by the ships, and on space colonies. At last, the information contamination, like computer viruses or AI attack, can be transferred with a velocity of light.
27. Psychological feature of perception of risks by human, named neglect of scale
Rescue of a life of one child, one million humans, billion or hundred billions causes almost identical prompting to operate, including expressed in readiness to spend money. As a result the most part of money and attention leaves on the projects protecting a smaller part of lives.
28. Exaggeration of prognostic values of extrapolation
Potential inaccuracy of hope that a curve (that is the growth schedule) will take out. For some people there was religion Moore's law on doubling of number of transistors on the processor each two years. Alas, all experience of futurology says that extrapolation of curves suits only short-term forecasts. In more applied futurology which the market analytics is, it is turned out the huge device of the analysis of behaviour of the curves, repeatedly surpassing linear extrapolation as though these curves were independent live organisms. In particular, the understanding of is developed that fast growth of a curve can mean a close turn of the tendency, bounce back or "candle". Nevertheless, even the market analytics of curves does not give high-precision results without "fundamental" attraction - the analysis of real economy. Especially for the feedback effect account between predictions and future events. Quantity of errors in the futurology, the curves based on extrapolation, is huge: That is that manure level in London will make movement on a city impossible, and up to forecasts of development of Mars by the end of the XX-th century at the beginning of successes of astronautics. Concerning global risks there are certain expectations, that progress in technics area by itself will result us in "Golden Age" where global risks will not exist. Really, there are hopes, that the future technologies of an artificial intellect become the basic of much faster and effective decision of problems. However if technical progress stops, global risks will not disappear.
29. Erroneous representation that people as a whole do not want catastrophe and a doomsday
A.P. Nazaretjan describes base requirement of people for strong emotions and extreme sensations which induces them to break a high-speed mode of movement of cars, to wage wars, to get mistresses, more shortly, to find adventures. Also it is impossible to underestimate boredom. (The typical example to that is that it would be possible to limit number of car catastrophes, having entered physical restriction of speed of cars to 50 km/hour, but the majority of drivers on it would disagree.) Thus people always "rationalise" these irrational requirements, explaining ostensibly the real reasons.
30. Vagueness of representations what is the hurting factor in different scenarios of global risk
From the childhood the learnt representations about hurting factors of the nuclear weapon, essentially differ from factors of decision-making on its application - and all this difference is obvious. In sphere of global risks superviruses and AI are listed through a comma. But the virus kills directly, and AI in itself cannot cause harm - it can only operate different types of weapon.
Example from a life: a situation when human was lost on war, and a situation when it have shot. These two sets are crossed only partially. If human was lost on war, it means many the possible reasons of his death, and not just that he was shot. And on the contrary, if human was lost from fire-arms, it does not mean, that he was lost on war: it can be both household quarrel, and suicide, and accident on hunting. Clearly, that war and a shot - concern two different classes of causes of death: dangerous situations and immediate causes. However concerning global risks such division is spent more vaguely, and the emphasis becomes basically on immediate causes, instead of on a situation of their appearance.
31. A future shock: Cognitive biases connected with different horizons of the possible future in representation of different people
There are allocate five levels of "a future Shock. The concept is entered by futurologist E. Toffler. These levels describe not real borders which for a while are unknown to us, but the psychological borders of different perception at different people. To each level of the possible future there correspond the global risks - and ways to them of opposition. Thus all these variants of the future concern their supporters the XXI century. Those who has moved very far in an estimation of shocks of the future, can underestimate traditional dangers. There is a following classification of shocks of the future:
Shock of 0-th level - level of the usual technologies used now in a life. (Catastrophe levels: nuclear war, exhaustion of resources.)
Shock of 1st level - level of the technologies offered in advanced magazines and at computer exhibitions. (Biological war and application of fighting robots.)
Shock of 2th level - the technologies described to classical science fiction of the middle of the XX-th century. (A deviation of asteroids towards the Earth, intrusion of aliens.)
Shock of 3 level - supertechnologies which have appeared on horizon only in the end of the XX-th century: Nanotechnology (a clever dust), equal to human AI, consciousness loading in the computer, full reorganisation of a human body. (Catastrophes: grey goo, the superhuman AI processing all terrestrial substance in robots, the superviruses changing behaviour of people)
Shock of 4th level - the concept about Singularity - the hypothetical moment in the future, connected with infinite acceleration of human progress, a certain qualitative transition and change of model of development (risks are unpredictable). See the chapter about technological Singularity.
The risks of an error connected with a shock of the future, consist that each human modelling the future, has different horizon of possible and impossible, defined more likely its psychological comfort, than exact knowledge. The more human is senior, the more difficultly to him to accept new. On the contrary, the situation blinding future when threats of improbable catastrophes will eclipse usual risks in the opinion of human is also possible. Thus the risks of global catastrophe are available at each level.
Catastrophe in the form of nuclear war is more understandable, than pseudo-friendly AI.
32. Representation that global catastrophe will be caused by only one reason
Usually people think of global catastrophes, how about the unitary mass extinction caused either a virus, or asteroid falling, or nuclear war. However there are ways of self-organising of dangerous possibilities which create system effect. For example, the system weakened by one event, can be easy harmed by another. Or, for example, two slowly current illnesses, incorporating, can cause swift-flowing - as, for example, AIDS and a tuberculosis in human. Different scenarios of convergence are possible, for example, nanotechnology will simplify creation of nuclear bombs, AI will simplify creation nanotechnology, and nanotechnology will allow to learn secrets of the brain that will approach AI creation. Convergence of risks occurs in parallel to convergence of the key modern technologies named NBIC (nano-bio-info-cogno), that is nanotechnology, biotechnologies, systems of an artificial intellect and science about thinking and the brain.
33. Underestimation of system factors of global risk
System factors are not separate events, like sudden appearance of a supervirus, and certain properties which concern all system. For example, the contradiction between the nature of the modern civilisation based on continuous expansion, and finiteness of any resources. This contradiction is not localised in any one place, and does not depend on one concrete resource or the organisation. Self-reproduced crisis situations which during each moment of time involve in itself the bigger number of participants of community are real, but do not depend on behaviour of any of them and have no centre.
34. Appeals like: All of us should struggle for the world
If it is too much people and the organisations will make the various not co-ordinated efforts in struggle for planet rescue at the best there will be a situation described by known expression Circular firing squad.
35. Underestimation of precritical events as elements of coming global catastrophe
If as a result of some events the probability of global catastrophe has increased (in other words, vulnerability of mankind to catastrophe increased) this event itself can be considered as a part of global catastrophe. For example, if as a result of nuclear war separate groups of people - not numerous and deprived of technologies - will appear survive they will be much more vulnerable to any other risk factors. It lifts value of those factors which are usually designated as global risks. For example, asteroid falling, in size with Apophis 99942, flight of the Earth in 2029, diameter about 400 m. In itself cannot exterminate mankind as explosion will make only an order of 800 megatons that is comparable to explosion of volcano Santorin in ancient Greece, ruined island Crete, and only in 4 times is stronger than explosion of a volcano of Krakatau in 1883, estimated in 200 megatons of a trotil equivalent. However as connectivity of a modern civilisation has considerably increased, the role kept away - economic and structural consequences - different catastrophes has increased also. The huge wave-tsunami from falling of Apophis could lead to the trade termination in Pacific region and to the general economic crisis fraught with transition to the military stage - with corresponding increase of irreversible consequences.
36. Cognitive biases based on idea: It is too bad to be the truth
Human can be protected mentally from the most negative scenarios, attributing it smaller probability or in general refusing about them to think. For example, it is easy to imagine any car broken, but it is more difficult to present the future fragments of your own car. In other words, instead of avoiding some event, human avoids thoughts about this event. It is obvious, that the global catastrophe destroying everything, that to us it is valuable, in the greatest measure corresponds to definition "too bad". Global catastrophe is worse, than death because includes it.
37. Cognitive biases based on idea: It is too improbable to be the truth
We have many historical examples of how something, that was "improbable", suddenly became possible, and then and ordinary (planes, nuclear bombs, the Internet). Moreover, became mortally dangerous. It is necessary to separate "improbable" from physically impossible, but even the last in the future can appear possible.
38. Ideas about braking of creation and distribution of new technologies as a way of opposition to global risks
This idea seems attractive as promise visible result in short-term prospect in a certain place. But any group of the countries which advances this idea, finally, will lose to other group which secretly or obviously continues to develop dangerous, but effective technology.
39. Representations that the human adaptability is high and continues to grow beyond all bounds thanks to new technologies
It is true, however danger consists that the destructive agencies accessible to people, are improved faster, than protection frames.
40. Inability of a system to simulate itself
Though we cannot investigate global catastrophes experimentally, we can count, that, thanks to successes of computer modelling, we can count some models in virtual space. However this possibility is limited by a number of circumstances. First, all of us equally will not consider factors unknown to us - for example, an arrangement of dangerous comets or feature of physical laws. Secondly, such model cannot be full, as it does not include modelling of that we carry out the modelling certificate. Infinitely big model, as in case of reflexion of two mirrors the opposite to each one otherwise would turn out. It is a consequence of a mathematical principle: the set cannot contain, as an element, itself. That is one deal - the forecast of the future, and another - its forecast with the account of influence which will render the given forecast. Only the raw model can be calculated. If we investigate the future behaviour of system with an artificial intellect it does not work as the model also should contain AI. Thirdly, our data about the world and modelling principles should be absolutely exact, that too is difficultly achievable. We cannot choose correct model, not having made experiment. To predict possibility of global warming, the correct model is necessary to us. To learn, which model is correct, experiment is necessary to us. And this experiment will be reliable, only if during it there will be a global warming, or it will be only interpretation, that is one more model.
41. Inability of human to imagine his own death
Inability of people to imagine own death conducts to underestimation of situations in which it can occur as also situations unimaginable - or could be imagined only from the point of view of the external observer who has survived. Human cannot imagine "anything" which will be, according to atheistic concepts, after death. On it the unwillingness to recognise own death rate is imposed. Therefore it is easier to it to represent global catastrophe from the point of view of survived, that accordingly, does it not global.
42. The approach to the life in the spirit of proverb: after us the deluge
In this model of thinking the expected useful result should be received in a certain short time interval in the future. The vivid example is the situation described in the resulted proverb where the utility border coincides with expected life expectancy. However often happens, that it even below it! For example, for the race driver or the addict all expected utility should be received tonight, and what will be further is not important. At normal people expected utility extends on children and grandsons that is fixed evolutionary, but on grand-grand-great-grandson it does not extend. Thus, there is a certain psychological horizon of utility, events after which human are not interested in meaning that he is ready to make for the sake of them any expenditure. Certainly, it is justified by that they there will decide their own problems themselves.
Moreover, the thought that I will die not alone, but together with me will die all mankind can be more attractive, than, the thought that I will die, and others will remain to enjoy life. Partly therefore some sick of AIDS purposely try to infect as much as possible people.
43. Any ethical position which does not consider a survival of people as an overall objective, more important, than any other purposes
This position means, that it is possible to risk survival of mankind for the sake of some other purposes. N. Bostrom defines this position through principle Maxipoc: Maximize probability of a positive outcome where the positive outcome is any outcome at which there is no global deadly catastrophe.
44. Religious outlooks and eschatological cults
To studying of problems of global risks stirs that this territory is from immemorial time fixed to religion. Therefore behind any discussions on this theme the unscientific nature loop lasts. Key difference of eschatological cults - concentration on event date - and "revelation" or a prophecy as a way of its detection. (In the spirit of extended believe that calendar Maia, and the world together with it, come to an end in 2012.) Such cults often have socially destructive character, inducing people to refuse life in the "doomed" society and consequently cause animosities in a society. (In 2007 the attention of mass-media was involved with group of the sectarians closed in a cave in expectation of a doomsday in the Penza area.) On the contrary, for the scientific analysis doomsday date is not basic, but probabilities and mechanisms of risks are important.
45. Uncertainty of values of new terms
Describing threats of global catastrophe, we use the terms which values for the present have no unequivocal interpretation, at least owing to that they describe the events which have not happened yet and not created technologies. Sharing of several such terms increases loft of possible values and leads to misunderstanding. If we knew what is "artificial intellect", we already could create it. It creates basic uncertainty of value of this term before AI will be created.
Chapter 3. How cognitive biases, able to concern any risks, influence an estimation of global risks

1. A principal cause of human errors is the superconfidence
The superconfidence means the raised conviction in correctness of the picture the worlds and its inability it is essential to change at receipt of the new information. In other words, the superconfidence means inability of human to assume, that he at the moment is mistaken. Therefore in any sense the superconfidence concerns errors about the nature of errors. The superconfidence is fixed by several psychological mechanisms, and it is probable, had evolutionary value. Therefore to find out it in itself and to eradicate it very difficultly. Human showing the big confidence, can apply for the big power in a society. And, possibly, itself devices of human thinking contradicts idea of consideration of set equiprobable : to think that something or is much more habitually, or it is not present. The word "future" is used in a singular, as though it one. At last, once the made choice towards one interpretation becomes the filter which selects the information so that she confirmed this idea.
2. Excessive attention to slowly developing processes and underestimation of the fast
Slow processes are more convenient for analyzing, and on them it is saved up more than data. However systems adapt for slow changes is easier and perish often from the fast. Catastrophe it is more dangerous than fading. Thus slow fading does system vulnerable to fast catastrophes. Working out of new technologies - , , AI, sciences - concerns fast processes. Their prompt development eclipses any processes which will prove after 2030. However it does not mean, that it is necessary to refuse the analysis of slow century changes absolutely.
3. Age features of perception of global risks
The youth is inclined to underestimate global risks as they in to a measure are biologically aimed at a gain of new spaces, instead of on safety. More older humans are inclined to give enough great value of safety, but it is more difficult to them to accept possibility of essentially new technologies.
4. Disputes do not give rise to true about global risks
Discussions between people usually lead to polarisation of opinions. Human who had in the beginning two hypotheses which attributed equal probabilities, reduces the position to one hypothesis opposite to a hypothesis of the opponent. Thus, it narrows the representation about the possible future. See article Yudkowsky about an estimation of risks more in detail.
5. Skill of conducting disputes is harmful
As I already spoke in the foreword, Yudkowsky underlines, that skill of conducting disputes is harmful, as allows to out-argue any opponent, not penetrating in essence in its position. Application of the given list distortions to accuse of them of the opponent is especially dangerous. It can lead to intellectual blindness.
6. Desire of death
Freud has stated idea about , aspiration to death which is at everyone. Similar ideas expressed also other scientists. This desire can influence human, forcing it to underestimate or overestimate risks or to aspire to them. It is possible to assume, that any who rejects idea to live 1000, tests certain aspiration to death. It can unconsciously push human to choose the strategy conducting to global risks.
7. The conservatism of thinking connected with natural selection of the steadiest systems of outlook
C.Doukins, the author of the book Selfish gene, considers each separate idea circulating in a society, as a replicator, capable to different speed of self-distribution and names such objects (meme). That it will be protected from them, the human consciousness is compelled to develop original immune system, one of which most effective variants is the system reject all new. The history is full of how obviously useful new ideas were rejected without the visible reasons during the long period. For example, from the offer to use nitrogen for anaesthesia in surgery in the end of XVIII century prior to the beginning of real application in 1840th years there have passed almost 50 years, the same concerns also rules to wash hands before operations. However in our century of changes very flexible and free thinking is necessary to consider and accept seriously all variants of global risks.
8. Detection of errors in a reasoning on possibility of a certain concrete catastrophe is not way of strengthening of safety
There are two kinds of reasonings - proofs of safety of a certain system and the proof of its danger. These reasonings logically - in the first case it is a question of all chances, whereas in the second - at least about one case. To deny the general statement, enough one counterexample. However the refutation of one counterexample almost does not add the validity to the general statement.
For example: to prove danger of a certain plane, it is enough to specify of that in some experiments the covering material has shown propensity to effect of "weariness of metal. However to prove safety of the plane, it is absolutely not enough to find out an incorrectness in carrying out of these experiments on measurement of weariness of metal. Instead it is necessary to prove, that the chosen material will really sustain the given mode of loadings.
In other words, if to direct all intellectual efforts to a refutation of various catastrophic scenarios, not giving equal attention to their possibilities and errors in safety system, - that total safety of system will go down. All listed rules should be applied to search of errors in reasonings that a certain catastrophe is impossible, - then it promotes safety. In projects of difficult technical systems always there are technical substantiations of safety where the maximum design failure and ways of its localisation is described. The real proof of safety is strict the proof of that something cannot happen under no circumstances plus - practical experience of use of the given device in all possible modes for a long time.
From the point of view of a science we should prove, object existence, and from the point of view of safety - to prove, that something does not exist. The duty of the proof of safety lays on designers of the plane, instead of on passengers. Therefore the requirement of developers to extraneous experts: prove, that the given risk is real - the damage of the general safety causes.
9. Any of directions of researches in new technologies cannot provide the safety in itself
Because each system aspires to self-preservation, and conversations on danger of new technologies can lead to closing of new projects. For example, the site Commercial biotechnology reprints basically those articles which deny bioterrorism threats though then itself prints on them refutations. Or the same in a case with reactors. Supporters of the atomic power station will spend the efforts not for search in safety of stations, and on disputes with ecologists and attempts to prove, that the existing design is safe, is can reach attempts to stop up opponents.
10. Erroneous representation that when the problem will ripen then it is possible to start to prepare for it
The most serious problems arise suddenly. The more seriously a problem, the more its energy and - it is possible - faster rate of its development. And the more difficultly to it to prepare. Global catastrophes are powerful problems. Therefore they can develop too quickly that to them to have time to be prepared in process. Besides, we do not have experience which would allow to define harbingers of global catastrophe in advance. For example, catastrophes develop suddenly.
11. Concrete risks are perceived as more dangerous, than described in the general words
For example, "mutiny on a nuclear submarine" looks more , than "large sea catastrophe". Yudkowsky writes: From the point of view of probability theory, addition of an additional detail to history does by its less probable But from the point of view of human psychology addition of each new detail does history more and more authentic.
12. Representations that the thinking about global risks - is pessimistic
It leads to that the people thinking of "doomsday", condemn - so, and deny their ideas. But on a minefield it is necessary to go it is realised: to dance on it blindly is not optimism.
13. Plot theories as an obstacle for the scientific analysis of global risks
Circulating in a society various theories of plots (like Fomenko's new chronology) have set the teeth on edge. As the majority if not all from them, false, and their predictions almost never come true. Often theories of plots too predict certain risks. But they structurally differ from the scientific analysis of risks. The plot theory usually asserts, that the mankind is threatened only with one risk, and this risk is realised by concrete image during the concrete moment of time: For example, the dollar will fail in the autumn 2007. As a rule, the author also knows the recipe as with this risk to struggle. Whereas more correctly to assert, that the mankind is threatened with cascade reaction from several risks, and we do not know, when and that happens.
The is worse we predict the future, the it is more dangerous. The main danger of the future - its unpredictability. Plot theories are harmful to a future prediction as narrow representation about set of the future possibilities. Thus they assume superconfidence in own abilities. The good prediction of the future does not predict the concrete facts, and describes space of possible scenarios. And on the basis of this knowledge it is possible to allocate central points of this space and to protect them.
Moreover, such "predictions" undermine trust to the sensible ideas laying in their basis, for example, that large act of terrorism can weaken dollar and cause collapse chain reaction. ALSO that Ben Laden too understands it, and on it, probably, counts. Plot theories always mean, that there are certain THEY which with us do something, hide etc. It undermines comprehension of the responsibility for an event in the world and that is not less important, rejects an catastrophe role, as important factor of catastrophic process. Besides, plot theories are incapable to be joined with each other, formulating space of possibilities. And any theory of plot does not recognise itself as that. These theories extend in a society as , self-copied information units.
At the same time from this, that the principle of the theory of plots is compromised also the majority of them false, does not follow, that some of such theories, nevertheless, cannot turn out to be true. Even if you cannot catch a black cat in a black room is does not mean yet, that it there is not present.
14. The errors connected with mess of short-term, intermediate term and long-term forecasts
The short-term forecast considers a current condition of system, the majority of discussions concerns that on a theme of a policy. Intermediate term considers possibilities of system and current tendencies. Long-term considers only development of possibilities. I will exemplify it the following:
Let's admit, we have a ship with gunpowder on which sailors go and smoke makhorka. It is in short term possible to argue so: one sailors stand highly on a yard, and others sleep, therefore today explosion will not be. But in intermediate term prospect the quantity of gunpowder and quantity of smoking sailors which define probability of explosion because sooner or later any smoking sailor will appear in a wrong place are important only. And in to prospect in the account there is only a quantity of gunpowder, and fire somehow yes will be. In the same way and with threat of nuclear war. When we discuss its probability the next two months, for us the concrete behaviour of world powers matters. When we speak about the next five years, to the account there is a quantity of nuclear powers and rockets. When we speak about prospect on tens years, to the account there is only a quantity of the turned out plutonium.
Thus in different areas of knowledge the time scale of brevity of the forecast can differ. For example, in the field of coal output of 25 years is a short-term forecast. And in the field of manufacture of microprocessors - 1 year.
15. Features of human emotion of fear
Ability of human to be afraid joins in reply to concrete stimulus in a concrete situation. Our emotion of fear is not intended for an estimation of the remote risks. It is expressed in Russian proverb: While the thunder will not burst, the muzhik will not cross. On the other hand, the fear can suppress thoughts on possible dangers. For example, when human refuses to hand over analyses because is afraid, that at it something will find.
Concerning global catastrophes the vicious circle turns out: that the probability of a certain approaching global catastrophe became conventional - should burst "thunder" - that is there should be a certain event, is unequivocal its defining, and, probably, doing it practically inevitable.
16. Underestimation of value of remote events (discount rate)
Natural property of human is that it gives smaller value to the events which removed in space and have been kept away in time. For example, the flooding which has happened in an antiquity which have ruined one million human, will be equivalent on the importance to modern catastrophe with victims in the remote country or to a fire in the next house with several victims. It is known as discount rate - discount level. This discount operates in the relation an estimation of utility and risk of the future events. Thus it has both rational, and irrational character. Rational level of the discount is a discount which is done by the economic subject, preferring to receive, say, 100 dollars today, instead of 105 in a year, - and this the discount is slowly decreasing function from time. On the contrary, the emotional estimation of a situation includes very quickly decreasing level of the discount which decreases in time. It leads to that global catastrophe, for years from the present moment, gets almost zero weight.
17. Conscious unwillingness to know the unpleasant facts
It is shown in a situation, when human postpones a campaign to the doctor not to know the unpleasant diagnosis. Though it reduces its chances to survive in the long-term future, but he wins in the quiet near future - that is here discount level too is shown.
18. Effect of displacement of attention.
The more a certain human gives attention to one possible reason of global catastrophe, the less it gives to another and as a result its knowledge gets certain shift towards its specialisation. Therefore revaluation of any one global risk conducts to underestimation of others and also is harmful.
19. The Internet as a source of possible errors
The Internet as sir Martin Rees underlines, I allow to create the newspaper today, by selection only those sites which support a starting point of sight of the subject which then strengthens itself in the chosen position, constantly reading only the adherents. Not saying that on the Internet low level of reliability of the information as the considerable part of a good trustworthy information is in paid editions, for example, articles in Nature on 30 dollars for article, and any human can freely lay out the texts in a network, creating high information noise. Thus more sensational materials extend faster, than less sensational. In other words, if earlier the printed matter promoted faster distribution of better texts now the Internet promotes faster distribution of less qualitative, but more importunate in the advertising of sources. On the other hand, the Internet accelerates access to the information and accelerates its search.
20. Beliefs
Difficultly the beliefs as they it is perceived as authentic knowledge or as an incompetent imperative, but it is easy to notice, how those or other superstitions influence an estimation of risks other people. For example, high breakdown susceptibility in Turkey is connected, in particular, with a principle - on all will of the Allah: as destinies of all people are written already down in the book at the Allah it is not important, that you do - day of your death is already appointed. Therefore it is possible to risk somehow. Sir Martin Rees writes, that in Reagan's administration for environment religious fundamentalist James Uatt who believed answered, that the Apocalypse will come earlier, than oil stocks will be settled, woods will be lost and there will come global warming so to waste resources are almost that our duty. Many beliefs can carry more thin, pseudo-scientific or "scientific" character, as belief in correctness or Einstein's wrongfulness, danger or safety of this or that risk etc. Beliefs do not mean falsification possibility. To reveal belief it is useful to ask a question: What event or a reasoning would force me to change my point of view to this question?
21. Congenital fears
Many people have congenital fears - a dragon, heights, waters, illnesses. It is not difficult to assume, that they will overestimate the events reminding these fears, and to underestimate what are unlike them. An estimation of risks can influence and a posttraumatic syndrome when a certain strong fright was remembered and now all similar things frighten. On the contrary, strong desires can suppress fears, in the spirit of a saying: If it is impossible, but very much it would be desirable, it is possible. For example, human with congenital fastidiousness can overestimate risk of biological war and underestimate risks of falling of an asteroid, and, on the contrary, human, gone through catastrophe, will exaggerate risks of falling of an asteroid, and to underestimate biological risks.
22. The error resulting because of struggle not with a source of risk, and with messages on risk
The discontent is transferred not on a source of risk, and on human who has informed on it, in the spirit of east rule: to Kill the messenger who has brought a bad message. I repeatedly faced the rigid criticism directed on mine personal lacks, and charges in "paranoia" when suggested to discuss those or other risks.
23. Difficulty in delimitation of own knowledge
I do not know what I do not know. It creates sensation of that I know everything because I know everything, that I know. That is creates false sensation , conducting to intellectual blindness and unwillingness to accept new data. A.Kamju: the Genius is the mind which has realised the limits. But while we completely do not learn the world, we cannot settle the list of global risks.
24. Humour as the factor of possible errors
The joke gives the right to human lawfully to speak a lie. Accordingly, it creates expectation at those who hears unexpected news, that it is a joke. For example, the security guard of embassy in Kenya has called the partner and has informed, that terrorists have approached on collars with a pistol; that has not believed and has switched off communication; the bomb has blown up. As we do not know, in what form to us global threat can come, we can apprehend the message on it, as a joke. It is possible to recollect and Reagan's joke that nuclear attack to the USSR will begin in 5 minutes which he has told for microphone check before performance that has led to reduction of the Soviet army in alertness.
25. A panic
The hypertrophied reaction to stress leads erroneous and dangerous actions. For example, human can jump out of a window at a fire though fire has not reached yet it. It is obvious, that the panic influences and thoughts of human in a stress condition. For example, one human, in a peace time adhering (a yoga principle about AI live beings), during war developed the plan of explosion of dams in AI to flood cities. That is the panic can be long enough condition essentially changing models of behaviour. But also the short-term panic is dangerous, as the situation of global risk can develop very quickly, in hours and even minutes, and strategic decisions should be accepted for this time.
26. Drowsiness and other factors of natural instability of the human consciousness, influencing appearance of errors
On one of versions, Napoleon has lost Waterloo because has been chilled. How it is possible to expect, what the president will make the true decision, being woken among night? Here it is possible to add and basic inability of human precisely to follow instructions, and finiteness of length of instructions which it can understand and execute. Though it concerns first of all errors of operators, it is possible to present, that a condition of time turbidity of consciousness will affect and conclusions of the designer or the composer of a certain instruction, having led is admissible, to an error in the drawing.
27. Propensity of people to struggle with dangers which already were in the past
For example, was a tsunami of 2004, and now all began to build systems of preventions of a tsunami. And next time it will be not a tsunami. Thus with a current time the alarm of people decreases, and the probability of repeated strong Earthquake (but not ) - increases.
28. Weariness from catastrophe expectation
The error, consisting that after some catastrophe happens is typical, all start to expect repetition in the near future the second precisely same and after this expectation is not executed, translate this catastrophe in the category it was for a long time and a lie. So was after act of terrorism on September, 11th. At first all waited for repeated attacks to skyscrapers, and building of skyscrapers in the world was braked. Now all about it have forgotten, and building of skyscrapers goes by accelerated tempo. It contradicts that in a reality of catastrophe of such scale can occur to periodicity in many years and consequently after a long time interval their probability really increases. The weariness from catastrophe expectation is expressed and in loss of sensitivity of a society to preventions.
29. The expert estimations which have been not based on strict calculations, cannot serve as a measure of real probability
Unlike a situation in the share markets where the average estimation of the best experts is used for a prediction of the future result, we cannot estimate and select our experts on global risks by quantity of the catastrophes guessed by them. Besides, that the rate in an estimation of global risks is very high - survival of mankind is does not lead automatically to that predictions become more exact.
In experiments on a prediction the following statistics is found out: Only 73 % of answers on which have made rates 100:1, were true (instead of 99.1 %). Accuracy has increased to 81 % at rates 1000:1 and to 87 % at 10.000:1. For answers on which put 1.000.000:1, accuracy made 90 %, that is corresponding level of trust should generate rates 9:1. As a result, examinees often were mistaken even at the highest levels of rates. Moreover, they were inclined to do very high rates. More than half of their rates was more than 50:1.
Similar levels of errors have been found out and in experts. Hynes and Vanmarke (1976) seven world famous geotechnicians about height of a dam which will cause destruction of the base from clay breeds have interrogated, and have asked to estimate an interval of 50 % of confidence round this estimation. It has appeared, that any of the offered intervals did not include correct height. The reason of this error is the superconfidence of experts - for example because the expert is afraid to lose the status of the expert if will doubt too the opinions.
30. Ignoring any of risks because of its insignificance according to the expert
Even if a certain theory is really unintelligent, it is necessary to waste time and efforts to deny in its clear and convincing image for all in open discussion. Besides, insignificance does not mean impossibility. Insignificance of risk should be result of research, instead of an occasion to refuse research. Besides, the correct understanding of insignificance is necessary. For example, if we accept an estimation 10 for probability of global catastrophe, as insignificant (namely so estimates CERN risk of catastrophe on the new accelerator) if to make such experiments every day it will give 3 % of chances of extinction within 100 years or the guaranteed extinction within 3000 years.
31. Underestimation or revaluation of our ability to resist to global risks
If we underestimate our ability to resist to global risks owing to it we will not undertake those actions which could rescue us. If we overestimate our abilities it to resist, it can lead us to excessive complacency.
32. The Stockholm syndrome
It is a question of effect of loyalty or even love of hostages for the thief. In any sense it can be shown in - the philosophical concept which approves death rate of human and limitation of its term of a life 100 years. But if death rate of human is approved, from here one step before approval of death rate of all mankind.
33. Behind errors of the operator there is a wrong preparation
Behind concrete errors of pilots, operators, dispatchers and politicians often there are conceptual errors in their selection and preparation. For example, a connivance to their authority (the case with the well-known Egyptian pilot who by definition could not be mistaken - and has broken the plane) and economy on training. The scientific analysis and spread of knowledge about global risks can be considered as a part of such preparation for humans making of the decision in the future.
34. The group of people can make the worst decisions, than each human separately
Depending on the form of the organisation of group, it can promote or interfere with development of intelligent decisions. A good example - a staff or scientific research institute, a bad example - flight, crowd or the country captured by civil war. Until in the world there is no the uniform conventional group making of the decision on prevention of global risks, the situation is closer to a bad variant more likely.
35. Limitation of number of free registers in mind of human and the model of thinking reflected in each offer: the subject-object-action - as possible sources of errors
It forces human to concentrate on one aspects of a problem, like, whether will attack AND on, REDUCING THUS (IMMERSING IN AN ATTENTION SHADE) OTHER ASPECTS. Any human cannot capture all world problems in the mind to range them on degree of their danger and . Hardly it can also the organisation.
36. Futurology split on different disciplines as though these processes occurred independently
There are some variants of thinking about the future, and they have propensity oddly not to be crossed, as though it is a question of the different worlds.
- Forecasts approach Singularity. Supercomputers, biotechnologies, and nanorobots.
- Forecasts of system crises in economy, geopolitics and wars.
- Forecasts in the spirit of traditional futurology about a demography, resources, warming.
Special type of forecasts - the big catastrophes: asteroids, supervolcanoes, superflashes on the sun, a magnetic field, plus religious scenarios and fantastic scenarios.
37. A situation when after a smaller problem follows big, but we are incapable it to notice (the Trouble one does not come)
Global catastrophe can come as a result of a chain of more and more scale events, however the first of these events can cover for us perception of following risks. The reasons of it can be:
1) Our attention at the moment of failure completely distracts. For example, having got to small failure, the driver starts to go round the car, and here other, rushing car runs into it.
2) affect Influences.
3) human himself makes still the big mistake in the course of correction of the small. For example, when the small pilferer shoots at the policeman to disappear.
4) Misunderstanding of that the first failure creates an unevident chain of causes and effects which can turn out suddenly because of a corner.
5) the First trouble gradually weakens resistibility of an organism to faster and sudden changes. For example, the flu is fraught with a pneumonia, at wrong treatment.
6) Misunderstanding of that both failures can be caused a certain unevident general reason. For example, something has fallen off, human has gone to look - that, and here it has fallen off entirely.
7) Euphoria from overcoming of the first catastrophe can force to lose prudence. (For example, human is torn to leave hospital before, and at it seams disperse.)
38. Effect of selectivity of attention
Often the people who are watching certain predictions, for example in economy, have a question: For what reason what should fail just about, all does not fall and does not fall? It is probable, we deal with a specific error in an estimation of risks. Noticing cracks in the base, we speak to ourselves: "So! It just about will fail" and we start to search for other cracks. Certainly, we find them, and it is not difficult to us to connect them in a speculative network. But, being engaged in searches of cracks, we cease to look at support. Our attention becomes selective, we would like to confirm the hypothesis.
We get to a vicious circle of selective accumulation of the information only about one aspect of instability of system, ignoring the reasons of its stability, and also other risks connected with this system. Overestimate of some risks, finally, leads also to their underestimation as a society gets immunity to negative forecasts and loses trust to experts. For example, the station of the prevention of a tsunami on Hawaii has appeared before a dilemma: if to warn the population about risk of a tsunami, next time to the prevention will not believe and if not to warn - probably what exactly this time the tsunami will appear dangerous. The Thai service of the prevention in 2004 has decided not to warn people about a tsunami, being afraid to frighten tourists.
39. Subconscious desire of catastrophe
Aspiration of the expert on risks to prove correctness of the forecasts causes in it not realised desire of that predicted catastrophe all the same has happened. It pushes him or to exaggerate harbingers of coming nearer catastrophe, or even to tolerate those events which can result in it. People also can want catastrophes from boredom or owing to the masochistic mechanism of "negative pleasure.
40. Use of messages on risks for attention attraction to itself, money and increase of the social status
This type of behaviour can be defined as syndrome , - in honour of the Italian swindler who was giving out for the expert on safety issues. In the sharpest case human invents certain risks because knows, that a society and mass media on them will sharply react. This model of behaviour is dangerous that from the general context the most entertainment risks are pulled out some, instead of less dangerous, but not so sounding risks are shaded. Besides, the society has an accustoming to messages on risks, as in a fairy tale on the boy which the Wolf shouted , the Wolf!, and a wolf was not. When the wolf has come actually, anybody to the boy has not believed. Moreover, there is a public allergy on messages on risks, and all messages start to speak in terms of public relations and division of money.
41. Use of a theme of global risks as a plot for entertaining mass media
In critical situations in own way pleasantly, and a small prick it it is possible to receive adrenaline allocation, having looked a documentary film-katasrofu. It leads to that conversations on risks start to be perceived as something frivolous, not concerning a personal reality and problems, even as something pleasant and desired.
42. A logic error of generalisation on the basis of art fiction
It is described at Bostrom as distortion in the spirit of good history . Regular consumption of entertaining products - films, novels - subconsciously forms model of risk which becomes ripe, threatens, interestingly develops, but then is overcome, - and all game goes almost on the equal. Real risks are not obliged to correspond to this model. Even if we try to avoid influence of works of art, the filmsits at us in subconsciousness, creating, for example, erroneous representation, that problems with the Artificial intellect it is obligatory war with robots. One of forms of this error consists that in the fantastic novel the usual world undertakes invariable and to it one fantastic detail is added, and then possible consequences of it are considered. Another - that opponents get out equal on force. The third - that the norm of end of history considers a happy end. However in business of prevention of global risks there can be no happy-end - if we have prevented all risks in the XXI century too it is necessary to do and in XXII century and so on.
43. Ideas about opposition to global risks by means of the organisation of the adherents connected by an overall aim - to provide the mankind blessing
This idea is vicious, because always when there are "we", there are also "they". Any organisation has the independent group dynamics directed on strengthening and a survival of this organisation. Any organisation has a competitor. In the organisation group dynamics of the herd-tribe is started, inducing to struggle for the power and to realise other latent purposes. Struggle of saviours of mankind among themselves is as a result possible.
44. Privacy as a source of errors in management of risks
Researches on the safety conducted in a secret, lose possibility to receive a feedback from consumers of this information and, as a result, can contain more errors, than open sources. results of certain tests and catastrophes their value for prevention of the subsequent catastrophes because these results nobody knows depreciates.
45. Intellectual installation on the sharp criticism prevents to find out dangerous catastrophic scenarios
Supercriticality interferes with an initial phase of brain storm on which the bank of possible ideas is typed. As safety often threaten improbable coincidence of circumstances, heavy tails strange ideas can be useful. Roots of critical adjustment can be in that, for example, that criticising can apply for higher social status.
46. An inaccuracy of idea that something it is possible to prove safety theoretically
However unique real criterion - practice. Tens years of non-failure operation - the best criterion of a reality of safety. The history knows weight of examples when devices or the projects which theoretically had high safety, fell because of unforeseen scenarios. For example, a crash of airplane "Concorde". The American writer M.Krajton in the novel Park of the Jursky period has rapped out it following words: to conclude, that your system of safety is unreliable and cannot provide in all a case isolation of range from environment, it is not so obligatory to me to know, how it is arranged.
47. Underestimation of the human factor
From 50 to 80 % of catastrophes occur because of errors of operators, pilots and other people exercising direct administration by system. Even more considerable share of catastrophic human errors is necessary on maintenance service, preflight preparation and errors at designing. Even the superreliable system can be resulted in a critical condition certain sequence of commands. Human is clever enough to bypass any protection against the fool and to do nonsenses. Therefore we cannot reject any of scenarios of global catastrophe, recognising that people of it will never do.
48. An inaccuracy of idea that it is possible to create faultless system, repeatedly having checked up its project and an initial code
But checks bring some number of new errors, and, owing to it, at certain level the number of errors is stabilised. (This level approximately corresponds to a square of number of errors - that is if human does one error on 1000, that, how many it will not check, he will not create faultless "code" more than 1 000 000.)
49. Statistics as a source of possible errors
In the nature of statistics there is a possibility of fulfilment of errors, intended distortions and the false interpretations, connected by that it is not the description of the unitary facts, and generalisation of set by descriptions. Statistics problems are connected, in particular, with way of the sample, different methods of calculation of an average, ways of a rounding off, interpretation of the received results and ways of their visual representation for other people.
50. The error connected with propensity of people in to a measure to consider or easily accessible for facts
All know, when the nuclear bomb has fallen to Hiroshima but very few people knows, where and when the flu of 1918 the "Spaniard" for the first time is fixed, carried away in 100 times more lives. (On one of versions, on March, 8th, 1918, about Kansas City, the USA). It leads to that one risks are overestimated, and already owing to it other risks are underestimated. Yudkowsky in article about estimations of risks names it the distortion connected with degree of availability of the information.
51. A double error
Many listed factors of sources of errors can result as in revaluation of our abilities to resist to risks, and to underestimation of risk factors. Hence, each error can be shown twice.
52. The analysis of global risks not is creation of forecasts
The forecast contains concrete data about time and a place. But such exact hits are very rare and, more likely, are casual. Moreover, the forecast and the analysis of risks demands different reactions. Unsuccessful forecasts compromise the theme and people who give them. But some people give many forecasts, hoping, that though one will hit the mark also human will become famous. For example, the analysis of risks in aircraft demands improvement of different mechanisms of the plane, and the forecast about an air crash assumes, that people will refuse flight in the given day.
53. Knowledge illusion backdating
Sometimes people speak: I knew it from the very beginning and owing to it overestimate the abilities. Owing to it they wait, that other people can easily guess that is already known to us. Concerning global risks we cannot have any knowledge backdating. And concerning many other things usual risks it is. It leads to that seems to us that global risks as are easy for estimating as risks already known to us. In other words, the effect of knowledge backdating concerning global risks leads to their underestimation. See in article about errors Yudkowsky which names this regular error hindsight bias more in detail.
54. Effect of adjustment for information sources
Reading the literature, human can become a conductor of ideas which in it are put by the author. It allows it to a descent to reject concepts of other people. Owing to it it becomes the deaf human to the new information, and its efficiency in the analysis of risks falls. The sensation of own correctness, erudition, skills of conducting disputes - all it strengthens "deafness" of human. As global risks - a question first of all theoretical (after all we do not want experimental check) theoretical disagreements tend to be shown in it especially brightly.
55. Acceptance of small process for the beginning of the big catastrophe
 For example, the dollar course change for some percent can be perceived as a harbinger of global crash of the American currency. It leads to premature statements in the spirit of: well here, I spoke! - that then when insignificance of changes is found out, undermines belief, first of all, own, in possibility of catastrophe and its prediction.
56. More simple explanation of catastrophe substitutes more difficult
On finding-out of more difficult variant years of the analysis leave, for example, so often happens at the analysis of air crashes. (Not saying that participants aspire to garble immediately the facts if these facts mean their criminal and financial responsibility.) this more difficult explanation does not reach general public and remains as some information background. The later exact definition of causes of catastrophe will be found, the it is impossible to be protected from failure of a similar sort longer. When it is a question of fast processes, such backlog of understanding can become critical.
57. Use of apocalyptic scenarios to draw attention to the projects and to achieve their financing
Really, such form of self-advertisement is extended, and especially it is extended among representatives of a pseudo science that leads to an allergy on such statements. Even if 99,9 % of the people who are thinking out different apocalyptic scenarios, obviously are not right, hypotheses put forward by them, possibly, it is necessary to take into consideration as rates in game are too great, and unknown physical effects can threaten us and before they will be officially confirmed with a science. In other words, total expenses on check almost for certain it is less than false ideas, than a possible damage because, that at least one will appear true.
58. Aspiration of people to establish a certain risk level comprehensible to them
Each human has a representation about norm of risk. Therefore, for example, drivers of more safe cars prefer more dangerous style of driving that smoothes as a whole effect of safety of the car. How the system was safe, human aspires to finish it to the norm of risk. As expected life expectancy of human has an order of 10 000-20 000 days, that, having established for itself norm of risk in 1 to 100 000 in day (on the intuitive representations or in the spirit of all so do), human will not strongly change the expected life expectancy. However in relation to global risks such position would mean 30 % chances of extinction the next 100 years. Thus there are separate "reckless drivers" with much higher norm of risk.
59. Effect of "superconfidence of the young professional
It arises at drivers and pilots at a certain grade level when they cease to be afraid and start to feel, that already all can. Overestimating the abilities, they have catastrophes. The mankind as a whole, probably, is at such stage in relation to supertechnologies. (Though on nuclear technologies have already well burnt in .)
60. Sensation of invulnerability at the survived
The superconfidence of the young professional is aggravated with effect of observant selection which consists that, for example, won certain term without wounds soldiers start to feel "invulnerability", and more and more raises the norm of risk. Same can occur and to a civilisation - the longer threats of nuclear war are not realised, the in it seems to a measure, that it in general is impossible and the more so the risky policy can be spent.
61. Revaluation of own professional skills.
As global risks cover all spheres of knowledge - from biology to astrophysics and from psychology to a policy, to receive an adequate picture of a situation, any expert is compelled to fall outside the limits the knowledge. As the professional to feel pleasant, human can test propensity to exaggeration of the abilities. It to it to consult at experts in vital issues. The stereotype of "the saviour of the world as hero-single who is capable of everything, can prevent to co-operate to it with other researchers and to make the valuable contribution. In equal to a measure and representation about an award , secretly rescuing the world, can be incorrect and entirely borrowed of entertaining cinema.
62. The error connected with concentration on measures on prevention of small catastrophe instead of measures on prevention greatest possible
For example, in Jelloustounsky park so successfully prevented fires for many years, that in wood dry trees and as a result there was an enormous fire have accumulated many, it was almost impossible to cope which. Yudkowsky describes an example with building of dams on one river in the USA therefore it was found out, that though the quantity of flooding has decreased, the damage from each separate flooding has increased, and in the sum the annual damage has appeared above, than before building of dams. It has been connected by that after building of dams people felt calmness, and erected more expensive constructions on lower Earths, therefore, when flooding nevertheless happened, it put a damage.
63. Weariness of the researcher
The enthusiasm of separate people moves waves. Owing to it human who has, let us assume, started to let out a certain bulletin, can, having lost enthusiasm to start to let out its all less often, that from the point of view of the detached onlooker will mean decrease in intensity of events in this area. Especially work of the researcher of global risks is ungrateful - he never will see realisations of the prophecies even if they will come true. And at it never will be confidence, that it actually managed to prevent something. Only at cinema the saviour of the world gets gratitude of all mankind and love of the beautiful actress for the work. We will not forget, that Churchill on elections right after wars though he believed that has deserved re-election. To avoid effect , on the American fleet during the Second World War applied regular rotation of the higher structure - one change was at war, and another had a rest ashore. Yudkowsky in this occasion writes: We never heard about heroic preventive measures.
64. Fear of loss of the social status researchers
In our society there is a number that, interest to which is perceived as a symptom of a certain sort of inferiority. People, the interested these questions, automatically are considered (or even niches ) second-grade, mad, by clowns and are squeezed out in corresponding ecologically. And other researchers even can aspire to avoid contact to such people and reading of their researches. themes of UFO, telepathy and other are subjected parapsychology, doubt in a world reality. However it is important to notice, that if at least one message on UFO truly and is inexplicable, it demands alteration of all available picture of the world, and should influence safety issues (And military men accept these messages much more seriously, than scientists). Moreover, those researchers who have lost the status, having shown interest to UFO, etc., have lost together with it and possibility to inform the thoughts to representatives of the power. Military researches in this area are so coded, that is not known, whether there are such researches in general, and accordingly, in what measure it is possible to trust the people speaking on behalf of these researches. In other words, privacy so a certain research organisation, that it ceases to exist for an external world as a black hole which does not let out the beams - especially in the event that the top management of the country knows nothing about it. (The example with German chancellor A.Merkel to which refused to explain is characteristic, that for people go on residence while she it categorically has not demanded are there were employees of security service.)
65. The quantity of the attention, which society can give to risks, certainly
Therefore exaggeration of some risks not less dangerously, than concealing about others as eats that quantity of attention (and resources) which can be spent for the analysis of more dangerous risks. Besides, it creates false calmness at human to whom it seems, that it has made the sufficient contribution to rescue of the Earth, for example, having filled the car spirit.
66. Neglect economy
Such expressions as money is only pieces of paper, or bank contributions are only zeroes in computers can be reflexion of widespread opinion, that the economy not so is important, as, say, war or certain more entertainment catastrophes. However the economy is a material embodiment all human activity. For understanding of a role of economy it is important to notice, that crisis of 1929 has put the USA a damage in 2 times , than the Second World War, and crash of the USSR has occurred not as a result of direct aggression, and result structurally-economic crisis. Even and others large extinction biologists connect extinction of dinosaurs not with space catastrophe, and with change of conditions of a competition between kinds.
All risks have cost expression. Economic consequences even small catastrophes can have huge cost expression. Acts of terrorism have caused on September, 11th a damage to the American economy in 100 billion dollars, and is possible, the damage will be much more if to consider potential losses from a policy of decrease in interest rates (a bubble in the real estate market), and also billions the dollars, spent for war in Iraq. Thus the price of the destroyed buildings made only a few billions dollars. 7 letters with the Antraxhave caused a damage in 1 billion dollars.
So, even small failures I can lead to a huge damage and loss of stability of economy, and economy crash will make system less steady and more vulnerable to even big catastrophes. It can lead to a positive feedback, that is to self-amplifying catastrophic process.
In process of economy globalisation, possibility of global system crisis more and more increases. It is final, difficult to believe, that the world will be lost that some large banks have gone bankrupt, but it can that will start a domino effect of the general instability.
67. The errors connected with revaluation or underestimation of value of a moral condition of a society and its elite
One of versions of wreck of Roman empire - degradation of its elite, consisting that people from whom governors of all levels, operated exclusively in personal short-term interests, in other words, silly and selfishly (that can be connected that they used water from a waterpipe with the lead pipes, negatively influencing a brain). Thus it is supposed, that effective action in the long-term interests coincides with interests of a society as a whole, that, generally speaking, not undoubtedly. Other metaphor is comparison of "moral spirit, for example, armies - with ability of molecules there is nobody substance to turn to a uniform crystal (in detail on this theme Lev Tolstoi in "War and peace" argued).
On the other hand, ancient Romans complained of degradation of morals still, and till now this process has not prevented development of industrial forces of a society. The error root here can be in the conflict of generations, namely that skilled and old estimate young and cocky, not bringing the age amendment and forgetting, that were same.
However in case of modern global risks the huge damage can be put small group, say, terrorists who within the limits of the strategy operate and is effective. Or the conflict of two societies, each of which in itself advances certain positive ideals. And the conflict can be round exact definitions of these ideals, for example, that better: democracy or religion? At last, even human can destroy the world by mistake. While low moral human will be safe, as will while away the term in prison for small theft, and never will receive access to highly dangerous technologies.
68. The error connected by that together to investigate the validity or there is nobody messages on risk, human aspires to prove this idea as it is possible for number of people
One ideas to prove easier, than others. It leads to shift in an estimation of probabilities. Judkovsky writes about it in connection with the regular error connected with degree of availability of the information. The a certain idea is more obvious, the it is easier to transform its bright propaganda film. For example, it is easier to advertise threat from global warming, than from the Artificial intellect because last is hidden. Besides, human can be involved in process ideas to weights that leads to an identification with this idea, to aspiration to make than it is easier and more accessible.
69. Propensity of people to offer "simple" and "obvious" decisions in difficult situations - not having thought
And then to persist, protecting them and selecting under them the argument. It is very difficult to human to "change the mind". Here it is possible to recollect Murphy's law: Any challenge has the simple, obvious and wrong decision. Yudkowsky in detail writes about importance of that small time interval between the moment of appearance of a question and that moment when human has made a definitive choice in favour of one of answers during which, actually, and there is a thinking. It is psychologically difficult to people to change the mind, because it as though means to recognise itself silly and capable to be mistaken, and it is especially difficult to change the mind, if the position is already announced and became a dispute subject.
70. Public discussion about risks of different researches can lead to that scientists will hide possible risks that their projects have not closed
Yudkowsky writes about this problem, fairly recognising, that does not see its any decision: And if the authorities enter the law on which even the smallest risk to mankind existence is sufficient to close the project; or if becomes norm de facto politicians, that any possible calculation cannot move cargo once the come out assumption then any scientist will not risk more to come out with assumptions.
71. The error connected with wrong correlation of force and safety
Emotionally it seems to us, that technologies share on good, that is strong both safe, and bad - that is weak and dangerous. However, actually, than more strongly a certain tool, the more it is capable to influence the world, - that it is more dangerous, the it is more than ways to direct it on the destruction purpose. The analysis based on the insufficient information, is inclined to estimate technologies emotionally therefore the information on advantages tends to soften perceived risk, - writes Yudkowsky. Clearly as, that new technologies are stronger than old technologies - differently would not be to create commercial sense them.
72. Premature investments
If in the middle of XIX century people would understand, that in the XX-th century it are threatened with the nuclear weapon, and millions there are no doubts would be allocated for prevention of this risk, that this money would be spent not to destination, and at the future generations the allergy on such projects would be developed. A possible example: according to some information, the USSR in 80th years has received misinformation that the USA in all develop pilotless flying machines, and has developed the huge program in which result there were such devices as "Bee" - automatic scout planes in weight about ton, huge cost and small reliability. As a result the Russian military men were disappointed in by that moment when in the USA the program of their real creation has been accepted. Other example: till 1939 it was absurd to struggle against the nuclear weapon, and after - already late.
73. Propensity of people to mix that expectation, probable and best outcomes
The reality as it has appeared, frequently presents results, the worst, than the most worst expected outcome, - writes Yudkowsky, describing in article experiment with students where them asked to estimate the most probable and worst time of delivery of degree work. As a result average time of delivery of degree work has appeared worse, than the worst case. Even the clear prevention that people can make such estimation has not led to that examinees have correctly corrected the expectations. Even I though has translated this article and well knew about necessity of the amendment, have all the same fallen a victim of this error, estimating expected terms of an exit of the given book in the press. Namely, I have made the assumption of when this book leaves, and then, having recollected that the reality will be worse than my expectations, I have added to this term three months. Already it is now obvious, that I have underestimated the necessary amendment, and the book leaves even later.
74. Apathy of the passer-by
Global risks are not someone's personal responsibility, and it is seductive to argue in the sense that time anybody does nothing in this connection why I should? Moreover, this condition arises unconsciously, is simple as a reflex of imitation group. A typical example: when human lays on sidewalk and by there is a crowd, nobody helps it. But if one human on a footpath in wood sees the laying human, it, most likely, will help it. Yudkowsky allocates this model as the important factor of possible underestimation of global risks.
75. Requirement for end
The concept the psychology, designating aspiration of human as soon as possible to find the answer to disturbing question (need for closure - as it names ). This aspiration leads to that human prefers the fast and incorrect decision to longer search of a right answer. And though we cannot search for correct strategy of work with global risks infinitely long - we are limited in time! - we should think well before coming to any conclusions.
76. Influence of authority and social pressure of group
This question is in detail considered in the book human and a situation. In particular, well-known experiments where examinees forced to beat the increasing current of other "examinees" (actually stool pigeons, and what current actually did not move) that those "studied", and examinees reached mortally dangerous pressure in 400 volt in spite of the fact that "victim" begged them to stop. Thus, though the majority of people is assured, that they would not began to do it, in real experiences it was done by 66 % of examinees. As the reasons of such behaviour authority influence, remoteness of a victim and influence of similar behaviour of group was revealed. It is obvious, that the same factors can operate on us when we estimate the risk connected with some factor or technology. If potential its victim are from us far in time and in space if near to us the highly authoritative human expresses in favour of this technology, and also if we are surrounded by group of the people, the holding opposite opinion, all it will influence our choice.
77. Rupture between survey and dot researches, between a tree and wood
Survey researches can offer system scenarios of global catastrophe or discuss consequences of some new discovery, but cannot tell, how make something dangerous. On the contrary, applied researches can state an exact estimation of risks, say, a separate asteroid, but not a total estimation of risks from all reasons. This rupture is swept brightly up in area nanotechnology. There is a level of survey design researches where the attention to that is possible first of all is paid and it is necessary to make, that is there is a movement from the declared purpose to different variants of its embodiment. Also there is a level of concrete researches of properties of separate materials. From the point of view of representatives of the first direction behind a tree do not see wood, from the point of view - the first are engaged in superficiality and a fantasy. And both charges can be partly fair.
78. The error connected with an intellectual projection
This error arises, when we attribute to subjects possession properties which actually exist only in our representations about them. An example of such inaccuracy a reasoning like: AI will be kind, therefore it cannot kill me. Whereas kindness is not property of AI, and our estimation of its action in relation to us, and a causal relationship here return - we name AI "kind" because it does not kill us. Yudkowsky it defines so: It is a special case of deep, confusing and extremely widespread error, which E. T. Jaynes named an inaccuracy connected with an intellectual projection (mind projection fallacy). Jaynes, the expert on reliability theories, has defined an inaccuracy connected with an intellectual projection as the error connected by that knowledge conditions are mixed with properties of objects. For example, the phrase means a mystical phenomenon, that is a property of the phenomenon - but if I rather nobody a phenomenon it is the fact about my condition of consciousness, instead of about the phenomenon.)
79. Representation what to change circumstances follows, destroying their reasons
However the match from which the fire has lighted up, has already gone out. The aspiration to destroy any system, from the state to cockroaches and microorganisms, leads to that this system is optimised for struggle, becomes stronger. And the one who with it struggles, is compelled to get qualities of the enemy to operate with it on one territory.
80. Oblivion of main principle of medicine - do not do much harm!
Other formulation of this principle: When you do not know what to do, - do not do anything. Behind it there is a century experience which says, that rash actions will harm more likely, than will help. Concerning global catastrophes it has that sense, that the attempts hasty prevent them we can to aggravate them.
81. Mess between objective and subjective enemies
When somebody pursues the aims, stirring to my purposes, it my enemy objectively (a tiger who wishes to eat a goat; the opponent in game in chess; the competitor in business). However between people the enemy is the one who aspires to destroy personally me. This concept is fastened on blood feud. The mess consists that objective enemies start to seem subjective. For example, if to rise before rushing train and to tell, that the train wishes me to destroy. However between people happens also real situations of "subjective" enmity when one wishes to destroy another, not having any others behind it of the purposes or . With reference to global risks it means, that people who can destroy the world, will not be personally malicious to me at all or to look as a fiend. It can be fair, noble, beautiful people who will make certain very small and unevident mistake.
82. Predictions or dreams of the catastrophe, actually caused by envy
The vivid example of it is set of forums on the Internet where the people offended by disintegration of the USSR, dream to see crash of the USA and try to discover signs of this process. (But it does not mean, that in the American economy there are no problems.) one of variants of when not realised desires can influence the validity description.
83. Fear of loss of identity
The system does not wish to be transformed deeply as then it will be any more it. It is one of the reasons of struggle against globalisation. Somebody can prefer death to identity loss. That is to prefer global catastrophe of transformation of that world in which he lives.
84. Clear catastrophe can be more attractive than not clear future
As a whole global catastrophe to present easier, than the future, with certain yet not open technologies. (That is here operates the distortion connected with availability of the information.) not clear can cause fear.
85. Wrong application of a philosophical rule "razor Okkama"
We should not cut difficult hypotheses on the basis of razor Okkama. Razor Okkama can be considered through a prism logicians. Then the hypothesis demanding number of independent assumptions, appears less probable. For example, the hypothesis which is based on 10 independent assumptions, will have only 1 to 1024 chance of the validity. However and it it is not not enough, if it is a question of a hypothesis which means risk of extinction of mankind!
86. The top border of possible catastrophe is formed on the basis of last experience
Here that writes Yudkowsky in connection with already mentioned dams: recently gone through flooding, apparently, establish border of losses since which owners believe that should be disturbed . When dams and embankments are constructed, they reduce frequency of flooding, such in the image, probably, creating the false feeling of safety conducting to reduction of precaution. While building of dams reduces frequency of flooding, the damage from each flooding so increases, that the mid-annual damage increases. It seems, that people do not extrapolate from the gone through small dangers on possibility of more serious risks; on the contrary, last experience of small dangers establishes felt top border for risks.
87. The error connected with incorrect carrying over of laws of one system on another
growth of complexity of structure as the factor reducing reliability of system. If from a plant it is possible to cut off the most part, not having damaged its ability to high-grade restoration, to kill an animal, it is enough to remove very small slice of an organism. That is, the more difficult the system, the is more in it than vulnerable points. It is necessary to notice, that, in process of increase of processes of globalisation, connectivity and a terrestrial civilisation grows.
Decrease in reliability of system of proportionally fourth degree of density of energy. This empirical generalisation (exact value of a sedate indicator can differ depending on different factors) it is possible to find out, comparing reliability of planes and rockets: at the equal sizes, quantity and expenses reliability of rockets approximately in ten millions times is less - appreciably because energy density in engines several times more, and of some other factors. Similar empirical generalisation is true and for statistics of deadly failures of cars depending on speed. It is necessary to notice, that installed power per employee of mankind constantly grows.
88. An ambiguity and a polysemy of any statement as a source of a possible error
From the point of view of authors of regulations of works on the Chernobyl reactor humannel has broken their requirements, and from the point of view of humannel using these regulations, it operated precisely according to its requirements. The regulations demanded to muffle a reactor - but developers considered, that it should be made immediately, and operators - that gradually. Other variant - when automatic system of rescue and the pilot can make a set of actions, each of which separately would rescue the plane, but together they are imposed against each other and lead to catastrophe ( destruction 310 in 1994 in Siberia). It is difficult to reach unequivocal understanding of terms when we do not have experimental experience as in a case with global catastrophes.
89. Refusal to consider a certain scenario because of its "incredibility"
However the majority of catastrophes happen as a result improbable coincidence of circumstances. The destruction of "Titanic" is connected with exotic, it is possible to tell, a combination of 24 (!) circumstances.
90. Transition from a deceit to self-deception
The conscious deceit of other people for the purpose of reception of certain benefit, in our context - concealments of risks - can imperceptibly take the form of self-hypnosis. The self-deception can be much steadier, than illusion or inadvertent error. One more variant of such dangerous self-hypnosis - a command to myself I will think of it tomorrow (but tomorrow never comes).
91. Revaluation of own possibilities in general and survival rate in particular
 I will simply illustrate it with the citation from article Bostrom about threats to existence: Empirical data about biases in an estimation of risks are ambiguous. It is proved, that we suffer from regular biases when we estimate our own prospects of risks as a whole. Some data show, that people can overestimate own abilities and prospects. Three quarters of all motorists think, that they accurater drivers, than the average driver. According to one research, almost half of sociologists believes that they belong to the best to ten scientists in the area, and 94 % of sociologists think, that they it is better in the work, than their colleagues on the average. Also it has been shown, that people being in depression have more exact predictions, than normal people, except for those predictions which concern hopelessness of their situation. The majority of people thinks, that they with smaller probability are subject to usual risks, than other people. Widespread belief, that public is inclined to overestimate probabilities of risks often shined in the press (such, as catastrophes of planes, murders, poisonings with meal etc.), and recent research shows, that public overestimates a considerable quantity of widespread risks to health concerning itself. Other recent research, however, assumes, that the accessible information will be co-ordinated with the assumption, that public rationally estimates risk (though and with some narrowing because of the expense of cogitative efforts on deduction in mind of the exact information) .
92. Aspiration to the fine future, covering perception of risks
This phenomenon can be noticed at revolutionaries. Experience of Great French revolution quite could learn, that revolution conducts to civil war, dictatorship and external wars, however Russian revolutionaries of the beginning of the XX-th century fed the same illusions, as their French colleagues 120 years prior to them though, finally, have received similar result. And modern supporters of radical development of technologies have a bias of the same sort - that is belief that new technologies will not result to new types of weapon, to its application, and new technological catastrophes. Psychologically it is connected by that human rejects reflexions about risks as obstacles in a way to the light future.
93. The filters, information stirring to receipt to a management
The information exists not in vacuum, and in concrete system. Value of the information is defined by its novelty and total ability of system to react to it. Therefore it is important to investigate not only statements about global risks, but also how they can extend in a society. G.G.Malinetsky in the book Risk. A sustainable development. The synergetrics writes: One more feature of the information in the conditions of appearance consists that data arriving in a control system pass through a number of filters. The first of them are methods of studying used in a control system and the environment analysis by means of which realisation the entrance information, before to arrive to a management, is eliminated. This filter, as a rule, is adjusted on the past and the present, instead of on possible extreme changes of a situation in the future.
The second filter is psychological which essence consists in aversion a management of the information owing to its strategic novelty.
The third filter on a way of the arriving information is formed by supervising hierarchy. The new information cannot influence formation of reaction to changes, if heads do not possess the sufficient power officially to recognise an urgency of this information.
The fourth filter is connected by that last years the information is considered as the valuable strategic goods of which it is necessary to make thrifty use and not to transfer it under the first requirement. We will underline, that in the conditions of any delays in transfer of the initial information not only are immoral, but also .
94. Curiosity can appear more strongly fear of death
At all any information on global risks is useful. For example, if we make a certain dangerous experiment and as a result we will survive, we learn, that this type of experiments is safe. But whether there is this knowledge of that risk to which we have subjected ourselves? Nevertheless, people can risk a life for the sake of knowledge or experiences. It is possible to recollect, that were a victim in crowd curious, observing storm of the white house in 93 year. And, I am assured, to many people it is curious, what "doomsday" will be. Someone can agree on dangerous experiments for the sake of curiosity.
95. System and the regulations
Global catastrophe, as well as any usual technogenic failure, can be not result of any one fatal error, and a consequence of casual fatal coincidence of ten insignificant errors. For smooth functioning of system it is necessary to allow to break regulations on trifles. And during any moment these infringements develop in the suitable image - not extinguished stub, the open tank, the simplified scheme of start - and lead to formation of a chain of events, the leader to catastrophe. There is a following further: I had to take part in investigations (or to study materials) catastrophes and failures in the industry (not nuclear). By their results I for myself have drawn the following conclusion: practically never there are any "unique main" reasons and accordingly "the main thing guilty" (I mean not official conclusions of the commissions, and the actual party of business). As a rule, there is that I for myself conditionally name: ten small . All these small sloppiness are made at all on a kind for many years successively and since separately each of them is not capable to lead to heavy consequences owing to it the attention to them does not address. But when all of them occur during one time, in one place and with one people is leads to tragical result. Well and when incident has a public resonance - then usually and appoint the main switchman by a principle: "who has not hidden, I am not guilty".
96. Effect of "switchman"
Instead of search of original causes of catastrophe search for the switchman therefore the original reasons are not eliminated, and it becomes possible once again. Concerning global catastrophe this can have that sense, that instead of finding out and eliminating the laws conducting to it, struggle against private displays will be conducted. the laws conducting to global catastrophe, technical progress, basic impossibility of experimental check, superconfidence of people etc. are., whereas distribution of a genetic code of one taken virus - to private displays of these laws.
97. The minimum perceived risk
There is a minimum perceived risk, that is if the probability of event nobody a threshold less, human perceives it as zero. The assumption has been put forward, that it is caused by that human makes of the decision, proceeding not from real probabilities, possible variants of events pi, and from the representations about them f (pi). For example, a number of experiments shows, that human does not perceive probability less than 10-5, despite very big possible damage. We above explained it recognising that such risk level is imperceptible against daily risk to which human is exposed.
98. new ideas
People and scientists often reject new ideas as it would mean to recognise own wrongfulness. Dynamics of such process is depicted in its theory of scientific revolutions, and, unfortunately, discussions about new ideas are often painted by the same models of behaviour, as struggle for the power in flight of monkeys. Often preventions of new risks have not quite proved character. An example such , costing millions lives - long ideas of Hungarian doctor Ignatsa Phillip Zemmelvejsa (1818-1865) which asserted, that the maternity fever is connected by that doctors do not wash a hand after discovery of corpses.
99. Influence of emotional reaction of a shock
It is known, that catastrophes provoke certain sequence of psychological experiences, each of which influences objectivity of accepted decisions. In the book Psychogeniuses in extreme conditions it is told: psychological reactions at catastrophes are subdivided into four phases: heroism, a honeymoon , disappointment and restoration thus the period of negation, a panic or a paralysis during the first instants can precede a heroism phase.
Each of these stages creates the kind of bias. If global catastrophe it will be so awful that will cause reaction of negation in the spirit of begins cannot be, it is any error etc. For example, video shots about act of terrorism have apprehended on September, 11th many as shots from a new Hollywood film. Then there is a stage of superreaction which can create new dangers because of precipitate behaviour. For example, the pilots, taken off to patrol on September, 11th the sky over New York, have been assured, that war with Russian has begun. In the same spirit there was also a statement of the president Bush that we declare war this very day. Then at a stage of euphoria the feeling of danger becomes dull, though actually the dangerous situation yet has not ended. The despondency, on the contrary, is connected not with reduction of an estimation of risk, and with reduction of motivation with it to struggle, probably, connected with scales of losses and inevitability comprehension. Acceptance leads to that catastrophes is forgotten, and the risk is taken for granted. That is at this stage there is also a reduction of an estimation risks, and motivation reduction on its overcoming. Such description concerns experience of catastrophes which have begun and have ended, like Earthquakes, and clinic of a sharp grief at death of relatives. However global catastrophe does not concern such events - more likely if its approach manages to be noticed, it will look as more and more accruing terrible process.
Thus important that emotions influences behaviour of people irrespective of, they want it, or not even if they know about this influence, and wish it to avoid. Advertising action is based on it. Besides, if global catastrophe, for example, general epidemic at almost everyone there will be the close people who are dying as a result of it or being in a zone of raised risk begins. In the Hollywood films it is represented usually in that spirit, that the protagonist has time to rescue also the country, and to liberate the beloved from blockages. But on that it and the fairy tale, that so will not be. All people, both making decisions, and executors, in case of global catastrophe will think not only of destinies of a planet, but also about rescue close (and also the countries, native cities and others with which they are connected), and owing to it their choice will be . Even if they will make decision to offer the relatives and entirely to concentrate on catastrophe prevention, the emotional stress from such decision will harm to their objectivity and working capacity. Actually, they will be in a condition of a sharp grief or a shock. G.G.Malinetsky writes: a Number of experts in risk psychology consider, that a share of the heads capable adequately to operate in the conditions of , does not exceed 0,5 %.
100. Problems of selection of experts
As on each separate question we are compelled to rely on opinion of the most competent people in this area, the effective way of selection of such people - or their books is necessary to us. Techniques of selection of experts are usually that: first, their regalia - a citing index, scientific ranks, posts etc. matter. Secondly, it is possible to believe on number of the come true forecasts to define probability of their correctness. The third way consists in to trusting anybody, and to recheck most all another's calculations. At last, it is possible to select people on that, how much they share your belief - whether they trust in Singularity, Peak , liberal model of economy etc. - it is obvious, that in this case we do not learn anything new, besides, as so it was meant by our selection. And it is obvious, that all the ways long selection of experts contain the reefs. For example, concerning global catastrophes there can not be come true forecasts.
101. Fault and responsibility as factors of prevention of risks
Our mind can to try define the one who exactly is guilty in this or that catastrophe. The fault leans against concepts of a free will, responsibility and the subsequent punishment. However in case of global catastrophe it loses any sense as there will be no neither investigations, nor a punishment, neither advantage of this punishment, nor fear of punishment. On the other hand, concentration on search of the guilty distracts from vision of a complete picture of catastrophe. Actually, we think, that if we will define guilty and we will replace them with more effective executors following time of catastrophe will not be, and to all slovens there will be a good lesson and discipline on manufacture will raise. Obviously, however, that punishment of the guilty is useless, when it is a question of global catastrophes. Probably, it was meaningful to judge winners - that is people who have admitted a certain global risk even if catastrophes as a result have not occurred. It is thus important to enhance the responsibility people for world preservation in which they live.
102. Underestimation of forces of inertia as factor of stability of systems
Besides the general reasons about complexity and the feedback mechanisms doing system steady, it is possible to use Gotts formula (indirect ways of an estimation of risks see the head) for an estimation of future time of existence of system, proceeding from last time of its existence. She allows to express that fact, that if, for example, the bus was not about an hour it is improbable, that it will come the next minute. That is last time of existence of system creates, so to say, time inertia. When it appears, that a certain system is steadier, than it seemed to us, proceeding from our theories, we start to doubt our theories which can be as a matter of fact correct, but be mistaken in dating of events. Thus, stability underestimation conducts to underestimation of risks.
103. The opinions caused by outlook
The error essence consists in the assumption volume that there are the true statements which have been not caused by outlook. All discussions about risks of global catastrophe occur on a platform of certain scientific, cultural and historical outlook which is so obvious to us that seems transparent and is imperceptible. However it is possible, that the representative of other culture and religion will argue essentially in another way and bias of our reasonings also will be obvious to it.
104. Struggle for a scientific priority
For example, concerning global warming there are some the different terms which have been put forward by different authors on purpose to fix the priority on this concept: planetary catastrophe at It is scarlet. Mountain, greenhouse catastrophe at A.V.Karnauhova, runaway global warming in other foreign literature. It leads to that search in one of synonyms does not give out results on another. Besides, it is important to note those difficulties, which are tested by a science with the certificate of unique events, which had final number of observers (in the spirit of the decision of the French academy of sciences that stones from the sky cannot fall.)

105. The error connected with conscious and unconscious unwillingness of people to recognise the fault and scale of catastrophe
 And following from this wrong informing of the heads on a situation. Conscious - when, for example, military men hide a certain failure that them have not punished, wishing will consult by own strength. When people do not cause firemen, extinguishing a fire until it does not become too extensive. Unconscious - when people trust in that description which reduces scale of failure and their fault. In the organizer of tests of woodpeckers believed, that the reactor, and a tank with cooling water has blown up not - and continued to submit commands on a nonexistent reactor. Possibly, such unwillingness can operate and forward in time, forcing people not to take up responsibility for the future global catastrophes.
106. The regular error connected with
It consists that people attribute to themselves influence on results of collective actions, than actually. Sometimes people exaggerate negative influence (). According to Michael Anisimov, for this reason people exaggerate value of own death and underestimate death of all civilisation.
107. The regular error arising in connection with presence or absence of the obvious reason of events
People can concern more tolerantly the events occurring naturally (for example, death from an old age), than to the events having the obvious reason (death from illness), and especially - to the events connected with malice aforethought (murder). In a case with global risks at the moment there is no object or human whom we could accuse that the human civilisation will die out. Michael Anisimov writes: As on horizon it is not visible the bad guy that with it to struggle, people do not test such enthusiasm which they, for example, tested, I protest against Bush.
107. Dependence of reaction on speed of change of size
Human can react more strongly to suddenly arisen threats, than on threats of the same force, but developed gradually. It is scarlet Mountains in the film about global warming results as an example experience with a frog. If a frog to throw in hot water, it there and then will jump out but if to place it in a vessel with cold water and to heat up, it will sit in it, not to cook yet. In the same way and inhabitants of Easter island so slowly reduced trees, that for each generation the problem was not appreciable.


Chapter 4. The Obshchelogichesky errors, able to be shown in reasonings on global risks
1. Mess between probability, as a measure of variability of object, and confidence degree, as a measure of the information on object
The first concerns likelihood process, for example, to radioactive disintegration, and the second to unknown process - for example, to card guessing. However global risks concern the phenomena, estimating which we are compelled to state likelihood judgements about processes, which simultaneously both likelihood, and unknown humans. Here we start to speak about degree of confidence of this or that probability. In this case the probability and confidence degree are multiplied.
2. Substitution of the analysis of possibilities by the analysis of the purposes
For example, reasonings like terrorists never will want to use the bacteriological weapon because it will put blow and on they protect what interests. The structure of the purposes can be is very difficult or to comprise errors simply.
3. The incorrect use of inductive logic of a following kind: time something very much did not occur for a long time, it will not occur still very long
This statement works only in the event that we unitary observed something during the casual moment of time and probability is in that case described by formula . It gives chance of end for any event in 50 percent in an interval from 1/3T to 3T, where T - age of object at the moment of its casual detection. However if we very long observe a certain process it evidently, comes nearer to the end. For example, if we take the casual human it, most likely, will be middle age. However if to take the casual human and then very long to observe, we will unequivocally receive the very old man who can die at any moment. (My article Natural catastrophes and Antropic principle more in detail see.)
4. The thinking caused by desire something to prove
Depending on that human wishes to prove, it will select those or other arguments, is frequent . Other name for this model - "rationalisation", that is selection of pseudo-rational arguments under certain initially irrational statement.
5. The logic error arising at attempts to prove that it is necessary to do, proceeding only from the description of the facts
If in the first and second parcel of conclusion the facts and in a conclusion there can be only facts contain only. Any reasoning on the purposes should lean against certain representations about the values, set is axiomatic. However it means randomness of such purposes, and their understanding can differ at different researchers of global risks that can conduct to different definitions of catastrophe and representations that will be from it an exit. Besides, any system of axioms allows to formulate indemonstrable statements (as has shown ø in the theorem of incompleteness), and concerning obligations it is easy to be convinced of it: almost any system of base values easily allows to create in itself contradictions that is the basic maintenance of many literary works where the hero a choice between, let us assume, love to a family and to the native land (should make that else the existential choice is called). It is not known, whether the consistent system of values as it will look is possible in general, and whether will be applicable in practice. However work on consistent system of values is important, as it will need to be enclosed in the future cars possessing an artificial intellect.
6. The errors connected with substitution of the analysis of risks by the analysis of those commercial motives who speaks about them
It is possible to argue as follows: if human investigates risks free of charge it the unemployed and if he wishes to receive for it money it parasitizes on public fears if it its direct official duties, to trust it is impossible because it the agent of the state and powders brains to the population. From here it is visible, that the direct communication between money and the analysis of risks is not present, though in some cases it is possible. The explanation through simplification is called and allows to explain everything, everything.
7. Use so-called authoritative knowledge
The authoritative knowledge was the basic source of data on the world in the Middle Ages when for true searched in Aristotle's works; have then invented an empirical method. References to opinions of great people should not form the sufficient basis to recognise something safe. Only regularly repeated calculations can specify in it.
8. Wrong application of idea that the theory should be considered true, only if it is proved
 If to consider a scientific method, as a way of reception of the most authentic knowledge this methodology is true. However from the point of view of safety maintenance the opposite approach is necessary: a certain assumption should be considered dangerous until it is not denied. For example, the new model of the plane is considered dangerous, until then will not be proved yet, by theoretical calculations and test flights in all modes, that it is safe; the same principle underlies clinical testing of new medicines. Not clearly the same as to apply a principle concerning theories about those or other global catastrophes.
9. Perception of the new information through a prism of the old
 In the course of perception human only a part of the information a beret from an external world, and the rest completes on the basis of the memory, expectations and associations. Alas, the same is true and for texts, including on global risks. Reading to the review of different people of the same text, it is not difficult to be convinced, that they have apprehended it absolutely differently. Hardly it is connected by that one people were essentially cleverer than others - more likely, that they applied different filters of perception. Moreover, if human has started to adhere to a certain point of view he subscribes for those editions and chooses those articles which confirm it. Thus, at it illusion is created, that the statistics on the data confirming its point of view, grows. It even more strengthens both its filter, and its confidence of these data.
10. An error in a choice of a neutral position
Each human understands in due course, that it is not quite objective, and its point of view has some tendentiousness. To compensate this deviation, he can choose a certain neutral source of the information. The error consists that the people adhering to opposite sights, will choose different neutral points, each of which will be closer to a position of the one who has chosen it. We described a similar error above when resulted results of experiences in which examinees have been warned about a possible error and did on it the amendment - and, nevertheless, all the same underestimated. Possibly, it was necessary to give the amendment not only to key parametre, but also to the amendment.
11. Confidence as a source of errors
The more human doubts the point of view, the is more often it changes it under the influence of the new facts, and the it is more than chances, that it will get to more authentic knowledge. If human is too assured of the opinion, it is difficult to it to change it. If it too it does not come nearer to true, and goes on a circle.
12. Use completely the erroneous logic
Alas, the situation when human in the reasonings makes mistakes in each line is possible. In this case it could not find the errors even if would like. It can be or one repeating regular error, or such density of different errors which does impossible a faultless reasoning. Even I now do not know for certain, whether I do any regular logic errors at the moment. It can occur more often, than we think - the analysis of scientific texts has shown, that usually people use the reduced conclusions and heuristics receptions - and do not realise it.
13. Prescience and pseudo science mixture
While the hypothesis is in process of a formulation, it yet has not acquired all scientific device and is, more likely, a product of brain storm on a certain theme, probably, carried out collectively by an exchange of opinions in printing editions. And during this moment it is a prescience - however it is aimed at becoming a science part, that is to pass corresponding selection and to be accepted or rejected. The pseudo science can simulate all attributes of scientific character - ranks, references, a mathematical apparatus, - nevertheless, its purpose - not search of authentic knowledge, and visibility of reliability. All statements about global risks are hypotheses which we almost never can check up. However we should not reject them on early phases of maturing. In other words, the phase of brain storm and a phase of critical elimination should not mix up - though both should be present.
14. The error connected with wrong definition of the status
The reality problem (that is generalisations) was the basic in medieval philosophy, and it consisted in a question, what objects actually really exists. Whether there are, for example, birds in general, or there are only separate copies of birds, and all kinds, sorts and families of birds - no more than a conditional invention of human reason? One of possible answers is that objectively there is our ability to distinguish birds and not-birds. Moreover, each bird too possesses this quality, and owing to it AI exist objectively. In reasonings on risks the ambiguity apropos creeps as follows: properties of one object are transferred on a certain class as though this class was object. Then there are reasonings like America wants or it is peculiar to Russian whereas behind these concepts there is not a uniform object, and the set, which exact definition depends on the observer. Any discussions about the politician are poisoned by such shift. Arguing on an artificial intellect it is easy to make such mistake as it is not clear, whether there is a speech about one device or about a class of objects.
15. Statements about possibility something and impossibility
The statement about impossibility is much stronger, for enough one object concerns all set of potential objects, and for the validity of the statement about possibility. Therefore statements about impossibility something are false much more often. Assuming any event or coincidence of circumstances impossible, we cause a damage of our safety. In certain circumstances probably all. Thus any discussions about the future catastrophes is always discussions about possibilities.
16. Evidence as a source of errors
The correct conclusion always leans on two parcels, two true judgements. However the analysis of texts shows, that people very seldom use the full form of conclusions, and instead use reduced where only one parcel obviously is called, and another is meant by default. Are held back usually evidence - the judgements, seeming so true and doubtless, that there is need no them to sound. Moreover, it is frequent they are so obvious, that are not realised. It is clear, that such state of affairs is the reason of numerous errors because evidence - not necessarily validity, and that is obvious to one, is not obvious to another.
17. Underestimation of own inaccuracy
As well as any human, I is inclined to be mistaken, that is connected as with the basic unreliability of a human brain connected with the likelihood nature of its work, and with incompleteness of my knowledge of the world and skills of elimination of errors. I can know nothing on 100 % because reliability of my brain is not equal 100 %. I can check up reliability, having solved a series of logic problems average complexities, and then having counted quantity of errors. However usually it does not become, and own inaccuracy is estimated intuitively. Precisely also human usually does not measure a characteristic inaccuracy of the judgements about the future though it probably to make experimentally: for example, to write the forecast of the and public life for year or five years and then to compare.
18. The error connected with representation that each event has one reason
Actually:
 There are absolutely casual events.
 Each event has many reasons (the glass has fallen because it have put with edge because it is made of glass because force of gravitation it is great because a floor firm because the cat disobedient because it should happen sooner or later).
Each reason has the reason therefore we have dispersing in last tree of the reasons. Human mind is incapable entirely this tree of the reasons to capture and is compelled to simplify. But the concept "reason" is necessary in a society because it is connected with fault, punishment and a free will. That is here under "causal" acceptance by the free made human of the decision on crime fulfilment means. There is no need to speak about that, how many here the unevident moments. (The basic question: Who is guilty?)
And in technics designing: where it is important to find a cause of catastrophe. That is that it is possible to eliminate - so that failures such any more were not. (The basic question: What to do?)
The concept the reason less all is applicable to the analysis of the difficult unique phenomena, such as human behaviour and history. The example to that is weight of the confused discussions about those reasons or other historical events. For this reason reasonings in a sort the reason of global catastrophe will be ջ - to put it mildly, are imperfect.
19. Necessity of a choice on the basis of belief
If the head receives some the conclusions contradicting each other about safety it makes a choice between them, simply trusting in one of them - for the reasons which have been not connected with the logic. Here too it is possible to recollect the term an existential choice when human should make a choice in a non-formalizable situation. For example, between love and a debt.
20. Effect of first and last read book
The order of receipt of the information influences its estimation, and are allocated first and last source. It is one of forms of the inaccuracy connected with availability of the information.
21. Exaggeration of a role of computer modelling
Most two worked models - meteorology and nuclear explosions. Both are made on a huge actual material, with the account of hundreds tests which made amendments to forecasts, and both regularly gave errors. Even the most exact model remains model. Therefore we cannot strongly rely on computer modelling of unique events to what global catastrophe concerns.
22. The proof by analogy as a source of possible errors
Business not only that there can not be analogies to the unique event, which else never happened - to irreversible global catastrophe, but also that we do not know how to draw such analogies. In any case, analogy can illustrate only. Possibly, it is useful to accept analogies when they speak about a reality of a certain threat, but not when - about safety.
23. The error connected with discrepancy of extrapolation exponential of likelihood function by means of the linear
Likelihood function of destruction of a civilisation - if to consider it process smooth in sense of probability, that is, of course, incorrect - it is possible to assimilate functions of disintegration of radioactive atom which, as is known, is described . For example, if the probability of destruction of a civilisation during the XXI century is equal 50 % as it is assumed by sir Martin Rees in the book Our last hour in 200 years the chance of a survival of a civilisation will be 25 %, and through one thousand years - only 0,1 % - at uniform preservation of the same tendencies. From here it is visible, that it is incorrect to conclude, that time chances of a survival within a millenium makes 0,1 % for one century it will be in only ten times more, that is 1 %. The Same error in less obvious kind arises, if we need to extrapolate the same 50 % of a survival within 100 years on probability of destruction. Linear approximation would give 0,5 % for a year. However the exact value calculated under formula , makes approximately 0,7 %, that is in 1,4 times above, than intuitive linear approximation gives.
24. The St.-Petersburg paradox
This paradox has the direct relation to global catastrophes as shows that infinitely big damage from the extremely rare events has weight, than all other events, however psychologically people are not ready to apprehend it. G.G.Malinetsky so describes this paradox in the book Risk. A sustainable development. Synergetrics":"we Will consider the following game. The coin is thrown until the eagle for the first time will not drop out. If it was required n throws the prize will make 2n units. That is prizes 2,4,8, 2n will occur to probability 1/2,1/4,1/8, 1/2n. The expected prize in this game is infinite:
 .
It is asked, how many human is ready to pay for the right to enter into such game. The paradox consists that the majority of people is ready to pay for this right no more than 100, and sometimes and 20 units
25. Distinction between danger and risk
The risk is created by accepted decisions, and dangers - circumstances. As the basic source of risk of global catastrophes are new technologies decisions on their development and application define it. However if technologies develop spontaneously and they become similar to natural dangers.
26. The error connected by that if probability nobody events is not computable, to it believe the zero
Whereas the principle of precaution would demand, that we attributed to such events 100 percentage probability. However it would lead to absurd conclusions in the spirit of: the probability of disembarkation of aliens is unknown tomorrow, therefore we should prepare for it how if it was equal to 100 percent. In this case it is possible to use indirect ways of an estimation of probability, for example, formula .
27. Omission of that safety of system is defined by its weakest link
If in a premise there are three parallel doors, one of which is locked by three locks, the second - two, and the third - one the premise is locked on one lock. As do not strengthen two strongest doors, it will change nothing.
28. hypotheses without consideration
To reject a certain hypothesis, it should be considered in the beginning. But it is frequent this sequence it is broken. People refuse to consider those or other improbable assumptions because they reject them. However reliably to reject a certain assumption it is possible, only carefully it having considered, and for this purpose it is necessary to accept it at least for some time seriously.
29.
Variety of essentially important processes for us is so combined what to predict them it is impossible, as they . can have the different reasons.
;It can be connected with incomprehensibility of process (for example, Technological Singularity, or, for example, how the theorem the Farm is incomprehensible for a dog), that is is connected with basic qualitative limitation of a human brain. (Such is our situation with a prediction of behaviour of Superintelligence in the form of AI.)
;It can be connected with quantum processes which do possible only a likelihood prediction, that is systems (weather forecast, a brain).
;It can be connected with supercomplexity of systems in which force each new factor completely changes our representation about a definitive outcome. That concern: models of global warming, nuclear winter, global economy, model of exhaustion of resources. Four last fields of knowledge unite that everyone describes the unique event, which else never was in history, that is is advancing model.
; can be connected that the meant volume of calculations though is final, but it is so great, that any conceivable computer cannot execute it during Universe existence (such it is used in cryptography). This kind to be shown in the form of chaotic determined by system.
; it is connected also by that though to us the correct theory can be known (along with many other things), we cannot know, which theory is correct. That is the theory, besides correctness, should be easily demonstrable for everything, and it not one too, in conditions when experimental check is impossible. Somewhat in the way of calculation of correctness of the theory, to be exact - measures of confidence of them, the market where or direct rates on a certain outcome become is, or on the price there is nobody the goods connected with the forecast, for example, of the price for oil. However the theory influences a market price many other factors: gamble, emotions or not market nature of the object. (It is senseless to be insured against global catastrophe as there is nobody and there is nobody for it will pay off, and owing to it it is possible to tell, that its insurance price is equal to zero.)
;One more kind is connected with possibility of realisation of self-coming true or self-denying forecasts which do system essentially astable and unpredictable.
;, connected with the assumption of own site (self-sampling assumption - see about it N.Bostroma's book). The essence of this assumption consists that in some a situation I should consider myself as the casual representative from some set of people. For example, considering myself as usual human, I can conclude, that I with probability in 1/12 had chances to be born in September. Or with probability, let us assume, 1 to 1000 I could be born the dwarf. It sometimes allows to do predictions on the future: namely, if in Russia 100 billionaires chances, that I will become the billionaire, make one to 1,5 million, in the assumption, that this proportion will remain. To it results, when I try to apply the assumption of own site to own knowledge. For example, if I know, that only 10 % of futurologists give correct predictions I should conclude, that with chances of 90 % any my predictions wrong. The majority of people do not notice it as for the account of superconfidence and the raised estimation consider itself not as one of representatives of set and as "elite" of this set, the possessing raised ability to predictions. It is especially shown in gamblings and game in the market where people do not follow obvious thought: the Majority of people loses in a roulette, hence, I, most likely, will lose.
;the Similar form is connected with an information neutrality of the market. (Told further is considerable simplification of the theory of the market and problems of information value of indicators given to it. However more detailed consideration does not remove the named problem but only complicates it, creating one more level - namely impossibility for the usual human to seize all completeness of knowledge connected with the theory of predictions, and also uncertainty of what of theories of predictions is true. See about information value of the market so-called no trade theorem.) The ideal market is in balance in which half of players considers, that the goods will rise in price, and half - what to become cheaper. In other words, win in game with the zero sum the majority of people, human can only cleverer or informed, than. However the majority of people everything are not cleverer, than, by definition though are not capable to realise it because of psychological bias. For example, the price for oil is at such level that does not give obvious acknowledgement to the assumption of inevitability of the crisis connected with exhaustion of oil, the assumption of limitlessness of oil stocks. As a result the rational player does not receive any information on for what scenario to it prepares. The same situation concerns and disputes: If a certain human has chosen to prove the point of view opposite to yours, and you of anything do not know about its intelligence, erudition and information sources, and also about the objective rating, that is chances 50 on 50, that it is right, instead of you. As objectively to measure the intelligence and awareness extremely difficultly because of desire them to overestimate, it is necessary to consider their being in the spectrum middle.
;As in a modern society mechanisms of transformation of any future parametres in market indexes (for example, trade in quotas under the Kiotsky report on emissions of carbonic gas or the rate on elections, war and operate. , futures for weather) it brings an additional element of basic unpredictability in all kinds of activity. Owing to such trade we cannot learn for certain, whether there will be a global warming, exhaustion of oil, what real threat of a bird flu.
;One more reason - privacy. If we try to consider this privacy through different plot theories in the spirit of book Twilight in desert about estimations of stocks of the Saudi oil we receive dispersing space of interpretations. (That is, unlike a usual case when accuracy raises with number of the measurements, here each new fact only increases split between opposite interpretations.) any human on the Earth does not possess all completeness of the classified information, as at the different organisations different secrets.
The psychological aspect of this problem consists that people argue how if any was not. In other words, it is possible to find out some opinions and reasonings on the future in which its basic and multilateral unpredictability is not considered at all, no less than limitation of human ability it is authentic about it to argue.
33. Observant selection
Observant selection is a form of an error when owing to a way of product of experiment its one results are more appreciable, than others. For example, brighter stars in the sky are more appreciable, but it does not mean, that all stars bright. A special case of observant selection is when the different outcome of event observes different number of observers that takes place in case of destruction of the observer in one of outcomes. For example, the soldiers who have gone through of some months of war, are inclined to overestimate the survivability - that is at them the erroneous sensation of own invulnerability is born. Global catastrophes, obviously, concern such class of processes. In my article Natural catastrophes and Antropic principle and in the head about indirect estimations of probability of global catastrophe in this book more in detail see.
Chapter 5. The specific errors arising in discussions about danger of uncontrollable development of an artificial intellect
1. The disorder of opinions of safety of AI means absence of real proofs of safety
Experts in computers state many different opinions on the reasons of why, in their opinion, AI is safe. These statements each other, and, means, their considerable part is false. Therefore we can safely result them as examples of errors, not pressing in proofs each separate statement. I have spent on the Internet interrogation among developers of AI, on a theme of that is a guarantee of safety of AI, and have received the following disorder of opinions, with approximately identical number of the people, holding this or that opinion. So, AI is safe, because:
1) because AI is impossible.
2) because AI can solve only narrow problems, like recognition of images.
3) because when we will make universal AI, we will enter into it Three laws of a robotics of Azimov.
4) Because I know how to use AI in the blessing to people.
5) Because AI will possess superhuman wisdom by definition and will not want to cause harm to people.
6) Because AI it is necessary nothing from people, and we can co-exist peacefully with each other.
7) Because it will be locked in my computer and if something goes not so, I will switch off an electricity.
8) because at AI cannot be the will.
9) AI is impossible without a free will, therefore we should give it freedom.
10) Because AI cannot make anything bad.
11) AI can be dangerous, but, most likely, all will manage.
12) Is not present, AI is dangerous, and all of us are doomed.
13) AI will destroy mankind, and we should aspire to it, as AI is more progressive form of evolution.
In a course it has appeared, that these opinions are distributed more or less in regular intervals. It means, that the information sum of safety of AI which researchers of AI as a whole possess, is equal to zero.
2. The idea that it is possible to create faultless system, repeatedly having checked up its project and an initial code is erroneous
Checks bring some number of new errors, and owing to it at certain level the number of errors is stabilised. It is true and about systems what laws, for example, are. It is not necessary to count, that we can create the arch corrected behaviour for AI, not containing errors.
3. Errors in the critic of AI
R.Penrouz in the book New mind of the king asserts, that AI is impossible, because in a brain there are not computable quantum processes which are necessary for creative thinking and consciousness. On the basis of it often affirms, that dangerous AI is impossible. It is represented to me, that the given conclusion is not quite correct for following reasons:
1. The quantum nature of consciousness it is far not sciences. We cannot base safety of mankind on not proved (though also interesting) the theory.
2. It is impossible to prove impossibility something in the nature theoretically. (But possibility to prove it is possible - for example, a background Neumann has proved possibility of self-reproduced mechanisms.)
3. That AI became dangerous, it does not need to possess neither consciousness, nor ability to creativity. Modern AI can beat any human in chess, not using neither consciousnesses, nor intuitions. That is the intuition is only the useful characteristic reducing speed of search of combinations, but replaced with algorithms. It is enough to tell, that dangerous AI is AI which can beat human in any game. War and earning money are versions of such games.
4. If certain special quantum functions are carried out neuron or microtubes nothing prevents to use them as elements of future powerful AI - for example, in the form of the external coprocessor. Quantum computers are one of realisation variants. Eventually, strong AI can arise not as the computer, and as genetically modified human with (that is connected directly to the computer). And at the worst, if the class of the problems accessible to human is found out, but not accessible to the computer, the situation of direct operation of people for the decision of these problems is possible, thus each of people will not know, its decision will be applied how. So now spam programs, for example, work - they ask people on the site with to distinguish estimated figures in the drawing taken from other site, and thus get access to this other site. Thus people use blindly as people do not know, that results of their recognition will be used in other place. Similarly the state employs scientists for weapon working out.
5. The considerable number of the important problems can be solved search, that is by realisation of final number of operations. For example, it can be search of all possible combinations of the signs generating the text of the proof of the theorem. In other words, there is an algorithm, allowing to solve any problem. And a question only in its optimisation. Probably, that the decision of those problems on which the destiny of mankind can depend, quite probably search even if there are some problems which search do not dare during Universe existence.
6. If it will be possible to prove, that the consciousness all the same possesses the quantum nature, it will open the new world of possibilities, so also new risks.
4. Representation that is enough 3 laws of a robotics of A.Azimova to solve all problems with safety of AI
It was already repeatedly shown in different researches, that robotics laws are not a guarantee of safety AI in a little considerable measure:
1. These laws are a tautology as from them follows, that AI will be safe, because it will not cause harm.
2. They comprise contradictions which is masterful is beaten by Azimov in its stories - the robot often tests the conflict between 1, 2 and 3 laws and as a result behaves in the dangerous image.
3. These laws concern independent robots, instead of to AI which is not adhered to one mechanism.
4. They lean against intuitive concept of "harm" which is not defined by them and consequently can accept any form. For example: to live harmfully because of it die.
5. These laws are faster wishes - that is that we want from AI, instead of rules by which it could be guided. It is not known, how to place these laws in AI.
5. Erroneous representations that progress in the field of the software is absent
Algorithms of decomposition of numbers on a multiplier improve faster, than hardware maintenance. There is a progress and in other areas, but it less will measure. Eventually, equipment progress is too progress of that our understanding how to make microcircuits less.
6. Erroneous representations that anybody in the world is not engaged such in a theme as AI
It is known some firms and people which actively work over creation of universal AI - Numenta, Novamenta, SIAI, a2i2. More detailed review of programs on AI creation see in the head about risks of AI.
7. Erroneous representations that AI are different concrete appendices, like technics of recognition of images
Here there is a substitution of theses. In the given book under AI the Artificial intellect means. That someone extends the workings out under a brand "AI" though they actually it are not, does not follow, that AI is impossible. In the English-speaking literature term GAI - General AI is extended - the Universal artificial intellect which is intended for elimination of this ambiguity, also suggest to use the term artificial reason.
8.
Unconsciously we humanise AI set of different ways, and it forms our expectations. See in article Yudkowsky in the appendix more in detail. In particular, we perceive AI as object which somewhere is, has accurate borders, the purposes etc.
9. Erroneous representation what enough to disconnect AI from a food that it to stop
This statement is based on the assumption, that programmer Ii WILL KNOW, WHEN PROCESS HAS GONE INCORRECTLY - OBVIOUSLY, INCORRECT. THE SECOND INCORRECT ASSUMPTION - ABOUT LOCALITY OF AI. THE THIRD - THAT AI CANNOT PROTECT THE FOOD, EITHER HAVING MASKED, OR HAVING LEFT IN A NETWORK. THE FOURTH - THAT THE PROGRAMMER CANNOT BE IN COLLUSION WITH AI (AND-OR WILL DECEIVE IT).
10. Erroneous representation that, even having extended on the Internet, AI cannot influence an external world in any way
Incorrectly - on the Internet it is possible to earn money and to order any actions in an external world. The contract with people, blackmail and a direct control of mechanisms is besides, possible.
11. Erroneous representation that AI cannot have own desires, therefore it never begins to do to human harm
That AI has earned, before it will put certain problems. In the course of their performance it can realise those or others . These can be very dangerous, if on them correct restrictions. The most known example - nobody AI charge to prove hypothesis and for the sake of this purpose it transforms all substance of Solar system into computers.
12. Erroneous representation that AI will master space, having left the Earth to human
This good wish, but in it already is bitterness of capitulation. There are no bases to think, that AI is obliged also it actually it will do.
13. Erroneous representation that any AI is intelligence, therefore it possesses the purpose X (to substitute necessary), and this blessing
The intelligence is a tool which can be directed on achievement of any purpose. People use the most powerful intelligence to reach the primitive purposes which are peculiar to the alpha male of monkey's herd - to heat competitors, to achieve an arrangement of females, to get livelihood - and for the sake of all it verses are written, theorems are proved, plots trudge. Therefore presence of intelligence does not mean any unequivocal purpose. (And to think so, means to pass from the facts to obligations that comprises always a logic error.) and especially abstract purpose (to learn the world, for example) cannot be the concrete blessing for all people for all depends on ways of realisation of this purpose.
14. Erroneous representation that modern computers are very limited in the possibilities, therefore AI will be only in the long-term future - through tens or hundreds years
As we do not know, that such AI, we do not know, what exactly should be invented, that it to create, that is why we can not state exact time forecasts. AI can arise and tomorrow - the company a2i2 plans to finish the project in 2008, other projects are guided for 2011 Existing rates of progress in the field of creation of powerful computers are sufficient to create the computers close on productivity to our brain, the next years, and there are no inevitable reasons on which growth of capacity of computers should will be slowed down.
15. Erroneous representation that progress in understanding of work of a brain goes very slowly. Therefore AI will work very slowly
But the slowness of preparatory processes does not mean a slowness of the process. Yudkowsky in article which you will find in the appendix, denies it a difference example between time of working out of the nuclear weapon and speed of processes in a bomb.
16. Erroneous representation that human is capable to do X (to substitute necessary) that never can do AI and consequently AI does not represent any threat
X can have in different interpretations of quality of inspirations, intuitions, fast recognition of images, experiences of feelings, comprehension, love. However:
1. We do not know, that can or AI cannot, yet we will not make it.
2. AI can be dangerous, even if it cannot do H.Naprimer, he can win against us in chess, at a stock exchange, or in any other vital game for us.
3. If there is a certain problem which human can solve only, AI can employ or subordinate to itself people for its decision. For example, the modern state employs scientists, and gives everyone a problem fragment on working out, say, a nuclear bomb.
17. Erroneous representation that AI is impossible because he thinks algorithmically, and human -
The requirement at AI creation is not necessary. Genetic algorithms, quantum computers, implantation neuron in chips and methods do the requirement conditional. A question on that, human how thinks, is not opened yet. Recently it was possible to learn to play the computer better human in poker (Texas - and after all poker is considered that game in which the intuition is especially important) and it is better to play human a stock exchange (on models). It means, that real people will lose money, facing with computers at a stock exchange or on online tournaments. Probably, that for them the question on, whether possesses the computer consciousness or is the calculator not so is important, as that, how many they have lost. If the computer learns to distinguish images of an external world it can also is effective win disputes, pursue you in wood, shoot on the purposes, do drawings.
It is pleasant to human to think, that it is better (more cleverly, more absolutely etc.) the computer because it has an intuition. However time so it is necessary to concern with suspicion this idea as it can be caused emotions. We cannot build the system of safety on the statement which to us is pleasant. AND suddenly we underestimate force of algorithms? Suddenly there is such algorithm which works more powerfully sew intuitions?
18. Erroneous representation that AI will be about same clever, as well as human
There is an erroneous representation that AI will possess approximately human abilities, and in the future the society consisting of people and "robots" is formed. However the set of possible human minds, most likely, is only a small part of set in general possible minds. Therefore it is improbable, that, having reached human level, AI on it will stop. Having increased its speed of work, having connected it with thousand other AI, having added a computer faultlessness and memory, we can strengthen in thousand times AI of human level, not making basic discovery.
19. Erroneous representation that AI will be the employee of human equal in rights with the same possibilities and the rights
Here confuse AI and the separate robot. In the event that its possibilities will infinitely surpass human their "equality" will be strong to the detriment of people. As in any equal competition it will beat people. Besides, it can have representations about equality.
20. Erroneous representation that AI will be much
When we speak a virus extends on the Internet, we mean one virus though it has many copies. When we speak about the Internet, we mean one Internet. When we speak about the state (being in it) we too mean one state. As also AI will be one though it can have a set of copies and displays. Even if there will be some kinds of AI among them only one will be the main thing. That is we will face not set of separate intelligent cars, and with one system of inhuman scales more likely; examples of such systems are the science, the state and the Internet.
21. Distinctions in understanding of that, actually, is intelligence
Possibly, to make correct definition of intelligence is already almost to create an artificial intellect. From the point of view of safety such definition to give easier: AI is the car, capable to win human in activity any kind (or even: at least in one kind of the activity, which vital for human, thus we mean under activity by management by processes - that is an information work). That is we define AI through its ability to solve practically problems. We lay aside a question on consciousness, a free will, creativity. This definition basically identically offered Yudkowsky to AI definition as powerful process of optimisation.
22. An erroneous unequivocal identification of AI with separate object
AI is defined by that it does (effectively carries out optimisation process), however representation that there is an essence generating these actions, can conduct us to errors. For example, evolution process in Darvinian sense generates more and more effective decisions. However this process does not have any centre which puts the purposes or which can be destroyed.
23. Erroneous representation what enough to hide AI in a black box that it became safe
If we have placed AI in a black box (that is completely isolated it), and then have received results of its work then, there was a bilaterial information interchange, and the black box is not that. If we do not receive any information from a black box, it is equivalent to that in general it not to include. Difficulty here in knowing, that AI has already arisen to understand, that it is time to us to place it in a black box. At last, AI can crack a black box from within, for example, radiating radio signals, or reading out current fluctuations in the power supply system.
24. Erroneous objection of a following sort: In Japan already there was a project on creation AI in 80th years, and it has failed, therefore AI is impossible
In 1880th years there were some projects on plane creation, and they have failed. After that the opinion has extended, that the plane is impossible. That is some unsuccessful attempts with unusable means do not mean basic impossibility. Besides, the project in Japan has not decayed up to the end, and other AI-projects simply less advertised have grown from it. However this bright failure has affected as trust of public to such projects, and on propensity of researchers to promise improbable results.
25. Erroneous representation that AI it is necessary to give a command X (to substitute necessary), and all will be as it should be
Command ջ can be: to love all people, not to cause to people of harm, to obey only me etc. But we cannot check up, how AI realises any command, yet we will not start it. And when we will start, can be late.
26. Erroneous representation in the spirit of: When I will reach efficiency in realisation AI, I will think of its safety
Incorrectly. To check up efficiency AI it is possible, only having started it on a challenge connected with the real world. If from AI left from under the control of safety will think late. Some types of AI can be incompatible with standard safety, for example, based on genetic algorithms. Therefore measures on safety maintenance should be built in AI from the very beginning, they cannot be a makeweight on it. And in all other large projects safety is considered from the very beginning.
27. Erroneous representation in the spirit of: It is improbable, that our project on creation AI leaves from under the control
In the world it is a lot of AI-projects and few knowledge of how to measure probability of uncontrollable distribution of AI. It is enough to lose the control over one project. Besides, in a case when the programmer uses strong AI in the purposes, from its point of view it does not look revolt, but from the point of view of other people - is it.
28. Erroneous representation in the spirit of: We can of what does not care, because AI will solve all our problems
Among supporters of powerful AI there is an opinion, that some future problems should not be solved, because when there will be powerful AI, it will find the best and more exact decision of these problems. However before start of powerful AI in the real world to us should set it some circle of problems and correctly to formulate, that we want also that we do not want, it is necessary to think well of it in advance.
29. abilities and intentions
See distortion in the spirit of a huge cheese cake in article Yudkowsky in this books. Its essence that if AI can do something, it does not mean, that it will do it. If AI can bake huge cheese cakes, it does not mean, that the future world will be filled by huge cheese cakes. That is we should not identify motives of actions and ability of AI.
Chapter 6. The specific errors connected by reasonings on risks of use nanotechnology
1. Erroneous representation that Nanotechnology are impossible as it is impossible to create mechanisms to within one atom
It not so, - are fibers who are the most different mechanisms: valves, scissors, , - and in them it is important and it is defined by a site of each atom.
2. Erroneous representation that nanofactory is more safe nanoassembler
Nanofactory are the macroscopical devices making the devices (for example, photolithographic manufacture of microcircuits). Nanoassembler are devices , capable to make the copies. By means of one it is possible to make another and on the contrary, that is these devices are functionally isomorphic.
3. Erroneous representation that Nanotechnology are so far from us in time that it is possible not to think of them
From practical realisation nanotechnology we are separated only by missing knowledge. If we had it, we could collect such chain of DNA which, being is started in a bacterium cage, would allow to make operated nanoassembler .
4. Erroneous representations in the spirit of Nanotechnology have thought up only for money-laundering
As such explanation can be applied to everything it explains nothing. Even if someone launders money with the help nanotechnology, it does not mean, that nanorobots are impossible. Crash does not mean a pillbox-komov, that it is impossible to earn money on the Internet.
5. Erroneous representation that Nanotechnology are connected only with materials technology, materials and
Far not all so think, and workings out in area nanorobots are conducted. Intermediate object between nanorobot and is lithograph of chips which allows to etch any mechanisms from silicon including with mobile parts - technology MEMS (for example, micropendulums for gyroscopes). The basic progress of the law mess goes for the development account nanotechnology more and more precision press of semiconductors.
6. Erroneous representation that nanorobots will be weaker than bacteria, because bacteria had billions years to adapt to environment
It is no more true, than the statement, that Planes will be more safe than birds because birds developed during millions years. Human achievements usually surpass biological in any one parametre (to the size, speed, speed).
7. Erroneous representation that if nanorobots were possible, them already would be created by the nature
The nature has not created a wheel, but it is possible and effective. On the other hand the nature has created analogue nanorobots in the form of bacteria which show basic possibility of self-sufficient self-reproduced microscopic devices.
8. Erroneous representation that nanorobots cannot breed in an environment
If bacteria can breed in the nature can and nanorobots - after all they can use all receptions accessible to bacteria.
9. Erroneous representation that nanorobots in an environment it will be easy to destroy bomb explosion
For this purpose it is necessary to know precisely where they are. If they have already got into a city to blow up them it will be impossible. After all do not struggle with infectious illnesses by means of bombs.
10. Erroneous representation that nanorobots will consist only of several atoms that is impossible or
The name conditionally also does not mean, that the length will be equal to several . It can be length 1 micrometer and more, is capable to self-reproduction and performance of set of functions. Also it is thus invisible. In this case it will contain billions and even billions atoms.
11. Erroneous representation that nanorobots will be silly and inefficient as in them it is impossible to place the computer
In any cage of human there is DNA in volume about 500 mbyte from which it is made to one million operations a second. It is enough of it for creation enough the strong computer. It shows us an achievable limit of density of calculations though not necessarily in nanorobot DNA computers will be used. Nanorobots can unite in local networks, strengthening the computing productivity repeatedly.
12. E.Dreksler about possible objections of a realizability nanotechnology
 Further I will result the extensive citation from E.Drekslera, the founder of idea of creation nanorobots in which I will allocate names : Whether will make a principle of uncertainty of quantum physics molecular cars impracticable? Among other things, this principle specifies that it is impossible to define an exact site of a particle during any interval of time. It limits that molecular cars can do, no less than limits that can do something else. Nevertheless, calculations show, that the uncertainty principle imposes few essential restrictions on that, how much easily atoms can be placed on their places, at least, for those purposes which appear here. The uncertainty principle does a site indistinct enough, and actually this vagueness defines the size and structure of atoms. The atom as whole, however, has rather certain site corresponding to rather massive core . If atoms did not keep the position rather well, molecules would not exist. The quantum mechanics it is not required to prove these conclusions as molecular cars in a cage show that molecular cars work. Whether will make thermal vibrations of molecules molecular cars disabled or too unreliable that them to use? Thermal fluctuations will cause the big problems, than an uncertainty principle. However and in this case existing molecular cars directly show, that molecular cars can work and at usual temperatures. Despite thermal fluctuations, mechanisms of copying of DNA in some cages do less than one error on 100 000 000 000 operations. To reach such accuracy, however, cages use cars (such as enzyme of DNA-polimeraza I) which check a copy and correct errors. For assemblers it can be quite necessary similar abilities of check and correction of errors if they are intended to give out reliable results. Whether radiation will destroy molecular cars or to do their unsuitable for use? Radiation of high energy can break chemical bonds and destroy molecular cars. Live cages once again show, that decisions exist: they work within years, restoring and replacing the parts damaged by radiation. However as each separate car such tiny, it represents the small purpose for radiation, and radiation seldom gets to it. Nevertheless, if the system be reliable, it should maintain certain quantity of damages, and the damaged parts should be repaired or replaced regularly. This approach to reliability is well familiar to developers of planes and spaceships. Evolution has not managed to make assemblers. Whether says it what they either are impossible, or are useless? Answering the previous questions, we partly referred to already working molecular cars of cages. They represent the simple and powerful proof of that nature laws allow small groups of atoms to behave as the operated cars, capable to build others . However in spite of that they in a basis remind ribosomes, assemblers will differ from everything, that is in cages; though they consist in usual movements of molecules and reactions, that they do, will have new results. For example, any cage does not make a diamond fibre. Proofs of a realizability of assemblers and others can seem proved but why not to wait and to look, whether is valid they can be developed? Pure curiosity seems the sufficient reason to investigate the possibilities opened nanotechnology, but there are also stronger reasons. Nanotechnology will capture the world in limits from ten till fifty years, that is within terms of a life our own or members of our families. That is more essential, the conclusions of the following chapter prompt, that for the politician we "will wait-will look" there would be the expensive: it would cost millions lives, and, probably, lives on the Earth .
13. Our propensity to expect grandiose results only from the grandiose reasons
illustrates this error following counterexamples: the BORING FACT: some electric switches can switch on and off each other. These switches can be made very small and consuming not enough electricity. The GRANDIOSE CONSEQUENCE: if them to connect correctly, these switches form computers, cars of information revolution... The BORING FACT: a mould and bacteria compete for the food, therefore some a mould have learnt to allocate poisons which kill bacteria. The GRANDIOSE CONSEQUENCE: penicillin, a victory over many bacterial diseases, and rescue of millions lives.
14. Erroneous representation that details will stick together owing to quantum, and other forces
But fibers in live cages do not stick together. Offered a realisation variant nanotechnology by means of mechanical robots from with and wheels - not unique. Intermediate variants with the device are possible.
15. Erroneous representation that active nanotechnology the board similar to immune system, will be ideal protection from dangerous nanorobots
Any immune system in a reality, in live organisms, anti-virus in computers, is not absolutely reliable. Besides, there are autoimmune diseases. Active boards see more in detail the head.
16. Erroneous representation that - the visionary, and the presents Nanotechnology consist in something the friend
It was necessary to meet statements from experts in area nanotechnology, that nanorobots are imaginations, and the presents Nanotechnology consist in detailed measurement of certain very thin parametres structures. However actually these researches are at different levels. Researches concern "design" level. In the same way, as to it the idea to make a nuclear bomb concerned in due time. That is it is wood level, instead of trees. Eric Dreksler - it is far not the unique seer advanced nanotechnology, connected with molecular manufacture and nanorobot. It is possible to name also R.Frejtasa and other employees of the Center responsible nanotechnology.
Chapter 7. Conclusions from the analysis distortions in an estimation of global risks
The scale can be estimated influence of errors on reasonings on global risks, having compared opinions of different experts, scientists and politicians of possibility of definitive global catastrophe and its possible reasons. It is easy to be convinced, that the disorder of opinions is huge. One consider total risk insignificant, others are confident inevitability of human extinction. As the possible reasons the set of different technologies and scenarios is called, and different experts offer the sets of possible scenarios and sets of impossible scenarios.
It is obvious, that roots of such disorder of opinions - in a variety of movements of thought which, in absence of any visible reference point, appears it is subject to various biases and to distortions. As we cannot find a reference point concerning global risks in experiment, it is represented desirable that open discussion about methodology of research of global risks on which basis the uniform and conventional picture of global risks could be generated became such reference point.
Chapter 8. Possible rules for rather effective estimation of global risks
1. A precaution principle
It means preparation for the worst realistic scenario in all situations of uncertainty. Realistic it is necessary to consider any scenario which does not contradict known laws of physics and has precisely probability above there is nobody threshold level. It corresponds to a principle of a conservative engineering estimation. However precaution should not have irrational character, that is should not exaggerate a situation. One of formulations of a principle of precaution sounds so: the precaution Principle is a moral and political principle which asserts, that if a certain action or the politician can cause a severe or irreversible damage to a society, that, in absence of the scientific consent that harm will not be, weight of the proof lays on those who offers the given actions.
2. A doubt principle
The principle of doubt demands to suppose possibility of an inaccuracy of any idea. However the doubt should not lead to instability of a course of thought, blind trust to authorities, absence of the opinion and uncertainty in it if it is proved enough.
3. Open discussion
Important maintenance of open discussion by all kinds of risks. It means consideration of any objection as true sufficient time, that it to estimate before deciding it to reject. Not to reject any objections to a descent and to support presence of opponents.
4. Introspection
The continuous analysis of own conclusions about possible errors from all list.
5. Independent repeated calculations
Here independent calculation by different people, and also comparison of direct and indirect estimations enters.
6. An indirect estimation of degree of an error
We can estimate degree of underestimation of global catastrophe, studying that, how much people underestimate similar risks - that is risks of unique catastrophes. For example, spaceships the Space the Shuttle have been calculated on one failure more than on 1000 flights, but the first failure has occurred on 25th flight. That is the initial estimation 1 to 25 would be more exact. Nuclear stations were under construction counting upon one failure in one million years, but Chernobyl failure has occurred approximately after 10 000 stations-years of operation (this number turns out from multiplication of number of stations by that moment for average term of their operation, and demands specification). So, in the first case real stability has appeared in 40 times worse, than the design estimation, and in the second - in 100 times is worse. From here we can draw a conclusion, that in case of unique difficult objects people underestimate their risks in tens times.


The conclusion. Prospects of prevention of global catastrophes
The mankind is not doomed not so to extinction. And even if our chances are insignificant, infinitely big future costs that for it to struggle. Definitely positive fact is that ice has got under way - in 2000th years the number of publications on a problematics of global catastrophes of the general character has sharply increased and the uniform understanding of a problem has started to develop. There is a hope, that in the nearest decades the problem of global risks becomes conventional, and the people who have absorbed understanding of importance of these problems, will appear in the power. Possibly, it will occur not smoothly, and after painful shocks, like September, 11th, each of which will raise readership of the literature on global risks and will urge forward discussion. Besides, it is possible to hope, that efforts of separate people and groups of concerned citizens will promote realisation of such perspective strategy, as differential development of technologies. Namely, development of Friendly AI will occur advancing rates, than, for example, consciousness loading in the computer which as a result will find huge forces, but will be uncontrollable. Also it is important, that powerful AI has arisen earlier, than will appear strong Nanotechnology - besides can supervise them.
Probably, we should reconcile the period superfluous and even the totalitarian control over human activity during this period when the risk will be maximum, and the understanding of concrete threats - is minimum. During this period it will be not clear, which knowledge is really knowledge of mass defeat, and what - a harmless toy.
Probably, that to us will simply carry also any risk it is not materialised. On the other hand, probably, that to us will carry less, and the train of large catastrophes will reject a civilisation in the development far back, however human will remain and will find wiser approach to realisation of technological achievements. Probably, that on this way it is necessary to us a difficult choice: to remain for ever at medieval level, having refused computers and flights to stars or to risk and try to become something big. Despite all risk, this second scenario looks for me more attractive as the mankind closed on the Earth is doomed sooner or later to extinction for the natural reasons.
Growth of efforts on creation of refuges of a different sort is observed also: in Norway the storehouse for seeds on a case of global catastrophe is constructed. Though such storehouse will not rescue people, the fact of intention is praised to put up money and real resources in projects, return from which is possible only in centuries. The project of creation of a similar refuge on the Moon which even name a spare disk for a civilisation is actively discussed. In this refuge it is supposed to keep not only all knowledge of people, but also the frozen human embryos, in hope what somebody (aliens?) will restore then on them people.
At the same time, in this book I tried to show, that unreasoned actions on prevention of catastrophes can be not less dangerous, than catastrophes. Hence, at the moment the basic efforts should be concentrated not to concrete projects, and at all on propagation of a "green" way of life, and on growth of understanding of the nature of possible risks, on formation of a scientific consensus that actually is dangerous also what risk levels are comprehensible. Thus such discussion cannot be infinitely long as in certain more abstract areas as then we risk to "oversleep" really approaching catastrophe. It means, that we are limited in time.
The literature:


1. Blair Bruce G. The Logic of Catastropheal Nuclear War. Brookings Institution Press, 1993.
2. Bostrom N. and Tegmark M. How Unlikely is a Doomsday Catastrophe? // Nature, Vol. 438, No. 7069, C. 754, 2005. ( : Bostrom. ? http://www.proza.ru/2007/04/11-348 )
3. Bostrom N. Antropic principle in science and philosophy. L., 2003.
4. Bostrom N. Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?. // Philosophical Quarterly, 2003, Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255., http://www.simulation-argument.com/, ( : http://alt-future.narod.ru/Future/bostrom3.htm )
5. Bostrom, N. and M. Cirkovic eds. Global Catastrophic Risks. Oxford University Press. 2008.
6. Bostrom, N. Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios. // Journal of Evolution and Technology, 9. 2001. ( : Bostrom. . . . .: http://www.proza.ru/2007/04/04-210)
7. Bostrom, N. How Long Before Superintelligence? // International Journal of Futures Studies, 2. 1998. URL: http://www.nickbostrom.com/superintelligence.html.
8. Bostrom, N. Observer-relative chances in anthropic reasoning? // Erkenntnis, 52, 93-108. 2000. URL: http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints.html.
9. Bostrom, N. The Doomsday Argument is Alive and Kicking. // Mind, 108 (431), 539-550. 1999. URL: 10. Bostrom, N. The Doomsday argument, Adam & Eve, UN++, and Quantum Joe. // Synthese, 127(3), 359-387. 2001. URL: http://www.anthropic-principle.com.
11. Cirkovic Milan M., Richard Cathcart. Geo-engineering Gone Awry: A New Partial Solution of Fermi's Paradox. // Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 57, pp. 209-215, 2004.
12. Cirkovi Milan M. The Anthropic Principle And The Duration Of The Cosmological Past. // Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 567597, 2004.
13. Collar J.I. Biological Effects of Stellar Collapse Neutrinos. // Phys.Rev.Lett. 76, 1996, 999-1002 URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9505028
14. Dar, A. et al. Will relativistic heavy-ion colliders destroy our planet? // Physics Letters, B 470, 142-148. 1999.
15. Dawes, R.M. Rational Choice in an Uncertain World. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1988.
16. Diamond Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking Adult, 2004.
17. Drexler, K.E. Dialog on Dangers. Foresight Background 2, Rev. 1. 1988. URL: http://www.foresight.org/Updates/Background3.html.
18. Drexler, K.E. Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. London: Forth Estate. 1985. URL: http://www.foresight.org/EOC/index.html.
19. Fetherstonhaugh, D., Slovic, P., Johnson, S. and Friedrich, J. Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing. // Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14: 238-300. 1997.
20. Foresight Institute. Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology, Version 3.7. 2000. URL: http://www.foresight.org/guidelines/current.html.
21. Forrest, D. Regulating Nanotechnology Development. 1989. URL: http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Forrest1989.html.
22. Freitas (Jr.), R.A. A Self-Reproducing Interstellar Probe. // J. Brit. Interplanet. Soc., 33, 251-264. 1980.
23. Freitas (Jr.), R.A. Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations. Zyvex preprint, April 2000. URL: http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Ecophagy.html. ( : .. . http://www.proza.ru/2007/11/07/59)
24. Gehrels Neil, Claude M. Laird, Charles H. Jackman, John K. Cannizzo, Barbara J. Mattson, Wan Chen. Ozone Depletion from Nearby Supernovae. // The Astrophysical Journal, March 10, vol. 585. 2003.
25. Gold, R.E. SHIELD: A Comprehensive Earth Protection System. A Phase I Report on the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, May 28, 1999.
26. Gott J. R. III. Implications of the Copernican principle for our future prospects. // Nature, 363, 315319, 1993.
27. Gubrud, M. Nanotechnology and International Security, Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology. 2000. URL:
28. Hanson R. Catastrophe, Social Collapse, and Human Extinction // Global Catastrophic Risks, ed. Nick Bostrom. 2008. http://hanson.gmu.edu/collapse.pdf
29. Hanson, R. Burning the Cosmic Commons: Evolutionary Strategies for Interstellar Colonization. Working paper. 1998. URL: http://hanson.gmu.edu/workingpapers.html.
30. Hanson, R. et al. A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept. // Extropy Online. 1998. URL: http://www.extropy.org/eo/articles/vi.html.
31. Hanson, R. What If Uploads Come First: The crack of a future dawn. // Extropy, 6(2). 1994. URL: http://hanson.gmu.edu/uploads.html.
32. http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=539
33. http://www.proza.ru/2007/05/14-31
34. Jackson, R.J. et al. Expression of Mouse Interleukin-4 by a Recombinant Ectromelia Virus Suppresses Cytolytic Lymphocyte Responses and Overcomes Genetic Resistance to Mousepox. 2001. Journal of Virology, 73, 1479-1491.
35. Joy, B. Why the future doesn't need us. // Wired, 8.04. 2000. URL: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html.
36. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. eds. Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
37. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A., eds. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. NY, Cambridge University Press, 1982.
38. Knight, L.U. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. 2001. URL: http://www.vhemt.org/.
39. Knobe Joshua, Ken D. Olum and Alexander Vilenkin. Philosophical Implications of Inflationary Cosmology. // British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Volume 57, Number 1, March 2006, pp. 47-67(21)
40. Kruglanski A. W. Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge: Cognitive and Motivational Bases. 1989.
41. Kurzweil, R. The Age of Spiritual Machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. NY, Viking. 1999.
42. Leslie J. The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction. 1996.
43. Leslie, J. Risking the World's End. Bulletin of the Canadian Nuclear Society, May, 10-15. 1989.
44. Mason C. The 2030 Spike: Countdown to Global Catastrophe. 2003.
45. Melott, B. Lieberman, C. Laird, L. Martin, M. Medvedev, B. Thomas. Did a gamma-ray burst initiate the late Ordovician mass extinction? // arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309415, ( : - . http://www.membrana.ru/articles/global/2003/09/25/200500.html
46. Merkle, R.. The Molecular Repair of the Brain. Cryonics, 15 (1 and 2). 1994.
47. Michael Foote, James S. Crampton, Alan G. Beu, Bruce A. Marshall, Roger A. Cooper, Phillip A. Maxwell, Iain Matcham. Rise and Fall of Species Occupancy in Cenozoic Fossil Mollusks // Science. V. 318. P. 11311134. 2007.
48. Milgrom Paul, Nancy Stokey. Information, trade and common knowledge. // Journal of Economic Theory, Volume 26:1, pp. 17-27. 1982.
49. Moravec, H. Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence, 1988.
50. Moravec, H. Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999.
51. Moravec, H. When will computer hardware match the human brain? // Journal of Transhumanism, 1. 1998. URL: http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm.
52. Morgan, M.G. Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking. // Risk Analysis, 20(1), 49-58. 2000.
53. Neil Gehrels, Claude M. Laird, Charles H. Jackman, John K. Cannizzo, Barbara J. Mattson, Wan Chen. Ozone Depletion from Nearby Supernovae. // Astrophysical Journal 585: 11691176. Retrieved on 2007-02-01. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0211361
54. Nowak, R. Disaster in the making. // New Scientist, 13 January 2001. 2001. URL:
55. Perrow, Charles. Normal Catastrophes: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press. 1999.
56. Posner Richard A. Catastrophe: Risk and Response. Oxford University Press, 2004.
57. Powell, C. 20 Ways the World Could End. Discover, 21(10). 2000. URL: http://www.discover.com/oct_00/featworld.html.
58. Raffensberger C, Tickner J (eds.) Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Island Press, Washington, DC, 1999.
59. Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, Georgiy L. Stenchikov: Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. // J. Geophys. Res., 112, D13107, doi:2006JD008235. 2007. ( :  )
60. Roland Jon. Nuclear Winter and Other Scenarios, 1984. . http://www.pynthan.com/vri/nwaos.htm
61. Ross, M. & Sicoly, F. Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 322-336. 1979.
62. Shute, N. On the Beach. Ballentine Books. 1989.
63. Simmons Matthew R. Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy. NY, 2005.
64. Sir Martin Rees. Our final hour. NY, 2003.
65. Stevenson David. A Modest Proposal: Mission to Earths Core. // Nature 423, 239-240 2003.
66. Svenson, O. Are we less risky and more skillful that our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47, 143-148. 1981.
67. Taleb, N. The Black Swan: Why Don't We Learn that We Don't Learn? NY, Random House, 2005.
68. Tegmark M. The interpretation of quantum mechanics: many worlds or many words? // Fortschr. Phys. 46, 855-862. 1998 http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032
69. Tickner, J. et al. The Precautionary Principle. 2000. URL: http://www.biotech-info.net/handbook.pdf.
70. Turner, M.S., & Wilczek, F. Is our vacuum metastable? Nature, August 12, 633-634. 1982.
71. Vinge, V. The Coming Technological Singularity. Whole Earth Review, Winter issue. 1993.
72. Ward, P. D., Brownlee, D. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe. NY, 2000.
73. Warwick, K. March of the Machines. London: Century. 1997.
74. Whitby, B. et al. How to Avoid a Robot Takeover: Political and Ethical Choices in the Design and Introduction of Intelligent Artifacts. Presented at AISB-00 Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics an (Quasi-) Human Rights. 2000. 75. Yudkowsky E. Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk. Forthcoming in Global Catastrophic Risks, eds. Nick Bostrom and Milan Cirkovic, - UK, Oxford University Press, to appear 2008. ( : .Yudkowsky. . http://www.proza.ru/2007/03/22-285)
76. Yudkowsky E. Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks. Forthcoming in Global Catastrophic Risks, eds. Nick Bostrom and Milan Cirkovic, - UK, Oxford University Press, to appear 2008 ( : .Yudkowsky. , . http://www.proza.ru/2007/03/08-62 )
77. Yudkowsky, E. Creating Friendly AI 1.0. 2001. URL: http://www.singinst.org/upload/CFAI.html.
78. .. ? AI: . ., , 2006.
79. . . ., , 2002.
80. . . // , 08, 2001. http://nauka.relis.ru/05/0108/05108042.htm
81. .. . AI . , , 1991.
82. . AI // XX. 4. 5. 2002. http://ecc.ru/XXI/RUS_21/ARXIV/2002/anisimov_2002_4.htm
83. . . //. V , . 1998.
84. .. // . 1994. .28. N4-5.- .211-214. . http://www.arracis.com.ua/moon/m312.html
85. - . , , , 2006.
86. . . // . N 10. 200
87. . . AI . , 2006.
88. . Singularity . Nanotechnology Perceptions: A Review of Ultraprecision Engineering and Nanotechnology, Volume 2, No. 1, March 27 2006.
89. .., .., . . ., 1985
90. , ., .., H.A. . . // , 2000, 6.
91. .., .., .. . . , , . ., , 2000
92. .., .. . // , , 3. 2006.
93. - .., .., .. AI. AI.
94. . . ., , 1993.
95. .. // , 69, . 9. 1999.
96. . ., . . . // , N3, 1998.
97. . . , . . 2003.
98. .. . ., , 2004.
99. .. . // , 1983, 10.
100. ., ., ., . ., 2001.
101. .. . // , 39, . 1. 1994.
102. .. . // . 13 (592) 8-14 2006 http://pripyat.com/ru/publications/2006/04/08/750.html
103. . .. ( ) // , 6. 1998.
104. . .. AI AI // , 2 2006. ( .. ).
105. . .. ( ). ., , 2003.
106. .. . // . . 4. .: , 2001. . 9-16. http://macroevolution.narod.ru/krmodelcrisis.htm
107. .. . AI. . http://spkurdyumov.narod.ru/kurkinaes.htm
108. . . , .10. ., "", 1995.
109. . , 1963.
110. . , 1970.
111. . AI: . . ., , 2001.
112. .. , AI. // . AI, 2000. .61. 4. . 357-369. http://macroevolution.narod.ru/redqueen.htm.
113. . AI. http://www.transhumanism-russia.ru/content/view/317/116/ // . . ., 2008.
114. . . , 1972.
115. . AI. ., , 1998
116. .. AI. ., 2001.
117. . , , . 73, 3, 2003
118. . 1984. L. 1948.
119. .. AI SETI AI. // , , . 2, 2004. http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/SETI/koi/articles/krizis.html
120. . . , AI . ., , 2005.
121. . . , . // AI Lomonosov, , 1996.
122. ., . : AI. , ., 1999. 
123. . . . . . ., -, 1999.
124. .., .. . ., - , 2002.
125. ... AI . - , ., 2001.
126. , . . ., , 2002.
127. .. AI // : AI : . 31. ., , 2007.
128. .. . // : AI : . 31. ., , 2007.
129. , . . ., , 1971.
130. . . AI, 2002.
131. . . , , . . // , 6. 2004.
132. . . ., 1989.
133. . . // , 9, 2007.
134. .. . , . ., , 1984.
135. . . , . // , 06. 2005. http://www.popmech.ru/part/print.php?articleid=259&rubricid=3


                  .   .