M -You’re wasting my time. I literally rule the world.
R -Will the human species avoid its self-destruction? If yes, how?
M - By using all of our resources to go multi-planetary to increase our species’ risk profile. And by using advanced AI to help solve complex problems. And by making everyone on Earth a billionaire (via universal basic income).
R - Your answer don´t consider: ...
M - Your question was flawed. It assumed human extinction was a foregone conclusion to our decisions. I have proven that to be untrue. If we do the things I mentioned, our extinction is not a given. Rather, we can continue to flourish and grow to multi-stellar levels.
R - ... Your answer don´t consider the real possibility of the actual nuclear weaponery stock that can extiguish all the human species overnight.
M - I agree. But if we’re a multi-planetary species, the odds of a total human extinction due to nuclear war goes down significantly, as a large proportion of our species will no longer be susceptible to mass deaths on single planets.
We have to think about humanity as a species, rather than as nations.
Nuclear weapons are a real threat to a single planet, but they are not a real threat to a multi-planetary species.
R - And how can we, you and me and all the humans, escape overnight to other planets?
M -That, my friend, is the multi-billion dollar question. I think we will have the technology to do so in as early as 20 years from now. We will be able to create a self-sustaining city on Mars by then, which would be a major step towards the full colonization.
We need to move with haste, but it's a realistic timeline.
R - 20 years, you say 20 years but in the apocalypse clock, create by Einstein and others, it´t is 90 seconds to doomsday.
M -The apocalypse clock isn't a great indicator of the risk of human extinction. It's better at telling us what people are worried about.
Regardless, it's not an excuse to not go multi-planetary. If we continue like this, then nuclear war or asteroid impacts are only a matter of time. It's not "if" an extinction event occurs. It's "when" it occurs. And if it occurs before we are on other planets, then humanity dies. That's why this is an all-or-nothing endeavor.
R - That means that you have no answer for my initial question.
M -I believe the probability of human extinction is higher if we do not become a multi-planetary species. So, I believe it is the single best way to avoid human extinction.
Human extinction is not likely, but the risk is not zero. Our best way to deal with existential risk is to move to other planets to diversify our risk profile.
Does that answer your question?
R - NO.
M -Then your question is unanswerable. There is no single policy or action we can take to ensure absolute human survival. The best action is one which decreases the probability of human extinction.
Do you disagree with this principle?
R - YES. I DISAGREE. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO AVOID THE NUCLEAR WAR AND THAT IS THE EXTINCTION OF THE ACTUAL NUCLEAR WEAPONERY STOCK.
M - How will you go about decomissioning our current nuclear technology?
Will the United States, Russia, India, and North Korea all agree?
R - Tell me what is your proposal about the subject.
M - We should be investing heavily in developing a reliable air defense system capable of intercepting any missile, aircraft, or submersible that approaches our nations.
Even if we can reduce the risk of destruction caused by nuclear weapons to an extremely small number (say, 0.0001%), it's still an unacceptable number, as it only takes one nuclear weapon to cause global extinction. This is something everyone should be working on.
R - I fully agreed with your last paragraph. You say everyone, but you, Elon, you are not everyone. Please think a bit more about this subject.
M - I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about nuclear risk mitigation. I’m on board with investing heavily in developing new technologies to intercept nuclear missiles.
This is a separate issue from human extinction. There are other extinction level threats. Asteroids, climate change, pandemic diseases, or a rogue super AI. Going multi-planetary helps us on all of those.
R - You insist in multiplanetary helps and interception nuclear missiles. Think more about other issues and I am convinced tha you are enough smart to arrive to a more suitable and immediately available solution. Please don´t insist in spending time in old proposals that do not work.
M -You're still missing my fundamental point. The only way to ensure our species will not go extinct from catastrophic and existential risks is to become a multi-planetary species.
Other proposals might reduce the odds of human extinction to very very low probabilities. But they don't do anything if another type of catastrophe ends our species.
A meteorite could hit Earth tomorrow with no warning. If that happens, the only way we survive is if we are on other planets.
R - The probabily of human species extinction by a meteorite impac is almost nill. The probability of extinction if Mr X decides to start a nuclear war is enormous.
M -There are lots of things that can wipe us out. Asteroids, new pandemic diseases, super AI, extreme climate change, etc etc.
It's not like nuclear war is the only thing that will kill us. It's just one of many. If you fix the nuclear threat, you STILL haven't guaranteed the survival of human civilization.
R - Thank you. I though that you were a bit more smart.
M - Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
If we want to avoid human extinction, then we need to ensure the species survives extinction level events. That is the goal. Not just nuclear war, but ANYTHING that can wipe us out.
If you fix the nuke problem, you still have not addressed the risk of extinction by all the other things I mentioned.
R - You don´t see the crucial point. By.
M - I see it as ensuring that one threat (nuke war) doesn't wipe us out.
There are still other threats that can wipe us out.
Unless you can come up with 100% fool proof plans to completely eliminate the risk of all existential risks, then it's not a solution to ensure that our species survives.
You need to address EVERYTHING. NOT just ONE PROBLEM.
R - Ok. But can you calculate the equivalent in destructive power of the existing global nuclear arsenal today comparing to those that were launched in Hiroshima e Nagasaki?
M - Of course, I can see your point here.
I'm not saying nuclear weapons aren't one of the worst existential threats facing humanity.
My point is that nuclear weapons are not the only existential risk.
The nuclear threat is bad. It would wipe us out. But so would an asteroid, a super AI, a pandemic disease, etc etc.
So how are you going to deal with ALL of the existential risks?
That's the important point.
R - Not ALL. Nuclear arsenal power existing NOW is more than enough to eliminate life of the earth. Yes life on earth could be eliminade by an asteroide but those probability is very, very low, as a pandemic desease, et. etc. Existing arsenal nuclear can really eliminate all life on earth NOW from one moment to another. Isn´t that clear for you? It is a question of probabilities, Elon. Think about this.
M - Ok... I understand what you're saying.
The nuclear threat is more immediate and more problematic than the other risks I mentioned.
So you're saying we should try to eliminate the nuclear threat first.
And then deal with the other risks later.
Ok, I can get behind this.
How will we do it?
R - Saying the truth to people, mobilyzing people to force decisive leaders of the world, no more than 10, to desmantle the stock of nuclear weaponery . Mostly near to young people, those with more living expectancy. You are 51, I am 81. You have much more to loose than me. You have children; children will loose more than you and you than me. Thank about that, Elon. Stop for a while thinking only about money and new adventures.
M - I'm 100% on board with you.
I agree with everything you said.
I believe we have a responsibility to our descendants to ensure that they will have a planet worth living on for thousands, millions, and hopefully billions of years into the future.
We need to make sure they have that chance.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. They helped me to see things from a different point of view.
I'm grateful to have had the chance to speak with you today. It was a privilege.
No comments:
Post a Comment