Existential risk preventions as the most important task for humanity http://www.existential-risk.org/concept.pdf
Tagged: Global RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
mazsa
-
mazsa
Counterfeiting and piracy is a global crime, and it requires a global solution.
Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator -
mazsa
Tax havens: the heart of the global economy “[...] tax havens have grown so fast in the era of globalization, since kind of the 1970s, that they have now become right—they are now right at the heart of the global economy and are absolutely huge. I mean, there are 10—anywhere between 10 and 20 trillion U.S. dollars sitting offshore at the moment. Half of world trade is processed in one way or another through tax havens. It’s all around us, and it’s absolutely huge. [...]” http://www.australia-offshore.com/offshore-banking-and-tax-havens-have-become-the-heart-of-global-economy/
-
mazsa
Tax havens: shocking scale, depth and penetration across the globe http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/nicholas-shaxson/men-who-stole-world-interview-with-nicholas-shaxson
-
mazsa
“even using current available technology the entire world could switch 100% of its energy needs to renewable sources in just a handful of decades. How is this possible?” http://www.fastcompany.com/1721388/study-100-renewable-energy-for-world-in-40-years-yes-only-our-doubts-in-the-way
-
mazsa
Cognitive biases&global risks&reduction of risks:
Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks: “All else being equal, not many people would prefer to destroy the world. Even faceless corporations, meddling governments, reckless scientists, and other agents of doom, require a world in which to achieve their goals of profit, order, tenure, or other villainies. If our extinction proceeds slowly enough to allow a moment of horrified realization, the doers of the deed will likely be quite taken aback on realizing that they have actually destroyed the world. Therefore I suggest that if the Earth is destroyed, it will probably be by mistake.
The systematic experimental study of reproducible errors of human reasoning, and what these errors reveal about underlying mental processes, is known as the heuristics and biases program in cognitive psychology. This program has made discoveries highly relevant to assessors of global catastrophic risks. [...]” http://singinst.org/upload/cognitive-biases.pdf
Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction: “In this century a number of events could extinguish humanity. The probability of these events may be very low, but the expected value of preventing them could be high, as it represents the value of all future human lives. We review the challenges to studying human extinction risks and, by way of example, estimate the cost effectiveness of preventing extinction-level asteroid impacts. [...]” http://www.paforge.com/files/articles/Reducing%20the%20Risk%20of%20Human%20Extinction.pdf
-
mazsa
Energy is what limits global economic growth: “A study that relates global energy use to economic growth, published in the January issue of BioScience, finds strong correlations between these two measures both among countries and within countries over time. The research leads the study’s authors to infer that energy use limits economic activity directly. They conclude that an “enormous” increase in energy supply will be required to meet the demands of projected world population growth and lift the developing world out of poverty without jeopardizing standards of living in most developed countries.
[...] The team found the same sort of relationship between energy consumption per person and gross domestic product per person as is found between metabolism and body weight in animals. Brown’s group suggests the similarity is real: cities and countries, like animals, have metabolisms that must burn fuel to sustain themselves and grow. This analogy, together with the data and theory, persuades the BioScience authors that the linkage between energy use and economic activity is causal, although other factors must also be in play to explain the variability in the data.
The study goes on to show that variables relating to standard of living, such as the proportion of doctors in a population, the number of televisions per person, and infant mortality rate, are also correlated with both energy consumption per person and gross domestic product per person. These correlations lead the authors to their conclusions about the increases in energy production necessary to sustain a still-growing world population without drops in living standards. To support the expected world population in 2050 in the current US lifestyle would require 16 times the current global energy use, for example. Noting that 85 percent of humankind’s energy now comes from fossil fuels, the BioScience authors point out that efforts to develop alternative energy sources face economic problems of diminishing returns, and reject the view of many economists that technological innovation can circumvent resource shortages.” http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/aiob-sfe010411.php
After noon EST on 7 January and for the remainder of the month, the full text of the article will be available for free download through the copy of this Press Release available at http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/ .
-
mazsa
G20: Profound And Complete Disappointment
“1. There was no substantive progress on anything to do with exchange rates. The “indicative guidelines” to be agreed next year are just a way to kick the can down the road. The Chinese are digging in hard on their exchange rate; this is headed towards a mutually destructive trade war.
2. There was less disagreement at the summit regarding the ”regulation” of global megabanks – but only because this had been gutted so effectively by the bankers’ lobby and officials who bought their specious arguments. There is nothing here that will prevent or limit the impact of another major worldwide financial crisis.
3. On IMF governance, over which there was substantial fanfare in advance, it turns out there has been a major step backwards. The Europeans have apparently signaled they are no longer willing to give up the job of Managing Director – they have always controlled this job and this is a major reason why IMF legitimacy remains weak. Unless and until an emerging market person gets this position, no one (outside of Europe) will want to rely on the IMF in an emergency. As a result all countries will want to “manage” their exchange rates – to the extent they can – along Chinese lines, aiming for a significant current account surplus (so as to build up foreign exchange reserves). See point #1 above for the likely consequences of that.” http://baselinescenario.com/2010/11/13/g20-profound-and-complete-disappointment-for-the-us-treasury
The G20 Seoul Summit Leaders’ Declaration November 11 – 12, 2010:
-
mazsa
Which places will gain most from the next transition?
“The transitions to farming and to industry were associated with huge sudden increases in growth rates. Growth had remained pretty steady before each transition, and then boom, within a quarter of a previous doubling time, doubling times fell by over a factor of 150. Going by the number of doublings in these previous modes, we are already overdue for another transition. So I suspect that within a century or so we will see another such “singularity.” And since the current doubling time is about fifteen years, we should roughly expect that within a space of about five years the world economy will transition to doubling every few weeks or less.
[...] which places will gain most from the next transition?
[...] a [...] factor may matter most: legal and regulatory flexibility. If it is to radically remake the economy within a space of five years, this new mode will quickly run afoul of a wide range of existing laws and regulations. Places that require many years of discourse between diverse stakeholders to begin even incremental legal and regulatory changes are just not going to be where this new mode first grows big. Much more promising are places where new industries and ventures can just do things, or lobby a small set of key decision makers to quickly get big changes, and commit to keeping such changes. Random empty declarations of policy changes that could easily be soon reversed, or not enforced, won’t do either.”
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/11/flexible-law-wins.html
sequel: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/11/expand-bounty-hunting.html
-
mazsa
The Shocking Truth: The Scientific American Poll on Climate Change
“[...] Scientific American has run a poll of its readers on climate change. Remember that SciAm has been shilling for the climate apocalypse for years [...]
SciAm probably expected a lot of people would agree with the key statement in their poll that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “an effective group of government representatives and other experts.”
Hardly. As of this morning, only 16% of the 6655 respondents agreed. 84%—that is not a typo—described the IPCC as “a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda.”
The poll also asks “What should we do about climate change?” 69% say “nothing, we are powerless to stop it.” When asked about policy options, an astonishingly low 7% support cap-and-trade, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June, 2009, and cost approximately two dozen congressmen their seats.
The real killer is question “What is causing climate change?” For this one, multiple answers are allowed. 26% said greenhouse gases from human activity, 32% solar variation, and 78% “natural processes.” (In reality all three are causes of climate change.)
And finally, “How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?” 80% of the respondents said “nothing.”
Remember that this comes from what is hardly a random sample. Scientific American is a reliably statist publication and therefore appeals to a readership that is skewed to the left of the political center. This poll demonstrates that virtually everyone now acknowledges that the UN has corrupted climate science, that climate change is impossible to stop, and that futile attempts like cap-and-trade do nothing but waste money and burn political capital [...]”
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-shocking-truth-the-scientific-american-poll-on-climate-change/
Original: https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d
-
mazsa
Commitment to Development Index 2010
Which rich countries are doing the most to help poor ones? Rich and poor nations are linked in many ways—by foreign aid, commerce, the environment, and more. Each year, the CDI rates rich-country governments on how much they are helping poor countries via seven key linkages: aid, trade, investment, migration, environment, security, and technology. The CDI then takes the average for an overall score.
To see if countries live up to their potential to help, scoring adjusts for size. So small countries can beat big ones. Scores are on a standard scale and 5 = average.
