Member Log In:

Login
If not yet a member:
Register

Monthly newsletter Daily news feed Changesurfer Radio Blog feeds
Cyborg Buddha Project





Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view

whats new at ieet

Hughes on Ethics in Business and the Health Care Industry

Andy Profiled in The Scotsman

Helen Jaques reviews Nature debate on H+ featuring Miah, de Grey and Warwick

Russell about to publish Voices of Disbelief

Aspergers as Gift

comments

none of your business on 'Intelligent Design Made Mankind?' (2008 11 30)

Smoke on 'Aspergers as Gift' (2008 11 30)

Inge Wie Nielsen on 'Aspergers as Gift' (2008 11 28)

Paul Schroeer-Hannemann on 'Aspergers as Gift' (2008 11 27)

Anthony Robinson on 'Embracing Change with All Four Arms: A Post-Humanist Defense of Genetic Engineering' (2008 11 27)




ieet forums

Sam G: Transhumanism (5)

jake: Irresitible (1)

extropian.pharmer: 11-Rapture book review and Longevity Dividend capstone paper (18)

Oscar: Need a manufacturer for my nutritional supplements range of products!!! (3)

Stuart Ballard: Empowerment enhances cognition (1)



"If I were to wish for anything, I should not wish for wealth and power, but for the passionate sense of the potential, for the eye which, ever young and ardent, sees the possible. Pleasure disappoints, possibility never. And what wine is so sparkling, what so fragrant, what so intoxicating, as possibility!"
Soren Kierkegaard, 1813-1855 Danish Philosopher Writer





Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv



IEET > Security > Biosecurity > Cyber > Eco-gov > Military > SciTech > J. Hughes

PrintEmailpermalinkDiscuss in Forums subscribe


Hughes on Catastrophic Risks in the Boston Globe

Boston Globe



Posted: Sep 7, 2008

A talk with James Hughes

Physicists, zombies, rogue nanobots, and other long-odds threats to life as we know it.

By Peter Bebergal | September 7, 2008 | Boston Globe

ON WEDNESDAY, HUNDREDS of feet below ground in Europe, a proverbial switch will be pulled on the Large Hadron Collider, a new multibillion dollar machine designed to smash subatomic particles together at immense speeds. The device could help physicists rewrite the rules of the universe. It could also, just possibly, do something else: create a tiny black hole that would result in the end of all life as we know it.

Most scientists are confident that the danger is vanishingly small, and a number of research papers have concluded the experiment is safe. But are the potential gains to science really worth even a tiny risk of eradicating the earth? This question, writ large, is the province of a group of scholars who study potential global catastrophe. At the center of their work lies an almost unanswerable question: How should we deal with very unlikely threats that also carry the potential to extinguish human civilization?

This past July, specialists convened in Oxford, England, for the first Global Catastrophic Risks Conference. The group included philosophers, physicists, and sociologists; aside from the huge particle accelerator, they looked at the threat of massive asteroid collisions, gamma ray bursts from supernovas that could sterilize the planet, man-made nanobots that could replicate and consume the earth’s surface, and out-of-control artificial intelligence.

James Hughes, a lecturer in public policy at Trinity College and the executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, spoke at the conference on how apocalyptic fears (and hopes) inhibit clear thinking about catastrophic risks. A sociologist by training, Hughes is optimistic that humanity will be sufficiently technologically savvy by the time it faces some of the more awful possible predicaments. But he also suggests that we do need to start focusing on some long-term threats.

Link

Ideas spoke with Hughes by phone at his home in Willington, Conn.

IDEAS: What are some of the man-made risks we should be concerned about?

HUGHES: Well, there are the traditional 20th-century man-made risks that most people think about, the weapons of mass destruction risks: nuclear weapons, bioterrorism. Chemical weapons are not really part of the picture. But bioterrorism could theoretically create some kind of agents that could wipe out most of humanity.

(Read the rest of the interview here)


PrintEmailpermalinkDiscuss in Forums • Send to: ¡ del.icio.us icon ¡ Digg icon


COMMENTS


YOUR COMMENT

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:




Next entry: Bostrom on H+, the future and x-risks

Previous entry: The Hate Party

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 229B, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376