Mealworms Bring Good News for Recycling

Summary from

Current estimates indicate that it could take tens to hundreds of years for the 33 million tons of plastic that get added to our landfills each year to degrade. The plastic and styrofoam that don’t make it to landfills often end up in the stomachs of birds and even the fish you eat for dinner.

But it turns out mealworms can help a small piece of styrofoam biodegrade in just the 24 hours it takes them to digest it. In a recent study, mealworms were given pill-sized pieces of styrofoam to eat, and they easily digested the plastic, converting it to CO2 and biodegraded fragments.

This could be big news for both the plastics and the recycling industries.

Read the full story here.


A Resurgence of Utopian Thinkers


In an article titled “The New Utopians,” Jeet Heer reflects upon humanity’s dark predictions of dystopia and bright dreams of utopia. While human beings have always longed for a more perfect world, Heer notes that contemporary culture’s imagination has lost its optimism of utopia and is now dominated by dystopian conceptions of the future. This shift in public consciousness can be seen through the proliferation of movies like Planet of the Apes, The Handmaid’s Tale, the MaddAddam trilogy, The Road, and Snowpiercer. In the context of such movies and the continuing nuclear weapons struggle, we can see how climate change is so difficult to grapple with because it requires the cooperation of all peoples and nations. With governments, institutions, and persons all competing for wealth and financial superiority we see that “the enemy of utopia is not dystopia, but oligarchy.”

In 2003, Christine Todd Whitman, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, was found to have removed information and references which revealed the effects of climate change. Kim Stanely Robinson, an optimistic science fiction writer, later published a trilogy which centered on a Republican president’s attempts to cover and dismiss evidence of global warming. President Bush’s administration was soon found to have been creating a false narrative to undermine the EPA’s findings on global warming. Robinson was deemed a “Hero of the environment” and a “foremost practitioner of literary utopias.” In her article, Heer believes Robinson to be a new utopian who sees science as a kind of utopia. This is to say, Robinson is an “advocate of science as a method of understanding, a set of intuitions and practices, a philosophy of action, a utopian politics.”

Heer explores how Robinson’s new utopianism helps to inform our current situation through a better understanding of the promise and peril of radical optimism. Robinson’s stories all impart social, political, and existential lessons for us to ponder. In succession to this optimistic utopian literature, more writers are emerging under the banner of “solarpunk,” who see it critically important to imagine feasible positive futures where technology has given us solutions to our environmental crisis. Heer sees these emerging utopian movements as a sign of a shifting away from our purely dystopian attitude and towards one which seeks to actualize the best of all possible futures.

See full article here.

Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach New Milestone

Global Warming

There is new evidence that the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has passed another milestone. The United Nations weather agency recently released a report that finds the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have reached 397.7 parts per million (ppm) in 2014, which is substantially higher than the 350ppm level deemed safe by scientists. The head of the World Meteorological Organization states that this new carbon milestone will soon be a “permanent reality” and reflects how our “planet is hurtling ‘into uncharted territory at a frightening speed.'”

While the world’s carbon levels still continue to rise, the situation is not totally bleak. Ten UK universities with endowments totaling £115 million recently divested from fossil fuels. This move doubles the number of UK universities that have divested from fossil fuels as a part of the global movement. Globally, the movement has led investors to transfer £2.6 trillion away from fossil fuel investments.

In response to the ever increasing levels of carbon dioxide, 190 nations will gather in Paris at the end of this month to discuss a new global agreement on climate change. The increasing trend of divestment, accompanied by global attempts to reach climate resolution, underscores the serious measures being taken to avoid the potentially catastrophic risks posed by increasing carbon dioxide levels.

Momentum to Address Climate Change Increases: Is It Enough?

From the New York Times: Reports from the Paris climate talks indicate that momentum is increasing among countries to improve emissions. Specifically, the emissions gap is decreasing. The emissions gap is the difference between a country’s pledge to decrease emissions by some amount in the coming years and what the scientific predictions state are the goals that actually need to be met.

The fact that the gap is shrinking is positive news, but it comes with a caveat: countries are only looking to 2030 and not beyond.

According to the article, maintaining lower levels of emissions will become increasingly difficult as we move past 2030 and into the rest of the century. Guido Schmit-Traub says, “It puzzles me how people can conclude that needed technologies exist today when they only look at emission reductions through to 2030. The really hard part starts thereafter. Since every new power plant built today will still be in operation in 2050 the structural transformation of energy systems must start very soon. To understand how energy systems must be transformed over the next ten years we need a longer-term view through to 2050.”

Read the full article here to learn more.

From NASA: Oceanic Phytoplankton Declines

“The world’s oceans have seen significant declines in certain types of microscopic plant-life at the base of the marine food chain, according to a new NASA study. The research, published Sept. 23 in Global Biogeochemical Cycles, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, is the first to look at global, long-term phytoplankton community trends based on a model driven by NASA satellite data.

Diatoms, the largest type of phytoplankton algae, have declined more than 1 percent per year from 1998 to 2012 globally, with significant losses occurring in the North Pacific, North Indian and Equatorial Indian oceans. The reduction in population may reduce the amount of carbon dioxide drawn out of the atmosphere and transferred to the deep ocean for long-term storage.”

Read the full story.

From UW Today: Oceans Releasing Frozen Methane

Bubble plumes off Washington, Oregon suggest warmer ocean may be releasing frozen methane

“Warming ocean temperatures a third of a mile below the surface, in a dark ocean in areas with little marine life, might attract scant attention. But this is precisely the depth where frozen pockets of methane ‘ice’ transition from a dormant solid to a powerful greenhouse gas.

New University of Washington research suggests that subsurface warming could be causing more methane gas to bubble up off the Washington and Oregon coast.

The study, to appear in the journal Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, shows that of 168 bubble plumes observed within the past decade a disproportionate number were seen at a critical depth for the stability of methane hydrates.”

Read the full article here.

FHI: Putting Odds on Humanity’s Extinction

Putting Odds on Humanity’s Extinction
The Team Tasked With Predicting-and Preventing-Catastrophe
by Carinne Piekema
May 13, 2015

Bookmark and Share

Not long ago, I drove off in my car to visit a friend in a rustic village in the English countryside. I didn’t exactly know where to go, but I figured it didn’t matter because I had my navigator at the ready. Unfortunately for me, as I got closer, the GPS signal became increasingly weak and eventually disappeared. I drove around aimlessly for a while without a paper map, cursing my dependence on modern technology.

It may seem gloomy to be faced with a graph that predicts the
potential for extinction, but the FHI researchers believe it can
stimulate people to start thinking—and take action.

But as technology advances over the coming years, the consequences of it failing could be far more troubling than getting lost. Those concerns keep the researchers at the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI) in Oxford occupied—and the stakes are high. In fact, visitors glancing at the white boards surrounding the FHI meeting area would be confronted by a graph estimating the likelihood that humanity dies out within the next 100 years. Members of the Institute have marked their personal predictions, from some optimistic to some seriously pessimistic views estimating as high as a 40% chance of extinction. It’s not just the FHI members: at a conference held in Oxford some years back, a group of risk researchers from across the globe suggested the likelihood of such an event is 19%. “This is obviously disturbing, but it still means that there would be 81% chance of it not happening,” says Professor Nick Bostrom, the Institute’s director.

That hope—and challenge—drove Bostrom to establish the FHI in 2005. The Institute is devoted precisely to considering the unintended risks our technological progress could pose to our existence. The scenarios are complex and require forays into a range of subjects including physics, biology, engineering, and philosophy. “Trying to put all of that together with a detailed attempt to understand the capabilities of what a more mature technology would unleash—and performing ethical analysis on that—seemed like a very useful thing to do,” says Bostrom.

Far from being bystanders in the face
of apocalypse, the FHI researchers are
working hard to find solutions.

In that view, Bostrom found an ally in British-born technology consultant and author James Martin. In 2004, Martin had donated approximately $90 million US dollars—one of the biggest single donations ever made to the University of Oxford—to set up the Oxford Martin School. The school’s founding aim was to address the biggest questions of the 21st Century, and Bostrom’s vision certainly qualified. The FHI became part of the Oxford Martin School.

Before the FHI came into existence, not much had been done on an organised scale to consider where our rapid technological progress might lead us. Bostrom and his team had to cover a lot of ground. “Sometimes when you are in a field where there is as yet no scientific discipline, you are in a pre-paradigm phase: trying to work out what the right questions are and how you can break down big, confused problems into smaller sub-problems that you can then do actual research on,” says Bostrom.

Though the challenge might seem like a daunting task, researchers at the Institute have a host of strategies to choose from. “We have mathematicians, philosophers, and scientists working closely together,” says Bostrom. “Whereas a lot of scientists have kind of only one methodology they use, we find ourselves often forced to grasp around in the toolbox to see if there is some particular tool that is useful for the particular question we are interested in,” he adds. The diverse demands on their team enable the researchers to move beyond “armchair philosophising”—which they admit is still part of the process—and also incorporate mathematical modelling, statistics, history, and even engineering into their work.

“We can’t just muddle through and learn
from experience and adapt. We have to
anticipate and avoid existential risk.
We only have one chance.”
– Nick Bostrom

Their multidisciplinary approach turns out to be incredibly powerful in the quest to identify the biggest threats to human civilisation. As Dr. Anders Sandberg, a computational neuroscientist and one of the senior researchers at the FHI explains: “If you are, for instance, trying to understand what the economic effects of machine intelligence might be, you can analyse this using standard economics, philosophical arguments, and historical arguments. When they all point roughly in the same direction, we have reason to think that that is robust enough.”

The end of humanity?

Using these multidisciplinary methods, FHI researchers are finding that the biggest threats to humanity do not, as many might expect, come from disasters such as super volcanoes, devastating meteor collisions or even climate change. It’s much more likely that the end of humanity will follow as an unintended consequence of our pursuit of ever more advanced technologies. The more powerful technology gets, the more devastating it becomes if we lose control of it, especially if the technology can be weaponized. One specific area Bostrom says deserves more attention is that of artificial intelligence. We don’t know what will happen as we develop machine intelligence that rivals—and eventually surpasses—our own, but the impact will almost certainly be enormous. “You can think about how the rise of our species has impacted other species that existed before—like the Neanderthals—and you realise that intelligence is a very powerful thing,” cautions Bostrom. “Creating something that is more powerful than the human species just seems like the kind of thing to be careful about.”

Nick Bostrom, Future of Humanity Institute Director

Far from being bystanders in the face of apocalypse, the FHI researchers are working hard to find solutions. “With machine intelligence, for instance, we can do some of the foundational work now in order to reduce the amount of work that remains to be done after the particular architecture for the first AI comes into view,” says Bostrom. He adds that we can indirectly improve our chances by creating collective wisdom and global access to information to allow societies to more rapidly identify potentially harmful new technological advances. And we can do more: “There might be ways to enhance biological cognition with genetic engineering that could make it such that if AI is invented by the end of this century, might be a different, more competent brand of humanity ,” speculates Bostrom.

Perhaps one of the most important goals of risk researchers for the moment is to raise awareness and stop humanity from walking headlong into potentially devastating situations. And they are succeeding. Policy makers and governments around the globe are finally starting to listen and actively seek advice from researchers like those at the FHI. In 2014 for instance, FHI researchers Toby Ord and Nick Beckstead wrote a chapter for the Chief Scientific Adviser’s annual report setting out how the government in the United Kingdom should evaluate and deal with existential risks posed by future technology. But the FHI’s reach is not limited to the United Kingdom. Sandberg was on the advisory board of the World Economic Forum to give guidance on the misuse of emerging technologies for the report that concludes a decade of global risk research published this year.

Despite the obvious importance of their work the team are still largely dependent on private donations. Their multidisciplinary and necessarily speculative work does not easily fall into the traditional categories of priority funding areas drawn up by mainstream funding bodies. In presentations, Bostrom has been known to show a graph that depicts academic interest for various topics, from dung beetles and Star Trek to zinc oxalate, which all appear to receive far greater credit than the FHI’s type of research concerning the continued existence of humanity. Bostrom laments this discrepancy between stakes and attention: “We can’t just muddle through and learn from experience and adapt. We have to anticipate and avoid existential risk. We only have one chance.”

“Creating something that is more powerful than the human
species just seems like the kind of thing to be careful about.”

It may seem gloomy to be faced every day with a graph that predicts the potential disasters that could befall us over the coming century, but instead, the researchers at the FHI believe that such a simple visual aid can stimulate people to face up to the potentially negative consequences of technological advances.

Despite being concerned about potential pitfalls, the FHI researchers are quick to agree that technological progress has made our lives measurably better over the centuries, and neither Bostrom nor any of the other researchers suggest we should try to stop it. “We are getting a lot of good things here, and I don’t think I would be very happy living in the Middle Ages,” says Sandberg, who maintains an unflappable air of optimism. He’s confident that we can foresee and avoid catastrophe. “We’ve solved an awful lot of other hard problems in the past,” he says.

Technology is already embedded throughout our daily existence and its role will only increase in the coming years. But by helping us all face up to what this might mean, the FHI hopes to allow us not to be intimidated and instead take informed advantage of whatever advances come our way. How does Bostrom see the potential impact of their research? “If it becomes possible for humanity to be more reflective about where we are going and clear-sighted where there may be pitfalls,” he says, “then that could be the most cost-effective thing that has ever been done.”

GCRI: Aftermath

Finding practical paths to recovery after a worldwide catastrophe.
by Steven Ashley
March 13, 2015

Bookmark and Share

Tony Barrett
Global Catastrophic Risk Institute

OK, we survived the cataclysm. Now what?

In recent years, warnings by top scientists and industrialists have energized research into the sort of civilization-threatening calamities that are typically the stuff of sci-fi and thriller novels: asteroid impacts, supervolcanoes, nuclear war, pandemics, bioterrorism, even the rise of a super-smart, but malevolent artificial intelligence.

But what comes afterward? What happens to the survivors? In particular, what will they eat? How will they stay warm and find electricity? How will they rebuild and recover?

These “aftermath” issues comprise some of largest points of uncertainty regarding humanity’s gravest threats. And as such they constitute some of the principal research focuses of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (GCRI), a nonprofit think tank that Seth Baum and Tony Barrett founded in late 2011. Baum, a New York City-based engineer and geographer, is GCRI’s executive director. Barrett, who serves as its director of research, is a senior risk analyst at ABS Consulting in Washington, DC, which performs probabilistic risk assessment and other services.

Black Swan Events

At first glance, it may sound like GCRI is making an awful lot of fuss about dramatic worst-case scenarios that are unlikely to pan out any time soon. “In any given year, there’s only a small chance that one of these disasters will occur,” Baum concedes. But the longer we wait, he notes, the greater the chance that we will experience one of these “Black Swan events” (so called because before a black swan was spotted by an explorer in the seventeenth century, it was taken for granted that these birds did not exist). “We’re trying to instil a sense of urgency in governments and society in general that these risks need to be faced now to keep the world safe,” Baum says.

GCRI’s general mission is to find ways to mobilize the world’s thinkers to identify the really big risks facing the planet, how they might cooperate for optimal effect, and the best approaches to addressing the threats. The institute has no physical base, but it serves as a virtual hub, assembling “the best empirical data and the best expert judgment,” and rolling them into risk models that can help guide our actions, Barrett says. Researchers, brought together through GCRI, often collaborate remotely. Judging the real risks posed by these low-odds, high-consequence events is no simple task, he says: “In most cases, we are dealing with extremely sparse data sets about occurrences that seldom, if ever, happened before.”

Feeding Everyone No Matter What
Following a cataclysm that blocks out the sun, what will survivors eat?
Credit: J M Gehrke

Beyond ascertaining which global catastrophes are most likely to occur, GCRI seeks to learn how multiple events might interact. For instance, could a nuclear disaster lead to a change in climate that cuts food supplies while encouraging a pandemic caused by the loss of medical resources? “To best convey these all-too-real risks to various sectors of society, it’s not enough to merely characterize them,” Baum says. Tackling such multi-faceted scenarios requires an interdisciplinary approach that would enable GCRI experts to recognize potential shared mitigation strategies that could enhance the chances of recovery, he adds.

One of the more notable GCRI projects focuses on the aftermath of calamity. This analysis was conducted by research associate Dave Denkenberger, who is an energy efficiency engineer at Ecova, an energy and utility management firm in Durango, Colorado. Together with engineer Joshua M. Pearce, of Michigan Technological University in Houghton, he looked at a key issue: If one of these catastrophes does occur, how do we feed the survivors?

Worldwide, people currently eat about 1.5 billion tons of food a year. For a book published in 2014, Feeding Everyone No Matter What: Managing Food Security After Global Catastrophe, the pair researched alternative food sources that could be ramped up within five or fewer years following a disaster that involves a significant change in climate. In particular, the discussion looks at what could be done to feed the world should the climate suffer from an abrupt, single-decade drop in temperature of about 10°C that wipes out crops regionally, reducing food supplies by 10 per cent. This phenomenon has already occurred many times in the past.

Sun Block

Even more serious are scenarios that block the sun, which could cause a 10°C temperature drop globally in only a single year or so. Such a situation could arise should smoke enter the stratosphere from a nuclear winter resulting from an atomic exchange that burns big cities, an asteroid or comet impact, or a supervolcano eruption such as what may one day occur at Yellowstone National Park.

These risks need to be faced
now to keep the world safe.
– Seth Baum

Other similar, though probably less likely, scenarios, Denkenberger says, might derive from the spread of some crop-killing organism—a highly invasive superweed, a superbacterium that displaces beneficial bacteria, a virulent pathogenic bacterium, or a super pest (an insect). Any of these might happen naturally, but they could be even more serious should they result from a coordinated terrorist attack.

“Our approach is to look across disciplines to consider every food source that’s not dependent on the sun,” Denkenberger explains. The book considers various ways of converting vegetation and fossil fuels to edible food. The simplest potential solution may be to grow mushrooms on the dead trees, “but you could do much the same by using enzymes or bacteria to partially digest the dead plant fiber and then feed it to animals,” he adds. Ruminants including cows, sheep, goats, or more likely, faster-reproducing animals like rats, chickens or beetles could do the honors.

Seth Baum
Global Catastrophic Risk Institute

A more exotic solution would be to use bacteria to digest natural gas into sugars, and then eat the bacteria. In fact, a Danish company called Unibio is making animal feed from commercially stranded methane now.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is funding another GCRI project that assesses the risks posed by the arrival of new technologies in synthetic biology or advanced robotics which might be co-opted by terrorists or criminals for use as weapons. “We’re trying to produce forecasts that estimate when these technologies might become available to potential bad actors,” Barrett says.

Focusing on such worst-case scenarios could easily dampen the spirits of GCRI’s researchers. But far from fretting, Baum says that he came to the world of existential risk (or ‘x-risk’) from his interest in the ethics of utilitarianism, which emphasizes actions aimed at maximizing total benefit to people and other sentient beings while minimizing suffering. As an engineering grad student, Baum even had a blog on utilitarianism. “Other people on the blog pointed out how the ethical views I was promoting implied a focus on the big risks,” he recalls. “This logic checked out and I have been involved with x-risks ever since.”

Barrett takes a somewhat more jaundiced view of his chosen career: “Oh yeah, we’re lots of fun at dinner parties…”

GCRI News Summaries

Here are the July and August global catastrophic risk news summaries, written by Robert de Neufville of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. The July summary covers the Iran deal, Russia’s new missile early warning system, dangers of AI, new Ebola cases, and more. The August summary covers the latest confrontation between North and South Korea, the world’s first low-enriched uranium storage bank, the “Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change”, global food system vulnerabilities, and more.

GCRI News Summary June 2015

Here is the June 2015 global catastrophic risk news summary, written by Robert de Neufville of the lobal Catastrophic Risk Institute. The news summaries provide overviews across the world of global catastrophic risk. This summary includes Pope Francis’s encyclical about the global environment, tensions between NATO and Russia, a joint NASA-NSA program for asteroid and comet protection, and more.

Feeding Everyone No Matter What

Dr David Denkenberger is a research associate at the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute, and is the co-author of Feeding Everyone No Matter What: Managing Food Security After Global Catastrophe, published this year by Academic Press. In a guest post for the FLI blog, he summarizes the motivation for, and results behind, his work.

Mass human starvation is currently likely if global agricultural production is dramatically reduced for several years following a global catastrophe: e.g. super volcanic eruption, asteroid or comet impact, nuclear winter, abrupt climate change, super weed, super crop pathogen, super bacterium, or super crop pest. Even worse, such a catastrophe may cause the collapse of civilization, and recovery is not guaranteed. Therefore, this could affect many future generations.

The primary historic solution developed over the last several decades is increased food storage. However, storing up enough food to feed everyone would take a significant amount of time and would increase the price of food, killing additional people due to inadequate global access to affordable food. Humanity is far from doomed, however, in these situations – there are solutions.

In our new book Feeding Everyone No Matter What, we present a scientific approach to the practicalities of planning for long-term interruption to food production. The book provides an order of magnitude technical analysis comparing food requirements of all humans for five years with conversion of existing vegetation and fossil fuels to edible food. It presents mechanisms for global-scale conversion including: natural gas-digesting bacteria, extracting food from leaves, and conversion of fiber by enzymes, mushroom or bacteria growth, or a two-step process involving partial decomposition of fiber by fungi and/or bacteria and feeding them to animals such as beetles, ruminants (cows, deer, etc), rats and chickens. It includes an analysis to determine the ramp rates for each option and the results show that careful planning and global cooperation could feed everyone and preserve the bulk of biodiversity even in the most extreme circumstances.

The book also discusses options that may work on the household level. It encourages scientists and laypeople to perform alternate food growing and eating experiments, and to allow everyone to learn from them on