Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Global Catastrophic Risks 1st Edition
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Hardcover, Box set
"Please retry" | $57.36 | — | $30.99 |
|
Paperback, Illustrated
"Please retry" | $19.82 | $17.00 |
are adding dangers of a new kind. It could happen again.
In Global Catastrophic Risks 25 leading experts look at the gravest risks facing humanity in the 21st century, including asteroid impacts, gamma-ray bursts, Earth-based natural catastrophes, nuclear war, terrorism, global warming, biological weapons, totalitarianism, advanced nanotechnology, general
artificial intelligence, and social collapse. The book also addresses over-arching issues - policy responses and methods for predicting and managing catastrophes.
This is invaluable reading for anyone interested in the big issues of our time; for students focusing on science, society, technology, and public policy; and for academics, policy-makers, and professionals working in these acutely important fields.
- ISBN-100198570503
- ISBN-13978-0198570509
- Edition1st
- PublisherOxford University Press
- Publication dateSeptember 15, 2008
- LanguageEnglish
- Dimensions6.25 x 1.25 x 9.5 inches
- Print length554 pages
What do customers buy after viewing this item?
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Nick Bostrom, PhD, is a Professor at Oxford University, where he leads the Future of Humanity Institute as its founding director. He previously taught at Yale University in the Department of Philosophy and in the Yale Institute for Social and Policy Studies. Bostrom has served as an expert consultant for the European Commission in Brussels and for the Central Intelligence Agency in Washington DC. He has advised the British Parliament, the European Parliament, and many other public bodies on issues relating to emerging technologies.
Milan M. Cirkovic, PhD, is a senior research associate of the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade, (Serbia) and a professor of Cosmology at Department of Physics, University of Novi Sad (Serbia). He received both his PhD in Physics and his MSc in Earth and Space Sciences from the State University of New York at Stony Brook (USA) and his BSc in Theoretical Physics was received from the University of Belgrade.
Product details
- Publisher : Oxford University Press; 1st edition (September 15, 2008)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 554 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0198570503
- ISBN-13 : 978-0198570509
- Item Weight : 2.2 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.25 x 1.25 x 9.5 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #3,406,035 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #2,965 in Government
- #5,123 in Social Services & Welfare (Books)
- #14,238 in U.S. Political Science
- Customer Reviews:
About the authors

Nick Bostrom is a Swedish-born philosopher and polymath with a background in theoretical physics, computational neuroscience, logic, and artificial intelligence, as well as philosophy. He is a Professor at Oxford University, where he leads the Future of Humanity Institute as its founding director. (The FHI is a multidisciplinary university research center; it is also home to the Center for the Governance of Artificial Intelligence and to teams working on AI safety, biosecurity, macrostrategy, and various other technology or foundational questions.) He is the author of some 200 publications, including Anthropic Bias (2002), Global Catastrophic Risks (2008), Human Enhancement (2009), and Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014), a New York Times bestseller which helped spark a global conversation about artificial intelligence. Bostrom’s widely influential work, which traverses philosophy, science, ethics, and technology, has illuminated the links between our present actions and long-term global outcomes, thereby casting a new light on the human condition.
He is recipient of a Eugene R. Gannon Award, and has been listed on Foreign Policy’s Top 100 Global Thinkers list twice. He was included on Prospect’s World Thinkers list, the youngest person in the top 15. His writings have been translated into 28 languages, and there have been more than 100 translations and reprints of his works. He is a repeat TED speaker and has done more than 2,000 interviews with television, radio, and print media. As a graduate student he dabbled in stand-up comedy on the London circuit, but he has since reconnected with the doom and gloom of his Swedish roots.
For more, see www.nickbostrom.com

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Amongst the core chapters discussing particular risks, the three that are most ``hard science", on supervolcanos, asteroid or comet impact, and extra-solar-system risks are just great -- one learns for instance that (contrary to much science fiction) comets are more a risk than asteroids, and the major risk in the last category is not nearby supernovas but cosmic rays created by gamma ray bursts. These three chapters are perhaps the only contexts where it's reasonable to attempt to estimate actual probabilities of the catastrophes.
The balanced article on global warming is unlikely to please extremists, concluding that mainstream science predicts a linear increase in temperature that may be unpleasant but not catastrophic, while the various speculative non-linear possibilities leading to catastrophe have plausibilities impossible to assess. The article on pandemics is surprisingly upbeat (``are influenza pandemics likely? Possibly, except for the preposterous mortality rate that has been proposed"), as is the article on exotic physics ("Might our vacuum be only metastable? If so, we can envisage a terminal catastrophe, when the field configuration of empty space changes, and with it the effective laws of physics ..."). The articles on nuclear war, on nuclear terrorism, and on risks from biotechnology and from nanotechnology are perfectly sensible and well-argued. These articles are somewhat technical, so it is a curious relief to arrive at "totalitarian government" which discusses in an easy to read way why 20th century totalitarian governments did not last forever, and circumstances under which a stable worldwide totalitarian government might emerge.
The article on AIs emphasizes that we wrongly imagine intelligent machines as like humans -- "how likely is it that AI will cross the vast gap from amoeba to village idiot, and then stop at the level of human genius?" -- and that we should attempt to envisage something quite different. But the subsequent discussion of Friendly or Unfriendly AIs rests on the assumptions that AIs may be created which have intelligence and motivation ("optimization targets", in the author's effort to avoid anthropomorphizing) to do things on their own initiative, and that their motivations will be comprehensible to humans. Well, I find it hard enough to imagine what "motivation/optimization targets" mean to an amoeba or a village idiot, let alone an AI.
The only article I found positively unsatisfactory was on social collapse. A catastrophe eliminating global food production for one year would likely cause "collapse of civilization" in fighting over the 2 months food supply in storage. But not elimination for just one month. A serious discussion of the sizes of different catastrophes needed to reach this tipping point would be fascinating, but the article merely assumes power law distributions for the size of an unspecified disaster -- this is the sort of thing that brings mathematical modeling into disrepute.
Overall, a valuable and eclectic selection of thought-provoking articles.
I had read a review of GCR in the scientific journal "Nature" in which the reviewer complained that the authors had given the global warming issue short shrift. I considered this a plus.
If, like me, you get very annoyed by "typos," be forewarned. There are enough typos in GCR to start a collection. At first I was a bit annoyed by them, but some were quite amusing... almost as if they were done on purpose.
Most of the typos were straight typing errors, or errors of fact. For example, on page 292 the author says that the 1918 flu pandemic killed "only 23%" of those infected. Only 23%? That seems a rather high percentage to be preceeded by the qualifier "only". Of course, although 50 million people died in the pandemic, this represented "only" 2% to 3% of those infected... not 23%. On p 295 we read "the rats and their s in ships" and it might take us a moment to determine that it should have read, "the rats and their fleas in ships."
But many of the typos were either fun, or a bit more tricky to figure out: on p. 254 we find "canal so" which you can probably predict should have been "can also." Much trickier, on p. 255 we find, "A large meteoric impact was invoked (...) in order to explain their idium anomaly." Their idium anomaly?? Nah. Better would have been..."the iridium anomaly!" (That's one of my favorites.) Elsewhere, we find twice on the same page "an arrow" instead of "a narrow"... and so it goes..."mortality greater than $1 million." on p. 168 (why the $ sign?) etc. etc.
But the overall impact of the book is tremendous. We learn all sorts of arcane and troubling data, e.g. form p.301 "A totally unforseen complication of the successful restoration of immunologic function by the treatment of AIDS with antiviral drugs has been the activation of dormant leprosy..." I can hear the phone call now...."Darling, I have some wonderful news, and some terrible news...hold on a second dearest, my nose just fell off..."
So even if you're usually turned off by typos, don't let that stop you from buying this book. I expected more from the Oxford University Press, but I guess they've sacked the proofreader and they're using Spell-Check these days. But then, how did "their idium anomaly" get past Spell-Check? I guess Spell-Check at Oxford includes Latin.
Top reviews from other countries
As I was reading the child-like introduction by Martin J. Rees, who lashes out at those he sees as a threat in a similar way to a kid in the playground starts name calling when he's not getting his way, I knew it was going to be an uphill struggle. To quote one sentence: "And there are extreme eco-freaks who believe that the world would be better off if it were rid of humans." Convince me that we are beneficial to life on earth with well constructed arguments and I will try to see just how "better off" the world is with us lot subjugating nature to our own selfish ends. But it will take a lot to convince me!
The book doesn't claim to cover every conceivable threat to human existence on the planet, but the threats that are included are not necessarily the most realistic. Whole chapters are devoted to what can only be termed as science-fiction: that we are part of some simulation and the "Director" of said simulation could tire of watching us and switch the simulation off. Huh? Another chapter is devoted to artificial intelligence that will somehow begin a life of it's own. Come on, people, there are more realistic threats that we should be concerned with, such as disease (a mere 17 pages compared to 35 on artificial intelligence), weaponry (only nuclear and biological weapons are covered), natural events that come as a result of over-population (this is the single biggest threat to human life on earth as no-one is addressing the issue and we expect the earth to support an infinite number of humans - truly absurd!).
The chapter on cognitive bias was probably the most interesting chapter for me, which is about how difficult it is to be truly objective in trying to assess risks. This makes sense as it takes selfless introspection to truly transcend the bias of our human nature, i.e.: the instincts that drive us. The assumption that human beings are the most intelligent life-forms ever to inhabit the planet, that the planet would be worse-off if we were not here - these are emotionally-driven statements that come from the deepest instinct of all - that of survival. They are not intellectual arguments and have no place in a scientific body of work.
One thing that does strike me is how little we know of the past. There is a lot of guesswork, a lot of assumptions, a lot of "probables". This is not factual nor is it scientific, so why do so-called scientists put it forward as "fact"?
All-in-all, I was left quite numb after reading this book. Not because of any threats to the existence of "human" life on earth, but the arrogance that shines through from all these "intellectuals". As far as they are concerned, human beings are the only things that matter and everything else on the planet, in the universe, is there for the taking. It is this attitude towards life that will lead to our extinction and for the sake of the rest of life on this wonderful and unique planet, the sooner the better! Even if we became extinct next week, we would leave behind a terrible legacy, one that we should be ashamed of (assuming that any of us have a sense of humility, that is).
Man merkt dem Buch an, dass dies eine Veranstaltung von Wissenschaftlern für Wissenschaftler war - die von mir sonst so gerne gelobte Fähigkeit und Bereitschaft anglophoner Autoren, sich für den interessierten Laien verständlich auszudrücken, ist hier sehr unterschiedlich ausgeprägt, und das ist angesichts der Vielfalt der vertretenen Fakultäten etwas schade. Naturwissenschaftliche Vorbildung sowie eine gewisse Bereitschaft, sich mit Zahlen auseinanderzusetzen, sind jedenfalls bei den meisten Themen von Nutzen.
Auch wenn ein paar Randgebiete reingerutscht sind - milleniaristische Kulte haben mit echten Katastrophen wenig zu tun, und den Artikel über Für und Wider alleskönnender Nanofabrikchen fand ich etwas sehr verspielt-hypothetisch - haben andere dafür umso mehr Substanz, wie die über Asteroiden, Kometen oder Supervulkane. Sehr eindrucksvoll auch das Kapitel über künstliche Intelligenz und die Gedanken, die man sich tunlichst gemacht haben sollte, bevor diese sich dem Einfluss ihrer Macher entzieht. Beim Kapitel über den Klimawandel war ich mir nicht sicher, ob hier nicht zu viel hinterfragt, zu wenig gewarnt und damit den interessengesteuerten Leugnern zu viel Munition an die Hand gegeben wurde.
Das könnte aber auch damit zusammenhängen, dass das Buch inzwischen fast zehn Jahre alt ist. Das merkt man nicht nur daran, das Osama bin Laden noch lebt und es den IS noch nicht gibt, sondern es wird auch eine so unmittelbar drohende Gefahr wie die multiresistenter Keime nur in einem Absatz gestreift. Dass ein Sonnensturm wie der von 1859, der unser Kommunikationsnetz weltweit und langfristig lahmlegen würde, nicht als Risiko eingeschätzt wird, hat mich ebenfalls sehr gewundert (2012 hätte es uns fast wieder erwischt). Und schließlich dürften auch die Eintrittswahrscheinlichkeit einer nuklearen Katastrophe heute etwas anders eingeschätzt werden, angesichts der Tatsache, dass ein inkompetenter Narzisst und ein undurchsichtiger Diktator die Finger an den jeweiligen Roten Knöpfen haben.
Das sind, zugegebenermaßen, alles nur persönliche, den Blick möglicherweise verstellende Sichtweisen - vor dem cognitive bias wird in dem Buch nicht nur einmal ausdrücklich gewarnt.
As another reviewer has commented on, "obscure and unlikely" risks receive as much, if not more, attention than the more well known risks but the book makes it very clear from the onset that it is not supposed to be a manual for saving the world. Instead, it is simply trying to inform readers about global catastrophic risks as a wider issue (the book includes several chapters on sociological aspects such as cognitive biases) rather than specifically trying to help people prepare for them. I think it does this very well.











