THE MORAL IMPERATIVE

[Alan_Silverman]

1. If there is a significant chance our world will be destroyed in our lifetimes, every moral human being must do what we can to prevent this.

2. Scientists and mathematicians should establish significance.

3. 120 years is a reasonable guess at the expected lifetime for the longest living human alive today.

4. Within the next 120 years, if there is a significant chance someone will start a nuclear war, create a deadly disease, accidentally or for blackmail; if an asteroid could strike the Earth, this time atomizing everything, if climate change or war might destroy our world, every moral human being must do what we can to prevent this from happening.

5. What percentage risk would you accept, that you and all the people you love might die horribly, rather than live forever? 1%? 2%? 3%?

6. What reward is worth taking that risk?

7. The scientific, computing and artistic communities must show us what the worst will be like if it happens.

8. Using computer simulation, pathing algorithms, game theory… any digital media or genre: virtual reality, manga, anime, claymation… show us our children being taken by alligators and pythons in the rising swamps of the American South. Allow us to watch, with our families, as the asteroid approaches Earth.

9. Enter demographics, where we live, age, sex, marital status, number of children, financials… Simulate catastrophe in virtual reality.

10. Whatever the scenario, conflict will be part of it.

11. Men will be too busy fighting to notice the world being destroyed.

12. Any major disruption of the supply chain will lead to death and dislocation leading to more deaths and dislocations.

13. Disruptions might spread spasmodically, in fits and starts, or all at once.

14. Show what happens when cyber criminals hold our electrical grid for ransom, and their buggy software loses the keys to turn it back on. No electricity, no water, no fuel for cars. Simulate what happens to families in different cities, suburbs and rural areas of America.

15. Science, mathematics, statistics, logic… certify there is a significant chance our world will be destroyed in the next 120 years.

16. Artists and writers, scientists, computer scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, logicians… show us our futures.

End

If I've posted this to the wrong forum, please let me know.
Thank you,
Alan

[2naSalit]

1. 120 years?

Heh. Try 50 or less.

[Alan_Silverman]

2. Number of years to calculate for destruction of the Earth

Hello 2naSalit,
For this to work we need to establish a benchmark in people's minds. Once we do that everything flows logically from there. Do you think 50 works better for that purpose?
Thank you,
Alan

[2naSalit]

3. I strongly suspect that...

We humans will destroy ourselves by way of biospheric collapse, at least to the point that it can no longer support human life within that time.

I'm pretty sure that there is going to be a series of ecosystems collapsing in the next decade which could wipe out a large number of our species through lack of water and clean air and human on human conflict. We really aren't better than that even though we tell ourselves something else.

In 50 years, because we can't act in unison in changing our behaviors to save our own lives, I think we will perish sooner than most expect and the planet will carry on without us. Our self appointed importance on this planet is not a reality nor is it eternal.

[quaint]

4. +++

[Alan_Silverman]

6. Thank you

quaint,
I was a diagnostician, a problem solver at IBM. I worked on IBM's mainframe operating systems, some of the most complex code ever written. Can I show you how/why this plan could be a real step in solving the problem?
Thanks,
Alan

[Alan_Silverman]

5. That's my take too.

That's why I created this post. I was a systems programmer at IBM. The way to solve a problem is one step at a time. Can I show you how/why this plan could be a real step in solving the problem?
Thanks,
Alan