Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 229–236 | Cite as

Risk and resilience for unknown, unquantifiable, systemic, and unlikely/catastrophic threats

Article

Abstract

Risk and resilience are important paradigms for analyzing and guiding decisions about uncertain threats. Resilience has sometimes been favored for threats that are unknown, unquantifiable, systemic, and unlikely/catastrophic. This paper addresses the suitability of each paradigm for such threats, finding that they are comparably suitable. Threats are rarely completely unknown or unquantifiable; what limited information is typically available enables the use of both paradigms. Either paradigm can in practice mishandle systemic or unlikely/catastrophic threats, but this is inadequate implementation of the paradigms, not inadequacy of the paradigms themselves. Three examples are described: (a) Venice in the Black Death plague, (b) artificial intelligence (AI), and (c) extraterrestrials. The Venice example suggests effectiveness for each paradigm for certain unknown, unquantifiable, systemic, and unlikely/catastrophic threats. The AI and extraterrestrials examples suggest how increasing resilience may be less effective, and reducing threat probability may be more effective, for certain threats that are significantly unknown, unquantifiable, and unlikely/catastrophic.

Keywords

Risk Resilience Uncertainty Catastrophe Plague Artificial intelligence Extraterrestrials 

References

  1. Adler M (2007) Why de minimis? University of Pennsylvania, Institute for Law and Economics, Research paper no. 07-12Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong S, Sotala K (2012) How we’re predicting AI–or failing to. In: Ircing P, Zackova E, Polak M, Schuster R (eds) Beyond AI: artificial dreams. University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, pp 52–75Google Scholar
  3. Aven T (2011) On some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk, vulnerability, and resilience. Risk Anal 31(4):515–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum SD, Handoh IC (2014) Integrating the planetary boundaries and global catastrophic risk paradigms. Ecol Econ 107:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum SD, Haqq-Misra JD, Domagal-Goldman SD (2011a) Would contact with extraterrestrials benefit or harm humanity? A scenario analysis. Acta Astronaut 68(11–12):2114–2129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum SD, Goertzel B, Goertzel TG (2011b) How long until human-level AI? Results from an expert assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 78(1):185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baum SD, Maher TM Jr, Haqq-Misra J (2013) Double catastrophe: intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse. Environ Syst Decis 33(1):168–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bier VM, Haimes YY, Lambert JH, Matalas NC, Zimmerman R (1999) A survey of approaches for assessing and managing the risk of extremes. Risk Anal 19(1):83–94Google Scholar
  9. Bostrom N (2014) Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Brin D (n.d.) Shouting at the cosmos: How SETI has taken a worrisome turn into dangerous territory. http://www.davidbrin.com/shouldsetitransmit.html
  11. Ćirković MM (2004) The temporal aspect of the Drake equation and SETI. Astrobiology 4(2):225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ćirković MM (2012) Small theories and large risks—is risk analysis relevant for epistemology? Risk Anal 32(11):1994–2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crevier D (1993) AI: The tumultuous history of the search for artificial intelligence. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Eden AH, Moor JH, Soraker JH, Steinhart E (2013) Singularity hypotheses: a scientific and philosophical assessment. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Good IJ (1965) Speculations concerning the first ultraintelligent machine. In: Alt FL, Rubinoff M (eds) Advances in computers. Academic Press, London, pp 31–88Google Scholar
  16. Haimes YY (2009a) On the definition of resilience in systems. Risk Anal 29(4):498–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haimes YY (2009b) On the complex definition of risk: a systems-based approach. Risk Anal 29(12):1647–1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haqq-Misra J, Busch MW, Som SM, Baum SD (2013) The benefits and harm of transmitting into space. Space Policy 29(1):40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horvitz E, Selman B (2009) Interim report from the panel chairs. AAAI presidential panel on long-term AI futures. http://www.aaai.org/Organization/Panel/panel-note.pdf
  20. Jebari K (2014) Existential risks: exploring a robust risk reduction. Sci Eng Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9559-3 Google Scholar
  21. Joshi NN, Lambert JH (2011) Diversification of engineering infrastructure investments for emergent and unknown non-systematic risks. J Risk Res 14(4):1466–4461Google Scholar
  22. Joy B (2000) Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired 8(04):238–262Google Scholar
  23. Kaplan S, Garrick BJ (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1(1):11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karvetski CW, Lambert JH (2012) Evaluating deep uncertainties in strategic priority-setting with an application to facility energy investments. Syst Eng 15(4):483–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Linkov I, Eisenberg DA, Bates ME, Chang D, Convertino M, Allen JH, Flynn SE, Seager TP (2013a) Measurable resilience for actionable policy. Environ Sci Technol 47(18):10108–10110Google Scholar
  26. Linkov I, Eisenberg DA, Plourde K, Seager TP, Allen J, Kott A (2013b) Resilience metrics for cyber systems. Environ Syst Decis 33(4):471–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Linkov I, Bridges T, Creutzig F, Decker J, Fox-Lent C, Kröger W et al (2014a) Changing the resilience paradigm. Nat Clim Change 4(6):407–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linkov I, Fox-Lent C, Keisler J, Della Sala S, Sieweke J (2014b) Risk and resilience lessons from Venice. Environ Syst Decis 34:378–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maher TM Jr, Baum SD (2013) Adaptation to and recovery from global catastrophe. Sustainability 5(4):1461–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matheny JG (2007) Reducing the risk of human extinction. Risk Anal 27(5):1335–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Michaud MAG (2007) Contact with alien civilizations: our hopes and fears about encountering extraterrestrials. Copernicus Books, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Müller VC, Bostrom N (forthcoming) Future progress in artificial intelligence: a poll among experts. In: Müller VC (ed) Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. NRC (National Research Council) (2012) Disaster resilience: a national imperative. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. Park J, Seager TP, Rao PSC, Convertino M, Linkov I (2013) Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Risk Anal 33(3):356–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Posner R (2004) Catastrophe: risk and Response. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Roege PE, Collier ZA, Mancillas J, McDonagh JA, Linkov I (2014) Metrics for energy resilience. Energy Policy 72:249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tsang JL, Lambert JH, Patev RC (2002) Extreme event scenarios for planning of infrastructure projects. J Infrastruct Syst 8(2):42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wallenhorst SG (1981) The Drake equation reexamined. Q J R Astron Soc 22:380–387Google Scholar
  39. Webb S (2002) If the universe is teeming with aliens—where is everybody? Fifty solutions to the Fermi paradox and the problem of extraterrestrial life. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Weber EU (2006) Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet). Clim Change 77(1–2):103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whitten SM, Hertzler G, Strunz S (2012) How real options and ecological resilience thinking can assist in environmental risk management. J Risk Res 15(3):331–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yudkowsky E (2011) Complex value systems in friendly AI. In: Schmidhuber J, Thórisson KR, Looks M (eds) Artificial general intelligence: 4th international conference proceedings. Springer, Berlin, pp 388–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhou Q, Lambert JH, Karvetski CW, Keisler JM, Linkov I (2012) Flood protection diversification to reduce probabilities of extreme losses. Risk Anal 32(11):1873–1887CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Global Catastrophic Risk InstituteWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations