51�������

Abstract:

An oral history and research summary of the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI).

Abstract:

Volcano geoengineering is the practice of altering the state of volcanic systems and/or volcanic eruptions to exploit them or mitigate their risk. Although many in the field insist there is little that can be done to mitigate the hazard, past examples of both intentional and inadvertent volcano interventions demonstrate that it is technically feasible to reach volcano plumbing systems or alter atmospheric processes following eruptions. Furthermore, we suggest that economical, political, and environmental pressures may make such interventions more common in the future. If volcano geoengineering ever becomes a discipline, it will need to overcome many safety and ethical concerns, including dealing with uncertainty, deciding on philosophical approaches such as a consequentialism or precautionary principle, justice and inequality, military uses, cultural values, and communication. We highlight that while volcano geoengineering has significant potential benefits, the risks and uncertainties are too great to justify its use in the short term. Despite this, because of the potential large benefits to society, we believe there is a strong ethical case to support research into the efficacy and safety of volcano geoengineering for its potential future use. We propose that rigorous governance and regulation of any volcano geoengineering is required to protect against potential risks, to enable potentially valuable and publicly available research (e.g., quantification of efficacy and safety), to ensure that any future policy must be co-created through community engagement, and that volcano geoengineering should only be considered as part of larger mitigation practices.

Abstract:

The biosphere represents the global sum of all ecosystems. According to a prominent view in environmental ethics, ecocentrism, these ecosystems matter for their own sake, and not only because they contribute to human ends. As such, some ecocentrists are critical of the modern industrial civilization, and a few even argue that an irreversible collapse of the modern industrial civilization would be a good thing. However, taking a longer view and considering the eventual destruction of the biosphere by astronomical processes, we argue that humans, a species with considerable technological know-how and industrial capacity could intervene to extend the lifespan of Earth’s biosphere, perhaps by several billion years. We argue that human civilization, despite its flaws and harmful impacts on many ecosystems, is the biosphere’s best hope of avoiding premature destruction. We argue that proponents of ecocentrism, even those who wholly disregard anthropocentric values, have a strong moral reason preserve the modern industrial civilization, for as long as needed to ensure biosphere survival.

Abstract:

Responsible innovation efforts to date have largely focused on shaping individual technologies. However, as demonstrated by the preferential advancement of low-emission technologies, certain technologies reduce risks from other technologies or constitute low-risk substitutes. Governments and other relevant actors may leverage risk-reducing interactions across technology portfolios to mitigate risks beyond climate change. We propose a responsible innovation principle of “differential technology development”, which calls for leveraging risk-reducing interactions between technologies by affecting their relative timing. Thus, it may be beneficial to delay risk-increasing technologies and preferentially advance risk-reducing defensive, safety, or substitute technologies. Implementing differential technology development requires the ability to anticipate or identify impacts and intervene in the relative timing of technologies. We find that both are sometimes viable and that differential technology development may still be usefully applied even late in the diffusion of a harmful technology. A principle of differential technology development may inform government research funding priorities and technology regulation, as well as philanthropic research and development funders and corporate social responsibility measures. Differential technology development may be particularly promising to mitigate potential catastrophic risks from emerging technologies like synthetic biology and artificial intelligence.