By Mike Flood
Mike Flood is Chair of Milton Keynes Humanists and of Humanists for the Common Good – an online network of humanists. He also runs the Fighting Fake website. In this article, he examines potential existential risks and their implications for the future of humanity, offering some thoughts which he hopes will start a conversation. He has written this article in a purely personal capacity.
Some years ago, the open access journal Futures ran a special issue on ‘Confronting Future Catastrophic Threats to Humanity’ (see note 1). It brought together a range of experts to comment on the likelihood and implications of various nightmare scenarios, both manmade and natural. It included speculation on the development of quantum computing (which could, in the blink of an eye, decode many of today’s cybersecurity measures), superintelligence (a form of Artificial Intelligence able to continually improve itself without human intervention or concern for our wellbeing), the threat and potential implications of biological or nuclear war, and climate change. The authors also reflected on various natural disasters such as the Earth being struck by an(other) asteroid, fried by a massive burst of gamma radiation from space, or plunged into a ‘volcanic winter’ following a super-eruption.
This may all sound rather fanciful. How likely is any of this? In one of the papers submitted, researchers asked a representative sample of adults in four countries (Australia, Canada, UK & US) to rate the risks, and they found that just over half of respondents (54%) put the likelihood that our way of life would end within the next 100 years at '50% or more', and one quarter (24%) rated the risk of humankind being wiped out altogether at about the same. As the authors point out, people’s 'perceptions have a significant bearing on how societies, and humanity as a whole, will deal with potentially catastrophic futures'. These studies were published in 2015 and much has happened since, not least a global pandemic with a death toll in excess of seven million according to the World Health Organization and Our World in Data. In addition, tens of millions have experienced climate change first hand in the form of insufferable heatwaves and unprecedented wildfires, floods and hurricanes, including many thousands who have not lived to tell the tale. And then there’s Putin threatening nuclear Armageddon in retaliation for military support given to Ukraine.
We have also seen major advances in AI, promising enormous benefit to humanity, but prompting widespread concern about the social and economic implications. One survey found that 36% of those consulted feared AI development may result in a ‘nuclear-level catastrophe’ and there have been calls for a pause in development. Additionally, there’s the insidious threat posed by ‘fake news’ / false information which the World Economic Forum’s 2024 Global Risks Report concludes represent the ‘biggest short-term risk’, with two-thirds of the experts consulted anticipating that the risks we’re facing are ‘stretching the world’s adaptive capacity to its limit’. (See note 2.) This graphic is from their report and it ranks various risks in the short to medium term based on their Global Risk Perception Survey 2023-2024. Survey responses were collected from the World Economic Forum’s multistakeholder communities.
Time for a major rethink?
Humankind has clearly arrived at a unique or defining moment in history (see note 3), so shouldn’t humanists be reflecting on this and asking if it’s time for a New Enlightenment and, if so, what role we might play? Indeed, this was the main theme of a Humanists International Conference in Glasgow in 2022, hosted by Humanist Society Scotland. I was delighted to learn of the initiative and to attend, but my expectations were soon deflated as the platform speakers in turn failed to address the issue. What’s more, audience participation was restricted because we were asked to text in our questions, which meant that much of the expertise and experience in the room didn’t get a look in. Indeed, it wasn’t until Professor Maggie Kinloch, then chair of Humanist Society Scotland, made her closing remarks that the motion actually got a mention! (See note 4.)
‘...it is difficult to think of a greater threat to our happiness and wellbeing — and that of future generations — than citizens en masse buying in to lies and disinformation, or the realisation of General AI or climate chaos and economic collapse.’
There may be little that anyone can do about an asteroid strike or stellar explosion, but shouldn’t we be doing more to help people deal with their fears and anxieties, real or imagined? Indeed, it is difficult to think of a greater threat to our happiness and wellbeing — and that of future generations — than citizens en masse buying in to lies and disinformation, or (Heaven forbid) the realisation of General AI or climate chaos and economic collapse. There hasn’t yet been a ‘Humanist Declaration on AI’, but in 2019 Humanists International’s General Assembly did approve the Reykjavik Declaration on the Climate Change Crisis. The tragedy is that five years down the line few humanist organisations appear to have heeded its call to highlight ‘the need for urgent action’. And what about the growing threat to reason and truth posed by disinformation, and the profound ethical questions raised by AI — not least about what it means to be human (or transhuman)?
In most of these areas, humanist organisations seem to be missing in action, focused more on our proud humanist heritage than a positive humanist future. True, there are the occasional specialist lectures, such as Chris Packham’s inspiring 2020 Darwin Day Lecture, when he posed the question ‘Will humanity survive the 21st century?’; and humanist leaders do occasionally speak out, but this is hardly in the spirit of Reykjavik or, for that matter, the Amsterdam Declaration, which recognises our ‘duty of care to all of humanity including future generations’ and ‘our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world’.
Opening up a fourth front: Humanism for the Common Good
Humanist organisations are today operating in over 60 countries. They face many challenges: in the South, courageous individuals are ‘fighting for acceptance’ and for people’s right to reject prescribed religions; while organisations in Europe and North America are more focused on ‘campaigning for secularism’ and ‘promoting the humanist lifestance’. Given the growing geopolitical tensions in the world and the nature and multiplicity of the threats we face, is it not time we reviewed our priorities and opened up a fourth front, promoting ‘humanism for the common good’? (See note 5.) Fighting to get bishops out of the House of Lords is all well and good, but can someone explain the case for humanist organisations not actively campaigning on emerging contemporary issues that have a direct bearing on environmental justice and sustainable development, and (all) people’s basic rights and wellbeing? (See note 6.)
One of Humanists International’s founding fathers, the eminent Dutch humanist, Jaap van Praag, was championing this issue back in the 1960s when he called on humanists to move beyond the ‘Little Fight’ (lobbying for the legitimate but limited interests of non-believers) and take on the ‘Great Fight’ (i.e. tackling the more universal challenges that humanists believe must be overcome for the benefit of all people). I am not proposing that current humanist campaigns be abandoned, rather that humanists should regularly reassess their relative importance given social and technical advances and the state of the world, and allocate time, effort and resources accordingly. I think such a change would be well-received, especially by younger generations who want more action and less ‘blah, blah’. It might also help broaden our reach: people who say that they don’t believe in God now account for more than 50% of the UK population, but relatively few know what humanism is, or show any interest in finding out. Indeed, it seems somewhat perverse to leave it up to others, including organised religion (see note 7) to be making the running. I also think that simply paying lip service to people’s concerns sends out a confusing message to supporters and the wider public about humanist priorities and philosophy.
In February 2023, a small group of us published a two-page manifesto which called on humanist organisations to: 1) set up independent expert panels to provide regular advice and guidance on the threat to human flourishing and liberal democracy posed by false information, AI and climate change; and 2) take steps to locate and partner with NGOs that have the requisite expertise and campaigning experience in areas of mutual interest/concern. And we identified ten campaign areas that we thought humanists might consider endorsing or supporting to help bring a rational and compassionate humanist voice to their campaigns and to the public debate (see note 8). We need to show people what humanism has to offer. I also think local groups would appreciate more guidance on what it actually means to live ‘happy, confident and ethical lives’ (the humanist mantra) in these deeply troubling times, and how best we might aspire to be ‘good ancestors’ for future generations. Is it clear to you?
Notes and references
Futures is a forum for research on the relationships between humanity and possible futures. Their 2015 special issue builds on the ground-breaking 2008 publication: ‘Global Catastrophic Risks’ (edited by Nick Bostrom & Milan M. Ćirković) and on other special issues of Futures (‘Human extinction’, 2009) and Scientific American (‘The End’, 2010).
The report draws on the views of over 1,400 global risks experts, policymakers and industry leaders. It notes that while 30% 'expect an elevated chance of global catastrophes in the next two years, nearly two thirds expect this in the next 10 years'.
A growing number of distinguished individuals have written about this. They include: Ian Goldin, AC Grayling, Peter Hennessy, Neil Levy and Stuart Russell. History suggests that our civilisation is likely to collapse at some point, but this is not inevitable, especially if we learn from the wreckage of past societies and put all of our energies into reducing tension in the world, levelling inequalities, cutting pollution and reversing habitat loss. Whether humanity and humanists are up to this remains to be seen.
See our Conference Report in the August 2022 issue of Humanistically Speaking [p26].
Let me note here that some in the Global South are also calling for change: Leo Igwe of the Nigerian Humanist Movement recently called for a 'move from Western world humanism to truly global humanism', noting that 'The world has been undergoing rapid changes but the way that freethought is organized has been out of step with the changes, and with the times...'
Campaigning on some of the issues highlighted is not unknown, but it is the exception rather than the rule. For example, Humanist Society Scotland does actively campaign on climate change; and Humanists International did run a multilingual campaign to combating fake news and misinformation about Covid 19 — this was back in May 2020 and appears to have been a one-off. To its credit, Humanists UK did set up Humanist Climate Action shortly after the Reykjavik Declaration was approved, but this is not part of its Five Year Plan. Moreover, Humanist Climate Action is volunteer-led and doesn’t have a budget.
Steven Croft, the Bishop of Oxford, sits on the House of Lord's Artificial Intelligence Committee. Back in 2018 he was arguing that ‘every development in Artificial Intelligence raises new questions about what it means to be human’ and Christians, he said ‘need to be part of that dialogue, aware of what is happening and making a contribution for the sake of the common good.’ I argued at the time that humanists should do too. And I have not changed my mind.
You can access the Manifesto and more recent papers on the subject on Milton Keynes Humanists’ website.