What do you think?
Rate this book
Our Final Hour: A Scientist's warning - How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind's Future in This Century — On Earth and Beyond
Bolstered by unassailable science and delivered in eloquent style, Our Final Hour's provocative argument that humanity has a mere 50/50 chance of surviving the next century has struck a chord with readers, reviewers, and opinion-makers everywhere. Rees's vision of our immediate future is both a work of stunning scientific originality and a humanistic clarion call on behalf of the future of life.
240 pages, Paperback
First published March 19, 2003
98 people are currently reading
2290 people want to read
About the author
Martin J. Rees
64 books296 followersMartin John Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, OM, PRS (born June 23, 1942 in York) is an English cosmologist and astrophysicist. He has been Astronomer Royal since 1995, and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge since 2004. He became President of the Royal Society on December 1, 2005.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
July 29, 2013
Possibly the scariest book you'll ever read.
For my signed copy, The Good Professor restored the question mark that he wanted in the title,i.e. "Our Final Century?", but the publishers, in their wisdom, omitted. Apparently in US it was published as "Our Final Hour", possibly telling us all we need to know about Americans. I am amazed that someone as erudite and establishment as a Professor and Lord still can't get his book published with the title he wanted.
Putting that to one side, we're still here, a decade on from when the book was published. But I doubt any of the risks have diminished.
I am reminded of the poem Resumé by Dorothy Parker which I copy here in full, because you can never have too much of Ms Parker:
"Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live."
We may all be going to hell in a handcart, but lets live our lives to the full, day by day.
For my signed copy, The Good Professor restored the question mark that he wanted in the title,i.e. "Our Final Century?", but the publishers, in their wisdom, omitted. Apparently in US it was published as "Our Final Hour", possibly telling us all we need to know about Americans. I am amazed that someone as erudite and establishment as a Professor and Lord still can't get his book published with the title he wanted.
Putting that to one side, we're still here, a decade on from when the book was published. But I doubt any of the risks have diminished.
I am reminded of the poem Resumé by Dorothy Parker which I copy here in full, because you can never have too much of Ms Parker:
"Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live."
We may all be going to hell in a handcart, but lets live our lives to the full, day by day.
February 18, 2014
I heard about Our Final Hour when I watched Martin Rees' Ted talk on the mounting risks that the Earth now faces, here. I thought that I would be getting a more in-depth treatment of the topics he covered in the video, but for the most part, I had already learned his most interesting ideas. Also, since the immediacy of the issues is a main thrust of the book, it has gone a bit stale already, as in:
Wasn't 2002 such a simpler time? I did enjoy some of the philosophical parts (ie., the Mediocrity Principle), but was put off by Rees' constant use of ironic quotation marks, as in:
Those are on every page and drove me bonkers. In the end, if there is truly a 50/50 chance that humanity won't survive the 21st century, do yourself a favour and just watch the video.
Some innovations just don't attract enough economic or social demand: just as supersonic flight and manned space flight stagnated after the 1970s, today (in 2002) the potentialities of broadband (G3) technology are being taken up slowly because few people want to surf the Internet or watch movies from their mobile phones.
Wasn't 2002 such a simpler time? I did enjoy some of the philosophical parts (ie., the Mediocrity Principle), but was put off by Rees' constant use of ironic quotation marks, as in:
But there is a difference when those exposed to the risk are given no choice, and don't stand to gain any compensating benefit, when the "worst case" could be disastrous, or when the risk can't be quantified. Some scientists seem fatalistic about the risk; or else optimistic, even complacent, that the more scarifying "downsides" can be averted. This optimism may be misplaced, and we should therefore ask, can the more intractable risks be staved off by "going slow" in some areas, or by sacrificing some of science's traditional openness?
Those are on every page and drove me bonkers. In the end, if there is truly a 50/50 chance that humanity won't survive the 21st century, do yourself a favour and just watch the video.
October 28, 2015
"لا يزال العلم عند مجرد بدايته وكل خطوة تقدم تجلب مجموعة جديدة من الأسئلة إلى بؤرة الاهتمام، أنا متفق مع جوت مادوكس في أنه ستكون المفاجآت الكبرى هي في الإجابة على تلك الأسئلة التي لم نصل بعد إلى الحذق الكافي لنسألها"
- كتاب رائع يناقش مستقبل التكنولوجيا وتأثيرها على البشر بمزيج علمي وفلسلفي
- كتاب رائع يناقش مستقبل التكنولوجيا وتأثيرها على البشر بمزيج علمي وفلسلفي
July 10, 2011
The most common objection to Our Final Hour seems to be alleging that it is alarmist. This stems from Martin Rees' assertion that there is about a 50/50 liklihood of humankind surviving the next 100 years. I guess I don't really buy that it's alarmist--first, because when you encounter an alarming phenomenon, the proper response is urgency--and secondly because, though Rees deals with some ideas that I think have a very small chance of negatively affecting our species, he always takes care to be up-front with saying that the odds of, say, an asteroid colliding with earth in our lifetimes, is very small.
If you can look beyond the fact that there is some outlandish science fiction-y sounding stuff in this book, it's got plenty of ideas that are geniunely worth considering. I think of this book as something like a survey course in Things That Could Kill Us, taught by an affable professor. Here is a list of some of those Things: good old-fashioned nuclear warfare, nuclear or biological terrorism, accidental release of virulent bio-agent, creation of nanotechnology that using solar energy more efficiently than current plant life and "outcompetes" every biological organism on the planet, asteroid impact, overpopulation, climate change, and advanced physics experiments creating a black hole. Some of these sound more crazy than others, but Rees' treatment is always accessible and often very interesting. He almost always finds a question or philosophical issue related to one of these possible doomsday scenarios that I hadn't ever considered.
The treatment of advanced physics was especially interesting. As Rees admits, the odds of a atom smashing experiement creating a black hole or other cosmic event is very small--perhaps one in 50 million. But, Rees asks, when the entireity of life on earth is at stake, how comfortable should be with odds of 1 in 50 million? Is that really good enough considering what is being risked? And should someone outside of the scientific community have some say in whether experiments of this sort are conducted? Should there be some kind of democratic process or forum where it can at least be discussed?
Rees is also eloquent on the future of scientific enquiry and where human life fits in the scheme of the cosmos. He's funny and humble and this book was a joy for me, though this is admittedly the kind of thing I love. And if nothing else, the notes contain this beautiful quote from Arthur C. Clarke about what the universe will look like after the hot stars burn out: "It will be a history illuminated only by the reds and infrareds of dully glowing stars that would be almost invisable to our eyes; yet the sombre hues of that all-but-eternal universe may be full of colour and beauty to whatever strange beings have adapted to it. They will know that before them lie, not billions of years that span the past lives of the stars, but years to be counted literally in trillions. They will have time enough, in those endless aeons, to attempt all things and to gather all knowledge. But for all that, they may envy us, basking in the bright afterglow of creation; for we knew the universe when it was young."
If you can look beyond the fact that there is some outlandish science fiction-y sounding stuff in this book, it's got plenty of ideas that are geniunely worth considering. I think of this book as something like a survey course in Things That Could Kill Us, taught by an affable professor. Here is a list of some of those Things: good old-fashioned nuclear warfare, nuclear or biological terrorism, accidental release of virulent bio-agent, creation of nanotechnology that using solar energy more efficiently than current plant life and "outcompetes" every biological organism on the planet, asteroid impact, overpopulation, climate change, and advanced physics experiments creating a black hole. Some of these sound more crazy than others, but Rees' treatment is always accessible and often very interesting. He almost always finds a question or philosophical issue related to one of these possible doomsday scenarios that I hadn't ever considered.
The treatment of advanced physics was especially interesting. As Rees admits, the odds of a atom smashing experiement creating a black hole or other cosmic event is very small--perhaps one in 50 million. But, Rees asks, when the entireity of life on earth is at stake, how comfortable should be with odds of 1 in 50 million? Is that really good enough considering what is being risked? And should someone outside of the scientific community have some say in whether experiments of this sort are conducted? Should there be some kind of democratic process or forum where it can at least be discussed?
Rees is also eloquent on the future of scientific enquiry and where human life fits in the scheme of the cosmos. He's funny and humble and this book was a joy for me, though this is admittedly the kind of thing I love. And if nothing else, the notes contain this beautiful quote from Arthur C. Clarke about what the universe will look like after the hot stars burn out: "It will be a history illuminated only by the reds and infrareds of dully glowing stars that would be almost invisable to our eyes; yet the sombre hues of that all-but-eternal universe may be full of colour and beauty to whatever strange beings have adapted to it. They will know that before them lie, not billions of years that span the past lives of the stars, but years to be counted literally in trillions. They will have time enough, in those endless aeons, to attempt all things and to gather all knowledge. But for all that, they may envy us, basking in the bright afterglow of creation; for we knew the universe when it was young."
May 30, 2019
Written in 2004, Martin Rees sees the experiments at CERN as more threatening to biological life on Earth than climate change and loss of biodiversity. He is willing to bet that a biological weapon can wipe out about 1 million people before 2020 but believes a moratorium on certain types of scientific experiments should be in order. I read this book quite quickly as he was talking about many subjects I have been thinking about for quite some time. You may enjoy this book even though you do not agree with everything Rees says.
September 6, 2020
17 yıl önce yazdığı bu kitapta Martin Rees aslında günümüzde de hala tartıştığımız senaryolara değinmiş. Savaşlar, çevresel sorunlar, hastalıklar vs...Zaman zaman anlatımlar anlaşılır olmaktan çıksa da (çeviri hatası diye düşünüyorum) konuya ilgi duyanlara ve Martin Rees meraklılarına tavsiye ediyorum.
March 20, 2018
Brief, elegantly written and balanced view of existential risks facing humanity at the beginning of the current century, with attention on natural and even more so on artificial sources of risk. Sir Martin Rees's sharp and critical sight is not blinded by fear, and tackles most aspects of the scenario - from natural catastrophes to artificial doom linked to misuse of technology, from philosophy to history to future colonization of space and the search for extraterrestrial life - and contemplates the place and role of humanity and life in general within the universe.
It was interesting to read this short book, originally published in 2003, at a distance of 15 years to appreciate what the course of time may have revealed as inopportune or ever so timely or prescient, in an exercise of looking backwards at earlier predictions and learn from their outcome to instruct the future ones - which is probabily futile or of limited a priori advantage.
It was interesting to read this short book, originally published in 2003, at a distance of 15 years to appreciate what the course of time may have revealed as inopportune or ever so timely or prescient, in an exercise of looking backwards at earlier predictions and learn from their outcome to instruct the future ones - which is probabily futile or of limited a priori advantage.
August 27, 2019
A sobering assessment
An important thing to realize when reading this book is that we will indeed have a "final hour." Whether it comes through extinction or self destruction or through our becoming "posthuman" is entirely uncertain, but come it will.
I have read several other doomsday books, including A Guide to the End of the World: Everything You Never Wanted to Know (2002) by Bill McGuire, and Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man (2002) by Michael Boulter. I have also read some books by futurists like Ray Kurzweil and Pierre Baldi (The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence [1999] and The Shattered Self: The End of Natural Evolution [2001], respectively); additionally I have read some of the books that Rees relied upon while writing this book, including, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (2002) by Francis Fukuyama, and so most of the things that Martin Rees is worried about are familiar to me.
But this book nonetheless broadened my perspective because Sir Martin Rees (the Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, and a distinguished astrophysicist) is persuasive in his argument that there may actually be scientific experiments that should not be tried. He warns against some kinds of genetic engineering, especially those attempting to change the DNA of dangerous pathogens, and even rates some experiments in physics as of dubious value. This is a somewhat surprising stance for a reputable scientists to take since most scientists do not relish the prospect of political restraints on their work, and usually afford the same courtesy to practitioners in other disciplines.
His call for taking a close look at experiments with a chance of a "doomsday downside," however remote, is well taken. His sense that some biological experiments have such an unsavory "yuck factor" (e.g., "Brainless hominoids whose organs could be harvested as spare parts," p. 78) that scientists themselves should not be alone in deciding whether such experiments should continue, is also an excellent point.
Rees is characteristically not dogmatic about any of this. He presents the dangers and the objections typically with the proviso that a wider public than an individual scientist, or an oligarchy of scientists, should participate in the decisions made. Indeed Rees is an eminently reasonable man who tries to have as few prejudices (or "yuck factors") about things as possible.
He emphasizes the unpredictability of future developments, noting that "straightforward projections of present trends will miss the most revolutionary innovations: the qualitatively new things that really change the world." (p. 12) Nobody before modern physics could have predicted the power of the atomic bomb, nor could the earliest experimenters with electricity have foreseen how electrical power would transform the world.
Like the futurists named above, Rees sees a posthuman future for our kind, a future in which cultural evolution transforms humans into something beyond human. He recalls Darwin, who wrote, "not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity" and notes that "Earth itself may endure, but it will not be humans who cope with the scorching of our planet by the dying sun..." (p. 186) What both Darwin and Rees are acknowledging is that all species eventually become extinct, and so too will humans.
The central point of this book I believe however is to be found further down the page where Rees writes, "Nuclear weapons give an attacking nation a devastating advantage over any feasible defense. New sciences will soon empower small groups, even individuals, with similar leverage over society. Our increasingly interconnected world is vulnerable to new risks; 'bio' or 'cyber,' terror or error. These risks cannot be eliminated: indeed it will be hard to stop them from growing without encroaching on some cherished personal freedoms."
Indeed, this is perhaps the central conundrum of our time made emphatic by the events of September 11th.
One of the most interesting ideas in this book is this from page 154: "Perhaps complex aggregates of atoms, whether brains or machine, can never understand everything about themselves." I am reminded here of Godel's incompleteness theorem in which he demonstrated that mathematics cannot have a truly rigorous logical foundation. I am also reminded of Russell's discovery that the logic of self-referential systems can lead to paradox. Rees's point here is that we may never really know ourselves.
Rees also makes the point on the same page that our machines will accelerate science, perhaps to the point where only machines can understand the new discoveries.
Clearly we are finite creatures in a world that we can never hope to fully understand. Furthermore there will always be dangers that we cannot predict or avoid. These are sobering thoughts for humans to think.
Rees closes by asking if the future will "be filled with life, or as empty as the Earth's first sterile seas" and he opines that "The choice may depend on us, this century."
Here I think he is waxing perhaps a bit melodramatically since, while we may have the ability to destroy civilization here on earth, life will indeed go on since it is highly unlikely that we will develop any time soon the ability to destroy all life. Furthermore, I agree with those who believe that life in some form exists beyond our solar system. Surely we will not be able to destroy them.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
An important thing to realize when reading this book is that we will indeed have a "final hour." Whether it comes through extinction or self destruction or through our becoming "posthuman" is entirely uncertain, but come it will.
I have read several other doomsday books, including A Guide to the End of the World: Everything You Never Wanted to Know (2002) by Bill McGuire, and Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man (2002) by Michael Boulter. I have also read some books by futurists like Ray Kurzweil and Pierre Baldi (The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence [1999] and The Shattered Self: The End of Natural Evolution [2001], respectively); additionally I have read some of the books that Rees relied upon while writing this book, including, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (2002) by Francis Fukuyama, and so most of the things that Martin Rees is worried about are familiar to me.
But this book nonetheless broadened my perspective because Sir Martin Rees (the Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, and a distinguished astrophysicist) is persuasive in his argument that there may actually be scientific experiments that should not be tried. He warns against some kinds of genetic engineering, especially those attempting to change the DNA of dangerous pathogens, and even rates some experiments in physics as of dubious value. This is a somewhat surprising stance for a reputable scientists to take since most scientists do not relish the prospect of political restraints on their work, and usually afford the same courtesy to practitioners in other disciplines.
His call for taking a close look at experiments with a chance of a "doomsday downside," however remote, is well taken. His sense that some biological experiments have such an unsavory "yuck factor" (e.g., "Brainless hominoids whose organs could be harvested as spare parts," p. 78) that scientists themselves should not be alone in deciding whether such experiments should continue, is also an excellent point.
Rees is characteristically not dogmatic about any of this. He presents the dangers and the objections typically with the proviso that a wider public than an individual scientist, or an oligarchy of scientists, should participate in the decisions made. Indeed Rees is an eminently reasonable man who tries to have as few prejudices (or "yuck factors") about things as possible.
He emphasizes the unpredictability of future developments, noting that "straightforward projections of present trends will miss the most revolutionary innovations: the qualitatively new things that really change the world." (p. 12) Nobody before modern physics could have predicted the power of the atomic bomb, nor could the earliest experimenters with electricity have foreseen how electrical power would transform the world.
Like the futurists named above, Rees sees a posthuman future for our kind, a future in which cultural evolution transforms humans into something beyond human. He recalls Darwin, who wrote, "not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity" and notes that "Earth itself may endure, but it will not be humans who cope with the scorching of our planet by the dying sun..." (p. 186) What both Darwin and Rees are acknowledging is that all species eventually become extinct, and so too will humans.
The central point of this book I believe however is to be found further down the page where Rees writes, "Nuclear weapons give an attacking nation a devastating advantage over any feasible defense. New sciences will soon empower small groups, even individuals, with similar leverage over society. Our increasingly interconnected world is vulnerable to new risks; 'bio' or 'cyber,' terror or error. These risks cannot be eliminated: indeed it will be hard to stop them from growing without encroaching on some cherished personal freedoms."
Indeed, this is perhaps the central conundrum of our time made emphatic by the events of September 11th.
One of the most interesting ideas in this book is this from page 154: "Perhaps complex aggregates of atoms, whether brains or machine, can never understand everything about themselves." I am reminded here of Godel's incompleteness theorem in which he demonstrated that mathematics cannot have a truly rigorous logical foundation. I am also reminded of Russell's discovery that the logic of self-referential systems can lead to paradox. Rees's point here is that we may never really know ourselves.
Rees also makes the point on the same page that our machines will accelerate science, perhaps to the point where only machines can understand the new discoveries.
Clearly we are finite creatures in a world that we can never hope to fully understand. Furthermore there will always be dangers that we cannot predict or avoid. These are sobering thoughts for humans to think.
Rees closes by asking if the future will "be filled with life, or as empty as the Earth's first sterile seas" and he opines that "The choice may depend on us, this century."
Here I think he is waxing perhaps a bit melodramatically since, while we may have the ability to destroy civilization here on earth, life will indeed go on since it is highly unlikely that we will develop any time soon the ability to destroy all life. Furthermore, I agree with those who believe that life in some form exists beyond our solar system. Surely we will not be able to destroy them.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
Read
August 10, 2020ئەو کتێبە زانیاریت لەسەر زۆر بابەتی جیاواز دەداتێ. هەر لە ئەگەری دروستکردن و بڵاوکردنەوەی ڤایرۆس و نەخۆشییەوە تاکو گەشت بۆ بۆشایی ئاسمان. نووسەر دەیەوێت بڵێت سەدەی بیست و یەک سەدەیەکی چارەنوسازە. گرنگترین بەشی کتێبەکە جەختکردنەوەیە لە زاناکان لەسەر ئەوەی نابێت ئەقڵی خۆیان بدەنە دەست سیاسییەکان، چونکە لە سەدەی بیستدا ئەوەیان کردووە و کارەساتی لێکەوتووەتەوە.
لەوەیە خاڵی لاوازی کتێبەکە گەورەکردنی لەڕادەبەدەری هەندێک لە مەترسییەکان بێت.
لەوەیە خاڵی لاوازی کتێبەکە گەورەکردنی لەڕادەبەدەری هەندێک لە مەترسییەکان بێت.
October 21, 2020
Oldie, but... it was a cool throw-back-experience to read in 2020 the book from the past... great insights and many things are true.
March 23, 2020
Jjjjj
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
March 23, 2020اريد قراة هذا الكتاب
May 19, 2022
The first half of this 2003 book talked about how all our advanced technology could end not only humanity, but all life on earth, and maybe even beyond. (This makes it a good book to give people ideas for end of the world scenarios.) But the second half seems to ignore all that and optimistically suggest all the great things that could be accomplished with technology if we invest in space funding. The implication seems to be that it won’t matter if Earth gets destroyed somehow, as long as we have humans in space somewhere to keep our species alive.
The author made a bet: “That by the year 2020 an instance of bioerror or bioterror will have killed a million people” (74). He was correct about that, if we assume the covid-19 death counts have not been exaggerated too much.
Smallpox was eradicated in the 1970s. “Rather than making [smallpox] extinct, stocks have been maintained in two locations, the CDC in Atlanta, USA, and the ominously named Vector Laboratory in Moscow. The justification for preserving these viruses is that they could be used to help develop vaccines. However, there is growing concern that clandestine caches of the virus may exist in other countries, raising fears of smallpox bioterror” (51). See, if smallpox was eradicated, why would they need to make vaccines for it? Seems to me they like to keep stores of it so that they can release it intentionally in the future.
“By amplifying fears and fueling hysteria, media coverage would guarantee that even a smallpox epidemic at the less severe end of the spectrum of predictions would disrupt ordinary life worldwide” (53). That’s exactly what happened with covid. It was a mild illness, but the media stirred up fear, and the gullible public bought it.
Ron Jackson and Ian Ramshaw wanted to modify the mousepox virus so that they could create an infectious contraceptive vaccine and use it to sterilize mice. “During these experiments, early in 2001, they inadvertently created a new, highly virulent, strain of mousepox: their laboratory mice all died. They had added a gene for a protein (interleukin-4) that boosted antibody production and suppressed the immune system in the mice; in consequence, even animals that had previously been vaccinated against mousepox died as well” (57-58). And people think it’s unrealistic to think that people would invent a vaccine to sterilize humanity?
End of the world possibilities:
1. Nuclear bombs, which could lead to a nuclear winter (26, 31)
2. Machines taking over (17)
3. Global warming>melting ice>flooding & fish die off & more natural disasters (22, 108). “It would be an exaggeration, however, to regard a temperature rise of two or three degrees as in itself a global catastrophe. . . . Famines within a country most often arise from maldistribution of wealth, rather than an overall shortage of food” (109).
4. Toxic waste accumulation & pollution (23)
5. Terrorists (41)
6. Chemical or biological weapons (lab created viruses released on purpose) (47)
7. Lab created viruses released on accident (57)
8. Natural disasters: asteroids (89), floods, fires, volcanoes (96), earthquakes (97), hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis (92)
9. Genetically engineered food having unintended consequences (101)
10. Overpopulation (102)
11. Particle acceleration experiments (119)
“Technical advances will in themselves render society more vulnerable to disruption” (21). “Home computers and the Internet have opened up immensely greater scope for amateur scientists” (55). Uranium is easy to use to set off a nuclear explosion, but plutonium is difficult (44).
Without war we wouldn’t have so many technologies. “Huge machines for studying subatomic particles gained government funding because they were spearheaded by physicists who had achieved clout through their role in WWII. The sensors used by astronomers to detect faint emission from distant stars and planets were devised to enable the US military to detect Vietnamese in the jungle; they are now used in digital cameras. And expensive scientific projects in space—the probes that have landed on Mars and given close-up pictures of Jupiter and Saturn-ride along on a huge space programme that was initially drive by superpower rivalry during the Cold War. The Hubble Space Telescope would have cost even more had it not shared some development costs with spy satellites” (79). “Virtually every technical innovation in the arms race has come from the US” (29). Probably because the US is capitalist, and genetically might have more risk takers than other countries due to the people who chose to immigrate here centuries ago. “But it has always been quickly matched by the other side” (29). I wonder if that’s due to people in the US leaking/sharing the information, which allows other countries to copy?
“A new future with its anxieties was shaped by technologists, not because they were concerned with any visionary picture of how the world should evolve, but because they were merely doing what they saw to be their job” (32). That’s the problem with technology and science. They keep trying to advance without any thought about whether the advancement will bring about more pros than cons. A fool’s errand.
“We feel there is something lacking in parents who are unconcerned about what happens to their children in adulthood, even though it is generally beyond their control. Likewise, scientists should not be indifferent to the fruits of their research: they should welcome (and indeed try to foster) benign spin-offs, but resist, so far as they can, dangerous or threatening applications” (40). ”Procedures with no specific aim beyond achieving a better understanding of nature and satisfying our curiosity should meet very stringent safety requirements” (131).
“As often in science, lack of evidence leads to polarised and often dogmatic opinions, but agnosticism is really the only rational attitude while we know so little about how life began” (162).
“A population as high as 10 billion would be fully sustainable if everyone lived in tiny apartments, perhaps like the ‘capsule hotels’ that already exist in Tokyo, subsisting on a rice-based vegetarian diet, electronically networked, traveling little, and finding recreation and fulfillment in virtual reality rather than the consumerism and incessant travel now favoured in the profligate West” (102-103). Sounds like the future the World Economic Forum wants to force us into. Wonder if they read this book. “Such a lifestyle would be frugal in its demands on energy and natural resources” (103). I disagree. It would require lots of electricity for all the game playing and Internet connectivity, lights, home heating or AC, and space for the data farms for cloud storage and website storage (which also take electricity to keep running). It would only lower gasoline usage from travel.
“Without an intervening catastrophe, world population still seems destined to continue rising until 2050, by which time it will have reached eight billion” (104). It’s currently 2022, and the population is at 7.9 billion. I looked it up online. Apparently the percentage rate of increase has been slowing down since 1990. I wonder if it has anything to do with vaccines being given legal protection against liability in 1986.
The author’s proposed solutions to end of the world scenarios:
1. Constant surveillance of everyone (66). “Surgically implanted transmitters are already being seriously mooted to (for instance) monitor criminals on parole” (66).
2. Drugs forced on people to pacify them (69)
3. Stopping science (unrealistic because it requires international consensus [81])
Interesting:
“The [experts] who know most are the most gloomy” (42).
“An insect’s brain has about the same processing power as a powerful present-day [2003] computer” (16-17).
“If sunlight could be harnessed by some cheap and effective photovoltaic material that can be draped over huge areas of unproductive land, then the so called ‘hydrogen economy’ would be feasible: solar-generated electric power would extract hydrogen from wate;r this hydrogen can then be used in fuel cells, which substitute for internal combustion engines” (47).
Hormone PYY 3-36 eliminates feelings of hunger by acting with the hypothalamus. “If we can alter people’s desire for food, we can alter other deep-seated desires: the hypothalamus is also home to brain circuits that influence sex drive and sexual orientation” (69). Wonder if the hypothalamus is being messed with in common childhood drugs like Ritalin or something. That could be causing the increase in LGBT. Although I still suspect tis more likely that kids are just conforming to different sexualities and gender roles for attention or to feel special or to fit in with friends.
Amusingly untrue in retrospect:
“Today (in 2002) the potentialities of broadband (G3) technology are being taken up rather slowly because few people want to surf the Internet or watch movies from their mobile phones” (22). Boy how that changed.
“The ‘nuclear winter’ scenario raised the disquieting prospect that the main victims of a nuclear war would be the populations of South Asia, Africa, and Latina America, mostly noncombatants in the Cold War” (31). Why? If their countries aren’t being aimed at, why would they be more affected? Just because they’re poor?
The author made a bet: “That by the year 2020 an instance of bioerror or bioterror will have killed a million people” (74). He was correct about that, if we assume the covid-19 death counts have not been exaggerated too much.
Smallpox was eradicated in the 1970s. “Rather than making [smallpox] extinct, stocks have been maintained in two locations, the CDC in Atlanta, USA, and the ominously named Vector Laboratory in Moscow. The justification for preserving these viruses is that they could be used to help develop vaccines. However, there is growing concern that clandestine caches of the virus may exist in other countries, raising fears of smallpox bioterror” (51). See, if smallpox was eradicated, why would they need to make vaccines for it? Seems to me they like to keep stores of it so that they can release it intentionally in the future.
“By amplifying fears and fueling hysteria, media coverage would guarantee that even a smallpox epidemic at the less severe end of the spectrum of predictions would disrupt ordinary life worldwide” (53). That’s exactly what happened with covid. It was a mild illness, but the media stirred up fear, and the gullible public bought it.
Ron Jackson and Ian Ramshaw wanted to modify the mousepox virus so that they could create an infectious contraceptive vaccine and use it to sterilize mice. “During these experiments, early in 2001, they inadvertently created a new, highly virulent, strain of mousepox: their laboratory mice all died. They had added a gene for a protein (interleukin-4) that boosted antibody production and suppressed the immune system in the mice; in consequence, even animals that had previously been vaccinated against mousepox died as well” (57-58). And people think it’s unrealistic to think that people would invent a vaccine to sterilize humanity?
End of the world possibilities:
1. Nuclear bombs, which could lead to a nuclear winter (26, 31)
2. Machines taking over (17)
3. Global warming>melting ice>flooding & fish die off & more natural disasters (22, 108). “It would be an exaggeration, however, to regard a temperature rise of two or three degrees as in itself a global catastrophe. . . . Famines within a country most often arise from maldistribution of wealth, rather than an overall shortage of food” (109).
4. Toxic waste accumulation & pollution (23)
5. Terrorists (41)
6. Chemical or biological weapons (lab created viruses released on purpose) (47)
7. Lab created viruses released on accident (57)
8. Natural disasters: asteroids (89), floods, fires, volcanoes (96), earthquakes (97), hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis (92)
9. Genetically engineered food having unintended consequences (101)
10. Overpopulation (102)
11. Particle acceleration experiments (119)
“Technical advances will in themselves render society more vulnerable to disruption” (21). “Home computers and the Internet have opened up immensely greater scope for amateur scientists” (55). Uranium is easy to use to set off a nuclear explosion, but plutonium is difficult (44).
Without war we wouldn’t have so many technologies. “Huge machines for studying subatomic particles gained government funding because they were spearheaded by physicists who had achieved clout through their role in WWII. The sensors used by astronomers to detect faint emission from distant stars and planets were devised to enable the US military to detect Vietnamese in the jungle; they are now used in digital cameras. And expensive scientific projects in space—the probes that have landed on Mars and given close-up pictures of Jupiter and Saturn-ride along on a huge space programme that was initially drive by superpower rivalry during the Cold War. The Hubble Space Telescope would have cost even more had it not shared some development costs with spy satellites” (79). “Virtually every technical innovation in the arms race has come from the US” (29). Probably because the US is capitalist, and genetically might have more risk takers than other countries due to the people who chose to immigrate here centuries ago. “But it has always been quickly matched by the other side” (29). I wonder if that’s due to people in the US leaking/sharing the information, which allows other countries to copy?
“A new future with its anxieties was shaped by technologists, not because they were concerned with any visionary picture of how the world should evolve, but because they were merely doing what they saw to be their job” (32). That’s the problem with technology and science. They keep trying to advance without any thought about whether the advancement will bring about more pros than cons. A fool’s errand.
“We feel there is something lacking in parents who are unconcerned about what happens to their children in adulthood, even though it is generally beyond their control. Likewise, scientists should not be indifferent to the fruits of their research: they should welcome (and indeed try to foster) benign spin-offs, but resist, so far as they can, dangerous or threatening applications” (40). ”Procedures with no specific aim beyond achieving a better understanding of nature and satisfying our curiosity should meet very stringent safety requirements” (131).
“As often in science, lack of evidence leads to polarised and often dogmatic opinions, but agnosticism is really the only rational attitude while we know so little about how life began” (162).
“A population as high as 10 billion would be fully sustainable if everyone lived in tiny apartments, perhaps like the ‘capsule hotels’ that already exist in Tokyo, subsisting on a rice-based vegetarian diet, electronically networked, traveling little, and finding recreation and fulfillment in virtual reality rather than the consumerism and incessant travel now favoured in the profligate West” (102-103). Sounds like the future the World Economic Forum wants to force us into. Wonder if they read this book. “Such a lifestyle would be frugal in its demands on energy and natural resources” (103). I disagree. It would require lots of electricity for all the game playing and Internet connectivity, lights, home heating or AC, and space for the data farms for cloud storage and website storage (which also take electricity to keep running). It would only lower gasoline usage from travel.
“Without an intervening catastrophe, world population still seems destined to continue rising until 2050, by which time it will have reached eight billion” (104). It’s currently 2022, and the population is at 7.9 billion. I looked it up online. Apparently the percentage rate of increase has been slowing down since 1990. I wonder if it has anything to do with vaccines being given legal protection against liability in 1986.
The author’s proposed solutions to end of the world scenarios:
1. Constant surveillance of everyone (66). “Surgically implanted transmitters are already being seriously mooted to (for instance) monitor criminals on parole” (66).
2. Drugs forced on people to pacify them (69)
3. Stopping science (unrealistic because it requires international consensus [81])
Interesting:
“The [experts] who know most are the most gloomy” (42).
“An insect’s brain has about the same processing power as a powerful present-day [2003] computer” (16-17).
“If sunlight could be harnessed by some cheap and effective photovoltaic material that can be draped over huge areas of unproductive land, then the so called ‘hydrogen economy’ would be feasible: solar-generated electric power would extract hydrogen from wate;r this hydrogen can then be used in fuel cells, which substitute for internal combustion engines” (47).
Hormone PYY 3-36 eliminates feelings of hunger by acting with the hypothalamus. “If we can alter people’s desire for food, we can alter other deep-seated desires: the hypothalamus is also home to brain circuits that influence sex drive and sexual orientation” (69). Wonder if the hypothalamus is being messed with in common childhood drugs like Ritalin or something. That could be causing the increase in LGBT. Although I still suspect tis more likely that kids are just conforming to different sexualities and gender roles for attention or to feel special or to fit in with friends.
Amusingly untrue in retrospect:
“Today (in 2002) the potentialities of broadband (G3) technology are being taken up rather slowly because few people want to surf the Internet or watch movies from their mobile phones” (22). Boy how that changed.
“The ‘nuclear winter’ scenario raised the disquieting prospect that the main victims of a nuclear war would be the populations of South Asia, Africa, and Latina America, mostly noncombatants in the Cold War” (31). Why? If their countries aren’t being aimed at, why would they be more affected? Just because they’re poor?
June 6, 2017
Sir Martin Rees' potboiler from 2003 is an adequate survey of the potential existential threats against humanity. Undoubtedly, 9/11 set the atmosphere--not to mention the marketing--for this book. The material is somewhat dated, but this is a common and mostly unavoidable feature of popular science books: the material is watered down for general consumption, but also it substantively decays with the inevitable future advances in the pool of scientific knowledge and as a recognition of further complexities sets in. Portions of this Cassandrian compendium are surprising. Rees' somewhat tepid take on the hazards of global warming will not earn him the praise in today's "enlightened" circles he'd likely choose if he could to influence. The notion that humanity might be ensconced in a period of potentially declining mediocrity unless it ventures beyond its planet sounds much more au courant in all its Muskishness. Rees does a pretty decent job putting his reader on notice that humanity's hegemony is fairly recent. In fact, I found it quite sobering to face the fact that though all the dead outnumber the living, this is "only by a factor of ten". Rees' message that our incredible prosperity may harbor our future extinction should give us all pause. Solutions are all approximate, however; never complete. Transparency as to experimentation adds a potential brake against abject hubris. Yet all contingencies cannot be plotted beforehand so risk is inherent in scientific search. To attempt to mitigate or diligently monitor even the improbable may mean the difference between the continued welfare of future generations and their total nonexistence. An update on this subject with a bit more meat packed on it might make excellent as well as important reading for our times.
July 29, 2017
This book covers threats to humanity mostly from a science-specific point of view, ignoring other dangers such as demographics, religion, political and so on. This is really a huge part of it, and what underlies any science-based problem, so the book title should have been changed to reflect that. Aside from that, it generally covers the issues in a satisfactory way. This book was written in 2003, and a few parts are dated: the author mentions that nobody would want to watch videos on their phones. The author could have covered the possibility that we are in a simulation, which seems fairly likely, although this wouldn’t necessarily be a disaster.
January 22, 2018
Good book. Covers a lot of familiar territory that a lot of people will likely already be aware of, but it is still a good compendium of all the disasters that could end humanity. Some interesting chapters, such as the one on the Doomsday Argument and the one on expansion into the rest of the universe in the future. Rees also is a great writer so this is an enjoyable book to read.
April 11, 2019
Speculative Future
This book will open your eyes to the many possibilities confronting the future of intelligent life as we know it. How far we go depends our ability to make the smart choices.
This book will open your eyes to the many possibilities confronting the future of intelligent life as we know it. How far we go depends our ability to make the smart choices.
February 2, 2008
Very well written by Sir Martin Rees.
June 9, 2020
أكثر ما لفت أنتباهي في الكتاب هي أهمية احتياجنا للتفكير الحر الذي يدرس الماضي والحاضر والمستقبل من أجل الفائدة بل ويحلل المخاطر الممكنة الحدوث أو الآثار الجانبية لبعض الأفكار
August 6, 2017
Moriremo tutti uccisi da alieni nazisti-comunisti perculatori coprofagi
*PAURA* Il repertorio che Rees utilizza è sempre il classico, che si è riversato nella fantascienza, che è finito a dare vita ai movimenti ecologisti estremisti eccetera. Questo libro merita una buona valutazione malgrado mi faccia incazzare come il Gagh di Qo'NoS appena strappato dalla sua nicchia biologica, per il semplice fatto che è comunque un'opera pregevole di conoscenza (anche se utilizzata a fini puramente paranoici), invece delle solite fanfaronate ad minchiam di altri zotici ignoranti. Ma passiamo al repertorio. E' sempre lo stesso (per altro analizzate in maniera molto lucida da Hobsbawm in Il secolo breve - paure che risalgono all'inizio dell'Era della Tecnica). In primo luogo quello tecnologico. La tecnologia ha sempre fatto paura all'uomo e chi si lascia intimorire da chi spiega che in un futuro prossimo la nanouberipertecnologia di sti gran cazzi cambierà l'elettronica: elaboratori la cui grandezza minima è delle dimensioni di un atomo cambieranno totalmente il modo di pensare l'attuale elettronica. Potranno persino essere inseriti nell'essere umano (magari, è un ottimo modo per far diventare più furbi gli idioti), cambiando il modo di essere umani. Sulla falsariga si sviluppa il terrore nucleare. La distruzione del mondo per mezzo di armi nucleari o contaminazioni. Con il senno di poi anche se nel mondo attualmente sono in costruzione altri 60 reattori nucleari (per necessità di cose), pare che ci sia una inversione di tendenza sul nucleare; quindi il libro scritto nel 2003 si sta rivelando una paura infondata. L'altra paranoia deriva dai virus. Creati in laboratorio oppure opera di contaminazione di un pazzo. Così come la paranoia che pazzi furiosi con manie di distruzione globale si possano iscrivere alle università per diventare "konfistatori o tistruttori ti monto". L'altra paranoia fonda direttamente da corpi celesti che possono impattare sul pianeta Terra. Altro scenario ampiamente discusso. Poi altro discorso paranoico su sette suicide (in realtà ottima opera di selezione naturale - lo dico senza falsi moralismi), o su sette che o tentano la clonazione umana o di trovare virus potenzialmente in grado di distruggere la vita sul pianeta (come l'Ebola, ma dubito fortemente che sia in grado di sterminare l'intera popolazione umana senza che ci siano individui in grado di adattarsi o immuni - altro processo di selezione). E poi si volge lo sguardo alle stelle. Soliti discorsi su ipotetiche forme di vita aliene, ascoltare il cosmo, parlare al cosmo, domandarsi se siamo gli unici. E altri bla bla bla in tema. In conclusione, questo testo è il frutto del post 9/11, si fanno molti riferimenti in tal senso. Molte delle cose dette si rivelano un mito totalmente sfatato - la setta che voleva clonare l'essere umano ha fallito, per esempio. Parla di "gruppi estremisti" di matrice islamica, altro mito in sostanza demolito, senza far riferimento al fatto che "forse" è una reazione naturale ad un popolo che sente la propria cultura e la propria esistenza minacciata dall'oppressivo Occidente, che pensa di fare il bene a portare la propria democrazia. Di fondo il discorso è sempre il medesimo, tant'è che si spende un intero capitolo sulle probabilità matematiche di avvenimenti catastrofici: la scienza più cieca si affida sempre alla probabilità. Da taoista ho la certezza che niente accade per caso. Se tutto fosse frutto del caso la vita non sarebbe mai apparsa su questo pianeta o sarebbe già finita da un pezzo. Nel suo complesso invece manca totalmente un'analisi ragionata e ponderata delle risorse su questo pianeta: spesso si fa riferimento all'inquinamento prodotto dall'uomo, ma questo è quanto. Nel complesso quindi, malgrado sia opera pregevole, rimane di parte e totalmente vuota di significati.
*PAURA* Il repertorio che Rees utilizza è sempre il classico, che si è riversato nella fantascienza, che è finito a dare vita ai movimenti ecologisti estremisti eccetera. Questo libro merita una buona valutazione malgrado mi faccia incazzare come il Gagh di Qo'NoS appena strappato dalla sua nicchia biologica, per il semplice fatto che è comunque un'opera pregevole di conoscenza (anche se utilizzata a fini puramente paranoici), invece delle solite fanfaronate ad minchiam di altri zotici ignoranti. Ma passiamo al repertorio. E' sempre lo stesso (per altro analizzate in maniera molto lucida da Hobsbawm in Il secolo breve - paure che risalgono all'inizio dell'Era della Tecnica). In primo luogo quello tecnologico. La tecnologia ha sempre fatto paura all'uomo e chi si lascia intimorire da chi spiega che in un futuro prossimo la nanouberipertecnologia di sti gran cazzi cambierà l'elettronica: elaboratori la cui grandezza minima è delle dimensioni di un atomo cambieranno totalmente il modo di pensare l'attuale elettronica. Potranno persino essere inseriti nell'essere umano (magari, è un ottimo modo per far diventare più furbi gli idioti), cambiando il modo di essere umani. Sulla falsariga si sviluppa il terrore nucleare. La distruzione del mondo per mezzo di armi nucleari o contaminazioni. Con il senno di poi anche se nel mondo attualmente sono in costruzione altri 60 reattori nucleari (per necessità di cose), pare che ci sia una inversione di tendenza sul nucleare; quindi il libro scritto nel 2003 si sta rivelando una paura infondata. L'altra paranoia deriva dai virus. Creati in laboratorio oppure opera di contaminazione di un pazzo. Così come la paranoia che pazzi furiosi con manie di distruzione globale si possano iscrivere alle università per diventare "konfistatori o tistruttori ti monto". L'altra paranoia fonda direttamente da corpi celesti che possono impattare sul pianeta Terra. Altro scenario ampiamente discusso. Poi altro discorso paranoico su sette suicide (in realtà ottima opera di selezione naturale - lo dico senza falsi moralismi), o su sette che o tentano la clonazione umana o di trovare virus potenzialmente in grado di distruggere la vita sul pianeta (come l'Ebola, ma dubito fortemente che sia in grado di sterminare l'intera popolazione umana senza che ci siano individui in grado di adattarsi o immuni - altro processo di selezione). E poi si volge lo sguardo alle stelle. Soliti discorsi su ipotetiche forme di vita aliene, ascoltare il cosmo, parlare al cosmo, domandarsi se siamo gli unici. E altri bla bla bla in tema. In conclusione, questo testo è il frutto del post 9/11, si fanno molti riferimenti in tal senso. Molte delle cose dette si rivelano un mito totalmente sfatato - la setta che voleva clonare l'essere umano ha fallito, per esempio. Parla di "gruppi estremisti" di matrice islamica, altro mito in sostanza demolito, senza far riferimento al fatto che "forse" è una reazione naturale ad un popolo che sente la propria cultura e la propria esistenza minacciata dall'oppressivo Occidente, che pensa di fare il bene a portare la propria democrazia. Di fondo il discorso è sempre il medesimo, tant'è che si spende un intero capitolo sulle probabilità matematiche di avvenimenti catastrofici: la scienza più cieca si affida sempre alla probabilità. Da taoista ho la certezza che niente accade per caso. Se tutto fosse frutto del caso la vita non sarebbe mai apparsa su questo pianeta o sarebbe già finita da un pezzo. Nel suo complesso invece manca totalmente un'analisi ragionata e ponderata delle risorse su questo pianeta: spesso si fa riferimento all'inquinamento prodotto dall'uomo, ma questo è quanto. Nel complesso quindi, malgrado sia opera pregevole, rimane di parte e totalmente vuota di significati.
January 17, 2025
Existential Risks
Rees argues that humanity faces an unprecedented range of existential threats, including:
Nuclear Weapons: The ongoing risk of nuclear war or accidental detonations.
Biotechnology: The potential misuse of genetic engineering to create new pathogens.
Artificial Intelligence: The possibility of runaway AI systems that operate beyond human control.
Nanotechnology: The risk of "gray goo" scenarios, where self-replicating nanomachines consume all matter on Earth.
Environmental Disasters: Climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem collapse.
Astrophysical Events: Threats such as asteroid impacts and supernovae.
2. The Human Factor: "Terror and Error"
Terror: The potential for small groups or even individuals to use advanced technology for catastrophic purposes.
Error: Accidents and unintended consequences of human actions, particularly in areas like nuclear technology and AI.
3. Technology as Both a Risk and a Savior
While technology poses significant risks, Rees emphasizes its role in solving some of humanity's greatest challenges.
Advances in renewable energy, space exploration, and medical research could help mitigate environmental and biological threats.
4. Cosmic Perspective and Space Exploration
Rees advocates for space exploration as a long-term survival strategy.
Establishing self-sufficient colonies beyond Earth could act as a safeguard against planetary catastrophes.
5. Ethical Responsibility
Humanity's power over the planet and its ecosystems comes with a moral obligation to act responsibly.
Rees stresses the importance of international cooperation and ethical foresight to navigate emerging challenges.
6. A Century of Uncertainty
Rees believes the next 100 years will determine whether humanity thrives, survives, or perishes.
The rapid pace of technological development means that the stakes have never been higher.
Proposed Solutions
Enhanced Global Governance: Strengthening international institutions to address global risks collectively.
Precautionary Measures: Applying the precautionary principle to technologies with catastrophic potential.
Public Awareness and Education: Ensuring that the public understands the risks and demands accountability from leaders.
Scientific Vigilance: Fostering interdisciplinary research to anticipate and mitigate risks before they materialize.
Rees argues that humanity faces an unprecedented range of existential threats, including:
Nuclear Weapons: The ongoing risk of nuclear war or accidental detonations.
Biotechnology: The potential misuse of genetic engineering to create new pathogens.
Artificial Intelligence: The possibility of runaway AI systems that operate beyond human control.
Nanotechnology: The risk of "gray goo" scenarios, where self-replicating nanomachines consume all matter on Earth.
Environmental Disasters: Climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem collapse.
Astrophysical Events: Threats such as asteroid impacts and supernovae.
2. The Human Factor: "Terror and Error"
Terror: The potential for small groups or even individuals to use advanced technology for catastrophic purposes.
Error: Accidents and unintended consequences of human actions, particularly in areas like nuclear technology and AI.
3. Technology as Both a Risk and a Savior
While technology poses significant risks, Rees emphasizes its role in solving some of humanity's greatest challenges.
Advances in renewable energy, space exploration, and medical research could help mitigate environmental and biological threats.
4. Cosmic Perspective and Space Exploration
Rees advocates for space exploration as a long-term survival strategy.
Establishing self-sufficient colonies beyond Earth could act as a safeguard against planetary catastrophes.
5. Ethical Responsibility
Humanity's power over the planet and its ecosystems comes with a moral obligation to act responsibly.
Rees stresses the importance of international cooperation and ethical foresight to navigate emerging challenges.
6. A Century of Uncertainty
Rees believes the next 100 years will determine whether humanity thrives, survives, or perishes.
The rapid pace of technological development means that the stakes have never been higher.
Proposed Solutions
Enhanced Global Governance: Strengthening international institutions to address global risks collectively.
Precautionary Measures: Applying the precautionary principle to technologies with catastrophic potential.
Public Awareness and Education: Ensuring that the public understands the risks and demands accountability from leaders.
Scientific Vigilance: Fostering interdisciplinary research to anticipate and mitigate risks before they materialize.
August 2, 2022
Overall the book was enlightening, optimistic, and terrifying. The book discussed good and bad possibilities with a tilt toward potential hazards that could end humanity. My copy was copyright 2003. The main reason Rees stated for writing the book was that humanity is more at an existential threat from natural or human caused disasters than ever before. He outlined these natural and human created threats that existed in the early 2000s with future predictions, and many other issues that proved to be good predictions suggesting validity for the discussion. For example, the book was able to predict the Internet future that has come true, even though this was not an issue in the early 2000s. Rees correctly predicted the Internet creating echo-chambers for certain beliefs, while also acknowledging its beneficial potential.
The book also discussed the idea of intelligent life and if we are alone or if there are many life forms in our infinite universe. He posed a powerful thought - if we are the only intelligent life (are we intelligent or just more clever than we are smart? as David Orr suggests), the ending of humanity will have far wider implications than if there are multiple life forms. He acknowledged, while simple life may be possible, the development into complex intelligent life is more unlikely and its existence outside Earth is unknown. Like Nassim Taleb noted in Black Swan, Rees explains, "Absence of evidence of things we recognize as life outside earth is not evidence of their absence." Overall it was an interesting read.
The book also discussed the idea of intelligent life and if we are alone or if there are many life forms in our infinite universe. He posed a powerful thought - if we are the only intelligent life (are we intelligent or just more clever than we are smart? as David Orr suggests), the ending of humanity will have far wider implications than if there are multiple life forms. He acknowledged, while simple life may be possible, the development into complex intelligent life is more unlikely and its existence outside Earth is unknown. Like Nassim Taleb noted in Black Swan, Rees explains, "Absence of evidence of things we recognize as life outside earth is not evidence of their absence." Overall it was an interesting read.
August 8, 2022
History has only been partially kind to this book. Internet echo-chambers were predicted prior to the existence of Facebook, and bio-error for 2020 is also a possible hit. But it totally missed the emergence of China as a major force force industrialisation as well as the new dictatorship in Russia, and as such the so-called slowing down of science is not really up to the West anymore. The distraction caused by partisan political views distract from the real dangers of the future and as such responses to climate change and the colonisation of Mars may happen in a totally different way than the US-led 1990s might have led us believe.
Read
December 9, 2023Rees mentions Enrico Fermi, but not the Fermi Paradox.
He does not reference the Drake Equation at all.
Together these have something to say about the
longevity of the human species. For indeed, the term
L in the Drake Equation may turn out to be be quite
modest, leading support to the thesis that humanity
may well be in its final hour (or millennium).
L=the length of time for which technological
civilizations release detectable signals into space
A little erratum from the print run with printer's
key ...5 4 3 2:
https://archive.org/details/erratum01...
Review of Our Final Hour (2003) by Martin Rees
He does not reference the Drake Equation at all.
Together these have something to say about the
longevity of the human species. For indeed, the term
L in the Drake Equation may turn out to be be quite
modest, leading support to the thesis that humanity
may well be in its final hour (or millennium).
L=the length of time for which technological
civilizations release detectable signals into space
A little erratum from the print run with printer's
key ...5 4 3 2:
https://archive.org/details/erratum01...
Review of Our Final Hour (2003) by Martin Rees
January 24, 2019
Only 3 stars because he's not my favourite science writer in terms of his prose. At times repetitive and leaves a feeling that he's rambling a bit. Much better to listen to him talk. Still the ideas herein well worth thinking about. A lot happened in last 20 years some of which he forecast. Must read more recent of his work on the same subject areas.
August 5, 2022
A pessimistic view of the world especially the scientific world.
However, they can become true if no restrictions are put in place now.
Some ideas explained are a bit farfetched to those not involved with science, nevertheless, it was an interesting read.
A recommended read to those who want to know about the bad side of advanced science & technology
However, they can become true if no restrictions are put in place now.
Some ideas explained are a bit farfetched to those not involved with science, nevertheless, it was an interesting read.
A recommended read to those who want to know about the bad side of advanced science & technology
March 9, 2022
British Royal scientist outlining ways that we might be involved in the death of the earth
and all its occupants.
Many scenarios for such a final action.
Science good, writing good.
Much food for thought as we deal with pandemic, climate change, etc. etc.
and all its occupants.
Many scenarios for such a final action.
Science good, writing good.
Much food for thought as we deal with pandemic, climate change, etc. etc.
January 6, 2025
Absolutely loved this book. Made me think on every page. My copy is now dog eared, page marked, highlighted, quoted and hugely important to my own writing.
Glad I came across it after finding Luigi’s reading list. Game changer for me even if it’s 20 years old.
Simply wonderful.
Glad I came across it after finding Luigi’s reading list. Game changer for me even if it’s 20 years old.
Simply wonderful.
December 3, 2018
This book made me sure the world will soon end, and it has made it hard to take anything seriously or care about anything since.
March 29, 2020
I got a quote from another book to this book I need to see original
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews