Extinction

The previous section has sketched the cost to a unified response to the panoply of existential threats we face. This section restates the argument in a positive light: there are indeed benefits to a decentralized response.

The tradeoff between centralization and decentralization is an enduring political issue and is salient in the context of responses to existential threats. The case for centralization is clear: some nations, by failing to address climate change or regulate science, are imposing risks on other nations. These nations are said to create negative externalities that are borne, unfairly, by others.146 But this is simply a new presentation of a common problem. Whenever one jurisdiction engages in activities that create externalities that jeopardize the welfare of others, the situation arguably calls for centralization and the harmonization of regulation across jurisdictions.147

However, the counter-argument must be addressed: centralization and harmonization mean not only the stifling of local preferences but also reduced experimentation. Within the constitutional framework of the United States, it is generally considered to be advantageous that states preserve a sphere of autonomy and can act as “laboratories,” testing which regulations work and which do not. 148 With respect to some matters, it is preferable that a single rule applies to all states, but in other respects, regulatory differences are beneficial. When capital moves freely among jurisdictions, better regulatory approaches can be tested and rewarded.149

In assessing the tradeoff between centralization and its opposite, the costs and benefits must be analyzed in each circumstance. The context in which the tradeoff is considered here is that of the problem posed by catastrophic threats to humanity. As set forth elaborately above, 150 these threats are varied and complex, seemingly defying our poor human powers to resolve. And furthermore, responding to one threat can exacerbate other threats, thereby multiplying the complexity. In light of these monumental difficulties, there are compelling, if often underappreciated, advantages to a decentralized response.

Professor John McGinnis’s work highlights many of these benefits.151 First, there are the information-eliciting consequences to a decentralized response: More people working on more solutions will mean more data to be crunched about what works and what does not. As McGinnis puts it, “the possibility of sustained empiricism adds an important weight to the decentralization side of the scale: decentralization facilitates the empirical investigation of the differing consequences of social policy.”152 In an era of accelerating artificial intelligence, there are particular benefits to this sort of information-eliciting decentralization. The reams of data generated by multiple solutions will eventually be grist for supercomputers operating at computational speeds multiples of current abilities. 153 Finally, consider that advances in one area of research, such as nanotechnology, can provide solutions in other areas, such as climate change. The interweaving layers of complexity strongly suggest advantages to multiple groups working separately, rather than subject to a unified, “global” hierarchy.

People frequently assume that a centralized or top-down response, overseen by “experts,” is necessarily optimal in response to a catastrophic threat. The television series The Walking Dead, although of course wildly unrealistic, stimulates reflections of a different kind. In the aftermath of an infectious disease that has swept mankind, all hope is invested in a central body, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta. People flock there in search of a cure. Yet the CDC proves to be of no help; indeed, it is a menacing institution that not only fails to aid, but also kills survivors and destroys the one specimen that might aid in the discovery of a cure. At least as depicted in that show, any hope of human survival will come not from experts, but in decentralized bands of human beings.154

If the species is confronted by an apocalyptic health crisis, a decisive cure is most likely to come through centralized government planning. And yet if such a crisis goes unchecked and spins out of control, it would soon be difficult for any top-down approach to succeed.155 None of these considerations are offered to resolve the issue; the point is simply to emphasize the meaningful benefits to maintaining a decentralized response. In short, the variety and indeterminacy of humanity’s catastrophic threats highlight the advantages of decentralized and varied responses.