Effective regulations solve extinction

There is a trend in many areas towards attention to ‘big’ risks. Financial regulation has become increasingly concerned with so‐called systemic risks. Others, and not just Hollywood blockbusters, have been attracted to the study of civilization‐destroying catastrophic risks. Indeed, the OECD has become increasingly interested in ‘high level’ risks and ways in which different national governments seek to prepare for and manage actual events, such as the aftermath of major earthquakes, or the response to a terrorist attack. The notion of ‘existential’ risk might be adding to the cacophony of emerging ‘big’ risk concerns. However, existential risk deserves special attention as it fundamentally adds to our understanding of particular types of risks, and it also challenges common wisdom regarding actions designed to support continued survival.

What is existential risk? We can approach this question by looking at several attributes. The first attribute is what, in fact, is at risk. One set of existential risks are those that threaten survival. These are the acute catastrophes, i.e. the idea that particular events’ impacts are likely to extinguish civilization. Such risks have been identified when it comes to asteroids, nuclear war, and other largescale events that undermine the possibility for survival in general, or, at least, in large regions. A second set is based on the idea that existential risks are not just about physical survival, but about the survival of ways of life. In other words, certain risks are seen as threatening established ways of doing things, cultures, social relationships, and understandings of the ‘good life’. There is, of course, much disagreement about what the good life constitutes, and therefore there will always be disagreement as to what exactly an existential risk constitutes.

A second attribute is the degree to which an existential risk is triggered by a single catastrophic incident. Existential risks arise not merely from one‐off large incidents, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, nuclear meltdowns or, indeed, asteroid hits. Rather, existential risks are about complex, inter‐related processes that result in cascading effects that move across social systems. The overall impact of these system changes could result in the types of physical or cultural destruction that is the focus of the first two perspectives.

Whether triggered by catastrophic events or complex cascades, standard operating procedures are unlikely to be sufficient for dealing with existential risks; instead, this is a space in which improvisation and creativity are required. A third attribute of existential risks is the challenge they present to standard approaches to risk regulation. Existential risks are defined by their cross‐systematic nature; a failure within one system (say, finance) has not just catastrophic implications for the sector in question, but threatens the survival of another system (say, the environment, as funding for particular measures dries up). In other words, the focus of existential risks is not just on the systemic level, it focuses on the cross‐ systemic dimension that is even more difficult to predict and assess than attempts aimed at establishing activities that are of ‘systemic’ relevance by regulatory systems that tend to be narrowly focused and independent from each other. Existential risks are characterized by a fourth feature, namely the idea that existential risks lead to responses based upon fear. Individuals are confronted with fears about their survival (death) and about the meaning of their lives. This aspect of existential risk is particularly troublesome in an age of low trust in authority and, consequently, a political style that is intolerant of ‘blame free’ spaces. In the absence of confidence in public authority, few options remain. For some, the solution will rely on framework plans, pop intellectuals and other fashionable ideas that seem to offer redemption from the fear of extinction. Others will prefer to ‘go it alone’ and seek to develop their own plans for survival, noting that risk taking is, after all, an individual choice. Others, again, will deny the legitimacy of public authority and veer towards those choices that have been legitimized by their own communities. Finally, some will deny that existential risks exist in the first place. In other words, individual responses to existential risks vary considerably and pose challenges for any risk management and communication strategy.