Human Agency and Global Catastrophic Biorisks

G iven that events such as the Black Death and the introduction of smallpox to the Americas have comprised some of the greatest catastrophes in human history, it is natural to examine the possibility of global catastrophic biological risks (GCBRs). As Schoch-Spana et al note, a defining characteristic of GCBRs is their intergenerational consequences. In the particularly extreme case of human extinction or permanent collapse of human civilization, such GCBRs would jeopardize the very existence of many thousands of future generations. Does the category of GCBR merit special research effort? The probability of GCBRs, extinction level or otherwise, is presumably much lower than other types of biological risk. Moreover, as with many low-probability, high-consequence risks, the uncertainties involved are massive. Some might view such uncertainty as a reason to avoid further investigation, but we would argue the opposite: High uncertainty brings with it high marginal value of information. Given the humanitarian stakes, this also suggests that even modest research efforts on GCBRs is of very high value. Much of this research is already being done by the health security community. For example, the core capacities being built through the Global Health Security Agenda will be important regardless of whether a disease incident is small-scale bioterrorism, a natural epidemic, or a catastrophic outbreak that shapes future generations (and hopefully would prevent this from ever occurring). Building on this work and understanding how well it addresses GCBR or whether a specific research agenda will be needed seems like a natural next step. One unresolved question for future research might be what we call the ‘‘anthropogenic GCBR hypothesis,’’ which states that the vast majority of GCBR comes from human agency rather than natural sources. Nick Bostrom suggests this when he writes: