Extreme Risks - Essay Example

This chapter in “Our Final Hour” by Sir Martin Rees provides an overview of the tremendous risks to which humanity and even the cosmos are exposed when scientists undertake experiments with potentially calamitous outcomes.  The author tackles how some experiments pose a substantial threat to the universe.  He also highlights the basic issues pertaining to the extent to which such experiments should be carried out and who should be held accountable for allowing and formulating appropriate guidelines to ensure that life in the universe is not endangered as a result of these scientific undertakings.

Rees notes that some experiments, say launching of a single nuclear weapon, are known to render a threat to life on Earth.  However, the magnitude of the impact of such experiments may not be amply intense to destroy the whole world.  On the contrary, the author asserts that there are some physics experiments performed mainly for the purpose of pure scientific inquiry that could possibly pose a global or even cosmic threat. 

For instance, devices known as particle accelerators have been created to aid in the study of the particle composition of the world.  This machine is primarily utilized to investigate about most extreme energies and temperatures.  Unbeknownst to many, such experiments that entail the smashing of atoms are said to possibly have disastrous effects on the universe.

The author elaborates that this type of experiment may generate unprecedented concentrations of energy which may lead to different catastrophic scenarios.  This first scenario entails the formation of a black hole that sucks in everything around it.  However, Albert Einstein disputed this claim as the energy requirement for the formation of a black hole is significantly greater than the amount of energy generated with the collision experiment.  The second scenario involves the formation of strangelet, which is described as reassembled quarks.  A strangelet is deemed harmless in itself but it is said to possess the ability to convert anything it encounters into a new strange form of matter.  With this, it could transform the entire planet into an inert hyperdense sphere.  The third theory concerning vacuum is considered the most disastrous.  Some have speculated that the concentrated energy when particles crash together may set off a “phase transition” that would rip the fabric of space itself.

Although experts have expressed that the likelihood of these scenarios occurring is minimal, Rees asserts that we cannot be completely sure of the outcome.  This is because the probabilities assigned to these scenarios are deemed subjective due to the absence of comparison to a similar occurrence in the past. 

According to Rees, one way of checking whether an experiment is safe would be to examine if such has occurred naturally.  For example, the negligible probabilities posited by experts may be acceptable in light of the fact that particles randomly crash into other atomic nuclei in space.  This shows that space is not as “breakable” as envisaged by physicists.  However, the mechanics change once the accelerators become more powerful, thus, no longer replicating what naturally occurs.

The same concerns are encountered with the plans of Brookhaven National Laboratory in the United States and CERN Laboratory in Geneva to crash atoms more forcefully.  Issues regarding safety are raised since no adequate reassurance is established considering that the conditions are different from what occurs naturally.  Even if two notable theories were asserted in relation to the improbability of strangelet formation and characteristics, many experts still question the sufficiency of such claims.

In view of the above, Rees opines that it is not reasonable to conduct an experiment if the downside may entail finality and completeness of extinction.  As such, experiments with a “doomsday downside” should not be permitted unless the general public is assured that the risk such undertaking may entail is within an acceptable threshold.  Albeit we are confronted by natural risks such as asteroids hitting the earth, this does not mean that we have to be lax about avoidable risks.  Instead, we should endeavor to mitigate the risk mankind is facing if such experiments push through.  If these scientific procedures are carried out with no specific aim apart from gaining a better understanding of nature and satisfying our curiosity, then it is deemed appropriate to subject such activities to strict safety criteria.  These measures are considered imperative given that the probability of catastrophe taking place is never quite zero due to our incomplete knowledge of physics.

As to who and how such experiments would be regulated remains an issue hitherto.  As the power of science intensifies through time, the potential threat is exponentially magnified.  This, in a way, impels us to address the issues of accountability and regulation of potentially catastrophic experiments.  It is during these times that the moral responsibility of scientists and knowledge-seeking institutions should be highlighted. 

As life should come first and foremost, scientists and organizations should be committed not only to the betterment but more so to the preservation of life.  In the absence of any governing body that would regulate these types of experiments, the moral judgment of scientists appropriately figures such that they must uphold cosmic safety over the satisfaction of curiosity or broadening of scientific knowledge.