Global catastrophic risk is an important societal issue area. As such, it is to be expected that there will be a variety of views on it. We at GCRI believe that it is important to consider a range of views to better understand the topic of global catastrophic risk and the constructive options for addressing the risk. We are likewise interested in supporting a pluralistic field of global catastrophic risk.
Many types of pluralism can be valuable for the field of global catastrophic risk. Examples include pluralism of research disciplines, professional sectors, political ideology, age, gender, and geographic location. A pluralistic field of global catastrophic risk welcomes contributions from across these and other categories. Here, we focus on pluralism about the ethical views underlying concern about global catastrophic risk. This focus is inspired by a recent publication Greening the universe: The case for ecocentric space expansion. Ethics is an important category in its own right and a good example to illustrate broader points about the importance of pluralism for the field of global catastrophic risk.
We take the ethics of global catastrophic risk to mean the fundamental conceptions of right and wrong that form the basis for judgments about the importance of global catastrophic risk and what should be done to address it. There are many ethical views, and these can point to a variety of judgments about global catastrophic risk. Some ethical views point to global catastrophic risk reduction being a very important objective; some point to it being relatively unimportant; and some can even point in the opposite direction, in favor of increasing the risk of global catastrophe. One may reject some of these views—we at GCRI especially reject views in favor of increasing the risk—while still finding consideration of them to be insightful. The relation between specific ethical views and positions on global catastrophic risk is an important part of the overall topic of global catastrophic risk.
Research on global catastrophic risk often embraces the ethics of utilitarianism, in which the ultimate goal is to promote some conception of welfare or quality of life. GCRI’s own work has likewise often embraced utilitarianism (1, 2, 3). However, a variety of ethical views are consistent with concern about global catastrophic risk. One such view is ecocentrism, in which the ultimate goal is to promote ecological flourishing. The connection between ecocentrism and global catastrophic risk is developed in a recent paper by GCRI Research Associate Andrea Owe, Greening the universe: The case for ecocentric space expansion. The paper is a good example of GCRI’s support for pluralism in the field of global catastrophic risk.
The main idea of “Greening the universe” is for humanity to have the long-term goal of establishing vibrant ecosystems across the cosmos. Avoiding global catastrophe is a near-term goal that enables the long-term goal of greening the universe. The paper argues for this position by defending three ethical positions: (1) a position of equality across space and time, which results in caring about astronomically distant places and times, (2) an argument for optimizing moral value, which results in an orientation toward doing as much good as is possible, and (3) support for ecocentrism. Taken together, these three positions imply a long-term goal of maximizing ecological flourishing across the cosmos. In the paper, Ms. Owe speaks from her personal perspective, meaning that these are not just theoretical constructs—they are ethical views that she personally holds and wants to see realized.
Large portions of the ideas of “Greening the universe” are common within the scope of research on global catastrophic risk, including in other work by GCRI. This includes the near-term goal of avoiding global catastrophe, the long-term goal of optimizing moral value across the cosmos, and the underlying position of equality across space and time. These views can be found, for example, in several prior GCRI publications (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), including publications co-authored with Ms. Owe (1, 2).
“Greening the universe” is more distinctive in its advocacy of ecocentrism. We are aware of only one prior study of global catastrophic risk embracing ecocentrism. Some research has also discussed ecocentrism without supporting it, including work by GCRI (1, 2). “Greening the universe” provides an excellent and much-needed treatment of global catastrophic risk and related topics from an ecocentric perspective.
Pluralism does pose some challenges. One is the challenge of working together in the face of disagreement. In prior publications co-authored with Ms. Owe, we have handled this by intentionally avoiding taking a position on matters such as ecocentrism vs. utilitarianism (1, 2). This lets us focus on the many important things we agree on, including the importance of reducing global catastrophic risk. For better or worse, not everyone shares this view. Therefore, a major theme in GCRI’s work is the need to develop solutions and strategies for addressing global catastrophic risk that are viable from the perspective of people who aren’t specifically focused on global catastrophic risk.
Another challenge is opposition to pluralism itself. We at GCRI are aware that some people who work on global catastrophic risk have found portions of the field to be unwelcoming to different views. We hope that this post can help to clarify the value of pluralism. One does need not to embrace ecocentrism to find value in this perspective. The same holds for many other perspectives about ethics and other topics. In short, global catastrophic risk is a multifaceted topic. Those facets include the diverse views held by people who can play important roles on addressing the risk. By supporting a pluralistic field of global catastrophic risk, we believe we can more effectively support efforts to understand and address the risk.
Sincerely,
Seth Baum, Executive Director
Tony Barrett, Director of Research
McKenna Fitzgerald, Deputy Director
