So what now?

Here’s a quick, friendly rant while I’m writing another longer piece.

The other day my professor was discussing existential threats to humanity. He mentioned global climate change, nuclear war, unpredictable cosmic events and global pandemics. On the topic of global pandemics, he boldly stated that “the experts say we’re ripe for a grave one that’ll wipe out a good chunk of the population.”

And that was the end of his spiel. My immediate and only reaction was to think “okay, what now?” Why bring this up if there’s no conclusion to follow? What’s the point? Because it seems to me that such a statement could only be used for three things— to provoke fear, to feign knowledge of the subject, or to promote a cynical worldview. None of these is a noble motive in my book.

When I thought about it further I realized that this is a pretty strong trend in modern public discourse.  I see it because I spend too much time on Twitter, Facebook and other forums that host modern public discourse. People love to preach about impending doom. They love to show off their awareness of threats already present and those that are still theoretical. But a lot of this talk has no positive underlying motive and certainly no call to action that follows it. As far as a widespread contagion goes, there’s unfortunately not a lot anyone can do to prepare for it. And therefore it’s not worth much to stir up a dramatic overreaction over it.  Or even worse— contribute to the sense of nihilistic hopelessness that has become all too mainstream in my generation.

So here’s what I think is a really important framework we can use to structure our public discourse on mankind’s existential threats. It’s a three part framework.

1. Is the threat legitimate?
2. If yes, can we act on it?
3. If yes, is it worthwhile to act on it?

If the answer to any of these questions is No, then it is not worth discussing further.

Filip, again.