What's the Worst That Could Happen?: Existential Risk and Extreme Politics

by Andrew Leigh

Why catastrophic risks are more dangerous than you think, and how populism makes them worse.


Did you know that you’re more likely to die from a catastrophe than in a car crash? The odds that a typical US resident will die from a catastrophic event—for example, nuclear war, bioterrorism, or out-of-control artificial intelligence—have been estimated at 1 in 6. That’s fifteen times more likely than a fatal car crash and thirty-one times more likely than being murdered. In What’s the Worst That Could Happen?, Andrew Leigh looks at catastrophic risks and how to mitigate them, arguing provocatively that the rise of populist politics makes catastrophe more likely.

Leigh explains that pervasive short-term thinking leaves us unprepared for long-term risks. Politicians sweat the small stuff—granular policy details of legislation and regulation—but rarely devote much attention to reducing long-term risks. Populist movements thrive on short-termism because they focus on their followers’ immediate grievances. Leigh argues that we should be broaden our thinking and give big threats the attention and resources they need.

Leigh outlines the biggest existential risks facing humanity and suggests remedies for them. He discusses pandemics, considering the possibility that the next virus will be more deadly than COVID-19; warns that unchecked climate change could render large swaths of the earth uninhabitable; describes the metamorphosis of the arms race from a fight into a chaotic brawl; and examines the dangers of runaway superintelligence. Moreover, Leigh points out, populism (and its crony, totalitarianism) not only exacerbates other dangers but is also a risk factor in itself, undermining the institutions of democracy as we watch.

Genres: Politics, International Relations, Nonfiction

240 pages, Hardcover

Published November 9, 2021

Reviews

[Jennifer (JC-S) · Rating 4 out of 5]

‘We won’t meet most of those who follow us on the planet, but we should cherish future generations all the same.’

In this book, Dr Andrew Leigh MP (the Federal Member for Fenner) focusses on several potentially world-ending threats including bioterrorism, climate change, nuclear war, pandemics, unfettered artificial intelligence and the role of populism.

Given that the problems we face require long-term solutions, populism poses a particular threat.

‘Why do populists pose a threat to long-termism? Because tackling long-term threats requires four things: strong science, effective institutions, global engagement, and a sense of cooperation and order.’

We have seen several populist leaders across the globe in recent years and we are bound to see more. Populists feed off anger and division, creating and feeding their own versions of truth while ignoring contrary views even when backed by science.

Did I enjoy reading this book? No, but I am glad I did. We tend to think of catastrophes as unlikely events that usually happen to others, but the reality is (according to statistics quoted by Dr Leigh) that we are more likely to die as the result of a species- ending catastrophe than be killed in a car crash.

Gulp.

Dr Leigh suggests remedies for the existential risks he has identified, but I am afraid that our current political systems are not flexible enough to make the necessary changes.

Worth reading.

Jennifer Cameron-Smith

[LJ · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book rightfully identifies a new threat to humankind: populism. All other disasters are largely known and Leigh gives a layman’s summary, but his view on why populists are dangerous is very sound. Too bad he doesn’t identifies that populism will rise due to climate change, which is a logical consequence of his view on choosing populists in the first place: short term interest of the masses. As climate change will worsen, the masses will demand protection of their current lifestyle, and only populists will be able to ‘protect’ that (in the short run). So after reading this book, I predict that the coming decade or two we will see in (formerly) sound democracies, an enormous rise in populist rules.

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book looks at catastrophic risks through the lens of policy and politics. The first half discusses four major known threats to humanity and all future generations: pandemics (natural or engineered), climate change, nuclear war, and superintelligent AI. Throughout Leigh discusses which policies, if widely adopted, would reduce these risks. I won't list them here, but these policies are sensible and very well argued. This is what Leigh is adding to Toby Ord's analysis of existential risks in The Precipice. I found this first half especially valuable.

In the second half, Leigh turns from policy to politics, the problem of populism and the fifth catastrophic risk of totalitarianism. He argues that populists amplify all five risks discussed. He finishes with a discussion of how improving democracy (by which he just means making it more democratic) and taking a stoic approach to political life are essential in facing these risks.

I completely agree with Leigh that populists, especially right wing populists, amplify all of these risks considerably. Although, I do worry that making this point will cause catastrophic risks to become even further politicised and polarised, which has already made climate change significantly harder to address.

I also agree with Leigh that our political system is not nearly as democratic as it could be. However, I am agnostic that more democracy will considerably help with all of these risks, except totalitarianism and probably climate change. I share the concerns of Jason Brennan's Against Democracy: that there is a strong tendency for most citizens to be ill-informed and treat politics like sport in a way that amounts to serious incompetence while wielding state violence. I didn't see Leigh present much of an argument for why democratisation would be especially helpful for dealing with most catastrophic risks, either. This is a straightforward empirical question that we can test: grade each country on their policies for each of the five risks, compare this to plausible major contributing factors and see if level of democracy explains much of the difference.

Although I disagree with parts of the second half, this is an excellent book that works as an introduction to catastrophic risks and how we can reduce them through better policy and politics.

[Rob Kennedy · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a mish mash of thoughts, ideas, figures and possible projections. It’s hard to figure out the narrative of this book. It reads like someone who knows a lot but tries to tell it all at once in one continuous thread. It’s not easy to follow.

For me, it needs a greater focus. It really needs an editor who should have told the author that, it’s a bit everywhere. It does not transition well.

Fact and figures do not make for a coherent read if they are all blurted out in such a short space of time. I commend the author for learning and expressing so much, but it didn’t help me to understand the problems we face. In fact, it just added to them.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

If no human can solve the problem, certainly a committee formed out of bureaucrats specialized in holding meetings will certainly solve every stupid idea that will never happen, but ”could happen”.

[Matt Heavner · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of the major existential threats. The new aspect is overlaying populism as a cross-cutting threat.

[Margaret Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting overview and I found it worth reading as such. Of necessity, it was somewhat superficial, although some of the chapters might merit further exploration.