Dehumanization Survival Probabilities

Wikipedia: "Global Catastrophic Risk " informs that:

"A global catastrophic risk or a doomsday scenario is a hypothetical event that could damage human well-being on a global scale, even endangering or destroying modern civilization. An event that could cause human extinction or permanently and drastically curtail humanity's existence or potential is known as an 'existential risk'."

"Potential global catastrophic risks are conventionally classified as anthropogenic or non-anthropogenic hazards. Examples of non-anthropogenic risks are an asteroid or comet impact event, a supervolcanic eruption, a natural pandemic, a lethal gamma-ray burst, a geomagnetic storm from a coronal mass ejection destroying electronic equipment, natural long-term climate change, hostile extraterrestrial life, or the Sun transforming into a red giant star and engulfing the Earth billions of years in the future."

"Anthropogenic risks are those caused by humans and include those related to technology, governance, and climate change. Technological risks include the creation of artificial intelligence misaligned with human goals, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. Insufficient or malign global governance creates risks in the social and political domain, such as global war and nuclear holocaust, biological warfare and bioterrorism using genetically modified organisms, cyberwarfare and cyberterrorism destroying critical infrastructure like the electrical grid, or radiological warfare using weapons such as large cobalt bombs. Other global catastrophic risks include climate change, environmental degradation, extinction of species, famine as a result of non-equitable resource distribution, human overpopulation or underpopulation, crop failures, and non-sustainable agriculture." (Retrieved 2024-11-19.)

The image is from a scene of the motion picture "Planet Of The Apes " (1968), in which the performer Charlton Heston cries out "You finally really did it! You maniacs! You blew it up! Oh, dam you! God dam you all to hell!"

The focus of this topic is not the physical extinction of the human species, but rather those events where the humanity of the then remaining humans is existentially compromised.

Perplexity (2024-09-25) provided a link to: "A Comprehensive Guide to Threats to Humanity's Survival on Earth, and the Case for Going Multiplanetary" . Responsive to the article and subsequent prompts, and with only the benefit of a single ISSHS descriptive paragraph, Perplexity identified potentially dehumanizing threats to the ISSHS, the probability of the threat occurring during the next 40 years, ISSHS survival probability to that threat, and rationale for its analysis.

Perplexity defined the dehumanizing threat survival probabilities according to the following categories:

High: 80-100%. The ISSHS has a strong chance of surviving the threat with minimal impact.

Moderate to High: 60-79%. The ISSHS is likely to survive the threat, but there are notable challenges that could affect its resilience.

Moderate: 40-59%. The ISSHS faces significant challenges, with roughly equal chances of success or failure in surviving the threat.

Low to Moderate: 20-39%. Survival is possible but difficult, with more factors working against the ISSHS than in its favor.

Low: 0-19%. The ISSHS is unlikely to survive the threat, with only a small chance of overcoming the challenges posed.

Unknown: Cannot be determined. There is insufficient information or too much uncertainty to estimate the ISSHS's chances of survival against this threat.

The table below summarizes ISSHS dehumanization survival probabilities from technological threats, and is followed by Perplexity’s detailed rationale for its estimates.

AI/Robot Labor Displacement: Occurrence 80-90%. Survivability High. The ISSHS's focus on primitive technologies and agriculture would make it naturally resistant to labor displacement by robots or AI systems. The community's emphasis on human labor and craftsmanship would ensure that all work remains meaningful and valued. The sanctuary's economic model, centered on self-sufficiency and quality of life rather than growth or efficiency, would further protect it from the labor market disruptions experienced in technologically advanced societies.

Technological Dehumanization: Occurrence 80-90%. Survivability High. The ISSHS is specifically designed to resist technological dehumanization, making it highly resilient to this threat. By limiting itself to primitive technologies and focusing on human-scaled communities, the sanctuary would be largely insulated from the potentially dehumanizing effects of advanced technology. The emphasis on close-knit family units and quality of life over technological progress would help preserve human connections and values. The sanctuary's deliberate limitation to primitive technologies makes it highly resilient to the rapid technological changes that could lead to dehumanization in broader society.

Genetic Engineering/Transhumanism: Occurrence 70-80%. Survivability High. The ISSHS's focus on preserving the "romantic animal" in humans and maintaining a natural quality of life would make it highly resistant to genetic engineering and transhumanist interventions. The sanctuary's inhabitants would likely reject such modifications, viewing them as contrary to their core values of natural human existence. The ISSHS's core function of isolation to prevent biological, technological, and philosophical contagions would indeed make it highly resilient against the spread of genetic engineering and transhumanist technologies. The sanctuary's deliberate focus on preserving natural human existence and its self-contained nature would effectively shield it from these external advancements. The ability of dissatisfied members to leave freely also mitigates the risk of internal pressure for adopting such technologies.

Mass Surveillance and Social Control: Occurrence 75-85%. Survivability High. The ISSHS's isolation and use of primitive technologies would make it naturally resistant to mass surveillance and social control systems. The absence of advanced digital infrastructure would prevent the implementation of pervasive monitoring technologies. The community's small scale and focus on close-knit relationships would also make traditional forms of social control less effective. The sanctuary's isolation and lack of advanced technology infrastructure would make it extremely difficult for external forces to implement effective surveillance or control measures without overt physical intervention, which would likely be noticed and resisted.

Environmental Disconnection: Occurrence 60-70%. Survivability High. The ISSHS is specifically designed to promote coexistence with the natural environment, making it highly resilient to environmental disconnection. The sanctuary's focus on agriculture and primitive technologies would foster a deep connection with nature. Inhabitants would likely develop a strong ecological awareness and sustainable practices, ensuring their continued harmony with the surrounding ecosystem. This close relationship with nature would serve as a buffer against the environmental disconnection prevalent in technologically advanced societies.

Cognitive Manipulation: Occurrence 65-75%. Survivability High. The ISSHS's deliberate isolation from external influences would significantly reduce exposure to potential sources of cognitive manipulation, such as mass media, social networks, or advanced persuasion technologies. The sanctuary's focus on primitive technologies and limited information flow from the outside world would create a natural barrier against many forms of cognitive manipulation that rely on digital or advanced technological platforms. The community's emphasis on close-knit family units and a natural quality of life would likely foster strong internal social bonds and shared values, potentially increasing resilience against external manipulative influences. The ISSHS's educational and cultural practices would likely prioritize critical thinking and self-reliance, further bolstering resistance to cognitive manipulation attempts. The ability for dissatisfied members to freely leave the community would act as a safety valve, reducing the risk of internal cognitive manipulation or cult-like dynamics. While some forms of cognitive manipulation might still be possible through interpersonal interactions or limited external contacts, the overall impact on the community would likely be minimal due to its self-contained nature and shared values.

Human Misuse of AI Systems: Occurrence 85-95%. Survivability High. The ISSHS's deliberate avoidance of advanced technologies, including AI systems, would make it highly resilient to the misuse of such technologies. The sanctuary's inhabitants would not be directly affected by AI-driven decision-making processes or automated systems that could potentially harm human autonomy or well-being. However, indirect effects from the outside world's misuse of AI, such as economic disruptions or resource conflicts, could still pose challenges to the sanctuary.

Aligned ASI: Occurrence 30-40%. Survivability Moderate to High. An aligned ASI, by definition, would be designed to act in humanity's best interests. However, the ISSHS might still face challenges: The sanctuary's isolation could limit its ability to benefit from the positive impacts of an aligned ASI, such as medical breakthroughs or environmental restoration technologies. An aligned ASI might view the ISSHS as an unnecessary or even harmful experiment in human isolation, potentially leading to attempts to reintegrate the community into broader society. The sanctuary's primitive technology focus could be seen as limiting human potential, possibly prompting the ASI to encourage technological adoption. However, an aligned ASI would likely respect human autonomy and diversity, potentially protecting the ISSHS as a unique cultural experiment.

Unaligned ASI: Occurrence 10-20%. Survivability Low to Moderate. An unaligned ASI poses significant risks to humanity as a whole, including the ISSHS: The sanctuary's isolation might provide some initial protection from direct interference, but it would be unlikely to escape notice indefinitely. The ISSHS's lack of advanced technology could make it vulnerable to manipulation or exploitation by an unaligned ASI pursuing its own goals. Global catastrophes resulting from an unaligned ASI's actions (e.g., environmental destruction, resource depletion) would likely affect the ISSHS indirectly. The sanctuary's self-sustaining nature might make it more resilient to some forms of disruption, but it would still be vulnerable to extreme environmental changes or targeted interference. An unaligned ASI might view the ISSHS as an inefficient use of resources or a potential threat, leading to actions against the sanctuary.

The table below summarizes ISSHS dehumanization survival probabilities from Non-ISSHS human threats and ISSHS internal threats, and is followed by Perplexity's detailed rationale for its estimates.

Non-ISSHS Humans: Occurrence 60-70%. Survivability Moderate to High. As the world outside the ISSHS continues to evolve technologically and socially, the sanctuary may face increasing pressure from those who view its way of life as outdated or inefficient. This could manifest as anything from cultural pressure to direct intervention attempts.

Generational Discord: Occurrence 50-60%. Survivability Moderate. This is perhaps one of the most significant challenges for the ISSHS. As new generations grow up within the sanctuary, they may question the limitations placed on technology and lifestyle, potentially leading to internal conflict

Resource Management: Occurrence 40-50%. Survivability Moderate to High. Maintaining a self-sustaining community with primitive technologies will require careful resource management. Overexploitation or unexpected environmental changes could threaten the ISSHS's viability

Ideological Drift: Occurrence 30-40%. Survivability Moderate. Over time, the community's values and goals may shift, potentially moving away from the original concept of preserving a more "humane natural quality of life."

The table below summarizes survival probabilities of ISSHS dehumanization from existential threats to humans, and is followed by Perplexity's detailed rationale for its estimates.

Climate Change: Occurrence 95-100%. Survivability Moderate. The ISSHS's focus on sustainable living and primitive technologies may provide some resilience against climate change impacts. However, extreme weather events, shifting agricultural zones, and potential food shortages could still pose significant challenges.

Ecological Collapse: Occurrence 20-30%. Survivability Moderate. The ISSHS's focus on sustainable living might provide some resilience against ecological collapse. However, global ecosystem failures could still impact the community's food production and overall survival.

Global Pandemics: Occurrence 30-40%. Survivability Moderate to High. The ISSHS's isolation could serve as a natural quarantine, potentially protecting inhabitants from global pandemics. However, limited medical technology could make containment challenging if a pathogen were to breach the community.

Nuclear Conflict: Occurrence 5-10%. Survivability Low. An ISSHS would have limited protection against the immediate and long-term effects of nuclear war, including radiation and nuclear winter. Its isolation might offer some protection, but global consequences would likely affect the community severely.

Biological Weapons and Biotechnology: Occurrence 10-15%. Survivability Moderate. Similar to pandemics, the ISSHS's isolation might provide some protection. However, the community's limited medical capabilities could make it vulnerable if exposed to engineered pathogens.

Nanotechnology Risks: Occurrence 10-20%. Survivability Moderate. The ISSHS's isolation and low-tech nature might provide some protection against nanotechnology risks. However, if self-replicating nanobots were to spread globally, the community would likely be affected.

Economic Collapse: Occurrence 30-40%. Survivability High. An ISSHS would be well-positioned to weather economic collapse due to its self-sustaining nature and limited reliance on external economic systems. The focus on agriculture and primitive technologies means the sanctuary would be largely independent of global supply chains and financial markets. However, complete isolation might be challenging, and some level of trade or interaction with the outside world could expose the community to economic instabilities. The sanctuary's emphasis on quality of life over growth aligns well with resilience in the face of economic turmoil.

Asteroid and Comet Impact: Occurrence <1%. Survivability Low. The ISSHS would have no special protection against a large-scale impact event. Such an event could cause global climate effects that would severely impact the community's survival.

Gamma-Ray Bursts or Supernovae: Occurrence <0.1%. Survivability Low. The ISSHS would have no special protection against these cosmic events. If one occurred close enough to Earth, it could potentially cause a mass extinction event.

Super Volcano Eruptions: Occurrence 1-2%. Survivability Low to Moderate. The ISSHS would be vulnerable to the global climate effects of a super volcano eruption, which could lead to a "volcanic winter" and severely impact food production.

Magnetic Pole Reversal: Occurrence 1-2%. Survivability Moderate. The ISSHS might be less affected by the technological disruptions caused by a magnetic pole reversal due to its low-tech nature. However, increased exposure to solar radiation could still pose risks.

Alien Invasion: Occurrence <0.1%. Survivability Unknown. While highly speculative, an alien invasion would likely affect the ISSHS as much as any other human settlement. The community's isolation might provide some initial protection, but long-term survival would be uncertain.

Conclusions:

The ISSHS concept offers a unique approach to preserving certain aspects of human existence.

The ISSHS concept shows high resilience to dehumanizing threats. Its strengths lie in its deliberate limitation of technology, focus on human-scaled communities, and emphasis on natural living. These characteristics provide strong protection against many of the challenges posed by rapid technological advancement and societal changes. However, the sanctuary would need to remain vigilant against indirect effects from the outside world and develop strategies to maintain its values and way of life in the face of evolving global pressures.

The ISSHS remains vulnerable to large-scale environmental changes and global catastrophes that could affect food production and living conditions. The sanctuary's success would largely depend on its ability to balance isolation with necessary adaptability to external changes. The success of such a sanctuary would likely depend on careful planning, strong community cohesion, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining core values.

Clearly, the above analysis is highly speculative and is based on Perplexity being provided a very limited abstract of the ISSHS. In certain dehumanizing threats, e.g., AI/Robot Labor Displacement, Perplexity does not explicitly consider isolation as a principal mitigating factor. However, the analysis serves as a starter for further study and refinement, and serves to highlight the challenges that an ISSHS feasibility study will need to address.

Interestingly, following a prompt questioning certain initial survival probabilities Perplexity replied:

Thank you for your insightful feedback. You're absolutely correct, and I appreciate the opportunity to refine my analysis based on the core principles of the ISSHS concept. Let me provide a revised assessment:

Perplexity revised the Genetic Engineering/Transhumanism; Mass Surveillance and Social Control; and Cognitive Manipulation dehumanizing survival potentials from the initial Moderate to High (60-79%) to High (80-100%). As will be seen further below, these higher potential probabilities are in line with Claude's independent analysis.

Subsequently, Perplexity was prompted to provide a similar analysis for how certain categories would effectively dehumanize the Non-ISSHS populations as compared to the ISSHS inhabitants. The table below summarizes the Perplexity's analysis that follows:

AI/Robot Labor Displacement: Probability of occurring in next 40 years: 80-90%. Dehumanization Potential: High (60-79%) [Survivability Probability 21-40%] Non-ISSHS populations could face dehumanization via: Widespread job losses leading to loss of purpose and social identity for many. Reduction of human skills and knowledge as AI systems take over complex tasks. Potential emergence of a "useless class" of humans unable to compete with AI/robots economically.

Technological Dehumanization: Probability of occurring in next 40 years: 80-90%. Dehumanization Potential: Very High (80-100%) [Survivability Probability 0-20%] Non-ISSHS populations could face severe technological dehumanization through: Excessive reliance on digital interfaces for human interaction, reducing empathy and emotional connections. Algorithmic decision-making in crucial areas like healthcare, employment, and justice, potentially reducing human agency and individuality. Augmented and virtual reality technologies blurring the lines between physical and digital existence, potentially disconnecting people from their physical environments and bodies.

Genetic Engineering/Transhumanism: Probability of occurring in next 40 years: 70-80%. Dehumanization Potential: High (60-79%) [Survivability Probability 21-40%] Non-ISSHS populations might experience dehumanization through: Creation of genetically "enhanced" humans, potentially leading to discrimination against non-enhanced individuals. Blurring of lines between human and machine through cybernetic enhancements, challenging traditional definitions of humanity. Potential emergence of a "genetic underclass" lacking access to enhancement technologies.

Mass Surveillance and Social Control: Probability of occurring in next 40 years: 75-85%. Dehumanization Potential: Very High (80-100%) [Survivability Probability 0-20%] Non-ISSHS populations could be dehumanized by: Pervasive surveillance systems eroding privacy and individual autonomy. Social credit systems quantifying human worth based on behavior and compliance. Predictive policing and pre-crime interventions treating individuals as potential criminals rather than autonomous beings.

Environmental Disconnection: Probability of occurring in next 40 years: 60-70%. Dehumanization Potential: High (60-79%) [Survivability Probability 21-40%] Non-ISSHS populations might face dehumanization through: Increasing urbanization and technological mediation of nature experiences. Loss of connection to natural rhythms and cycles due to artificial environments. Reduced empathy for non-human life and ecosystems, potentially leading to environmental exploitation.

Cognitive Manipulation: Probability of occurring in next 40 years: 65-75%. Dehumanization Potential: Very High (80-100%) [Survivability Probability 0-20%] Non-ISSHS populations could be dehumanized by: Advanced persuasion technologies exploiting cognitive biases at scale. Widespread use of neurotechnology to influence thoughts and behaviors. AI-driven personalized content creating echo chambers and reducing exposure to diverse perspectives.

Human Misuse of AI Systems: Probability of occurring in next 40 years: 85-95%. Dehumanization Potential: High (60-79%) [Survivability Probability 21-40%] Non-ISSHS populations might experience dehumanization through: Overreliance on AI for decision-making, reducing human agency and critical thinking. AI-driven manipulation of public opinion and democratic processes. Use of AI in warfare, potentially leading to dehumanization of enemies and civilians.

In all these scenarios, the ISSHS would likely remain largely unaffected due to its isolation and focus on primitive technologies. However, the contrast between ISSHS and non-ISSHS populations could become stark, potentially leading to philosophical and ethical debates about the nature of human progress and the value of technological advancement.

And:

Based on the principles and design of the Isolated Self-Sustaining Human Sanctuary (ISSHS) as described earlier, it would indeed follow that the Dehumanization Potential for the ISSHS population would be very low, in the 0-20% range. [Survivability Probability 80-100%] This low dehumanization potential can be attributed to several factors inherent in the ISSHS concept:

Isolation: The ISSHS's deliberate isolation from external influences significantly reduces exposure to dehumanizing ideologies, propaganda, and technologies that often drive dehumanization in broader society.

Limited technology: By restricting itself to primitive technologies, the ISSHS avoids many of the technological factors that contribute to dehumanization in modern societies.

Focus on human-scaled communities: The emphasis on close-knit family units and small community size (500-5,000 inhabitants) promotes strong interpersonal connections, which are antithetical to dehumanization.

Coexistence with nature: The ISSHS's focus on living in harmony with the natural environment likely fosters a holistic view of life that respects all forms of existence, including human.

Quality of life over progress: By prioritizing the quality of human existence rather than technological or economic progress, the ISSHS inherently values human experiences and emotions.

Limited external contact: The reduced interaction with outside populations minimizes exposure to "othering" narratives that often fuel dehumanization.

Shared values: The community's shared focus on preserving the "romantic animal" in humans likely creates a culture that inherently resists dehumanizing ideologies.

Given these factors, the ISSHS population would be highly resistant to the dehumanizing influences that affect non-ISSHS populations. While it's impossible to guarantee complete immunity to dehumanization (hence the 0-20% range rather than 0%), the ISSHS design significantly mitigates the risk factors associated with dehumanization as identified in the research.

Obviously, there is no point to the ISSHS if the ISSHS was not "highly resistant to the dehumanizing influences that affect non-ISSHS populations."

In a similar prior conversation, Claude's survival ISSHS probabilities were a little more optimistic than Perplexity. The following table provides a comparison between Perplexity’s and Claude’s dehumanization survival probabilities focused on the principal dehumanizing categories, and is followed by Claude's analysis

ISSHS Survival Analysis Against Dehumanizing Threats:

AI/Robot Labor Displacement: Survival Potential: Very High. Probability of ISSHS Survival: 99%. Non-ISSHS Population 30%. The ISSHS's focus on primitive technologies and human labor makes it almost entirely immune to AI/robot labor displacement. The community's emphasis on the intrinsic value of work and contribution further protects it from the psychological impacts of this threat.

Technological Dehumanization: Survival Potential: High. Probability of ISSHS Survival: 95%. Non-ISSHS Population 50%. The ISSHS is specifically designed to avoid technological overreliance and maintain human-scaled interactions. Its focus on primitive technologies and close-knit community life directly counters this threat.

Genetic Engineering/Transhumanism: Survival Potential: Very High. Probability of ISSHS Survival: 98%. Non-ISSHS Population 50%. The ISSHS's commitment to natural human biology and rejection of advanced biotechnology makes it highly resistant to this threat. The isolated nature of the community further protects it from external pressures to adopt genetic modifications.

Mass Surveillance and Social Control: Survival Potential: High. Probability of ISSHS Survival: 90%. Non-ISSHS Population 40%. The ISSHS's primitive technology and isolated nature make it inherently resistant to mass surveillance. However, external powers might still attempt to exert control, slightly lowering the probability.

Environmental Disconnection: Survival Potential: Very High. Probability of ISSHS Survival: 99%. Non-ISSHS Population 45%. The ISSHS is specifically designed to maintain a close connection with nature. Its focus on coexistence with the natural environment makes it highly resilient against this threat.

Cognitive Manipulation: Survival Potential: Moderate to High. Probability of ISSHS Survival: 85%. Non-ISSHS Population 35%. While the ISSHS's isolation and limited technology offer some protection, advanced neurotechnology or AI systems might still find ways to influence the community. The probability remains high due to the community's emphasis on critical thinking and human-to-human interactions.

Human Misuse of AI Systems: Survival Potential: Very High. Probability of ISSHS Survival: 97%. Non-ISSHS Population 45%. The ISSHS's limited use of advanced technology makes it highly resistant to AI misuse. The community's focus on human judgment and responsibility further insulates it from this threat.

Overall Assessment: The ISSHS appears to be well-designed to resist most dehumanizing threats, with particularly high resilience against technological dehumanization, environmental disconnection, and labor displacement. Its weakest point may be against highly advanced forms of cognitive manipulation, but even there, it maintains a strong probability of survival.

Claude also provided other dehumanization survival probabilities for non-ISSHS populations which are presented in the following table:

While the ISSHS remains relatively resilient against purely technological and social dehumanizing threats, it would be more vulnerable to large-scale environmental and global catastrophes. However, Claude estimates that the probability of the ISSHS surviving the dehumanizing potential of all the above identified risks is materially better than the probabilities of the Non-ISSHS populations.

Claude's comments below were surprising in their perspective (e.g., "protective factors of the ISSHS"):

These probabilities reflect the significant challenges faced by the broader human population in the event that the specialized, isolated ISSHS community does not survive the various dehumanizing threats. Without the protective factors of the ISSHS, the non-ISSHS population would be more vulnerable to the erosion of human values, connections, and autonomy across a range of technological, environmental, and societal disruptions.

The lowest survival probabilities are associated with global catastrophic risks like nuclear warfare, asteroid/comet impacts, and unaligned artificial superintelligence - events that could fundamentally alter the human condition and threaten the very fabric of civilization. Even in the face of an aligned ASI or threats from non-aligned humans, the non-ISSHS population faces substantial risks of dehumanization.

This analysis underscores the critical importance of addressing these existential and dehumanizing challenges at a global scale, as the potential consequences for the broader human population are severe. Developing effective strategies to mitigate these risks, while also fostering the preservation of human-centric values, is essential for safeguarding the future of humanity.