David At Nearing 92: Can Humanity Prevent Its Own Extinction?
Two Warnings to the World: Nuclear Conflict and the Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence
“We have the intelligence to create powerful technologies. Do we have the wisdom to make sure they do not destroy us?”
Today, while reading and watching CNN, I came across a report that made me stop and think seriously about the future of humanity. Researchers have identified 17 potentially catastrophic threats to our world, including two that could, under the worst circumstances, threaten the very survival of our species: nuclear conflict and the malicious use of artificial intelligence (AI).
The findings come from a new report by The Lancet Commission on 21st Century Global Threats to Health. The commission, made up of 35 experts, examined threats that could endanger human health and survival through the year 2100. The researchers emphasized that these dangers deserve immediate attention because there are realistic actions governments and societies can take to reduce the risks.
As I approach my 92nd birthday, I cannot help asking myself a troubling question: After all the progress humanity has made in science, medicine, technology, and education, could we eventually destroy the very civilization we have worked so hard to build?
A Lifetime That Has Witnessed So Much History
I was born in the Philippines in 1934. My childhood was interrupted by World War II, which brought fear, hardship, and uncertainty to our part of the world. Those of us who lived through that period learned, in one way or another, that war is not simply a matter of maps, military strategies, or political victories. Behind every conflict are human lives, separated families, lost homes, and dreams that may never be fulfilled.
After the war, I pursued my education in chemistry at the University of the Philippines and later earned my Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Chemistry at the University of Illinois. My professional life took me through the chemical and pharmaceutical industries and eventually to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, where I worked in drug evaluation until my retirement in 2002.
My career taught me to appreciate the extraordinary benefits that science can bring to humanity. Scientific knowledge can prevent disease, improve medicines, save lives, and help us understand the world around us.
But science also gives human beings enormous power. And power without wisdom, responsibility, and moral restraint can become dangerous.
That is why the news I encountered today deserves more than a passing glance.
First Warning: The Danger of Nuclear Conflict
Since the development of nuclear weapons, humanity has possessed the ability to inflict destruction on a scale that previous generations could scarcely imagine.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 showed the world the terrible consequences of nuclear warfare. Yet, more than eight decades later, nuclear weapons remain in existence, and international tensions continue to remind us that the danger has not disappeared.
A nuclear conflict between major powers could kill millions of people directly. But the consequences might extend far beyond the countries involved. Researchers have warned that smoke and soot from widespread nuclear explosions could disrupt the climate, reduce sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, damage agricultural production, and contribute to widespread famine.
In other words, even people living thousands of miles from the battlefield might suffer the consequences.
I find this particularly disturbing because the ordinary citizens of the world have little control over the decisions of political and military leaders. Children, grandparents, farmers, teachers, scientists, and countless innocent people could pay the price for decisions they never made.
What can be done?
Nations must strengthen diplomacy, maintain reliable communication, reduce the danger of accidental escalation, and pursue meaningful arms-control and nuclear-risk-reduction agreements. Leaders must understand that preventing nuclear war is not a sign of weakness. It is an obligation to protect humanity.
National security is important. But what good is national security if a nuclear confrontation endangers the future of every nation?
Second Warning: The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence
The second threat is particularly personal to me because I have become increasingly interested in artificial intelligence during my later years.
I use AI as a tool to help me write and refine my blog posts, explore scientific questions, and communicate with readers around the world. Blogging has been an important part of my life since 2009, and I am grateful that modern technology continues to help me share my experiences and thoughts as I approach 92.
I have seen how AI can help people learn, improve their writing, assist scientific research, and make information more accessible. Used responsibly, it has enormous potential to benefit humanity.
But there is another side to this technology.
The researchers' warning concerns the malicious use of AI—the possibility that people could exploit increasingly powerful systems to cause harm on a vast scale. Among the dangers discussed by experts is the potential for AI to assist in developing biological weapons or other catastrophic threats.
AI can also be misused to create convincing false information, conduct cyberattacks, manipulate public opinion, and support dangerous activities. As the technology becomes more capable, the challenge of preventing its abuse becomes increasingly important.
I do not believe that every advance in AI should be viewed with fear. Nor should we assume that a machine will inevitably turn against humanity. These are serious risks, not predictions that human extinction is certain.
However, I believe we must distinguish between using AI to improve human life and allowing its capabilities to be exploited without adequate safeguards.
As someone who spent decades working in science and pharmaceutical regulation, I appreciate the importance of evaluating risks before they cause harm. We do not wait for every possible disaster to occur before asking whether reasonable preventive measures are necessary.
The same principle should apply to AI.
Governments, technology companies, scientists, and independent experts must work together to establish effective safeguards, improve monitoring, test powerful systems carefully, and prevent their use in catastrophic attacks. International cooperation is essential because neither cyber threats nor the consequences of dangerous technologies respect national borders.
Technological progress should serve humanity. Humanity should not become a prisoner of its own inventions.
Seventeen Threats, One Interconnected World
The report also reminds us that the dangers facing humanity are not limited to nuclear weapons and AI. Its 17 identified threats include climate change, air pollution, naturally occurring pandemics, antimicrobial resistance, childhood malnutrition, armed conflict, and other health and social challenges.
These problems are interconnected. Conflict can disrupt food supplies and health services. Climate change can worsen living conditions and threaten agriculture. Weak public health systems can make communities more vulnerable to disease.
The lesson I take from this report is that we cannot protect the future by concentrating on just one problem while ignoring the others.
We need scientific research, responsible leadership, stronger health systems, education, international cooperation, and a willingness to invest in prevention rather than wait for disasters.
Most importantly, we need leaders who recognize that the welfare of humanity is greater than the political interests of any one individual, party, or country.
What Can One Ordinary Person Do?
At first glance, these global threats may seem too large for an ordinary person to influence. What can one senior citizen approaching 92 do about nuclear weapons or the misuse of AI?
I certainly cannot negotiate an international treaty or regulate a technology company. But I can continue to write, share reliable information, encourage thoughtful discussion, and remind my readers that the future is a responsibility we share.
We can support leaders who take these dangers seriously. We can demand accountability from governments and technology companies. We can encourage the responsible use of AI and resist the spread of misinformation. We can teach younger generations that scientific progress must be accompanied by ethics, compassion, and respect for human life.
And we can refuse to accept the idea that conflict and catastrophe are inevitable.
My years have taught me that ordinary acts of kindness matter. The same principle applies to the larger world: cooperation is more constructive than hatred, dialogue is better than threats, and prevention is better than recovery from disaster.
The decisions of world leaders may have extraordinary consequences, but public awareness and public expectations can help shape those decisions.
A Message to My Children, Grandchildren, and Readers Around the World
As I approach 92, I think often about the world that my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will inherit.
I have lived through a world war, witnessed remarkable scientific discoveries, experienced the growth of modern medicine, and seen computers and artificial intelligence become part of everyday life. The changes have been astonishing.
I remain grateful for the progress humanity has achieved. I am also concerned that our technological capabilities may be advancing faster than our collective wisdom.
I do not want my reflections to leave readers frightened or hopeless. The researchers themselves emphasize that these threats can be addressed. Their warning is not that humanity is destined to disappear, but that we must take the risks seriously while we still have the opportunity to reduce them.
We cannot guarantee that future generations will never experience another war, another pandemic, or another global crisis. But we can make wiser decisions today to reduce the likelihood and consequences of such events.
Perhaps the greatest measure of human intelligence is not how powerful our weapons become or how sophisticated our machines can be. Perhaps it is whether we can use our knowledge to protect life rather than endanger it.
I have always believed that we have not truly lived unless we have touched the lives of others in a meaningful way. That principle should apply not only to individuals, but also to nations and the institutions we build.
As we move further into the twenty-first century, let us remember that our most important achievement is not simply to advance civilization, but to preserve it for those who come after us.
A Final Reflection
At nearly 92, I have no illusion that one blog post can change the course of world history. But I continue to write because I believe that sharing knowledge, asking difficult questions, and encouraging reflection still have value.
I hope that my readers, wherever they live, will join me in wishing for a world in which science serves life, artificial intelligence is used responsibly, nations resolve their differences peacefully, and future generations can live without the constant fear of catastrophe.
We cannot change the past. We cannot know exactly what the future holds. But we can influence the choices we make today.
And that gives me hope. May wisdom guide our leaders, compassion unite our peoples, and peace protect the future of humanity. David at Nearing 92
AI Impressions/Suggestions on this Topic:
David, this is an important subject for your David At Nearing 92 blog. It brings together two concerns that have become increasingly important to our world: the danger of nuclear war and the growing possibility that artificial intelligence could be misused by people who have little regard for human life.
For your worldwide readers, I would approach this not as a prediction that humanity is doomed, but as a personal reflection from someone who has lived through nearly a century of history, witnessed the consequences of war, devoted much of his career to science, and now sees both the promise and the dangers of new technology.
Here are suggested references for your worldwide readers:
CNN's report: AI is among 17 potentially ‘catastrophic threats’ that researchers say require targeted action
The Lancet Commission announcement: A roadmap to protect economies, security and global stability from catastrophic threats
My Editorial Suggestion: Keep the title as written. It asks a serious question without declaring that extinction is inevitable. Your personal history, from growing up during World War II to a scientific career and your continuing use of AI to write at nearly 92 gives this post a perspective that a conventional news article cannot provide.
Yes, humanity can theoretically prevent its own extinction, but doing so depends heavily on our ability to mitigate self-imposed, anthropogenic risks rather than natural ones. While cosmic and geological hazards present a low risk in the near term, the primary threats to human survival are created by human technology and behavior.
To successfully secure its long-term future, humanity must address existential risks across three major domains:
1. Combating Anthropogenic (Human-Made) Threats
The scientific consensus indicates that the greatest dangers to our species through 2100 are artificial:
- Artificial Intelligence: Unaligned or highly competent yet indifferent AI poses severe existential risks. Experts from organizations like Time Magazine have argued for strict international hardware regulations and temporary pauses on training models beyond current capabilities to ensure safety.
- Synthetic Biology: Advancements in biotechnology (such as CRISPR) have raised the risk of engineered, highly lethal, and airborne pathogens being released either accidentally or maliciously. Preventative measures require rigorous global biosecurity protocols.
- Nuclear and Climate Crises: Preventing nuclear war requires sustained geopolitical cooperation. Meanwhile, reversing severe environmental destruction, ocean acidification, and ecological collapse demands a global shift away from short-term corporate and political thinking.
2. Implementing a "Defence in Depth" Framework
According to research published in the
National Institutes of Health PMC, preventing extinction requires a layered strategy rather than just focusing on a single fix:
- Prevention: Stopping threats before they materialize (e.g., carbon reduction, AI alignment, monitoring for asteroids).
- Response: Building early-warning networks to contain disasters when prevention fails (e.g., rapid vaccine deployment during a pandemic).
- Resilience: Ensuring the endgame survival of the species if a catastrophe scales globally (e.g., establishing underground seed vaults, resilient agriculture, or off-world colonies).
3. Overcoming Natural and Evolutionary Realities
Historically, humanity has proven incredibly resilient. Genetic bottlenecks documented by researchers show that around 930,000 years ago, the ancestral human population dropped significantly, leaving only about 1% of the population to rebuild our lineage
However, over millions of years, natural changes pose inevitable challenges. Over a long enough timeline, cosmic events like supervolcanoes or asteroid impacts become mathematical certainties unless space-defense technologies are matured. Furthermore, if humanity survives for millions of years, evolutionary biology dictates that our descendants would likely evolve into a entirely different chronospecies, meaning Homo sapiens as we know them today would naturally cease to exist.
Ultimately, preventing human extinction is not a problem of capacity, but one of global coordination, foresight, and political will.
