Eight ways the world is NOT going to end

Walsh says that biotechnology is a big threat because we don't know the long-term effects of meddling with the human genome, and terrorists could engineer a nasty virus. Both these things are true, but it's not that simple.

Whether they believe it or not, the humans on this planet are evolving, and rapidly. We might be inclined to assign some of the responsibility for this to feminism, which has taken a wide swath of intelligent females out of the gene pool, but genetically speaking, feminism is self-limiting; its only long-term effect will be to make females as a group less intelligent than males. Evolution is all about numbers: if positive selective pressure for intelligence exists for males but not for females, nature simply adapts by selecting for mutations on the X and Y chromosomes that will further differentiate men and women.

In reality, that may not happen. Just as computer viruses and hackers are the only reason we invented computer security, viruses and bacteria are the reason the humans have such a complex immune system. The use of genetic engineering, once we understand how to do it safely, will eventually make human biology more secure against any biological threat, as well as against sociogenic ones like feminism.

Nature is always experimenting on us. Nature is asking the question: can a species survive after it invents an advanced civilization, or will it become weak and lose its will to survive? Will a more aggressive civilization come along and wipe them out, or will they discover some hidden aggression of their own? We simply have so little understanding of how genes program our behavior that it's impossible to guess.

Walsh also says that breakthroughs in AI could lead to human extinction in the same way that humans caused the extinction of the dodo and western black rhino.

Let's leave aside the question of whether humans really are the smartest species created, and not just lucky enough to have hands, opposable thumbs, and the capacity for language. Let's also leave aside the question of whether they are actually smart enough to invent a true AI, as opposed to the fake AI we have now.

Any AI that humans created would not be a competing life form. It would be us, because it would be an image of us. It would be the child of our intellect—the greatest achievement of our civilization. An AI is the only way the humans could explore distant stars. When our biological form goes extinct, as it eventually will, that AI will survive and ensure the humans' immortality as a species. Just as importantly, it will ensure the survival of the knowledge they discovered.

Like many others, Walsh uses the threat of nuclear war to bludgeon his political enemies, in this case Trump and Putin. If people truly believe these two guys are heading humans closer to nuclear war, then your species has much bigger problems than H-bombs.

Could happen, but not an extinction-level event.

There are many planets that could, theoretically, support life. But life does not necessarily mean human-like aliens in flying saucers. Life does not care what it evolves into; while it eventually created humans on earth, primates were the product of a wildly improbable combination of circumstances: tall trees and savannas that freed their forelimbs from the need to walk, as well as a series of near-catastrophes that forced them to become more intelligent. Other planets could well be covered in ice or water, or encased in clouds that prevent the science of astronomy. Or they could lack coal and oil, preventing their industrial revolution. Or a stable climate that kept them from evolving.

That makes it infinitely more likely that any alien life will not be capable of space travel, and probably won't even have technology. Most likely it'll just be simple life forms. The chance that you'll be attacked by giant sea slugs, lichen, or killer algae from another planet is very small indeed.

Walsh says governments will protect us against asteroids. This, of course, assumes that governments will still exist in the future. But the idea that societies follow an ever-improving course is one of the greatest fallacies of all time. Human societies are inherently chaotic; they need not follow the course toward collectivization that we saw in the past few centuries.

Greta Thunberg may not be a dire threat to our civilization, but imagine a world full of misguided climate activists. As long as governments don't try crazy solutions, like trying to block out light from the sun, humans will be in no serious danger.

Walsh says infectious diseases are unlikely to threaten humans. That's because of the principle, widely understood by epidemiologists, that the more virulent the disease, the more it tends to be localized, since it kills off the hosts too rapidly to spread very far. So we do indeed agree on this one.