Why didn't Luke discuss what caused past mass extinctions in Earth's history and among those which might be relevant for today? One candidate to consider is the End Permian - Triassic Mass Extinction (PTME). There is reasonable evidence that global warming led to much reduced temperatures between the equator and the poles. But it is this great temperature difference that is a key driver of ocean currents, especially the thermohaline circulation. Thus there is evidence major ocean currents slowed considerably or stopped. This lowered ocean oxygen levels. Also the warmer ocean water could hold much less dissolved oxygen. So with sufficient organic matter in the oceans for food, hydrogen sulfide producing anoxia loving microorganisms flourished. This led to the PTEM Great Dying mass extinction by hydrogen sulfide poisoning. It killed about 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life directly and via reducing the ozone layer. There is evidence global warming also led to release of methane hydrates leading to further warming that likely further slowed ocean currents and increased ocean anoxia leading to hydrogen sulfide poisoning by anaerobic microorganisms. All of the above factors are now occurring. The AMOC and othere elements of the thermohaline currents are slowing. The oceans are becoming more anoxic. And enormous amounts of organic material is being dumped into the continental margins from fertilizers, human and livestock manure and other organic waste. Also, there is an enormous amount of methane hydrate in the Arctic (see peer-reveiwed papers of Natalia Shakhova and colleagues. Applying foresight suggests this scenario is not only plausible but likely. CSER should research this scenario further and should publish the evidence supporting a mass extinction by the above means, as it has plausibly happened at the PTME and in perhaps other mass extinctions. Do you agree?

To get out of bubbles , ie only people who know this will watch this i urge all commentors to go on every youtube site involved in climate change but not mentioning the fossil fuel link ,,ie all USA news sites , travel sites , anything using carbon burning ..and politely inform in the comments section that fossil fuel use is behind catastrophic climate change and on travel sites politely ask what the carbon footprint is etc . Even on financial sites you can point out what is the point of chasing wealth when you cannot spend it without destroying any credible carbon budget . We have to `shoe horn ` this into channels that are utterly ignorant of the perils we face and are happening now . Also link , say , peter carters excellent condensed graph posts as a source . Be prepared for much abuse but keep focused and explain the realities of the situation . Personally if its just an abusive reply i ignore because you will waste your time , but you can use it as an example of ignorance .

Great presentation, but damn Luke, those glass-cutters are more than a bit distracting.

Amazing study and well presented. Perhaps the catastrophic nature of this risk will finally shake people up and put some real action behind commitments. One thought from the corporate world: building a risk management culture can be improved by tone at the top. Who is at the top of our culture? Is it the president/prime minister? The heads of corporations or NGOs? Sports stars? Instagram/TikTok influencers? Probably all of the above, for different segments of the population. The thing is, this is a great report but to get those people at the top to set the tone, communication in simple terms - what you started with - is key. I hope your work can influence those influencers. Looking forward to watching the science/policy discussion. I agree with the “life-long bureaucrat’s” concerns.

Sheds jacket, brings out the big guns 💪

When a society is predicted to collapse seems less important in my mind than how to choose a less collapse-prone model for society, unless your main concern is how much longer we can squeeze out a quarterly profit before nuclear Armageddon or some such thing. Luke Kemp himself worked out that the average civilization lasts 340 years, where civilization is defined as "a society with agriculture, multiple cities, military dominance in its geographical region and a continuous political structure". This type of linear, growth-based society does not actually represent most lived human experience. Most humans over time have lived in cyclical, non-growth-based societies of hunter gatherers. The reason this has largely represented the lived human experience is that a cyclical philosophical model of society is more stable than a linear model of society. So what we are saying is all societies that are not hunter gatherer societies collapse on average over the course of only a few short generations. Hunter gatherer societies can collapse too, but tend to be much more stable and more likely to adapt than collapse. The question is not if but when. All societies also have cautionary tales about the move from cyclical to linear with characters who represent a break from the cycles of nature and a ramping up of the feeling of exceptionalism: Icarus from the Greeks, the Echidna from the Apalech of what Anglophones call Australia, the Morgoth/Sauron of Lord of the Rings, the Lucifer of John Milton, etc. These characters broke from being ruled by nature and tried to establish a new self-centered paradigm in which they attempted to supplant the greater powers that be. They all crashed and burned. So again, the question is not if but when, and we have cultural memories to warn us well in advance of the risks.

It seems eminently reasonable and logical to point to the USA and UK as the biggest godzilla(s) rather than Russia and or China, or even North Korea. as the biggest risks to world safety and security including nuclear war. Assumptions and manipulated consent would seem to have a large part to play in statements made by one of the audience making comment about Russia when asking a question.

CSER can show the plausibility and perhaps probable mass extinction by hydrogen sulfide as discussed above and as in the PTME. This might further motivate politicians, other policy leaders, and the public to increase efforts to reduce GHG emissions. It might also motivate further support for research and implementation efforts to refreeze the Arctic. This is because a warming Arctic is a driver of Greenland ice melt and otherwise slowing of the AMOC contributing to ocean anoxia and the hydrogen sulfide poisoning described above.

Okay so essentially there was no conclusion beyond "predicting is hard" and some random graphs showing expenditure in AGI, and the number of nuclear weapons each country has. Thanks. If only I knew that at the start

I never understand when speakers covering this serious predicament start off with frivolous statements in an attempt to get the audience to laugh. This is not a laughing matter. It makes the rest of their talk seem less important. The same goes for those doing the same when introducing these speakers.

luke is 30 years behind

I was starting to fall asleep but did I hear him say that neanderthals went extinct because of inbreeding oh boy well don't read the Bible then especially the part about Adam and Eve and Noah

It's only a question of time before reality catches up with these doom mongers and they're forced to crawl back into their primeval slime before emerging to later espouse another possible planet ending situation.

Data proves that humanity has never been safer, healthier or more prosperous than at any time in history, by any measurement you care to examine.