Abstract
The first issue of the Bulletin was a slim volume that displayed less than state-of-the-art production values, even for 1945; it was more newsletter than magazine or journal (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago, 1945). But from its inception 70 years ago, what was initially known as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago aimed high. The lead article in that first issue used the fourth anniversary of Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor as a starting point to argue not for continued military preparedness, but for internationalization of the control of nuclear weapons.
On December 10, 1945, just a few months after the end of World War II, Americans almost certainly did not favor relinquishing command of the magical weapons that were then credited with having ended the war. But the scientists who created those first atomic bombs knew that they were different from all armaments previously devised. The Manhattan Project scientists knew that, for the first time, humans possessed the ability to spark Armageddon and end civilization, and they wanted to warn government leaders and ordinary citizens alike of the global danger inherent in these new weapons, in hopes of fostering what Einstein called “a new way of thinking “that might stave off a final and radioactive catastrophe (New York Times, 1946: 11).
At the beginning of this year, I introduced (Mecklin, 2015) a special issue (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2015) that looked back at the storied record that grew out of that initial issue of the Bulletin. It is a remarkable history indeed, during which an enormous number and broad range of leading scientists dedicated themselves to a truly undeniable public interest—ensuring the continued existence of the human race—often at great professional peril. That record of distinguished writing and speaking in the public interest—created by Albert Einstein, Hans Bethe, Leo Szilard, Edward Teller, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and Mikhail Gorbachev, among so many others—is worth review and remembrance, and I recommend that earlier issue to readers who missed it.
With this final issue of 2015, however, the Bulletin looks forward from its first seven decades of publishing to address a future that will include not just a continuing and expanded threat of thermonuclear catastrophe, but also an array of other global dangers, including climate change and the potential misuse of advances in synthetic biology, information technology, and artificial intelligence. To describe the daunting threat matrix that humanity now faces, I have asked some of today’s top public intellectuals to survey the existential dangers before us in the near (and sometimes not-so-near) future.
To set context for the issue, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Richard Rhodes examines the meaning, today, of the Manhattan Project and finds reason to hope that it set the stage for a permanent end to major warfare—and that, over time, it can bring about a reduction in the incidence of war of all kinds.
From there, four other distinguished writer-researchers look at future threats and opportunities in the Bulletin’s main coverage areas: nuclear weapons, climate change, biosecurity, and emerging technologies.
Eric Schlosser—author of the acclaimed, best-selling, and terrifying book about nuclear weapons accidents, Command and Control—scans the current nuclear landscape and finds it “full of dangers, from worldwide nuclear weapons modernization programs and heightened nuclear rhetoric to burgeoning stockpiles of fissile material and shortsighted changes in nuclear doctrine.” There is a new abolition movement that emphasizes the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons use and seeks a treaty that would outlaw them, Schlosser writes, but advocates of nuclear abolition face a significant problem: a public largely unaware of or complacent about the nuclear dilemma.
Robert Socolow, co-director of Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative, examines three pressing climate change issues along 500-year and 50-year time frames: sea level rise, the nuclear power “solution,” and an abundance of fossil fuel, some of which must not be used. As he does so, Socolow also describes a new field of research, Destiny Studies, that would focus on long-term problems and help humanity think coherently about ways to muddle through complex challenges as it recognizes that any proposed solution can have “a dark side that makes it dangerous.”
Gigi Kwik Gronvall, a top biosecurity expert affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, parses the opportunities and threats of two major trends that will dominate biosecurity over the next decade: industrialization, as biotechnology becomes a globally important economic force, and personalization, as individuals become increasingly able to harness the biological sciences to their own ends. Both trends will bring benefits, she writes, but the “democratization of biotechnology” also increases the danger of catastrophic misuse of advances in synthetic biology.
Brad Allenby, founding chair of the Consortium for Emerging Technologies, Military Operations and National Security at Arizona State University, analyzes the potential threats posed by a range of emerging technologies—nanotechnology, biotechnology, information and communication technology, robotics, applied cognitive science, and what he calls “humtech,” or the design and engineering of humans themselves. He also looks at the apocalyptic, often dystopian responses that such technologies have inspired and suggests that the dangers of technological advance spring less from the technologies themselves than from the failure to harness human imagination, optimism, energy, and creativity to deal with rapid technological change.
This anniversary issue concludes with interviews of two leading advocates—former Energy Department official Joe Romm and Gwyneth Cravens, author of Power to Save the World: The Truth about Nuclear Energy—on a core interest of the Bulletin: the role of nuclear power in dealing with climate change. That they disagree on that role is perhaps less noteworthy than why they disagree, and how they think the effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions around the world ought best be pursued.
The two-sentence summaries just provided are no substitute for the deeply researched, innovative, and finely crafted essays they reference. Like the best Bulletin writing over the last seven decades, these anniversary essays aim high; they challenge the world to change its thinking and take action that controls the world’s most dangerous technology. May they have their due effect, so our children’s children can read and admire them, in a safer and more peaceful world, 70 years hence.