Evaluating methods for estimating existential risks
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
<record>
<leader>00000cab a2200000 4500</leader>
<controlfield tag="001">MAP20130038087</controlfield>
<controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
<controlfield tag="005">20140121165204.0</controlfield>
<controlfield tag="008">131115e20131007esp|||p |0|||b|spa d</controlfield>
<datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
<subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
<subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
<subfield code="d">MAP</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
<subfield code="a">7</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
<subfield code="0">MAPA20130016443</subfield>
<subfield code="a">Tonn, Bruce</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
<subfield code="a">Evaluating methods for estimating existential risks</subfield>
<subfield code="c">Bruce Tonn</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
<subfield code="a">Researchers and commissions contend that the risk of human extinction is high, but none of these estimates have been based upon a rigorous methodology suitable for estimating existential risks. This article evaluates several methods that could be used to estimate the probability of human extinction. Traditional methods evaluated include: simple elicitation; whole evidence Bayesian; evidential reasoning using imprecise probabilities; and Bayesian networks. Three innovative methods are also considered: influence modeling based on environmental scans; simple elicitation using extinction scenarios as anchors; and computationally intensive possible-worlds modeling. Evaluation criteria include: level of effort required by the probability assessors; level of effort needed to implement the method; ability of each method to model the human extinction event; ability to incorporate scientific estimates of contributory events; transparency of the inputs and outputs; acceptability to the academic community (e.g., with respect to intellectual soundness, familiarity, verisimilitude); credibility and utility of the outputs of the method to the policy community; difficulty of communicating the method's processes and outputs to nonexperts; and accuracy in other contexts. The article concludes by recommending that researchers assess the risks of human extinction by combining these methods.</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
<subfield code="0">MAPA20080591182</subfield>
<subfield code="a">Gerencia de riesgos</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
<subfield code="0">MAPA20080591960</subfield>
<subfield code="a">Métodos de análisis</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
<subfield code="0">MAPA20080616106</subfield>
<subfield code="a">Cálculo de probabilidades</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
<subfield code="0">MAPA20080579982</subfield>
<subfield code="a">Desarrollo humano</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
<subfield code="0">MAPA20080603038</subfield>
<subfield code="a">Prevención de riesgos</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
<subfield code="0">MAPA20080554286</subfield>
<subfield code="a">Estimación</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
<subfield code="w">MAP20077000345</subfield>
<subfield code="t">Risk analysis : an international journal</subfield>
<subfield code="d">McLean, Virginia : Society for Risk Analysis, 1987-2015</subfield>
<subfield code="x">0272-4332</subfield>
<subfield code="g">07/10/2013 Volumen 33 Número 10 - octubre 2013 , p. 1772-1787</subfield>
</datafield>
</record>
</collection>