Catastrophe: Risk and Response and over 2 million other books are available for Amazon Kindle . Learn more
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Catastrophe: Risk and Response Hardcover – 2 Dec 2004


See all 3 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition
"Please retry"
Hardcover
"Please retry"
£46.92 £1.25

Trade In Promotion



Free One-Day Delivery for six months with Amazon Student


Product details

  • Hardcover: 332 pages
  • Publisher: OUP USA; First Edition, Second Printing edition (2 Dec 2004)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0195178130
  • ISBN-13: 978-0195178135
  • Product Dimensions: 23.6 x 3 x 15.7 cm
  • Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 304,192 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, and more.

Product Description

Review

...fascinating, disturbing, and neccessary... (Short Book Reviews, The International Statistical Institute)

About the Author

Richard A. Posner is a judge of the U.S. Court Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. He is the author of numerous books, including Overcoming Law, a New York Times Book Review editors' choices for best book of 1995 and An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton, one of Times' choices for Best Book of the Year in 1999 and a Los Angeles Times Book Prize Finalist, 2000.

Inside This Book (Learn More)
First Sentence
The 1918-1919 flu pandemic is a reminder that nature may yet do us in. Read the first page
Explore More
Concordance
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index
Search inside this book:

Customer Reviews

3.0 out of 5 stars
5 star
0
4 star
0
3 star
1
2 star
0
1 star
0
See the customer review
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

9 of 11 people found the following review helpful By Stephen A. Haines HALL OF FAME on 30 Jun 2005
Format: Hardcover
The cliche of fearing only those who are afraid surely holds true for this book. It's nearly a catastrophe in its own right. Posner, a judge, wants lawyers to sit in judgement of which research should go forward and which curtailed. He has lined up a string of threats we face in terms of "catastrophic" loss of human life. There are bolides cruising in space eager to smash into our planet and repeat on us what one did to the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Physicists tinkering with subatomic particles could trigger a reaction that would shrink the Earth to a sphere 100 metres across. "Bioterrorism" is the next thrust from "America's" off-shore enemies. What to do to counter this litany of disaster? He insists we need a policy to address each of them.
Posner analyses the various challenges to continued human existence. For each threat there is a "risk assessment" examining the probabilities of its occurring. From the assessment, there is a "cost-benefit" calculation to determine how much to spend to prevent the catastrophe. How likely is the impact of another asteroid extinguishing much or all of human life? How much need we spend to deflect it? What is the true cost of the Kyoto protocol? Posner puts dollar values on each of these in terms of likelihood of the event transpiring and the cost of countering it.
Significantly, Posner posits the threats and their solutions to his countrymen. These are "American" problems and must be dealt with in an "American" environment. He patronisingly grants some UN ageny involvement on a few issues, but these are limited to areas the UN is already dealing with or ones the USA has disdained. The British pre-emption of interest in rogue asteroid is given a nod, then passed over.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 10 reviews
17 of 22 people found the following review helpful
A Measured Approach to the Apocalypse 13 Nov 2004
By John Thorne - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
I'm a big fan of the judge's books, but this one differs from the prior books in the breadth and gravity of its topic: avoiding extinction.

The book has a gripping description of several such threats -- asteroids, bioterrorists, nuclear meltdown ("strangelets"), sudden global warming, loss of biodiversity. The book is worth buying for the description alone.

The core problem in dealing with these extinction threats is the need to incur large present costs for only speculative future benefits, where the beneficiaries of today's investments will be unknown to anyone living today. Democracies, run by politicians who get voted into office promising benefits to the current voters, can't make such farsighted investments for the benefit of people not yet living (or more precisely, not yet voting).

The best line in the book (near the beginning, so I don't think I'm spoiling it) is that there are probably many billions of stars with planets around them capable of supporting life. Life therefore probably originated independently on many millions of those planets, many of them probably much earlier than here on Earth. So why haven't we been contacted by any of the earlier, presumably more advanced other civilizations?
16 of 21 people found the following review helpful
Asks Important Questions, Needs Better Answers 19 Jan 2005
By Peter McCluskey - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Hardcover
This book does a very good job of arguing that humans are doing an inadequate job of minimizing the expected harm associated with improbable but major disasters such as asteroid strikes and sudden climate changes. He provides a rather thorough and unbiased summary of civilization-threatening risks, and a good set of references to the relevant literature.

I am disappointed that he gave little attention to the risks of AI. Probably his reason is that his expertise in law and economics will do little to address what is more of an engineering problem that is unlikely to be solved by better laws.

I suspect he's overly concerned about biodiversity loss. He tries to justify his concern by noting risks to our food chain that seem to depend on our food supply being less diverse than it is.

His solutions do little to fix the bad incentives which have prevented adequate preparations. The closest he comes to fixing them is his proposal for a center for catastrophic-risk assessment and response, which would presumably have some incentive to convince people of risks in order to justify its existence.

His criticisms of information markets (aka idea futures) ignore the best arguments on this subject. He attacks the straw man of using them to predict particular terrorist attacks, and ignores possibilities such as using them to predict whether invading Iraq would reduce or increase deaths due to terrorism over many years. And his claim that scientists need no monetary incentives naively ignores their bias to dismiss concerns about harm resulting from their research (bias which he notes elsewhere as a cause of recklessness).

His ambivalent comments about a science court convinced me that his version (and most others) would be too biased toward policies which serve the interests of scientific researchers. He claims that the most similar existing court has "not yielded convincing evidence that it is doing a better job with patent cases than the generalist federal appeals courts did", but Jaffe and Lerner's book Innovation and Its Discontents provides strong evidence that replacing generalist courts with a court devoted to patent appeals has caused disastrous special interest group domination of the U.S. patent system.

I doubt new courts are needed. Instead, existing courts should adopt rules that measure reputations of peer-reviewed papers to resolve scientific disputes (e.g. how often they're cited, and the reputation of the journal in which they're published). Also, expanding use of idea futures markets should prod whatever institutions that judge those contracts to address an increasing number of disputes that courts or court-like institutions deal with.

I have a number a smaller complaints:

He doesn't prove his claim that if the uncertainty about global warming is greater than Kyoto-supporters admit then their case is stronger. That would be true it were just a disagreement over the standard deviation of a temperature forecast, but an uncertainty over which model to use might say something else if Kyoto-supporters are biased to ignore models which predict stable temperatures.

He claims on page 22 "No one knows why the 1918-1919 [flu] pandemic was so lethal", but then indicates some awareness of Ewald's fairly compelling argument that the causes are understood, and avoiding a repetition of this disaster is simply a matter of spreading the right knowledge.

He claims on page 117 that "primitive nanotech assemblers have been built, as we saw in chapter 1", yet I can't find anything in chapter 1 that indicates what this apparently false claim refers to.

He does a poor job of dealing with arguments against giving international agencies more power. He seems to think concern over sovereignty is based primarily on issues of relative power of nations. One effect that he ignores is that having many small governments allows people to choose between competing ones, but a single central government has the problems associated with monopoly power.

He underestimates the value of absolutist strategies for preserving civil rights (he prefers a case-by-case analysis) because he reasons as if people could be perfectly rational. If instead he realized that people have at best bounded rationality, he would realize that slippery slope arguments provide some support for an absolutist strategy. Also, he seems to underestimate the extent to which governments restrict liberty to enhance their own power rather than to fight evil.
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
The Greatest Problems of the 21st Century...Solved! 5 Mar 2007
By JBS - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
With the emerging trends in healthcare, many of today's young children will be alive in 2100. This would be a remarkable achievement.

Then again, sometime in the next 100 years perhaps the entire human race including all today's children will die violent deaths.

In Catastrophe, US Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner shows that humanity enters the 21st century with a greater chance of annihilation than at any time in human history. Mankind faces new perils that our institutions are not addressing.

Posner does not just warn of dangers. He proposes solutions we can enact today that would reduce risk and improve world security for the next 100 years.

His facts are well researched; his analysis is well thought out. Unfortunately, his writing is heavy. He uses large amounts of hard science, legal theory, and economic analysis.

His major theme is that rapid scientific progress has created perils that our leaders are not addressing.

In a short book, he addresses a large number of doomsday scenarios that would otherwise require years of study.

None of the risks he discusses are likely to happen this year or in any particular year. However, as a group they pose a disturbing risk when looked at over a hundred years.

He collects these horrific events into four groups

1) Natural disasters - This includes asteroids striking the earth, pandemic disease, and huge volcanoes and earthquakes. These have always been around and have caused mass destruction in the past.

The other risks are new to the 21st century.

2) Perils caused by Economic Growth - This includes global warming, resource depletion, loss of biodiversity, and population growth. Posner looks critically at each.

3) Scientific Accidents - These include accidents with robots, artificial intelligence, robotic war machines, genetically modified crops, nanotechnology, and particle accelerators, These all sound like science fiction but Posner uses credible evidence to paint scenarios on how each could destroy the entire human race.

4) Intentional catastrophes - These include nuclear war, biological terror, cyber terror, surveillance, concealment, and encryption. His discussion of biological terror is especially disturbing. He cites evidence that nations, terrorist groups, or even crazed Unabomber type individuals may soon be able to create life forms that can kill billions of people.

This is frightening but Posner does not stop here. He proposes solutions we can work on today to reduce the risk of each catastrophe.

His solutions attempt to reduce each hazard while impairing our current standard of living as little as possible. Each proposal is painful and will disturb many people.

1) Fiscal solutions - He proposes increasing taxes and spending on science to address natural disasters and global warming. He uses economic tools to show that our current policies are inadequate to address these risks. His solutions will lead to a reduced standard of living for all of us.

2) Regulatory solutions -These include an international EPA, specialized science courts, a center for catastrophic risk assessment and response, an international bio-weaponry agency, and catastrophic risk review of new projects. They require international cooperation to work. These proposals will be controversial because they would require national governments like the US, Russia, and China to obey international agencies like the UN. How likely is this?

3) Reduction of civil liberties - As a judge, Posner is careful to defend the US tradition of human rights. However he questions whether the civil liberties of Western societies can continue.

With nuclear or bio-terror, we cannot afford to allow a single mistake. One crazed person can kill millions or perhaps all of us. Given this threat, should we restrict the right of unstable persons to learn dangerous technologies? Can we extend a right to privacy to people with the know how to develop viruses that can kill the entire human race? Should we profile people from certain areas of the world? Does free speech allow us to publish how to make nuclear weapons? Is there a role for torture and threats to families? Being a judge, he explains these ideas clearly and soberly.

4) Education - Posner's solutions are weakest in this areas. He does not trust generalist judges to adjudicate any case involving scientific matters but proposes a special court with judges trained in science.

In an early chapter he shows how the scientific ignorance of some people and the obsession with scientific progress of others work together to make these risks worse. However, he does not recommend improved science education for Presidents, legislators, journalists, or the general public--only judges.

Most important he does not recommend changing science education to emphasize the dangers and ethical responsibilities of scientists. Is it not important for everyone trained in science to understand the danger of what they could achieve and the responsibility to abide by ethical standards? Posner does not mention this.

In a short book, Judge Posner has done an outstanding service in explaining the most important issues confronting us in the 21st century and how they can be solved. However, his ideas should be viewed as intial ideas to stir a public debate not as final solutions. For our children's sake, I encourage everyone to do the heavy research needed to read the book and become active in working toward the best solutions.
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
OK Survey, but focused for attorneys & politicos 23 Dec 2006
By Jasper Walker - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Hardcover
I purchased the book looking for interesting insights on catastrophes. I have to say I did not expand my knowledge of catastrophes much by reading the book. I did expand my knowledge of the relation between our legal/political systems and catastrophic defense/scientific research.

I thought Posner did a good job surveying different catastrophes and assigning rough estimations to them. However, I felt the key point of his book was promoting more attorneys learning about science so an intelligent discusssion could be made. I agree with the point...but it was such a recurring theme, it became dull for me, since I am not an attorney.

I had not read a book by Posner before. He is a judge, and I felt it read like a judge wrote it. I.e. in most areas he was very careful to be impartial. But then occasionally he would make a blanket opinion without any substantiation and move on as if he had proved some point. You can see examples of this in the other reviews below. I'll only point out I had different examples.

If you are soft skinned, conservative and liberal alike will probably find points of offense in the book. And I guess that is what surprised me the most, that this is a political book, not a scientific one.
An academic way to talk about the end of the world 17 Jun 2008
By Thomas M. Magee - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
This is a very interesting book but it didn't quite grab me. It is a very academic book, almost like a text book. This book would make a better lecture. Most of his meat in the book comes from economic cost benefit analysis. That information probably comes across better in a lecture.

First the author lays out various threats to not only the country but to the world. He does donate a lot to the end of the world stuff like an asteroid hitting the earth. Then he talks a lot about how to express that danger. He also goes into how to express that risk. That is an interesting thing. The expression of the risk helps society express the worth of solutions. The author goes into standard explanation of present value vs. future value. His method of explaining that response is really interesting. For example he explains how society puts a price value on lives.

His last chapter is a departure of the book style. He has some interesting solutions. Those solutions is a big departure for a judge, but nothing to radical.
Were these reviews helpful? Let us know


Feedback