Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
The Military

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Predicts Humankind Won't Survive Another 50 Years (livescience.com) 167

Posted by EditorDavid from the doomsday-clock dept.
Live Science spoke with physicist David Gross, who today received the $3 million "Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics". He was part of a trio that won the 2004 physics Nobel prize for research that helped complete the Standard Model of particle physics. But when asked if physics will reach a unified theory of the fundamental forces of nature within 50 years, Gross has a surprising answer. "Currently, I spend part of my time trying to tell people... that the chances of you living 50 [more] years are very small."

Cold War estimates for a 1% chance of nuclear war each year seem low, Gross says. "The chances are more likely 2%. So that's a 1-in-50 chance every year." David Gross: The expected lifetime, in the case of 2% [per year], is about 35 years. [The expected lifetime is the average time it would take to have had a nuclear war by then. It is calculated using similar equations as those used to determine the "half-life" of a radioactive material.]

Live Science: So what do you suggest as remedies to lower that risk?

Gross: We had something called the Nobel Laureate Assembly for reducing the risk of nuclear war in Chicago last year. There are steps, which are easy to take — for nations, I mean. For example, talk to each other. In the last 10 years, there are no treaties anymore. We're entering an incredible arms race.

We have three super nuclear powers. People are talking about using nuclear weapons; there's a major war going on in the middle of Europe; we're bombing Iran; India and Pakistan almost went to war. OK, so that's increased the chance [of nuclear war]. I would really like to have a solid estimate — it might be more, and I think I'm being conservative — but a 2% estimate [of nuclear war] in today's crazy world.

Live Science: Do you think we'll ever get to a place where we get rid of nuclear weapons?

Gross: We're not recommending that. That's idealistic, but yes, I hope so. Because if you don't, there's always some risk an AI 100 years from now [could launch nuclear weapons], but chances of [humanity] living, with this estimate, 100 years, is very small, and living 200 years is infinitesimal. So [the answer to] Fermi's question of "Where are the civilizations, all the intelligent organisms around the galaxy, and why don't they talk to us?" is that they've killed themselves...

There are now nine nuclear powers. Even three is infinitely more complicated than two. The agreements, the norms between countries, are all falling apart. Weapons are getting crazier. Automation, and perhaps even AI, will be in control of those instruments pretty soon... It's going to be very hard to resist making AI make decisions because it acts so fast.
He points out that with the threat of climate change, "people have done something," even though "It's a much harder argument to make than about nuclear weapons.

"We made them; we can stop them."

Thanks to hwstar (Slashdot reader #35,834) for sharing the article.

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Predicts Humankind Won't Survive Another 50 Years More | Reply

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Predicts Humankind Won't Survive Another 50 Years

Comments Filter:

  • Auto Mechanic doesn't like latest symphony (Score:5, Funny)

    by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Sunday April 19, 2026 @06:00PM (#66101820)
    -criticizes "strings don't sound right or somethin." He's a very good auto mechanic.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by outsider007 ( 115534 )

      Wait, you're saying the guy who won a prize for fundamental physics isn't qualified to weigh in on nuclear weapons? Because who the fuck is in that case?

      • The people that might actually deploy them.

      • Re:Auto Mechanic doesn't like latest symphony (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Sunday April 19, 2026 @06:48PM (#66101916) Homepage Journal

        Well, there is a difference between understanding how nuclear weapons work, and understanding the global political environment (not to mention the elements of human psychology that help shape it). Making predictions about whether or not there will be a nuclear war anytime soon would be better left to focus groups consisting of political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists.

        I, for one, am not an expert in any of these fields, so I am nowhere near qualified to weigh in. That, of course, won't inhibit me at all.

        Genetically speaking, modern humans are no more enlightened than the warmongering war criminals that led the world during the dark ages. We are not intrinsically more moral or more concerned about others, etc. The only difference is the technological landscape we are in. Not just the presence of nuclear weapons, but also the communication technologies that have tied the entire world together and produced a much more aware populace. This creates new political pressures and new incentives to make different choices than our recent ancestors would have (but again, morality is not a factor. It's still just a matter of incentives and consequences).

        The concept of mutually-assured destruction is not very noble, but it is very real, and it is effective at staying the hands of the world's nuclear powers (at least somewhat). And this is also nothing new, as it has always been true of humans that the most effective deterrent to violence is a credible threat of devastating retaliatory violence (insane people excepted, of course).

        So, with that in mind, our best short term option is to ensure that world leaders are sane enough to understand this mutually-assured destruction risk. This isn't a judgment about their morality or even their loyalty (as those things are too easy to lie about) but about their mental grasp of their situation. So long as they all know how that war would end all life on our planet, they probably won't start it. This also means ensuring that any country that cannot produce leaders at this level of sanity must be proactively prevented from attaining nuclear weapons by intrusive actions on the part of the greater world powers.

        Unfortunately, there isn't any way to guarantee the sanity of the leaders of any country. Democracy sure doesn't do it (it's just a popularity contest and insane people can still win great popularity among the voting masses), and dictatorship sure doesn't do it either.

        I was going to add a bit about countries forming alliances with each other and such, but that feels secondary to the main point about sane leadership, which we have no way to ensure.

        So, in short, we are doomed.

        • As with my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."
          https://pdfernhout.net/recogni... [pdfernhout.net]
          "Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into spa

        • > (insane people excepted, of course)

          Too bad when they have their finger hovering.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          So long as they all know how that war would end all life on our planet, they probably won't start it.

          I don't believe this is accurate. It assumes that because I am dying I am going to kill you out of spite. If I am resigned to the fact that me and mine are doomed, I very well might decide that I would in fact rather humanity go on even if it is those where my enemies than to simple kill everyone.

          I think actually there is quite a bit of evidence some degree of altruism is hardwired into humans, once our own genetic future isn't a consideration we are not actually given to wanton destruction of all possible

          • I think actually there is quite a bit of evidence some degree of altruism is hardwired into humans

            I had a friend who was an ICBM launch officer. He turns his key, (and a few other things happen), and millions of people die. I asked him if he got the order, would he turn his key. He said yes.

            I asked him if there were any officers who, given an order, would decline to turn their key. He said there were a few, but most of them were washed out by the system.

            When it's your "duty" to turn your key and kill millions because *reasons*, and you agree to do it...it doesn't give me much hope for humanity. With

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DarkOx ( 621550 )

              but you're not dealing with where those orders come from or setting the stage when you pose that question.

              There is underlying assumption that if the order is received there is a point to it, that it could win war. If that person knew the enemy missiles were already in flight, would not be intercepted, and nobody they know personally or care about will see the sun come up tomorrow would they still turn the key and kill millions more people - just to get even..?

              It really is a very different question. Now ima

              • There is underlying assumption that if the order is received there is a point to it, that it could win war. If that person knew the enemy missiles were already in flight, would not be intercepted, and nobody they know personally or care about will see the sun come up tomorrow would they still turn the key and kill millions more people - just to get even..?

                That's my point - the person turning the key has no way to know this information. All they know is they have a received a legitimate order to turn the key. And, without any additional thought, they do. And in the near future both the order and the key may be controlled by AI.

                Doomed.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Well, there is a difference between understanding how nuclear weapons work, and understanding the global political environment (not to mention the elements of human psychology that help shape it).

          I see that a lot, e.g. people saying Ukraine should not have given up its weapons. What would Ukraine have done with them? Nuke Moscow, get nuked back, and now everyone is dead and their country is a radioactive wasteland? And that's the best case scenario, where they don't start WW3 and get everywhere nuked.

          It would have been the same conventional war that they got without nuclear weapons. You can safely ignore Putin's threats to use them too.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hodr ( 219920 )

        That's a dumb take. To go back to the car analogy, that's like saying the auto mechanic should be "the expert" for who is most likely to be involved in an auto accident, when the actual experts are insurance adjusters.

        The people who should be most qualified to determine if we will have a nuclear holocaust would be some combination of political scientist, nuclear armaments expert, and military strategist.

        That said, I think this guy is trying to get people to buy his book or something because his "fear" is no

        • Re:Auto Mechanic doesn't like latest symphony (Score:4, Insightful)

          by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Sunday April 19, 2026 @08:53PM (#66102094)

          Even if this led to "nuclear winter" and impacted the ability to grow crops leading to famine, you are still looking at less than 50% mortality.

          I'm so comforted by your analysis.

          Of course, most people would be unprepared to survive without the technological support structures they've depended on all their lives. What happens when you can't buy food at the grocery and the heat doesn't turn on? The blasts would only be the beginning. Some people would survive, but society as we know it today would not.

          • I'm gonna put my faith in the Scandinavians. Firstly, they live quite far North, and whilst close to (say) Russia, aren't a direct target of very much. As such, I'd say their odds of getting directly hit are small, and even smaller if you consider the sizes of their countries and population centres etc.

            Also, the Scandinavian nations are generally pretty quiet on the world stage. They don't go picking fights, but they do what they need to when the time comes. This all keeps on reducing the likelihood of bein

      • He's very qualified to weigh in on the mechanics of how the weapons function. Weighing in on the politics of why they might be used, not so much.

      • The major uncertainty here isn't in the fundamental physics part of the equation, it's in the international politics part, and other areas like human power dynamics. A fundamental physics expert is probably considerably smarter than the average guy about these topics, but it's not actually their area of special expertise.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Nuclear war, not nuclear weapons. If you want a yield calculation he can probably do it, although he'd have to look up the formula because he's not a nuclear physicist, never mind a weapons engineer. But the story is about the chances of nuclear war, which is mostly a political thing. He thinks 1% per year kinda feels too low, so make it 2% and proceed to extrapolate.

        Never mind that a nuclear war wouldn't end humankind anyway.

    • Re:Auto Mechanic doesn't like latest symphony (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday April 19, 2026 @06:44PM (#66101908)
      I mean to be fair predicting the human race is going to end within 50 years isn't exactly amazing Kreskin territory.

      We put a has been game show host with a long history of crimes and rapes and pedophilia in charge of the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet and he tried to invade another country, made a fool of himself and his country, and he is still polling at over 40%.

      Meanwhile half the planet thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old and that climate change is a hoax by big science.

      I don't see how we make it out of that kind of a mess. If we didn't have nukes sure. But sooner or later some religious lunatic is going to get their grubby little paws on those things and it's game over.

      • While I completely agree with you on Trump, that's still a long ways from a situation that would end the human race. Even if nuclear weapons were used in war, that is *still* a long ways from ending the human race. In a nightmare scenario that could result in thousands of nuclear weapons being deployed against civilian targets, the very political structure of our nations would begin to disintegrate. This could lead to anarchy, but still, a far cry from extinction.

      • ... get their grubby little paws ...

        So a leader with a "history of crimes and rapes", plus literally promising genocide, isn't the problem you want us to think it is?

        Religious types attack their neighbour: Israel is the shining example of this. Also, the anti-abortion terrorists in the southern USA. How likely, a religious leader is to suicide by nuclear war, I can't say. But most of them show a decided preference for benefiting from the misery of others, not themselves dying.

      • Meanwhile half the planet thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old and that climate change is a hoax by big science.

        Half the US maybe. Half the planet, I doubt it.

        • Adding to your argument:
          This "young earth" movement is an overblown internet phenomenon. The list of adhering Churches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] are all in the US (though one of them -- Seventh-day Adventist has some million followers outside of the US).

          Several Popes commented on the Big Bang as a canonical theory; the age of Earth does not play a role in Islam; and Hinduism defends a world ancient in millions of years https://www.hindu-blog.com/201... [hindu-blog.com] Adding all of the non-bullshit reformed Christi

    • Re:Auto Mechanic doesn't like latest symphony (Score:4, Funny)

      by ebunga ( 95613 ) on Sunday April 19, 2026 @09:40PM (#66102162)

      Weirdly enough, my mechanic plays cello for the local symphony.

  • I bet he won't be around another 50 years.

  • Such long-term thinking (Score:5, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Sunday April 19, 2026 @06:14PM (#66101848)

    Many of use are just worried about the next 2.5 years. (*sigh*)

  • Nothing new (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DrMrLordX ( 559371 )

    Hasn't the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists been making similar predictions for decades now?

  • Miscalibrated (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sparkatron ( 9576242 ) on Sunday April 19, 2026 @06:54PM (#66101932)
    If your "nuclear clock" has been at one minute to midnight for 75 years, the clock is mis-calibrated. That none of the world's conflicts since 1947 have resulted in ANY use of nuclear weapons, shows that the chance of a future nuclear conflict is virtually zero.

  • Pseudoscience. The "probability" is meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Sunday April 19, 2026 @07:10PM (#66101950)

    if it is being used to predict the outcome of a single event. Statistics 101.

    And that is even assuming you can even make anything other than a wild-ass-guess about this probability.

    Looks like some physicists are just as capable of mistaking quantitative statements for authoritative and/or meaningful statements as anyone is.

    • The "probability" is meaningless if it is being used to predict the outcome of a single event. Statistics 101.

      If that's the case, the next time you play Russian roulette, why don't you go ahead and put in 5 bullets?

    • I agree. Putting a hard estimate of 2% (or whatever) on a single event just serves to make one seem less credible to people who understand probability and statistics. It's a manipulation tactic to make one seem like a credible expert to people who don't.

      Even if the estimate seems reasonable, it's absurd to claim a specific probability for complicated future outcomes like "nuclear war".

    • Spotted the frequentist. More serious comment: If someone offered you an even bet on one side for $10 that next year Jesus's Second Coming will occur, I'm pretty sure you would take the side of it not happening, even though that's a single event. If they made the same offer for first contact with intelligent aliens, you would do the same. And I can list many similar examples. So you are able to make estimates about probabilities for events which will only occur once, based on your evidence and world models

      • I don't gamble because I do understand probability and statistics.

        I don't take silly bets because I don't like humoring people who don't understand probability and statistics or reality in general. I work for my money, same as any honest person does. And when I give my professional opinion on anything, I back it with measured data or proven theory. Not a guesstimate of someone else's mental state at some future time.

        • Thank you for completely avoiding and missing the point. Reread the comment. If you prefer imagine a world where you gamble. Or instead imagine a friend who was could make either one of these bets. There's one side of the bet where if they took it, you'd likely consider them to be an absolute idiot and the other one where you'd see them as functionally getting free money. So the idea that you cannot estimate a probability for an event that is only going to happen once is just wrong.

    • It seems a tad doubtful you understand much of Statistics 101, since you seemingly fail at basic reading comprehension. Unlike you, this guy does understand it, as can be seen from the fact that he speaks about probabilities, not certainties. Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps you need a refresher? This is basic survival analysis after all.

      And that is even assuming you can even make anything other than a wild-ass-guess about this probability.

      This is about the only thing you are vaguely meaningful about. He probably has some kind of model in mind for estimating that 2%. It can be reasonably accu

  • Hold my beer...

  • Looks like I need to dig that older beater 68 GTO out of my grandfather's barn and get to welding some serious metal to it. Shit, I have no idea how to install a blower on an engine.

  • Remember Murphy's Law (Score:4, Informative)

    by InterGuru ( 50986 ) <interguru@@@gmail...com> on Sunday April 19, 2026 @08:19PM (#66102050)
    Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. We came damn close during the Cold War when the actions of a few people stopped accidental launchings.

  • We are full of ourselves aren't we. Humanity doesn't have the capability to destroy itself in a fiery mess. We don't have the ability to destroy the world. If we go BOOM, somewhere some people will continue living in the same prehistoric manner that they are today. If by the greatest of luck we do wipe ourselves out, the Earth will endure, and new species will evolve into the gap we left behind.

  • Sounds about right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Sunday April 19, 2026 @08:46PM (#66102092)

    I hope he's wrong, but I think he's likely to turn out right. I'm not saying every last human will die, and I'm not saying 50 years is the right timeframe. But the odds of modern society surviving long term in anything like its current form are low.

    Climate change is the ticking time bomb. Again and again we've proven unable to address it, and we're still not addressing it today. I have to conclude we likely never will, or not until it's too late. And that will destabilize everything. What do you think will happen when rising sea level drives 100 million people from their homes? When killer heat waves make parts of the Middle East uninhabitable? When the AMOC collapses and makes much of northern Europe uninhabitable? People will be desperate, and desperate people do stupid things, often involving killing each other. Throw nuclear weapons into the ring and I'm not optimistic.

    It doesn't have to be like that. We just need to stop burning fossil fuels. We already have the technology. We just need to choose to do it. And nothing is stopping us from eliminating nuclear weapons except us. We are the problem. We know what we need to do, but we seem incapable of doing it.

    • > I hope he's wrong,

      I hope he's wrong too. Even one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.

      • Even one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.

        Only if you get hit. The issue isn't one or two nukes. We've had that before in WWII, and there have been a lot of test nukes detonated around the world after.

        The issue is that the main nuclear powers have a lot of nukes pointed at each other in a chain reaction, and the people in those countries today don't have the moral fibre and courage that their grandparents generation had.

        So if the crazies MAD each other out, the rich part of the world will be destr

  • Not your fuckin' wheelhouse, pal (Score:3)

    by T34L ( 10503334 ) on Sunday April 19, 2026 @08:55PM (#66102096)

    Nobel laureates making authoritative claims about fields that they don't have credentials in should be viewed no more worthwhile than opinions of actors, musical performers or literal actual circus clowns.

    The field of physics does very little to equip you for understanding human behavior, in fact, it teaches you a lot of approaches and methods of thinking that fail horribly as soon as a human factor is involved. I'd argue that excellent physicists are on average gonna be at disadvantage when trying to analyze something as irrational as human behavior.

    The pervasive notion that [award affirmed smart person] has some takes on [things they know very little about] and thus those opinions need to be plastered on the front pages is very destructive. That said, it shouldn't be surprising, as lot of the commonly plastered opinions come from certified all-around-stupid people too.

  • Smart people think they know everything.

    Neurosurgeons should not be hired to heart surgery - let alone accounting.

    Similarly PhD's should not make predictions outside their field.

    Gross's opinion that "1% chance of nuclear war is really worse than 2%" is not better than the people that actually said 1%, it is far worse. He does not have the training to make that decision.

    His logic is no better than him thinking he could do heart surgery after reading about it on the internet.

    Disclaimer as I am over 50, he is

  • This is very boring and tired. The same people have been trotting this same doomsday scenario since the 1950s. North Korea aside, taking out Iran's capabilities has lowered the risk. Once we find out where the uranium came from, the bad actors will be exposed and dealt with.

  • If you give up your nuclear weapons, the next greedy sociopath to lead a neighboring nuclear power is going to kill you.

    If you have nuclear weapons and are self-sufficient in critical areas, and you don't go around making enemies every time you open your mouth, you're fine.

    Pakistan and India haven't nuked each other, because the people in control of the weapons want to live. If only one of them had nukes, the other would be gone by now.

    • Yep. Ukraine, Europe (minus France), Palestine, Iran, Cuba, and Taiwan better expedite underground and delivery vehicle testing if they want to be respected by other belligerent neocolonial kakistocracies and authoritarian regimes. The rules-based international order pretense that nominally existed has largely evaporated.
  • All our worries about global warming making parts of the world uninhabitable in 75 years can now go away, if we won't live 50 years. So all the money that is being spent to decarbonize the economy of worried wealthy countries (because countries like China and India aren't seeking to decarbonize, but to generate energy every possible way) can instead be turned to other purposes. What would you spend all the money on if you knew we'd all be gone in 50 years?

    • Re:In that case Climate Change is not a problem (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Sunday April 19, 2026 @10:49PM (#66102220)

      >What would you spend all the money on if you knew we'd all be gone in 50 years?

      I think this is one of those really character revealing questions if you can get an honest answer from someone. Most of us will be dead in 50 years no matter what, but you're probably not living like that's all that matters. Even while you're alive, you should probably give a shit about your fellow human beings and the quality of their lives.

      If you're response is, "what the hell, let's burn it all down" then you're probably not a great person to know. I'd like to keep things going at least as nice as they are until I'm gone, and I think it's not the worst idea to try and help others have a decent life too.

      On the other hand, if your response is, "Well, we probably shouldn't invest in anything that takes more that 50 years to return value", that I can get behind.

  • People like this who are "experts" whose words will get hyped all over the place and be given extra credibility by the mass media have a terrible impact on decent human beings, and thus upon society itself; they do more long-term damage than any good they do.

    How so?

    Simple: When you tell a generation of young people that the world will be ending on their watch, do you know what they do? Some of the best of them, who are bright, healthy, well-meaning, etc (the sort who would contribute to society and make th

    • > This "Nobel Prize winner" is a class-A jerk who is going to cause a bunch of people a lot of unhappiness

      Sure, because it's the guy saying "careful, we're about to blow ourselves up" that's "going to cause unhappiness", not the fucktark who hovers their finger above the button... *facepalm*

  • There's absolutely no way to "measure" the risk but we know these risks are greater than in the past.

    Rather than use bullshit arbitrary probabilities or dramatic, meaningless clocks, it would better to develop a structured and logical scale built upon consistent, deep analysis.
  • if the chances have been between 1-2 % over the last 80 years, we should have already nuked ourselves, more likely twice, according to his math.
  • Even a 2% chance of nuclear winter every year means just that. A 2% chance any given year. Each year is an independent statistic. It doesn’t mean two years is 4%. Ten years is 20%. And fifty years is 100%.

    This is just proof that just because someone understands one complicated concept that doesn’t mean they understand a different one.
    • "Each year is an independent statistic." I believe Dr. Gross was hinting that the probabilities are NOT independent. I'm surely no foreign-policy/statistics expert ---  I observe His comment comparing nuclear war ( only one ) probability to nuclear decay ( large number limit ) points to co-dependent features. 

  • "Currently, I spend part of my time trying to tell people... that the chances of you living 50 [more] years are very small.""

    I'm 70, so I know.

  • I'd take that bet.
  • So the profits now always predict something that will occur past their lifetime.

  • I suppose he must be a strong Trump supporter, since Trump is working to remove nuclear weapon capabilities from Iran.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by whitroth ( 9367 )

      ROTFLMAO!
      He murdered the old Ayatollah, who had written two fatwahs *against* nuclear weapons. His son, the new one, writes that things have changed, so Iran *does* need nukes.

      Great first step...

Slashdot Top Deals

The first sign of maturity is the discovery that the volume knob also turns to the left.

Close