World risk - global

[Lorence.xD]

I think it's already there as "cybersecurity failure".

That's also one of those diamonds that looks like it's both too high and too low and should probably be split into finance and other infrastructure.

It can still be restored because there is still electricity, to me, I would say that if we lost electricity then we will essentially go back to stone age.

The scale makes absolutely no sense. How do weapons of mass destruction have a lower impact compared to the pandemic?

Well, most WMD aren't going to get armed anytime soon compared to pandemic. I mean we can prevent wars via diplomacy but pandemic is something that occurs in nature. Not to mention that WMD will kill us all in one fell swoop while pandemic does the opposite.

[Lucius]

I rank the nuclear war at the same risk, close to zero compared with the others, and my argument would be that in the last 70 years with nukes on our had none got used in a real war, even when things were far more serious like Korea or Vietnam or close to a war like Cuba, as for the rest to a smaller or greater degree they already happened and some not just once.

I was thinking more of the use of other types of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological, which could fall into the wrong hands - and it is possible that a nuclear attack with a home-made bomb can happen at any time. States are very cautious on this issue because they know that any attack will provoke a sharp counterattack and that no one emerges victorious from a nuclear war.

You must be familiar with the movie The Peacemaker, so even though it’s just a movie, if anyone had the desire to do it, I believe it would be feasible today. Of course, the question is how to get to the most important components - but given what is happening in Russia - Russian 'doomsday' plane's radio equipment stolen by thieves, I think anything can be bought or stolen for the right price.

The fact is that there is a huge amount of weapons of mass destruction, and that is a huge risk given that there are always those who would be happy to use them against their enemies.

[Ultegra134]

The scale makes absolutely no sense. How do weapons of mass destruction have a lower impact compared to the pandemic?

Seems as if they just plotted a bunch of potential events arbitrarily along the axes.

It's interesting that they rank "asset bubble burst" as both a more likely and serious event compared to public infrastructure failure, though. Whilst the equities markets are indeed going to be very prone to collapse at such heights, it's barely even in the same neighbourhood of influence as if electricity suddenly went out worldwide.

I get what you are saying, but my guess would be that weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear bombs etc) can be avoided/stopped if such an event is close to happen while an infectious pandemic can hardly be controlled. Any measures to constrain a disease might be uncertain and won't have an immediate effect. Take SARS for instance, it is one of the successful attempts in disease control, although it still affected thousands.

[just_Alice]

The scale makes absolutely no sense. How do weapons of mass destruction have a lower impact compared to the pandemic?

Up until recently, I guess, nobody realized what a big impact a pandemic can have on the world economy. A couple of years ago they probably wouldn't put it that high on a scale. But weapons of mass destruction, come to think of it, may not have such a big impact, as a pandemic.
Whoever intends to use weapons of mass destruction would use it locally, probably just as a tool for threat and intimidation, to show the power and seriousness. But there's no point in wiping out half of the planet, everyone knows that. So this would probably end in millions of people dying, local disaster, but, as cynically as it may sound, the world would carry on and nothing would happen on a global scale. While the pandemic affects all of the countries at once.

[verita1]

Now that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are doing a good role in the economy and it has attracted the attention of some institutions and I am sure that more will come to join.
Climate change is a latent problem that as well as we support the digital assets that we represent, it is also our problem to give our contribution in search of the solution to reduce these problems by demanding the use of environmentally friendly energy.


Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk agree on bitcoin's green credentials

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/technology-56844813.amp

[Obito]

I'd put it near the asset bubble burst. Though bitcoin saw a lot of crashes through the years, it's no denying that a lot of people right now are getting involved in the digital currency.

I think that it is the appropriate place but considering the damage that it can do, I am sure that when this happens, a lot of things are going to devastated and it will take a long time before we can recover to this even if bitcoin was to go back up.

[mdgabrielzim]

I may be mistaken but before we suffer from the extreme weather we are going to suffer from super bacteria and viruses. The covid is a clear example of this, in a short time it spread and in months the whole world was at a standstill.

[Xinarae*]

I may be mistaken but before we suffer from the extreme weather we are going to suffer from super bacteria and viruses. The covid is a clear example of this, in a short time it spread and in months the whole world was at a standstill.

I agree that the whole world may come to a standstill because the economy is hampered by the epidemic. The history of the epidemic is as old as human civilization infectious diseases have spread to certain areas at different times sometimes worldwide which is hurting the economy of the poor in addition to the corona virus various diseases have taken the form of epidemics at different times. Climate is also a risk for the global economy.

[Nhazwrath]

For those unfamiliarised, this is a risk quadrant depicting the world level risks. How important the risk is is based on how likely is to materialise (likelyhood or frequency) and how bad is it (impact or severity).

For example something that is likely to happen and is disastrous will be on the top right corner. Risks that are unusual but terrible would be top left. In the inforgraphics you can see how climate change is quite likely and has severe consequences whereas weapons of mass destruction are less likely and even just equally as bad.

Now, where would you place the risk of a bitcoin hack o network problem in your finances and in the world finances?

I am going to have to disagree with some of those choices simply due to the "cried wolf syndrome"    and massive media hype.  I will point to the global warming(originally global cooling(look it up!)) as a primary example of OMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE hype for the last 40 years.   Exactly zero percent of the climate crisis has resolved. All previous prediction have come and gone and all have been not only wrong but just flat out lies.  (BELIEVE THE SCIENCE!)   Actually.  That's not how science works.  Its the skeptics that make the advances generally. Science attempts to disprove itself that's literally how it works

This economic problem we currently have with the least deadly pandemic ever is entirely due to massive incompetence and yet more media hype.   That isn't to say there wont be a real problem in the future.  Just look back and see how badly handled the mild pandemic was =>

Nuclear weapons numbers have dropped from 65,000 city killers to only a stunning 9,000 city killers worldwide.  so yah that's a positive..  sorta... I also don't think that number is truthful if you built nukes would YOU tell people how many you had?  Cooler heads (even if they are greedy buggers) are more common now.

In any case, I don't think that map is accurate and some of it isn't even real.  like the "backlash against science"  BS, its Backlash against BS science. 

[amishmanish]

Things that humans do. We refuse to act collectively on climate change but agree on reports that flag these concerns on top. I can see there are quite a few deniers in the forum itself but their opinions don't matter. What is surprising is that although the most powerful people are judging fossil-fuel related climate change as catastrophic, there is very little that actually happens on the ground. A lot keeps getting said about renewables but biggest consumers like China continue to burn coal. Hence, imo, this risk analysis really has no utility except being an academic curiosity.

It isn't even that well thought of. For example, the impact of "mental health deterioration" is lower than that of "price instability" or "industrial collapse". If every person on earth was to suffer from mental health issues, lose their efficiency and become a bit sadder in general, these people judge that it wouldn't have the same impact as industry collapse. I feel that it is a reflection of values that we now hold dear as a consumerist, capitalist society.

Consumption, Industry and economics is more important that human happiness and mental stability. Such times.

[stompix]

I was thinking more of the use of other types of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological, which could fall into the wrong hands - and it is possible that a nuclear attack with a home-made bomb can happen at any time.
~
The fact is that there is a huge amount of weapons of mass destruction, and that is a huge risk given that there are always those who would be happy to use them against their enemies.

I didn't deny the possibility of it happening, of course it's possible but there was a ranking in here and that was my argument for it, no attack has ever happened, if we ignorer small scale one like the one in Japan with the Aum sect for half a century while the others are happening frequently. There is a hurricane season every year, there are catastrophic tsumanis and earthquakes happening if not yearly at least every 4-5,  and while some attacks or war can be prevented you can't stop earthquakes and there is nothing that can be done with economic and politically cycles either.

Of course, it's possible we might have one such event even next month but the chances are pretty slim while for extreme weather, how is that a possibility, we have it already. On that scale of 1:5 which is even linear, I would have rated it under 1, as the poll for it was for:
Existential threats Long-term risks (5 – 10 years)
These happening 5 - 10 years from now on? No!

[goldade]

Personally, I'd say the most critical risk of bitcoin is cybersecurity failure. Cybersecurity failure, if it happens, will not necessarily be targeted at bitcoin. It's something that'll affect the whole Internet and since bitcoin is on the Internet, it will be affected and this may be the end of bitcoin.
However,  just the chart showed, it is highly improbable compared to other financial risks and this means that it would takes years if not decades before this will happen.

[iphone5s]

I'd put it near the asset bubble burst. Though bitcoin saw a lot of crashes through the years, it's no denying that a lot of people right now are getting involved in the digital currency.

I think that it is the appropriate place but considering the damage that it can do, I am sure that when this happens, a lot of things are going to devastated and it will take a long time before we can recover to this even if bitcoin was to go back up.

Maybe it will be a clear recovery this year to see people still holding out to invest in Bitcoin and other virtual currencies. But with catastrophic factors such as Covid-19, bitcoin has increased from the end of 2020 to the present. Maybe people are starting to be afraid to go out and find food by investing in crypto.

[AicecreaME]

Climate change right now is very alarming, but the Government seems doesn't care about it. The planet provides, and we destroy everything for our own selfishness "needs", how unfair is that. Maybe some of you would say that we need to remove something in order to put something else, but for me, it's not worth it since money and fame won't save us if mother Earth collapses,  we are all gonna die when that time happens.

So it is now or never, this pandemic lockdown is a living proof that if we try, we can heal our planet.

[Ultegra134]

Climate change right now is very alarming, but the Government seems doesn't care about it. The planet provides, and we destroy everything for our own selfishness "needs", how unfair is that. Maybe some of you would say that we need to remove something in order to put something else, but for me, it's not worth it since money and fame won't save us if mother Earth collapses,  we are all gonna die when that time happens.

So it is now or never, this pandemic lockdown is a living proof that if we try, we can heal our planet.

I don't think it's a government issue. Climate change is a global thing, and it requires the attention of everyone, from citizens to governments. It requires worldwide cooperation, and it's not the easiest thing to do, especially with the current situation. Don't get me wrong, I believe it's the most alarming issue and the most crucial one, for many decades ahead.

[jaysabi]

The scale makes absolutely no sense. How do weapons of mass destruction have a lower impact compared to the pandemic?

Seems as if they just plotted a bunch of potential events arbitrarily along the axes.

It's interesting that they rank "asset bubble burst" as both a more likely and serious event compared to public infrastructure failure, though. Whilst the equities markets are indeed going to be very prone to collapse at such heights, it's barely even in the same neighbourhood of influence as if electricity suddenly went out worldwide.

Because weapons of mass destruction are localized and infectious disease (not the pandemic specifically) can go global far easier.  Plus, it's only marginally higher by a couple percentage points when you notice the graph axes are truncated. 

As for the other point, I'm sure there's actual research and projections that accompanies this info graphic, it's not just a bunch of points plotted with no reasoning or forethought. It just so happens that only the infographic was posted.

[davis196]

I get increased social anxiety,when it watch this chart.
What the hell is "digital inequality"?Does it have something to do with the big tech companies having a monopoly over the high tech industry?
So the biggest problems of the world are weapons of mass destruction,climate change and infectious deceases?Will any country in the world give up on storing nuclear weapons?Nope..
Are we fighting climate change?Nope...
Do we have an infectious decease going on around the world?Yes...
The world will fall apart and there's nothing we can do about it.Let's get drunk.

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

I get increased social anxiety,when it watch this chart.
What the hell is "digital inequality"?Does it have something to do with the big tech companies having a monopoly over the high tech industry?
So the biggest problems of the world are weapons of mass destruction,climate change and infectious deceases?Will any country in the world give up on storing nuclear weapons?Nope..
Are we fighting climate change?Nope...
Do we have an infectious decease going on around the world?Yes...
The world will fall apart and there's nothing we can do about it.Let's get drunk.

If we continue to tolerate tech companies, I am sure that they will get a stranglehold of government because they will have a big influence. I don't think that countries will ever get rid of their nuclear stockpile because they know that when war brokes out and they lose, they have to make a stand to do a mutual assured destruction. Regarding diseases, I am sure that we will be able to to address it if we continue to improve in terms of medicine.

[amishmanish]

I get increased social anxiety,when it watch this chart.
What the hell is "digital inequality"?Does it have something to do with the big tech companies having a monopoly over the high tech industry?
So the biggest problems of the world are weapons of mass destruction,climate change and infectious deceases?Will any country in the world give up on storing nuclear weapons?Nope..
Are we fighting climate change?Nope...
Do we have an infectious decease going on around the world?Yes...
The world will fall apart and there's nothing we can do about it.Let's get drunk.

We all get anxious on these things. Some of us lesser mortals get drunk, LOL. Others call this feeling of anxiety as "existential crisis" and start thinking of doing something to contribute towards solving these issues. Elon Musk is probably the most famous example of this who literally started SpaceX, Tesla, BORING company and all out of his existential crisis about the human species.

When you are in your 20s, all these issues drive you towards imagining solutions. People who are able to put that energy towards solving these issues generally tend to have great careers and I guess, don't waste their 30s contemplating about these. Rather, they are out in the battlefield getting their hands dirty and solving these problems. I, for one, envy these people and wish that more of us had the luck/ opportunity to spend our lives actually changing things rather than having to face anxiety due to them.

--snip-- Regarding diseases, I am sure that we will be able to to address it if we continue to improve in terms of medicine.

Over the last century, we have been able to control diseases a lot. Average life expectancy went up due to antibiotics and other medical advances. Yet, it seems like nature is in an arms race with human race. We are running out of new antibiotics as microbes are developing resistances. Nothing needs to be said about the SARS-CoV2. The efficacy with which it is killing off some of the victims has left medical experts bewildered. Now, it seems like it is mutating.

Getting rid of diseases and disability would be such a boon for human existence. It'd be literally heaven on earth if somehow every human was assured of a disease-free existence. It'd probably be too costly for everyone to afford but if such technology could ever exist (The kind they featured in the movie Elysium), it'll be a time of celebration. I doubt we are anywhere near that or can even ever reach there. For every answer that delving into the micro-world provides, it throws up another question.

[slapper]

The only thing I care about in this chart is the climate action failure. I guess people focus on making money that they forget how awful we treat the environment. In a couple of years, with the current pace of development, Earth will be full of trash and climate change. There will be no place for the organism to live, except the human. I do not applause humans for being the only creature to continue to exist but rather feel sad. Human is capable to survive throughout a variety of recession, disasters because they can do outstanding things. Yet, animals are not on the list of Human protection. Because of the high ego, being selfish, They only care about money, politics, and human right (Human rights are good, but it is just an advocate for claiming that human are better than other creatures)