Using Probabilistic Methods to Study Technological Extinction Is Unscientific, Meaningless, and Harmful

Abstract

In this paper, the term “technological extinction” denotes the total biological extinction of the human species—leaving zero survivors—resulting from scientific and technological means. The term “unchecked development of science and technology” signifies the advancement of science and technology in the absence of effective oversight, permitting it to move forward indefinitely without directional control. Humanity is currently caught in a systemic extinction risk driven by the unchecked development of science and technology. The structural contradiction between the infinite destructive capacity of technological iteration and humanity’s limited governance capability has become the core bottleneck restricting the long-term survival of human civilization. Researchers specializing in technological existential risks, represented by Nick Bostrom and Toby Ord, have adopted mathematical modeling and probabilistic quantification as their core paradigm for assessing humanity’s ultimate extinction crisis and guiding global technology governance policies. They have successively proposed quantitative conclusions such as a 25% probability and a 1/6 probability of human extinction by technology within this century (Bostrom, 2013; Ord, 2021), profoundly influencing global technology crisis governance and top-level public policy-making. This paper clearly distinguishes the core value boundaries of two types of probabilistic assessments: the localized risk probability assessments made by front-line technology practitioners and domain-specific technical experts on individual technology tracks are grounded in industry practice and aligned with technological patterns, possessing sufficient industry reference value and technical rationality. However, the academic community engaged in holistic research on humanity’s technological crises and ultimate existential risks has elevated probabilistic quantification methods to the core basis for guiding global technology crisis governance and top-level public policy-making—a move that suffers from fundamental and insurmountable defects. The core model parameters of this paradigm rely on expert subjective judgment and empirical assessment, resulting in widely divergent scholarly estimates, no unified scientific standards, and no objective empirical support—completely lacking the rigor and reliability required to guide national or global governance decisions. Based on five core axioms—the constancy of human nature, the one-way increase of technological destructive power, the irreversibility of group competition, the perpetual lag of defense behind destruction, and the inherent uncertainty of technology—and relying on the research framework of “extinction path analysis + defense-limit testing,” (Hu, 2018) this paper demonstrates through closed-loop reasoning that the extinction of human civilization caused by unchecked technological development is a 100% inevitable outcome, with no room for probability fluctuation. The risk perception and governance orientation formulated by dedicated crisis researchers based on the probabilistic paradigm not only violate core scientific principles but also completely deviate from the practical realities of global governance. Moreover, they numb global crisis consensus, misguide technology control policies, and delay humanity’s critical window for self-rescue—posing a significant threat to the continuation of human civilization. Therefore, this paradigm is absolutely unsuitable for top-level governance and policy guidance regarding ultimate technological crises.