. . . and I feel fine
posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger
How should the law deal with the end of the world?
A set of recent NYT articles discusses a lawsuit filed to stop the (possible) end of the world. Apparently, there is a very, very remote chance that the newest particle accelerator will create
a tiny black hole, which could eat the Earth. Or it could spit out something called a “strangelet” that would convert our planet to a shrunken dense dead lump of something called “strange matter.”
Yikes! And so there is a lawsuit seeking to enjoin use of the accelerator, at least until an environmental impact study (!) is completed. And with that, the fate of the universe suddenly rests in the hands of lawyers and judges. It sounds like a bad script that tries to marry Armageddon with Law and Order:
“Will beautiful attorney Lisa and her trusty paralegal sidekick Jake get the papers filed in time? Will cranky judge Hornblatt grant the TRO that saves the world? Find out next Friday, right after the series premiere of Survivor: Law School Edition.”
And how exactly does the law analyze these sorts of claims, anyway? It strikes me that law is not particularly well-equipped to handle claims of infinite destruction. For instance:
-When can a party get a TRO to prevent an act that would cause the end of the universe?
Well, they’ve got to show irreparable harm. Presumably, the end of the universe is always irreparable harm.
-When does a company have to disclose the possibility of the end of the universe in its filings?
Well, if it’s future or speculative information, we apply Basic v. Levinson‘s probability/magnitude test. The probability may be small, even infinitessimal. But the magnitude of the potential harm? Infinite. I guess you always disclose it.
(10-K’s everywhere will now include the line, “There is a very, very, very small chance that something the Board does will inadvertently cause the end of the universe.”)
-And how would a court apply the Hand formula, for instance, in assessing whether a party should have taken better precautions to prevent the universe from being destroyed?
Burden = Probability x Loss.
P may be low, but L is really, really high. Does this mean that parties always have a burden to take reasonable steps to prevent the end of the universe?
Probably.
But then, law typically gives damages, which are backward-looking. And if the universe has been destroyed . . . well, good luck finding a court in which to bring your claim.
Plus, all your evidence is probably destroyed.
(Image source: Wikicommons)
April 16, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Posted in: Science Fiction, Technology, Weird
Print This Post
Responses (5)
John Armstrong - April 16, 2008 at 6:22 pm
This is the problem that innumeracy raises. P is not just “low”. If we’re putting L at “really, really high” then P would be really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really low (modulo a few “really”s). It’s winning the powerball every day for a month low. It’s just not going to happen.
reader - April 17, 2008 at 1:04 pm
No standing – injury is not particularized.
PhysicsLaw - April 19, 2008 at 8:56 pm
As a Physicist-soon-to-be-lawyer, I’d toss out these claims. Unfortunately, under Quantum Theory, just about anything is possible. The earth could appear next to the sun and get destroyed, although there is a near infinitesmal chance of this occuring (you’d have to see perhaps a googleplex of universes for the entire length of their existence to see a single planet tunneling through that much space).
Anyway, I
1. doubt that a strangelet will be created,
2. even if it is created, it will exist for so short a period of time it will be unable to interact with any particles, let alone enough particles to turn the earth into strange matter,
3. the “black hole” is not black, as its gravitational field is not strong enough to pull in a single Hydrogen atom, and hence you end up with a lot of “bent space-time” in a tiny space, which ends up not making that much of a difference – if it can’t interact with normal matter, eg, pull things into it via its gravitational field, it can’t expand. Further, going “into it” won’t stop you from leaving as a normal black hole, because there isn’t this massive amount of gravitational force pulling you towards it. A more accurate description would be the creation of a naked singularity for a very very brief period of time, which might allow us, one day, to make wormholes/time machines.
4. Particle accelerators are a WASTE OF MONEY! At some point, those crazies making computer processors will figure out that they need to use a beam of protons/other particles to cut their silicon/other semi-conducting substrate, so that private industry will start building particle accelerators.
5. This post makes no sense, as I haven’t slept in days
Keri Brooks - April 20, 2008 at 12:10 am
Something about the incongruity of talking about the total destruction of the universe in such a calm, rational manner struck me as humorous. Thanks for this thought-provoking laugh! I especially liked your comment about the evidence being destroyed.
Another Physicst Lawyer - April 21, 2008 at 4:09 am
One proposal (don’t remember whose) to avoid the problem of trying to resolve infinite harm vs. infinitesimal likelihood of harm is to treat likelihoods of catastrophic events over which we have no control as a baseline.
In other words, we compute some odds of “foreseeable” catastrophic events (say, a meteor impacting the Earth, which can be estimated somewhat easily) to establish a baseline probability, p. Then, if a potentially catastrophic man-made event is expected to occur with probability less than or equal to p, then that risk is treated as insignificant.
Leave a Reply