IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lam/wpaper/09-13.html

Asteroids: Assessing Catastrophic Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Graciela Chichilnisky
  • Peter Eisenberger

Abstract

Sixty five million years ago an asteroid crashed into earth Global winds distributed the dust throughout the atmosphere, blocking sunlight, and many lifeforms that relied on the sun eventually perished. In a short period of time, many experts believe, the mighty dinosaurs that dominated our planet went extinct. Realistically the same fate awaits us. Over 99.99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct [13] [12]. If our species survives long enough, we will be exposed to an asteroid and could suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs. The data suggests that asteroids of that caliber will hit our planet on average once every 100 million years [12]. The last one was 65 million years ago. Under current conditions, when the next one hits the earth, humans and many other species could go extinct[...].

Suggested Citation

  • Graciela Chichilnisky & Peter Eisenberger, 2009. "Asteroids: Assessing Catastrophic Risks," Working Papers 09-13, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Nov 2009.
    • Handle: RePEc:lam:wpaper:09-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lameta.univ-montp1.fr/Documents/DR2009-13.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2009
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    2. Machina, Mark J, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1622-1668, December.
    3. Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "Catastrophic risks," International Journal of Green Economics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(2), pages 130-141.
    4. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2000. "An axiomatic approach to choice under uncertainty with catastrophic risks," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 221-231, July.
    5. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2009. "Avoiding extinction: equal treatment of the present and the future," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 3, pages 1-25.
    6. Tversky, Amos & Wakker, Peter, 1995. "Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(6), pages 1255-1280, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew Rendall, 2022. "Nuclear war as a predictable surprise," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(5), pages 782-791, November.
    2. Andrei Bremzen & Elena Khokhlova & Anton Suvorov & Jeroen van de Ven, 2015. "Bad News: An Experimental Study on the Informational Effects Of Rewards," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(1), pages 55-70, March.
    3. Yew-Kwang Ng, 2018. "Global Extinction and Animal Welfare: Two Priorities for Effective Altruism," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1808, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
    4. Luterbacher Urs & Sandi Carmen, 2014. "Breaking the Dynamics of Emotions and Fear in Conflict and Reconstruction," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(3), pages 479-522, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2000. "An axiomatic approach to choice under uncertainty with catastrophic risks," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 221-231, July.
    2. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2011. "Catastrophic Risks with Finite or Infinite States," MPRA Paper 88760, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Liang Zou, 2006. "An Alternative to Prospect Theory," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, May.
    4. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    5. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    6. Marcello Basili, 2006. "A Rational Decision Rule with Extreme Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1721-1728, December.
    7. Skiadas, Costis, 1997. "Subjective Probability under Additive Aggregation of Conditional Preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 242-271, October.
    8. repec:rza:wpaper:240 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Coelho, Philip R. P. & McClure, James E., 1998. "Social context and the utility of wealth: Addressing the Markowitz challenge," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 305-314, November.
    10. Hayato Nakanishi, 2017. "Quasi-experimental evidence for the importance of accounting for fear when evaluating catastrophic events," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 869-894, March.
    11. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    12. Grant, S. & Polak, B. & Kajii, A., 1996. "Preference for Information," Papers 298, Australian National University - Department of Economics.
    13. Hela Maafi, 2011. "Preference Reversals Under Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(11), pages 2054-2066, November.
    14. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Diecidue, Enrico & Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2009. "Parametric weighting functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 1102-1118, May.
    16. Bernasconi, Michele, 1998. "Tax evasion and orders of risk aversion," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 123-134, January.
    17. Andreas Lange, 2003. "Climate Change and the Irreversibility Effect – Combining Expected Utility and MaxiMin," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(4), pages 417-434, August.
    18. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    19. Ziv Bar-Shira, 1992. "Nonparametric Test of the Expected Utility Hypothesis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(3), pages 523-533.
    20. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin, 2016. "Social preferences or sacred values? Theory and evidence of deontological motivations," TSE Working Papers 16-714, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Feb 2020.
    21. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lam:wpaper:09-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Patricia Modat The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Patricia Modat to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lamplfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.