IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lam/wpaper/09-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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. 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 (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-25.
    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. 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.
    4. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    5. Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "Catastrophic risks," International Journal of Green Economics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(2), pages 130-141.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.

    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. Marc Fleurbaey, 2010. "Assessing Risky Social Situations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 649-680, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Marcello Basili, 2006. "A Rational Decision Rule with Extreme Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1721-1728, December.
    8. Alarie, Yves, 2000. "L’importance de la procédure dans les choix de loteries," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 76(3), pages 321-340, septembre.
    9. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2009. "The topology of fear," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(12), pages 807-816, December.
    10. Chanel, Olivier & Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2013. "Valuing life: Experimental evidence using sensitivity to rare events," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 198-205.
    11. Border, Kim C. & Segal, Uzi, 1997. "Coherent Odds and Subjective Probability," University of Western Ontario, Departmental Research Report Series 9717, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    12. Michele Bernasconi, 2002. "How should income be divided? questionnaire evidence from the theory of “Impartial preferences”," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 163-195, December.
    13. Skiadas, Costis, 1997. "Subjective Probability under Additive Aggregation of Conditional Preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 242-271, October.
    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. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi & Polak, Ben, 1998. "Intrinsic Preference for Information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 233-259, December.
    16. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Ben Polak, 1996. "Preference for Information," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1114, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    17. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2021. "A Generalization of Quantal Response Equilibrium via Perturbed Utility," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, March.
    18. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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 (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.