When I first heard about Assistant Treasury Minister Andrew Leigh’s upcoming speech, I couldn’t help but chuckle. Here’s a government official, tasked with the mundane realities of capital gains tax and trusts, suddenly diving into the apocalyptic—zombie outbreaks, AI takeovers, and the end of humanity. But as I delved deeper, I realized this wasn’t just a quirky thought experiment. Leigh’s argument, though draped in doom, is a stark reminder of how economics, often seen as a dry science, intersects with our very survival.
The Economics of Extinction: Why It’s Not Just Sci-Fi
Leigh’s core idea is that economics, traditionally focused on resource allocation, has largely ignored the ultimate scarcity: the end of humanity itself. Personally, I think this is a brilliant reframing. We’re so accustomed to economists debating inflation or GDP growth that the idea of them pondering extinction feels almost surreal. But what makes this particularly fascinating is how Leigh ties it to technological progress. AI, synthetic biology, and other advancements aren’t just tools for prosperity—they’re double-edged swords.
From my perspective, this raises a deeper question: Are we building systems that outpace our ability to control them? Leigh’s warning that modern economies might be better at creating dangerous capabilities than safeguards is chilling. It’s not just about rogue AI or bioterrorism; it’s about the systemic fragility we’re embedding into our progress. If you take a step back and think about it, this isn’t just an economist’s worry—it’s a call for all of us to rethink how we innovate.
The Scale of What We Stand to Lose
One thing that immediately stands out is Leigh’s emphasis on the sheer scale of potential human loss. He points out that if humanity endures, the number of future lives could dwarf the 100 billion who’ve lived so far. What this really suggests is that extinction isn’t just about us—it’s about foreclosing trillions of potential futures. This isn’t just philosophical musing; it’s a moral and economic argument. What many people don’t realize is that the stakes of our decisions today are exponentially higher than we often acknowledge.
The Role of Economists in Survival
Leigh’s call for economists to focus on “survivability” is both bold and overdue. In my opinion, economists have long been too comfortable in their silos, analyzing efficiency and equity without considering existential risks. But here’s the kicker: if economics is about choices, then ignoring the possibility of no future at all is a colossal blind spot. A detail that I find especially interesting is Leigh’s use of algebraic equations and hazard rates to quantify these risks. It’s a reminder that even the most abstract threats can—and should—be analyzed rigorously.
Broader Implications: Beyond the Apocalypse
This isn’t just about zombies or rogue AI. Leigh’s argument forces us to confront a broader trend: our tendency to prioritize short-term gains over long-term survival. Climate change, nuclear proliferation, and pandemics are all symptoms of the same problem. Personally, I think this highlights a deeper psychological flaw in how we approach progress. We’re wired to innovate, but not to anticipate the consequences. Leigh’s speech is a wake-up call to rethink not just policy, but our entire mindset.
Conclusion: The Uncomfortable Truth
As I reflect on Leigh’s arguments, I’m struck by how uncomfortable they are. It’s easier to dismiss this as alarmist or academic navel-gazing, but that would be a mistake. What Leigh is really saying is that survival isn’t just a biological imperative—it’s an economic and moral one. In a world racing toward technological singularity, we need more voices like his, willing to ask the hard questions. Because if we don’t, the zombie apocalypse might just be the least of our worries.
