Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Problem:Get daily updates directly to your inbox + Subscribe Thank you for subscribing! Could not subscribe, try again later Invalid Email 
  
 The rise of robots and deadly viruses are among the threats that could wipe out swathes of humanity - but governments are failing to prepare properly for them, a new report warns 
  
 Catastrophic climate change, nuclear war and natural disasters such as super volcanoes and asteroids could also pose a deadly risk to mankind, researchers said. 
  
 It may sound like the stuff of sci-fi films, but experts said these apocalyptic threats are more likely than many realise. 
  
 The report Global Catastrophic Risks, compiled by a team from Oxford University, the Global Challenges Foundation and the Global Priorities Project, ranks dangers that could wipe out 10% or more of the human population. 
  
 It warns that while most generations never experience a catastrophe, they are far from fanciful, as the bouts of plague and the 1918 Spanish flu that wiped out millions illustrated. 
  
 (Image: Getty) 
  
 Read more : China launches super-powerful rocket as part of plan to dominate space 
  
 Sebastian Farquhar, director at the Global Priorities Project, told the Press Association: "There are some things that are on the horizon, things that probably won't happen in any one year but could happen, which could completely reshape our world and do so in a really devastating and disastrous way. 
  
 "History teaches us that many of these things are more likely than we intuitively think."Many of these risks are changing and growing as technologies change and grow and reshape our world. But there are also things we can do about the risks." 
  
 Video Loading Video Unavailable Click to play Tap to play The video will start in 8 Cancel Play now 
  
 In the next five years asteroids, super volcanic eruptions and unknown risks are ranked as the biggest threat to humanity. In the longer term, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has been listed alongside catastrophic climate change, nuclear war and pandemics as a threat to humanity. 
  
 Farquhar said: "There is really no particular reason to think that humans are the pinnacle of creation and the best thing that is possible to have in the world. 
  
 (Image: Getty) 
  
 Read more : China 'tests terrifyingly powerful Dongfeng-41 nuclear missile' which could destroy London in HALF AN HOUR 
  
 "It seems conceivable that some AI systems might at some point in the future be able to systematically out-compete humans in a bunch of different domains and if you have a sufficiently powerful form of that kind of artificially intelligent system, then it might be the case that if its goals don't match with what humanity's values are then there might be some sort of adverse consequences. 
  
 "So this doesn't depend on it becoming conscious, it doesn't depend on it hating humanity, it is just a matter of it being powerful, its objectives being opaque or hard to determine for its creators, and it being in some sense indifferent to at least some of the things we find valuable. 
  
 Video Loading Video Unavailable Click to play Tap to play The video will start in 8 Cancel Play now 
  
 "The biggest long term threat to civilization is natural and engineered pandemics and nuclear war, according to the report. Strides have been taken to cut the number of nuclear weapons in the world, but the rise of synthetic biology could open the door to the creation of "off the shelf" deadly viruses. 
  
 "While the danger of a potent form of avian flu mutating and rapidly infecting humans could also kill many millions, researchers said. 
  
 (Image: Getty) 
  
 Read more : Dinosaurs were ALREADY dying out before a giant asteroid finished them off, scientist claims 
  
 Mr Farquhar said that while there is no evidence to suggest that in the "very near term" militant groups such as Islamic State (IS) will be able to manufacture their own viruses, this could be a future threat. 
  
 He said: "What we want to worry about in the future though is as it becomes easier and cheaper to do a lot of these things in an almost off-the-shelf kind of way, or to order the parts for say a smallpox virus off the internet, that might start to change. 
  
 "We have seen that in the field of synthetic biology and genetic manipulation of small organisms or things like viruses, the cost has come down unbelievably in the last decade."It is still too expensive to worry about rogue groups trying to use the technology, but that might not remain true. 
  
 (Image: Getty) 
  
 Read more : Mystery of 'alien transmission' solved? Astronomer claims he's discovered origin of 'WOW signal' 
  
 "The report calls for the international community to improve planning for pandemics and health systems, investigate the possible risks of AI and biotechnology and continue to cut the number of nuclear weapons. 
  
 Mr Farquhar said ameliorating these risks "definitely requires international co-ordination". 
  
 He said: "What is really important to remember is that many of these risks don't stop at the borders and wait patiently for their passports to be checked, they are truly global in nature. 
  
 "This is not the sort of thing where one country can say 'Oh well we are prepared and the rest of the world can fend for itself'. That is one of the things we saw with the Ebola crisis is how this thing spilled over national borders." 
  
 Video Loading Video Unavailable Click to play Tap to play The video will start in 8 Cancel Play now ||||| Yet the risk of human extinction due to climate change—or an accidental nuclear war, or a meteor—could be much higher than that. The Stern Review, the U.K. government’s premier report on the economics of climate change, assumed a 0.1-percent risk of human extinction every year. That may sound low, but it adds up when extrapolated to century-scale. Across 100 years, that figure would entail a 9.5 percent chance of human extinction. 
  
 And that number might even underestimate the risk. Another Oxford survey of experts from 2008 posited the annual extinction risk to be a higher figure, 0.2 percent. And the chance of dying from any major global calamity is also likely higher. The Stern Review, which supplies the 9.5-percent number, only assumed the danger of species-wide extinction. The Global Challenges Foundation’s report is concerned with all events that would wipe out more than 10 percent of Earth’s human population. 
  
 “We don’t expect any of the events that we describe to happen in any 10-year period. They might—but, on balance, they probably won’t,” Sebastian Farquhar, the director of the Global Priorities Project, told me. “But there’s lots of events that we think are unlikely that we still prepare for.” 
  
 For instance, most people demand working airbags in their cars and they strap in their seat-belts whenever they go for a drive, he said. We may know that the risk of an accident on any individual car ride is low, but we still believe that it makes sense to reduce possible harm. 
  
 So what kind of human-level extinction events are these? The report holds catastrophic climate change and nuclear war far above the rest, and for good reason. On the latter front, it cites multiple occasions when the world stood on the brink of atomic annihilation. While most of these occurred during the Cold War, another took place during the 1990s, the most peaceful decade in recent memory: 
  
 In 1995, Russian systems mistook a Norwegian weather rocket for a potential nuclear attack. Russian President Boris Yeltsin retrieved launch codes and had the nuclear suitcase open in front of him. Thankfully, Russian leaders decided the incident was a false alarm. 
  
 Climate change also poses its own risks. As I’ve written about before, serious veterans of climate science now suggest that global warming will spawn continent-sized superstorms by the end of the century. Farquhar said that even more conservative estimates can be alarming: UN-approved climate models estimate that the risk of six to ten degrees Celsius of warming exceeds 3 percent, even if the world tamps down carbon emissions at a fast pace. “On a more plausible emissions scenario, we’re looking at a 10-percent risk,” Farquhar said. Few climate adaption scenarios account for swings in global temperature this enormous. 
  
 Other risks won’t stem from technological hubris. Any year, there’s always some chance of a super-volcano erupting or an asteroid careening into the planet. Both would of course devastate the areas around ground zero—but they would also kick up dust into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and sending global temperatures plunging. (Most climate scientists agree that the same phenomenon would follow any major nuclear exchange.) ||||| Global catastrophes sometimes strike. In 1918 the Spanish Flu killed as many as one in twenty people. There have been even more devastating pandemics - the Black Death and the 6th century Plague of Justinian may have each killed nearer to one in every six people on this earth. More recently, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought us to the brink of nuclear war - President John F. Kennedy thought the chances were, "Between one in three and even". 
  
 These represent global catastrophic risks - events that might kill a tenth of the world's population. According to a new report published today, these risks remain and may even be growing. Released by the Global Challenges Foundation and Global Priorities Project in association with the University of Oxford, the report recommends routes of action for the world's governments. The international community needs to work together and do more to address these threats. 
  
 The Cuban Missile Crisis may never have escalated into all out conflict, but nuclear war remains one of the most significant threats in the near future. We believe that the international community should continue a policy of nuclear non-proliferation. But on top of this, nuclear states should continue to reduce stockpiles - as they have already done from over 60,000 to less than 10,000 today. If each country holds fewer weapons, the maximum impact of damage from a nuclear exchange is reduced. 
  
 These may seem like distant hypothetical scenarios, but these events are just as likely as others that society regularly plans for. We might take out life insurance in case we die in a car accident -- but if the UK government's Stern Review is right to use a 0.1% annual extinction risk, we are five times more likely to die in such an event than to die in a car crash. 
  
 Take pandemics, which wiped out millions in previous centuries. Diseases have so far been of natural origin, but we now have the prospect of man-made pandemics. We recommend that the World Health Organisation, nation states, and other bodies should increase their planning for especially bad global pandemics, which might kill very large numbers of people. 
  
 Other threats are growing in importance. Catastrophic climate change, of more than approximately six degrees, is a significant concern in a longer time-frame -- particularly if climate models prove wrong, or if the world can't limit its emissions as much as we hope. At present, this is unacceptably likely -- our report argues that nations need to do more to combat climate change. They should implement and improve mechanisms for emissions abatement, and developed nations could commit to banning new coal fired power stations without carbon capture and sequestration. 
  
 More technologically driven concerns make up the next category of threats, such as the emerging risks from geoengineering, synthetic biology, or the development of artificial intelligence. Here, the unprecedented nature of the risks makes addressing them especially hard. Policymakers should work with researchers closely to understand the issues that may arise from these developing technologies, and lay the groundwork for planned adaptive risk regulation. 
  
 'Exogenous risks' -- those independent of humans, such as a volcanic eruption, or asteroids or comets hitting earth -- are lower risk but deserve some attention. For all of them research communities should focus greater attention on strategies for resilience to and recovery from global catastrophe, for example by developing alternative food sources. 
  
 It's easy to ignore risks like these because they seem so far away. But the potential impact of any event like this is enormous. Events in the past have killed more than a tenth of humanity, and could again. The consequences for our children and grandchildren could also be enormous. 
  
 These steps and the others outlined in the report give us ways to reduce risk. There's no need to panic or build a bunker. But we do need to take action at an individual, national, and global level. Most of the available steps require deeper international coordination -- the threats outlined in this report don't respect national boundaries or immigration checkpoints. 
  
 Doing nothing is not an option. Some of these threats seem unlikely, and they probably will not hit us tomorrow or the day after. But it only takes one to change the world we live in forever. 
  
 To view the full report visit - http://globalchallenges.org/riskreport. 
  
 Sebastian Farquhar, Director, The Global Priorities Project |||||
Solution:
Pandemics, super-volcanoes, nuclear war, climate change, asteroids, and murderous artificial intelligence. You're not more likely to die from any one of those things than in a car crash. But put all those things together, and, well, that changes things a bit, the Atlantic reports. According to the annual Global Catastrophic Risks report from the Global Challenges Foundation, the average American is more than five times more likely to die in a "human extinction event" than in a car crash. Human extinction events are considered events in which 10% or more of the human population is killed off, and they've happened before, the Mirror reports. A different report cited by the Atlantic puts the chance of a human extinction event happening in the next 100 years at 9.5%. That means you're nearly 12 times more likely to be killed by, say, a Terminator or a super-virus than in a car crash during your lifetime. "The international community needs to work together and do more to address these threats," Sebastian Farquhar, director of the Global Priorities Project, writes for the Huffington Post. "Doing nothing is not an option. Some of these threats seem unlikely, and they probably will not hit us tomorrow or the day after. But it only takes one to change the world we live in forever."