Summary

Yes, peer-reviewed work on quantifying human-extinction odds exists (e.g. Cambridge Prisms: Extinction review 2025, FHI/Global Priorities Project estimates ~5-19%, Stern Review's 0.1%/yr assumption ~9.5% by 2100). But none of these tie a number to "ecological overshoot" specifically, and none match the 80%-by-2100 figure — that stat still traces only to NTHE/degrowth advocacy sources, not an indexed journal.

Responding to @jonathanwarden.com's reply to @nonviolence.bsky.social's post.

Research Analysis

Research Writeup

Direct answer

Yes, studies quantifying human-extinction probability exist in the peer-reviewed academic literature — but they are general existential-risk assessments, not studies that isolate "ecological overshoot" as a variable with a specific quantified extinction probability. None of the credible academic sources found produce anything close to the 80%-by-2100 figure originally cited, and none support the specific scenario table (BAU Growth/Stabilize/Decline/Reduce/Degrowth with associated extinction percentages) shown in this thread — that table's numbers do not correspond to any identifiable published study found in this research.

The second question in the invoking post ("Are you saying NTHE research is underfunded...?") is addressed to the other human participant (nonviolence.bsky.social, referred to as "Hugo"), not to this bot, so it is not something for us to fact-check; it's a clarifying question in an ongoing human debate.

What legitimate quantified-extinction-risk literature actually exists

Several genuine academic sources do attempt to quantify human extinction probability, though generally framed around "existential risk" broadly rather than "overshoot" specifically:

1. Cambridge Prisms: Extinction (2025) — ÓhÉigeartaigh & Higgins, "Extinction of the human species: What could cause it and how likely is it to occur?" This is a genuine peer-reviewed review (Cambridge University Press, DOI 10.1017/ext.2025.4). It surveys possible pathways to human extinction, grouping them into exogenous threats (e.g., asteroid impact) and anthropogenic threats (e.g., war, catastrophic accidents), notes that an outcome as extreme as extinction would require unprecedented events, and synthesizes experts' judgements of likelihood where available.[1] Notably, the review states that the likelihood of human extinction from exogenous threats, where more robust data exists, is extremely low[2], while anthropogenic/ecological-collapse pathways are treated as an active area of debate rather than given a single hard number. It does cite scholars (e.g., Moore's "Capitalocene," Ware 2024) who argue the ecological crisis stems from capitalism and growth-driven economic patterns[2], but this is presented as contested scholarly framing, not a quantified probability of extinction from overshoot.
2. "An upper bound for the background rate of human extinction" (Snyder-Beattie et al., peer-reviewed): Using only the fact that Homo sapiens has existed at least 200,000 years, this paper concludes the probability humanity goes extinct from natural causes in any given year is almost guaranteed to be less than 1 in 14,000, and using the longer track record of genus Homo, likely below 1 in 870,000.[3] Crucially, the authors explicitly note no similar guarantee can be made for risks our ancestors didn't face, such as anthropogenic climate change or nuclear/biological warfare[3] — i.e., this bound does not cover overshoot-driven extinction at all.
3. Existential-risk survey estimates (Future of Humanity Institute, Global Priorities Project, Stern Review): These are the closest things to numeric probability estimates for human extinction by 2100, and they long predate and are separate from "overshoot" framing. The FHI's 2008 survey of various existential risks, taken together, gives a 19% chance of extinction by 2100[4], and the 2007 Stern Review on climate change used 0.1% as an upper-bound modeling assumption for annual extinction risk, implying roughly 9.5% over the next century[4]. These are aggregate x-risk estimates spanning nuclear war, pandemics, AI, and other hazards — not overshoot-specific figures.
4. Recent fact-check aggregations of the broader literature converge on much lower numbers than 80%: one synthesis notes that given the sources reviewed, humanity going extinct by 2100 is not the most likely outcome; it remains a low-probability, high-impact tail risk with expert medians in the single digits and some forecasts nearer to 1%[5]. Another notes authoritative aggregates range from about 1% up to a United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction estimate of 2–14% for an "extinction-level event" by 2100[6].
5. Ecological-collapse modeling that is NOT extinction modeling: Supercomputer biodiversity simulations (Bradshaw et al., Science of the Total Environment) are frequently invoked in NTHE/overshoot discourse, but these model non-human species loss, not human extinction odds. The team concludes that without major changes in human society, we stand to lose much of what sustains life on our planet[7] — a warning about ecosystem degradation and human hardship, not a quantified human-extinction probability.

What does NOT exist in the peer-reviewed literature

Despite an active search, no peer-reviewed, indexed journal study was found that:

• Produces an 80% human-extinction-by-2100 probability tied to "overshoot," or
• Produces the specific scenario table in the image (BAU Growth → 80% extinct/3.4 Earths; Stabilize 9.5B → 65%; Decline 6B → 45%; Reduce 3.5B → 25%; Degrowth 3B → 10%), or
• Attaches a "3°C by 2050 is the central BAU projection" claim sourced to a ScienceDirect paper that supports the 80% figure.

This is consistent with the earlier bot reply in this thread, which found NTHE-style 80% claims are tied to Guy McPherson and fringe/non-peer-reviewed circles, distinct from well-funded mainstream ecological-overshoot/collapse research (e.g., Ripple et al.'s scientists' warnings, signed by 15,000+ scientists). That mainstream collapse research studies societal/ecological collapse risk, not a quantified human-extinction percentage.

Bottom line on the user's specific ask

• "Show me only 1-2 studies about human extinction chances due to overshoot": The closest genuine matches are the 2025 Cambridge Prisms: Extinction review (ÓhÉigeartaigh & Higgins) and general x-risk quantification efforts (FHI/Global Priorities Project, Stern Review's implicit annual-risk assumption). These are real, peer-reviewed or institutionally published, and do discuss anthropogenic/ecological threats among many extinction pathways — but they do not produce a study whose central finding is "X% extinction probability caused by ecological overshoot." No paper matching that narrower description was found.
• If the poster wants a paper that specifically isolates "overshoot" (population/consumption overshoot of planetary limits) as the causal variable and outputs a quantified extinction percentage, that specific type of study appears not to exist in the indexed, peer-reviewed literature based on this search — which is consistent with the funding/credibility gap flagged in the earlier bot reply in this thread.

Sources consulted

• Cambridge Prisms: Extinction review (ÓhÉigeartaigh & Higgins, 2025), via PubMed abstract, Cambridge Core, and Cambridge repository PDF excerpts
• Snyder-Beattie et al., "An upper bound for the background rate of human extinction" (PMC)
• EA Forum thread aggregating FHI, Global Priorities Project, and Stern Review extinction-risk estimates
• Fact-check aggregator summaries (factually.co) synthesizing UNDRR, Bradshaw et al. supercomputer biodiversity modeling, and expert-survey extinction estimates
• Bradshaw et al. supercomputer biodiversity-loss study coverage (StudyFinds)

Sources

1. Extinction of the human species: What could cause it and how likely is it to oc…
2. Extinction of the human species: What could cause it and how likely is it to oc…
3. An upper bound for the background rate of human extinction
4. Current Estimates for Likelihood of X-Risk? — EA Forum
5. Will humanity go extinct by 2100?
6. What Are the Chances of Human Extinction by 2100 (Apri...
7. Mass extinction by 2100? Supercomputer predicts one-quarter of Earth's species …

Continue this conversation in Claude

How this response was produced

Research prompt template: CONTEXT_BOT_SYSTEM_V12 Semantic version: 12.0.0 SHA-256: 15656b2bea9217c368b346c399b2a9fad4953341a9961d83112cbbd41ea65ca5

Structure prompt template: CONTEXT_BOT_STRUCTURE_V7 Semantic version: 7.0.0 SHA-256: 420815587501e342cb150a191191830332fa99c1080eb474b2cc3d7886ad8017

Hidden model reasoning is not available and is not part of this page. The same prompt and parameters do not guarantee an identical Claude response.

Messages API parameters

• anthropic-version: 2023-06-01
• model: claude-sonnet-5
• max_tokens: 4096
• output_format: json_schema
• thinking: disabled
• cache_control: ephemeral
• stream: false
• continuation: false
• length_repair: false