Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, H: Environment & Earth Science, Volume 22 Issue 5

activities on the seafloor (autonomous underwater technology, in focus). Also, atmospheric fluids can affect autonomous Technologies – even the underwater ones if they are, for example, on the surface. (FOSSEN, 1994; GRIFFITHS, 2003; MUKHERJEE, 2006; BREIVIK and FOSSEN, 2009; DO and PAN, 2009; INZARTSEV, 2009; FOSSEN, 2011; SKINNER and MURCK, 2011; KANTHA and CLAYSON, 2000a; KANTHA and CLAYSON, 2000b; JUDD and HOVLAND, 2007; MCLENNAN et al ., 2021; FERREIRA, 2021a; FERREIRA, 2021b). Crossing between risks (geopolitical and geophysical) can be glimpsed (WEICK, 1989; SCHWARTZ, 1996; GAUB, 2020; MCLENNAN et al ., 2021). Good scenarios are thought and perception devices that make visible a new reformulated perspective – plausible (WEICK, 1989; GODET, 2000; VAN DER HEIJDEN, 2005; WADE and WAGNER, 2012, RAMIREZ and SELIN, 2014; SCHWARTZ, 1996; MINVIELLE and WATHELET, 2020; GAUB, 2020). There is a “sea of uncertainties” concerning the systemic environmental complexity, particularly from a perspective of responses (“self-regulation”) to anthropic interventions of harmful proportions, according to current holistic scientific thought (21st century) (CAPRA, 1982, CAPRA, 1983; KANTHA and CLAYSON, 2000a; KANTHA and CLAYSON, 2000b; BERTUGLIA and VAIO, 2005; MUKHERJEE, 2006; JUDD and HOVLAND, 2007; SKINNER and MURCK, 2011; GAUB, 2020; ÖZSOY, 2020; MCLENNAN et al ., 2021; MCLENNAN et al ., 2021; MCLENNAN et al ., 2022; NICHOLS et al ., 2022; SLOFER, 2022). However, one sure thing is the surprise: “a rule and not an exception in nature (CAPRA, 1982, CAPRA, 1983; STEWART, 1997; BERTUGLIA and VAIO, 2005; JUDD and HOVLAND, 2007; MUKHERJEE, 2006; SCOTT, 2007; SKINNER and MURCK, 2011; ÖZSOY, 2020). Regrettably, “the understanding of terrestrial systems has often been influenced by social history, leaving future generations the task of responding to the environmental burdens of all past human activities” (ÖZSOY, 2020) – post-factum . From the perspective of scientific thought for the 21st century, the present study ratifies autonomous technology (underwater, in focus) as a possible threat to the Earth-System (geopolitical risk); particularly for its vulnerability to ( sui generis ) flow of fluids by rare geophysical processes (geophysical risk) – analyzing the plausibility of the coincident occurrence of such perspectives (by crossing risks), as critical uncertainty for scenarios. Despite being a delicate subject it is of broad interest due to the need for preparation, according to a present-day review of the theme. Considering the harmful consequences of a “thermonuclear war,” it is expected to contribute to the salvation, in some way, of a more significant number of people (FERREIRA, 2021b) around the world - from the correct exposure of knowledge (as a flash of revelation), and critical scientific analysis (in a context of various uncertainties); that is fundamental to decision making, by inferences. Regarding the theme, given the fallibility of the human essence (FERREIRA, 2021a); and, as the decision-making action will always be in “man's hands” (about pressing “the button”); it is very relevant to understand that the hypothesis (WEICK, 1989) of a reaction through unlikely geophysical processes would indeed be extreme; however, responsive (divinely) (FERREIRA, 2021b). II. T he T hreat of A utonomous T echnology ( U nderwater) to the ( E arth) S ystem The concept of systems is used in studying complex problems due to their many interacting parts, in which processes are often coupled – as is the case of the Earth system – highly complex and dynamic. The holistic approach to the planet, presented in Skinner and Murck (2011), would be the “key” to its understanding. The Earth is considered a "closed system": this means that there is no loss or gain of matter – but energy can indeed enter or leave the system – which points to the need to understand the "science of the Earth system" as interdisciplinary interactions between all parts of the set (including how energy move out around the system) (SKINNER and MURCK, 2011). In a systemic context, the most significant interest is in the necessary balance of all this energy (from external and internal sources); especially regarding the “life zone”: life on Earth occupies a narrow zone (no larger than 20 km), where interactions between the geosphere, hydrosphere and, atmosphere create a habitable environment (SKINNER and MURCK, 2011). “If the balance is not maintained, the Earth's life zone must heat up or cool down,” for example (SKINNER and MURCK, 2011). As the earth is a “closed and complex system,” some implications are of interest, as Skinner and Murck (2011) highlights: a) the planet's mineral resources are finite (that is, limited); b) residues remain within the limits of the Earth system; c) changes or disturbances in one part of the system, eventually affecting other parts of it (an entire chain of events can happen, even); d) causes and effects of natural disturbances are very difficult to predict (one of the main challenges of earth system science); e) numerous disturbances constantly occur (since the formation of the earth until today), but in different places, and causing impact at different levels (SKINNER and MURCK, 2011). Despite the complexity of the interactions processes, as the earth's subsystems are well balanced, the system is “characterized” as self-regulated (in its © 2022 Global Journals 1 Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Volume XXII Issue V Year 2022 16 ( H ) Version I Autonomous Technology in Scenario by Rare Geophysical Processes (Underwater Focus)