Any important topic has street actions, Greenpeace, PETA, you name it. If you don’t have street actions it means that no body is interested in the problem.
A lot of people went to streets to protest against nuclear weapons which were considered existential risks, and it resulted in nuclear disarmament in 1980.
What makes you think that the street actions caused the arms reduction treaties?
Any important topic has street actions, Greenpeace, PETA, you name it. If you don’t have street actions it means that no body is interested in the problem.
Alternatively, it means that people are getting on with solving the problem. For example, there are no (few?) street actions to protest the fact that it’s hard to communicate over long-distances. This is not because people don’t care, it’s because they realise that street actions won’t change things, and instead they invent email, and VoIP, and Skype, and so on. Street actions are a reflection of powerlessness, of a lack of better ideas.
So do you think that any protest against nuclear war or war in Vietnam were completely useless, because nobody knows what was exact causation? I do not claim that antinuclear protest was the only cause of nuclear disarmament but I think that it was one of several parallel causes and no we now, neither people at this time could find the proportion. But is some cases street protests are effective. Greenpeace did most of its job by street protest.
Also your example with creating Skype is not correct. Preventing human extinction is not equal to creating one concrete thing (or may be Friendly AI?). For example someone could not prevent war in Vietnam by creating any possible concrete invention. He had to influence government and wide masses of people.
If you are going to be killed you have right to protest against it.
Also you said that street action is reflection of powerlessness. But lack of street actions is also reflect the fact that nobody is interested in the topic.
A lot of people went to streets to protest against nuclear weapons which were considered existential risks, and it resulted in nuclear disarmament in 1980. See photo here: http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/hbomb/page_18.shtml
Any important topic has street actions, Greenpeace, PETA, you name it. If you don’t have street actions it means that no body is interested in the problem.
What makes you think that the street actions caused the arms reduction treaties?
Alternatively, it means that people are getting on with solving the problem. For example, there are no (few?) street actions to protest the fact that it’s hard to communicate over long-distances. This is not because people don’t care, it’s because they realise that street actions won’t change things, and instead they invent email, and VoIP, and Skype, and so on. Street actions are a reflection of powerlessness, of a lack of better ideas.
So do you think that any protest against nuclear war or war in Vietnam were completely useless, because nobody knows what was exact causation?
I do not claim that antinuclear protest was the only cause of nuclear disarmament but I think that it was one of several parallel causes and no we now, neither people at this time could find the proportion. But is some cases street protests are effective. Greenpeace did most of its job by street protest.
Also your example with creating Skype is not correct. Preventing human extinction is not equal to creating one concrete thing (or may be Friendly AI?). For example someone could not prevent war in Vietnam by creating any possible concrete invention. He had to influence government and wide masses of people.
If you are going to be killed you have right to protest against it. Also you said that street action is reflection of powerlessness. But lack of street actions is also reflect the fact that nobody is interested in the topic.