I agree with Robin, and underground refuges do compete with space, in our advocacy/attention if nothing else. Heck if one is keen on exploiting the moon-landing legacy NASA budget, push for more Biosphere 2 type projects nominally in preparation for space travel.
Worried about being on the other side of the debate than both Robin and Carl.
I guess I was thinking of Nick Bostrom giving a speech praising the existing private space industry, and that adding some legitimacy to the claim that private spaceflight is for the greater good. In fact exactly this mechanism (with Stephen Hawking advocating instead of Nick) is actually contributing to the resurgence of space that we do have.
This mechanism is cheap, and it diverts resources from places where they clearly do absolutely no good for existential risks, to somewhere where they do some small amount of good.
You could also advocate the construction of an underground shelter, but as others have commented, this has emotional connotations of selfishness, so although you get more risk reduction per unit money, you get less per unit advocacy (maybe).
Heck if one is keen on exploiting the moon-landing legacy NASA budget, push for more Biosphere 2 type projects nominally in preparation for space travel.
Programs of that sort are generally not self-sufficient and isolated enough to substantially reduce existential risk. For example, a gray goo scenario will hit those about as hard as it hits anywhere else. And such programs are rarely long-term enough to be able to remain isolated for long if normal infrastructure gives out.
I agree with Robin, and underground refuges do compete with space, in our advocacy/attention if nothing else. Heck if one is keen on exploiting the moon-landing legacy NASA budget, push for more Biosphere 2 type projects nominally in preparation for space travel.
Worried about being on the other side of the debate than both Robin and Carl.
I guess I was thinking of Nick Bostrom giving a speech praising the existing private space industry, and that adding some legitimacy to the claim that private spaceflight is for the greater good. In fact exactly this mechanism (with Stephen Hawking advocating instead of Nick) is actually contributing to the resurgence of space that we do have.
This mechanism is cheap, and it diverts resources from places where they clearly do absolutely no good for existential risks, to somewhere where they do some small amount of good.
You could also advocate the construction of an underground shelter, but as others have commented, this has emotional connotations of selfishness, so although you get more risk reduction per unit money, you get less per unit advocacy (maybe).
Programs of that sort are generally not self-sufficient and isolated enough to substantially reduce existential risk. For example, a gray goo scenario will hit those about as hard as it hits anywhere else. And such programs are rarely long-term enough to be able to remain isolated for long if normal infrastructure gives out.
Yes, I agree.