It just transfers all the burden onto the word “value” which is opaque, slippery, and subject to wildly different interpretation.
People can certainly value different things, and value the same things differently. But as long as everyone correctly communicates what they value to everyone else, we can talk about expected value unambiguously and usefuly.
Consider that e.g. for all the Christians an irrefutable discovery that the whole Jesus thing was a fake and a hoax would count as an existential catastrophe.
If true, and if this is much more value than would be gained elsewhere (by me or them or someone else) from them learning the truth, then I as a non-Christian would try to prevent Christians from learning this. What is ambiguous about this?
It’s not one for me, but it might be for somebody else. You presented the counterfactual that it is one to Christians, and I didn’t want to deny it.
I’m not sure what your point is. Is it that saying anything might be a existential catastrophe to someone with the right values, dismisses the literal meaning of “existential”?
It’s not one for me, but it might be for somebody else.
That’s a pretty important point. Are we willing to define an existential catastrophe subjectively?
If you define existential risk as e.g. a threat of extinction, that definition has some problems but it does not depend on someone’s state of mind—it is within the realm of reality (defined as what doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it). Once you start talking about expected value, it’s all in the eye of the beholder.
This is true—these are two completely different things. And I assume from the comments on this post that the OP does indeed define it subjectively, i.e. via loss of (expected) value. Each is worthy of discussion, and I think the two discussions do mostly overlap, but we should be clear as to what we’re discussing.
Cases of extinction that aren’t existential risk for some people: rapture / afterlife / end of the world religious scenarios; uploading and consequent extinction of biological humanity (most people today would not accept uploading as substiute to their ‘real’ life); being replaced by our non-human descendants.
Cases of existential risk (for some peoples’ values) that don’t involve extinction: scenarios where all remaining humans hold values dramatically different from your own; revelation that one’s religion or deeply held morality is objectively wrong; humanity fails to populatte/influence the universe; and many others.
Cases of extinction that aren’t existential risk for some people
These are not cases of extinction. Christians wouldn’t call the Second Coming “extinction”—after all, you are getting eternal life :-/ I wouldn’t call total uploading “extinction” either.
People can certainly value different things, and value the same things differently. But as long as everyone correctly communicates what they value to everyone else, we can talk about expected value unambiguously and usefuly.
If true, and if this is much more value than would be gained elsewhere (by me or them or someone else) from them learning the truth, then I as a non-Christian would try to prevent Christians from learning this. What is ambiguous about this?
Would you call this “an existential catastrophe”?
It’s not one for me, but it might be for somebody else. You presented the counterfactual that it is one to Christians, and I didn’t want to deny it.
I’m not sure what your point is. Is it that saying anything might be a existential catastrophe to someone with the right values, dismisses the literal meaning of “existential”?
That’s a pretty important point. Are we willing to define an existential catastrophe subjectively?
If you define existential risk as e.g. a threat of extinction, that definition has some problems but it does not depend on someone’s state of mind—it is within the realm of reality (defined as what doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it). Once you start talking about expected value, it’s all in the eye of the beholder.
This is true—these are two completely different things. And I assume from the comments on this post that the OP does indeed define it subjectively, i.e. via loss of (expected) value. Each is worthy of discussion, and I think the two discussions do mostly overlap, but we should be clear as to what we’re discussing.
Cases of extinction that aren’t existential risk for some people: rapture / afterlife / end of the world religious scenarios; uploading and consequent extinction of biological humanity (most people today would not accept uploading as substiute to their ‘real’ life); being replaced by our non-human descendants.
Cases of existential risk (for some peoples’ values) that don’t involve extinction: scenarios where all remaining humans hold values dramatically different from your own; revelation that one’s religion or deeply held morality is objectively wrong; humanity fails to populatte/influence the universe; and many others.
These are not cases of extinction. Christians wouldn’t call the Second Coming “extinction”—after all, you are getting eternal life :-/ I wouldn’t call total uploading “extinction” either.
I would call Armageddon (as part of the Second Coming) extinction. And Christians would call forced total uploading extinction (as a form of death).