It feels to me like the topics are very different.
When it comes to global warming the kind of warming that the IPCC projects is inconvenient but it’s no global catastrophic risks. It seems to me like all the actual global catastrophic risks that’s in climate change is in attempts at geoengineering going horribly wrong. I’m highly uncertain about whether having more public attention on the topic would be helpful.
When it comes to asteroid detection it’s a topic where rich people currently are willing to invest money. At current tech levels the funding isn’t enough but if Elon is successful with building the BFR, the money would be enough to fund adequate detection. I would expect to have good detection abilities in twenty years.
When it comes to biorisk you already have a large part of the population who’s interested in it as evidenced by GMO opposition. The problem is that the opposition is largely ill-informed and not targeted on the actual dangers. What we need is money that’s spend on well targeted research but the sums that we need to produce a radical improvement over the status quo aren’t that large and competition with health care cost and pensions don’t matter much at that scale.
It feels to me like the topics are very different.
When it comes to global warming the kind of warming that the IPCC projects is inconvenient but it’s no global catastrophic risks. It seems to me like all the actual global catastrophic risks that’s in climate change is in attempts at geoengineering going horribly wrong. I’m highly uncertain about whether having more public attention on the topic would be helpful.
When it comes to asteroid detection it’s a topic where rich people currently are willing to invest money. At current tech levels the funding isn’t enough but if Elon is successful with building the BFR, the money would be enough to fund adequate detection. I would expect to have good detection abilities in twenty years.
When it comes to biorisk you already have a large part of the population who’s interested in it as evidenced by GMO opposition. The problem is that the opposition is largely ill-informed and not targeted on the actual dangers. What we need is money that’s spend on well targeted research but the sums that we need to produce a radical improvement over the status quo aren’t that large and competition with health care cost and pensions don’t matter much at that scale.