The global warming is our first example of the manmade problems which are going to kill us if there is no AI.
Er, what? What about diseases promoted by high-population densities in cities and spread via modern international travel? Surely those will kill many more—and are more important in practically every way.
Yes. But if you can’t reasonably talk about AGW without going into some form of denial—you won’t be able to talk about the diseases rationally either. The ability to talk rationally rapidly falls off with the scariness of the scenario; fear and importance of issue do not make you think clearer; only less clearly. AGW is a stepping stone of what such issue looks like when there is high quality science on the issue, telling us rather dis-comfortable things, and when we have to give up something for prevention.
Er, what? What about diseases promoted by high-population densities in cities and spread via modern international travel? Surely those will kill many more—and are more important in practically every way.
Yes. But if you can’t reasonably talk about AGW without going into some form of denial—you won’t be able to talk about the diseases rationally either. The ability to talk rationally rapidly falls off with the scariness of the scenario; fear and importance of issue do not make you think clearer; only less clearly. AGW is a stepping stone of what such issue looks like when there is high quality science on the issue, telling us rather dis-comfortable things, and when we have to give up something for prevention.