I stated short and medium-term risks in that sentence. I have a 98% probability confidence that you are more than smart enough to understand that short-term risk applies to things like nuclear war more than environmental catastrophe, and are just trying to be annoying with your comment.
Not interesting in discussions of environmental disasters. I’ve been reading way too much about this with the new climate accord to want to have an LW-style discussion about it. I think we can both agree that there is significant likelihood of problems, such as major flooding of low-lying areas, in the next 20-30 years.
I think floods would only be one type of problem from climate change. Other would be extreme weather, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. These would be quite destabilizing for a number of governments, and contribute to social unrest, which has unanticipated consequences. Even worse, at some point, we can face abrupt climate change.
Now, this is all probabilistic, and I’m not saying it will necessarily happen, but this is a super-short version of why I consider climate change an X-risk.
I just gave one example of the kind of environmental problem quite likely to occur within the medium-term. There are many others. Like I said, not interested in discussing these :-)
I stated short and medium-term risks in that sentence. I have a 98% probability confidence that you are more than smart enough to understand that short-term risk applies to things like nuclear war more than environmental catastrophe, and are just trying to be annoying with your comment.
You’re badly calibrated :-P
OK, tell me about the medium-term existential risk of an environmental disaster.
Lol, thanks for the calibration warning.
Not interesting in discussions of environmental disasters. I’ve been reading way too much about this with the new climate accord to want to have an LW-style discussion about it. I think we can both agree that there is significant likelihood of problems, such as major flooding of low-lying areas, in the next 20-30 years.
There were floods in the past that produced damage and likely some in the future but why do you believe it’s an Xrisk?
I think floods would only be one type of problem from climate change. Other would be extreme weather, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. These would be quite destabilizing for a number of governments, and contribute to social unrest, which has unanticipated consequences. Even worse, at some point, we can face abrupt climate change.
Now, this is all probabilistic, and I’m not saying it will necessarily happen, but this is a super-short version of why I consider climate change an X-risk.
...magically transforms into...
Heh. So, “the sky is falling!” means “a chance of rain on Monday”?
I just gave one example of the kind of environmental problem quite likely to occur within the medium-term. There are many others. Like I said, not interested in discussing these :-)
Millions of Bangladeshis having to relocate (or build dykes) would indeed be a problem, but hardly an existential risk in the LWian sense of the term.
I replied to this point here
This is so nostalgic, this was what the GW alarmists were saying 20 years ago.
You still haven’t taken up the bet that you said you would