This is a huge claim. You’re claiming first of all that the odds of succumbing to a truly existential event are higher than not.
Given that most societies that ever existed were wiped out, often violently or otherwise catastrophically, and that we have a list of 6 near misses, and that almost all homeostatic complex systems that are loosely analogous to civilization such as ecosystems or long-lived organisms like coral reefs of even organisms in general have existed and then got wiped out again, I think that this is a reasonable claim.
If we had actually had 6 “near misses”, then that would be pertinent evidence. In which case, maybe they should be listed, their probabilities and potential impact estimated.
I now get what lead to this confusion. You’ve referred to both “existential” and “major civilizational-level catastrophes” without much effort to distinguish between the two, though they differ in both extent and probability by a few orders of magnitude. I assumed from the Bostrom paper citation and the long list of existential threats that the article in general was about existential risks, which, on a rereading, it isn’t.
My concern over showing that something could reasonably be done remains, but you do provide appropriate evidence regarding civilization-level catastrophes. It might be worth a sentence or two clarifying that your concern is civ-level or greater, rather than specifically existential, though I may be the only one who misread the focus here.
without much effort to distinguish between the two
Well, I used two different phrases. I drew the distinction in the first sentence, and several other times throughout the article. What else did I not do that I should have done?
though they differ in probability by a few orders of magnitude
What probability do you assign to human civilization being wiped out over the next, say, 10,000 years? Less than 0.1% or less than 1%, I presume, since it must be a few orders of magnitude less than 100%?
It might be worth a sentence or two clarifying that your concern is civ-level or greater
how about this:
“The prospect of a dangerous collection of existential risks and risks of major civilizational-level catastrophes … ” ?
Given that most societies that ever existed were wiped out, often violently or otherwise catastrophically, and that we have a list of 6 near misses, and that almost all homeostatic complex systems that are loosely analogous to civilization such as ecosystems or long-lived organisms like coral reefs of even organisms in general have existed and then got wiped out again, I think that this is a reasonable claim.
If we had actually had 6 “near misses”, then that would be pertinent evidence. In which case, maybe they should be listed, their probabilities and potential impact estimated.
I now get what lead to this confusion. You’ve referred to both “existential” and “major civilizational-level catastrophes” without much effort to distinguish between the two, though they differ in both extent and probability by a few orders of magnitude. I assumed from the Bostrom paper citation and the long list of existential threats that the article in general was about existential risks, which, on a rereading, it isn’t.
My concern over showing that something could reasonably be done remains, but you do provide appropriate evidence regarding civilization-level catastrophes. It might be worth a sentence or two clarifying that your concern is civ-level or greater, rather than specifically existential, though I may be the only one who misread the focus here.
Well, I used two different phrases. I drew the distinction in the first sentence, and several other times throughout the article. What else did I not do that I should have done?
What probability do you assign to human civilization being wiped out over the next, say, 10,000 years? Less than 0.1% or less than 1%, I presume, since it must be a few orders of magnitude less than 100%?
how about this:
“The prospect of a dangerous collection of existential risks and risks of major civilizational-level catastrophes … ” ?