Comments
An article by Simon Knutsson that seems to fit perfectly as a contribution to Existential Choices Debate Week has been published in the Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies just a week ago. It analyses in part, within a broad "ethics of risk" that doesn't assume a specific moral theory, tradeoffs between the reduction of extinction risk and the reduction of S-risks.
"[...] in part because measures to reduce one risk can increase another risk, and because there are opportunity costs (in the simple sense that by doing something we forgo doing something else), risks should reasonably be considered in relation to other risks and opportunity costs. In that spirit, I will deal with a variety of purported risks and disasters, namely personal disasters, a lack of purported positive value being created, extinction, and risks of astronomical suffering."
It seems that Simon Knutsson would probably place his vote somewhere on the disagree side of the debate statement, as the conclusion states:
"Measures to prevent extinction and ensure that positive value is created should be limited to measures that also reduce, or at least do not increase, personal disasters and risks of astronomical suffering (s-risks)."
