I found the 80,000 Hours data on anthropogenic risks particularly striking when compared to "common" low-probability events.

Specifically, the fact that a 100-year consistent play of the 6/49 lottery yields odds of 1 in 1,300 to win the jackpot makes the 1 in 10 estimate for unaligned AI or 1 in 30 for engineered pandemics feel much more real. Yet we dream about winning the lottery and not focus on a negative risk that is likely to happen during our lifetime.

The spending table also highlights a massive gap in neglectedness was also shocking to me:

• The fact that luxury goods spending ($1.3T) nearly matches total Global R&D ($1.5T) suggests a massive misallocation of time/talent and financial resources.
• Comparing Musk's net worth (approx. $200B–$250B) to the global climate spend (>$300B) illustrates how concentrated the power to influence has become.

Securing our future is the ultimate multi-generational project. My personal drive comes from wanting to leave a stable legacy for the next generation (my daughther and her children), but we cannot afford to treat AI safety or pandemic prevention as 'problems for the youth' to solve later. 

We need to bridge the gap between the emerging talent in the Effective Altruism community and the established leadership of Millenials, Gen X and Boomers. Solving 1-in-10 risks requires a 'total talent' approach that spans every age group and professional background.

I think survival alone cannot be our highest priority. History shows that when “survival” is pursued narrowly — the survival of one race, one religion, one nation, or one class — it becomes the justification for atrocities. Hitler sought the survival of the Aryan race; countless religious wars were fought for the survival of the “true faith”; even today, leaders justify violence as necessary for national survival. In capitalism too, “survival of the fittest” has been invoked to excuse exploitation.

So the solution isn’t survival per se, but the way we define it. If survival means selective survival — my group at the expense of yours — then it only deepens conflict and hastens collective ruin. What we need is a shift in how we understand ourselves: not as isolated competitors, but as interdependent beings sharing one fragile system.

For me, the deeper task is re-education — not in a religious sense, but in a practical and existential one. We need to recognize the “operating system” of human nature: that we are driven by pleasures and desires, often unconsciously, like puppets. Unless we learn to rise above this ego-driven programming, no amount of technology, charity, or political reform will truly change our trajectory.

True survival must mean collective survival. That requires awakening to our interconnectedness and building unity, not just as a moral preference but as the only practical way forward.

I think the approach taken in this post is still good: make the case that extinction risks are too small to ignore and neglected, so that everyone should agree we should invest more in them (whether or not you're into a longtermism).

It's similar to the approach taken in the Precipice, though less philosophical and longtermist.

I think it was a impactful post in that it was 80k's main piece arguing in favour of focusing more of existential risk during a period when the community seems to have significantly shifted towards focusing on those risks, and during a period when 80k was likely one of the influences on that.

If I were writing it again, I'd probably emphasise risk from asteroids and nuclear war less than I did, since I think they're small. I'd also try to avoid getting into the issue of what people think the risk of extinction is by default, since different surveys have such variable data about this.

The data and arguments in the Precipice are more thorough and up-to-date, so I'd also try to bring it in line with that.

Given this hasn't been done, these days I normally refer people to our podcast with Toby Ord or the Precipice instead.

Not sure if this is the best place to raise this but the link to the Concreate Problem in AI Safety on 80,000 Hours' site is down. 

Considero que es importante tener claridad de la dimension de la situación, ahi estamos claros, sin embargo creo que cuando hablemos de encuestas para usarlas de referencia es necesario tener encuestas en todo caso diferenciadas, por lugares distintos, edades, sexo, género y la pregunta no debe ser muy general, tiene que ser mas específica, por tanto es muy relativo hablar de una encuesta en los EEUU y el resto de paises, ahora es cierto que el tema de cambio climático en especial no es priorizado en este país, pero creo que podemos hacer análisis más aterrizados