Honestly, fair enough.

It's also not the claim being made:

...minority opinion which happens to reinforce existing power relations and is mainly advocated by billionaires and those funded by [them]...

It is morally tenable under some moral codes but not others. That's the point.

"Direct" vs "indirect" x-risk is a crude categorization, as most risks will cause hazards via a variety of pathways.

I think you switched the two by accident

Otherwise an excellent comment even if I disagree with most of it, have an updoot

I think this conflates the criticism of the idea of unitary and unstoppable technological progress with opposition to any and all technological progress.

We could also on occasion say "yes we get this wrong and we still have much to learn" and not treat every critique as an attack.

Strong upvote for this if nothing else.

(the rest is also brilliant though, thank you so much for speaking up!)

Which  alternatives to EV have what problems for what uses in what contexts?

Why do those problems make them worse than EV, a tool that requires the use of numerical probabilities for poorly-defined events often with no precedent or useful data?

What makes all alternatives to EV less preferable to the way in which EV is usually used in existential risk scholarship today, where subjectively-generated probabilities are asserted by "thought leaders" with no methodology and no justification, about events that are not rigorously defined nor separable, which are then fed into idealized economic models, policy documents, and press packs?