All of Azure's Comments + Replies

Hi Peter.

Thank you very much for this! It's much appreciated and I'm glad my comments were somewhat helpful.

Perhaps you may wish to submit the new version as a new, separate post?

I think I would also contact Aaron Gertler, the forum moderator, to get some feedback if you chose to post the above as a separate post. All the best.

Hi Peter!

Thank you for the write up!

You're currently getting downvoted(unfortunately I think!), but I thought I would try to flesh out some reasons why this is the case currently, potentially to spur on discussion:

1. Whether unintentional or not, the 'flat earth' images do not seem to be a favourable presentation of your ideas and do not seem necessary to make the claims you are making.

2. There is not much structure to the post. I think we would appreciate it if you had some introduction and conclusion on what you are trying to address and... (read more)

2Peter Sølling1yHi Azure This post is now updated an now contains a structure with introduction, methodology, analysis, and conclusion. The abstract images with the unfortunate association to a flat Earth is also now replaced. Again, thank you for your good comments. Kind regards, Peter
2Peter Sølling1yHi Azure! Thanks for your thoughts. I see how the images are distorting the explanation, and I will replace the images tomorrow. I certainly did not intend to create any flat earth association. The “brightening” is another term for more wellbeing. I will also address this tomorrow and elaborate on introduction, methodology, analysis, and conclusion tomorrow. In the meantime, everything is explained in detail in my 12.000 word article on this topic linked to this post. Here, I have also made a 6000 word summary and a 3500 word summary. Looking forward to any comments anyone might have. And I will let you Azure know when I have updated this post (in case you are interested). All the best, Peter
Systemic change, global poverty eradication, and a career plan rethink: am I right?

Adding one more (hopefully relevant) link:

Dylan Matthews on “Global poverty has fallen, but what should we conclude from that?”

which is more or less a podcast version of the Vox Article by Dylan Matthew, where the link (and Hickel's response) can be found in Max_Daniel's very helpful list of links.

X-risks to all life v. to humans

Hey! Your link sends us to this very post. Is this intentional?

2abrahamrowe1yNope - fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.
X-risks to all life v. to humans

Thank you for this post! Very interesting.

(1) Is this a fair/unfair summary of the argument?

P1 We should be indifferent on anti-speciesist grounds whether humans or some other intelligence life form enjoy a grand future.

P2 The risk of extinction of only humans is strictly lower than the risk of extinction of humans + all future possible (non human) intelligent life form.

C Therefore we should revise downwards the value of avoiding the former/raise the value of the latter.

(2) Is knowledge about current evolutionary trajectories of non-human animals today likely to completely inform us about 're-evolution'? What are the relevant considerations?

2RobertHarling1yHi, thanks for your questions! (1) I definitely agree with P1. For P2, would it not be the case that the risk of extinction of humans is strictly greater than the the risk of extinction of humans and future possible intelligent life as the latter is a conjuction of the former? Perhaps a second premise could instead be P2 The best approaches for reducing human existential risk are not necessarily the best approaches for reducing existential risk to humans and all future possible intelligent life With a conclusion C We should focus on the best methods of preventing "total existential risk", not on the best methods of preventing "human existential risk" (subject to appropriate expected value calculations e.g. preventing a human existential risk may in fact be the most cost effective way of reducing total existential risk). (2) I think unfortunately I do not have the necessary knowledge to answer these questions. It is something I hope to research further though. It seems that the probability of re-evolution in different scenarios probably has lots of considerations, such as the earth's environment after the event, the initial impact on a species, the initial impact on other species. One thing I find interesting is to consider what impact things left behind by humanity could have on re-evolution. Humans may go extinct, but our buildings may survive to provide new biomes for species, and our technology may survive to be used by "somewhat"-intelligent life in the future.
What would a pre-mortem for the long-termist project look like?

Additionally, is it not likely that those scenarios are correlated?