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.
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)
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.
Hey! Your link sends us to this very post. Is this intentional?
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?
Additionally, is it not likely that those scenarios are correlated?