Sorted by New

Topic Contributions


Against immortality?

I have a paper from a few years ago arguing a similar point. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-8949/89/12/128005;jsessionid=7EACB368D908AD6B0EC00F6688E725DD.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org#metrics 

From the abstract: 

This article argues that this research program [longevity treatement] is much more risky or less beneficial than its proponents argue. In particular, they tend to underestimate the concerns associated with the potentially drastic population growth that longevity treatment could cause. The ethical benefit often ascribed to longevity treatment is that such treatment would add more subjective life-years that are worth living. However, in light of contemporary environmental problems, such an increase of the human population might be reckless. Drastically reducing fertility to reduce risks associated with environmental stress would make the benefits of such technology much less compelling.

Send me an email for the pdf if you are interested. 

X-risks of SETI and METI?

I have an article on this topic from last year.


•Active SETI assumes that alien languages can be translated without context or meaningful interaction.

•According to prominent theories in the philosophy of language it is impossible to translate without context or interaction.

•The impossibility of communication between humanity and an ETI has important game-theoretical consequences.

•The failure of communication cause a “Hobbesian Trap”, where players are drawn to a risk-dominant equilibrium.

•In light of this, advertising our location to ETI is reckless.