Two things that can both be true: 1. The world is getting better, by most metrics of human well-being 2. The risk of a major catastrophe is going up over time Yet I often see ppl try to dismiss 2 by saying "The doomsayers are wrong, things are getting better, [argument for 1]"
-
Show this thread
-
(It's an especially pointless response because just about everyone I know who's worried about 2 already agrees w/1)
19 replies 8 retweets 179 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @juliagalef
The steelman version of optimism that
#2ians give insufficient credit to is that even given #2 is true #1 is outrunning it. Put another way: given any harm you care about, would you rather face it as a community with the wealthy/technology/GDP available in 2018 or in 1818?5 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @patio11
This seems orthogonal to the debate, though. The fact that 1 makes us better equipped to cope w/2, doesn't mean 2 wouldn't still be devastating. Like, maybe we could recover faster from a nuclear war in 2018 than if it happened in 1818, but nuclear war would still be a huge deal
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @juliagalef
We're currently living happily in what is, considered from the vantage point of our poor ancestors, any number of
#2s. We, present day, are the poor ancestors of the future. That fact is not orthogonal to whether things we think would be devastating would be so to them.3 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @patio11
I'm not sure i understand; it kinda sounds like you're saying we shouldn't worry about things like nuclear war, because even if tons of ppl die, future generations won't care? I'm sure that can't be what you're saying, though, I must be misreading
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @juliagalef @patio11
Or maybe you're assuming that the ppl worried about catastrophes like nuclear war are proposing we stop economic growth in order to prevent it? And you're saying that's not a good tradeoff? If so, I probably agree, I just don't think that's the tradeoff anyone is proposing
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @juliagalef
I am generally saying that "Lack of economic growth is very near the top of a stack-ranked list of catastrophes." I do think that people concerned with particular Arbitrary Exotic Risks propose constraining economic growth to deal with them; I perceive that as quite common.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
With regards to any particular risk that might motivate one to worry in the present, I think one should decrease one's estimate of impact to a future society by discounting by something like economic growth between then and now, except super-linear.
-
-
Replying to @patio11 @juliagalef
I agree that we become better at dealing with specific risks once they have arrived. Still, we need to develop tactics for reducing risks prospectively, because impact of new things are increasing. We don't develop code in production, and it is not just because of convenience
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.