From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Mar 28 2002 - 19:53:00 MST
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (commenting on my comments) wrote:
> Anything that is not an existential risk should be called by its proper name,
> "inconvenience".
I would probably choose to differentiate on the basis of "natural" vs.
man-made hazards. But you can turn that around and look at it on
the basis of hazards that we simply choose to ignore (or tolerate).
One could also get into debates about impact factor of the hazards.
We seem to be able to tolerate X number of deaths per year due to tobacco,
automobiles, airplane crashes, etc. without it impacting the development
curve significantly. On the other hand 911 certainly might have deflected
the "natural" course and a major asteroid impact would certainly do so.
I think the point I was trying to bring up (which may have gotten lost)
was that we can have threats due to things we (or some of us) do as
well as threats due to things we don't do.
> Huh? Five billion years from now, the only thing that determines whether
> the sun grows into a red giant and roasts the Earth will be how we feel
> about it. I don't see how you can be so certain about which way public
> sentiment will run.
Of course -- My comments related back to comments about the greens
(being anti-any-technology) and perhaps (poorly) trying to influence
the discussion towards more of a 'big picture' frame of reference
in light of some of Dyson's comments.
The current reality being we (at least on our planet) are doomed.
You have to come down on the side of preserving the status quo
at the expense of decreasing the chances of a long term positive
outcome or be on the other side of trying to maximize the amount
of cake you get to eat over the longest possible time (even though
in the short term that may mean choosing between some less
desirable solutions, e.g. nuclear power vs. coal).
> Besides, aren't you one of the "mass-energy is the limiting resource"
> types? If so, why would there still be a Sun?
Yes. But one might leave it alone because it might make sense not to give
away ones location or technology level by making stars go dark. As long as
there are wandering planets and brown dwarfs whose disappearence is less likely
to be noticed it may make sense to leave the stars alone.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:08 MST