Re:The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
by JoshTriplett on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @04:49PM
(#28054000)
You're getting dangerously close to suggesting that people should actually have agency in deciding which problems they care more about, and put their resources towards solving those problems. Surely the article couldn't be wrong; are you saying there are people other than a few wealthy easily demonized individuals who have priorities that society as a whole isn't paying attention to yet?
In all seriousness: yes, it ought to be sufficient to accept that different people have different utility functions, and that there are options other than "solve a problem collectively as a society" and "don't do anything about this problem at all". There needs to be a path to solve problems before those problems rise to broader attention.
For some reason, the article seems to be attempting to lump EA/x-risk/etc thinking together with those ignoring or downplaying climate-change. In practice, I've seen many folks who care about existential risks speaking very actively about needing to do something about climate change sooner rather than later.
Re:The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
by shrimpx on Wednesday August 04, 2021 @02:51AM
(#28058015)
To be fair to the article, it does extensively quote prominent people in this field. Some of the most scandalous content in that article, to my taste, is direct quotes from Ord and Bostrom.
Can't it just be sufficient to accept that people have different utility functions that might subtly conflict, but are still good? I might care about saving existing lives in the world, you might care about saving existing lives in your county, someone else might care about saving potential lives 100 years from now, etc.