= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Politicians stymie human colonization of space to save make-work jobs - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (70)
To argue that we shouldn't devote some resources to it, I think it would be necessary to argue that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Arguing that the advantages are relatively small doesn't really cut it when the future of civilisation is at stake.
Yes it does. That advantages are relatively small (as compared to other existential risk reduction plans) is meaningful, since it suggests reallocation of resources. Saying that we can't compromise because "the future of civilization is at stake" invites stupidity.
So, the case you are apparently attempting to make is that all resources that could be spent on asteroid deflecting would be better spent on other things. Maybe - but that is far-from obvious. Here is what is currently happening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance
I'm not attempting to make that case - at some point (sufficiently low amount of resources) marginal worth of asteroid-avoidance might become competitive.
Right - OK - that's what I was saying. Some people are space cadets - and I figure some of them can probably make useful contributions.
Space has some other possibilities for reducing risks too. For example, communications satellites network the world, make everyone friends - and reduce the chances of war. Of course there's also star wars - but I don't think that space can be simply written off as not helping.
But the comparison to other existential risk reduction plans is not the right comparison. We should compare the other uses to which the resources will likely be put. Those usually won't be existential risk reduction projects.
Who is this argument supposed to be addressed to?
That's what always gets me about policy debates. If we're debating what an LW member who gets put in charge of the national budget should do, Nesov has it. If asking what every LW member should vote for if a referendum specifically on "allocate billions to asteroid defense" comes up, torekp is correct. I am annoyed by disagreements between people who actually agree which take this form.