Good thing at least some people here are willing to think critically.

I know these are unpopular views around here, but for the record:

• Risks be risks, but I believe it's unlikely that humanity will actually be destroyed in a foreseeable perspective.
• I do not think it's likely that we'll arrive at a superhuman AI during my lifetime, friendly or not.
• I do not think that Eliezer's techno-utopia is more desirable than simply humanity continuing to develop on its own at a natural pace.
• I do not fear death of old age, nor do I desire immortality or uploads.
• As muh as I respect Eliezer as a popularizer of science, when it comes to social wishes, he makes sweeping generalizations, too easily projects his personal desires onto the rest of humanity, and singles out whole broad categories as stupid or deluded just because they don't share his beliefs. If I don't trust his agenda enough to vote for him in a hypothetical election for President of United Earth, why should I trust his hypothetical AI?