The biggest risk of "existential risk mitigation" is that it will be used by the "precautionary principle" zealots to shut down scientific research. There is some evidence that it has been attempted already, see the fear-mongering associated with the startup of the new collider at CERN.
A slowdown, much less an actual halt, in new science is the one thing I am certain will increase future risks, since it will undercut our ability to deal with any disasters that actually do occur.
see the fear-mongering associated with the startup of the new collider at CERN.
Was there really deceptive fear-mongering? That's news to me. Fear was overblown, but I don't think anyone was using it for anything other than what they thought was safety.
A slowdown in new science is the one thing I am certain will increase future risks
I highly doubt this. All plausible major x-risks appear to be man-made. Slowing down would give us more time to see them coming. Why would it undercut our ability to deal with a disaster?
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
(I plan to make these threads from now on. Downvote if you disapprove. If I miss one, feel free to do it yourself.)