= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong comments on Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election? - 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 (213)
I'm surprised you've left out nukes. Nukes are basically the only existential risk angle that presidents have direct control over and where the personality of the POTUS would effect the outcome.
1) Which one is more likely to engage in a nuclear preemptive strike?
2) Which one is less likely to forgive a 'finger slip'? (Ex, a fuse breaks in Russia/China/whoever and they alpha-strike the US; which person is more likely to retaliate and end the world vs not retaliate and suffer US extinction without punishing them back?)
3) Which one has less fear of human extinction? Religiosity and belief in anthropogenic changes to the state of the world seem to be relevant factors.
Those all seem to push in the Obama direction, then...
Well, those were the salient ones. If you would like some romney-direction examples, there's the amount of resources used to prevent nuclear proliferation, and of course deterrence, the opposite of Xachariah's #2.