Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?

Stuart_Armstrong

Don't let your minds be killed, but I was wondering if there were any existential risk angles to the coming American election (if there isn't, then I'll simply retreat to raw, enjoyable and empty tribalism).

I can see three (quite tenuous) angles:

Obama seems more likely to attempt to get some sort of global warming agreement. While not directly related to Xrisks per se, this would lead to better global coordination and agreement, which improves the outlook for a lot of other Xrisks. However, pretty unlikely to succeed.
I have a mental image that Republicans would be more likely to invest in space exploration. This is a lot due to Newt Gingrich, I have to admit, and to the closeness between civilian and military space projects, the last of which are more likely to get boosts in Republican governments.
If we are holding out for increased population rationality as being a helping factor for some Xrisks, then the fact the the Republicans have gone so strongly anti-science is certainly a bad sign. But on the other hand, its not clear whether them winning or losing the election is more likely to improve the general environment for science among their supporters.

But these all seem weak factors. So, less wronger, let me know: are the things I should care about in the election, or can I just lie back and enjoy it as a piece of interesting theatre?

I can see three (quite tenuous) angles:

Obama seems more likely to attempt to get some sort of global warming agreement. While not directly related to Xrisks per se, this would lead to better global coordination and agreement, which improves the outlook for a lot of other Xrisks. However, pretty unlikely to succeed.
I have a mental image that Republicans would be more likely to invest in space exploration. This is a lot due to Newt Gingrich, I have to admit, and to the closeness between civilian and military space projects, the last of which are more likely to get boosts in Republican governments.
If we are holding out for increased population rationality as being a helping factor for some Xrisks, then the fact the the Republicans have gone so strongly anti-science is certainly a bad sign. But on the other hand, its not clear whether them winning or losing the election is more likely to improve the general environment for science among their supporters.

But these all seem weak factors. So, less wronger, let me know: are the things I should care about in the election, or can I just lie back and enjoy it as a piece of interesting theatre?

You do know tea party activists are actually above average on nearly any stat you'd care to name? Education, political knowledge, ...

It's weird, I had considered using that same fact as an argument for MY side of this debate, but I cut it for the sake of brevity. To be clear, are you suggesting that the Tea Party is a good influence on American (or world) politics? Sure, they're smarter than the average American, but clearly being slightly smarter doesn't translate to a similar increase in sanity. Glenn Beck himself is definitely smarter than most Americans, but he's never let that get in the way of being a frothing lunatic. I could mention a whole swathe of examples of how despite being smarter, the Tea Party is also far more radical and morally objectionable than Americans on average, but I'll just link some articles because I have class in half an hour and want keep this quick.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-bookworm/2010/05/10_fictious_tea_party_beliefs.html http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1903/tea-party-movement-religion-social-issues-conservative-christian

The reason we want to raise average voter IQ is because we think this will make the voters saner on average, but in the case of the Tea Party this clearly hasn't happened. This is exactly why I brought them up - these people haven't been motivated to vote by an appeal to their intelligence, or there'd be a hell of a lot more of them and their policies would be different. Rather, they've been motivated by an appeal to their fear and anger and radicalism. You can't get lazy moderates to the voting booths by whipping them up into misguided fury, but you CAN get lazy radicals like that, so by making voting non-compulsory you hand people like Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, etc, a much greater proportion of the votes than they deserve. You don't have to be smart to realise the Tea Party is wrong, just sane. Conversely, you don't have to be dumb to be insane.

It's weird, I had considered using that same fact as an argument for MY side of this debate, but I cut it for the sake of brevity. To be clear, are you suggesting that the Tea Party is a good influence on American (or world) politics?

I can't speak for Konkvistador but I certainly do.

Glenn Beck himself is definitely smarter than most Americans, but he's never let that get in the way of being a frothing lunatic.

What you mean is that you disagree with him on a lot of issues, for each one consider the possibility that it is you who is being a lunatic.

... (read more)

-16

Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?

-16

-16

-16

Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?

-16

-16