army1987 comments on 2013 Survey Results - Less Wrong

74 Post author: Yvain 19 January 2014 02:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (558)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 January 2014 09:57:12PM *  3 points [-]

Sure, dysgenics is unlikely to result in a bang (in this terminology), but it can sure result in a crunch. (Some people have argued that's already happened in places such as inner-city Detroit.)

Comment author: satt 01 February 2014 05:33:50PM 2 points [-]

Bostrom's definition of a crunch ("The potential of humankind to develop into posthumanity[7] is permanently thwarted although human life continues in some form") isn't coextensive with ChristianKI's "90% of the human population dying by 2100", and dysgenics seems far less likely to cause the latter than the former. (I find it still more unlikely that dysgenics was the key cause of Detroit's decline, given that that happened in ~3 generations.)

I can think of scenarios where dysgenics might kill 90% of humanity by 2100, but only (1) in combination with some other precipitating factor, like if dysgenics meant a vital unfriendly-AI-averting genius were never born, or (2) if dysgenics were deliberately amplified by direct processes like embryo selection.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 February 2014 06:16:05PM 0 points [-]

Bostrom's definition of a crunch ("The potential of humankind to develop into posthumanity[7] is permanently thwarted although human life continues in some form") isn't coextensive with ChristianKI's "90% of the human population dying by 2100", and dysgenics seems far less likely to cause the latter than the former.

I agree. I guess that ChristianKl guessed that by “the list of existential risks” baiter meant the one in the survey, but I was charitable to baiter and assumed he meant it in a more abstract sense.