Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Gunnar_Zarncke comments on A map: Typology of human extinction risks - Less Wrong

9 Post author: turchin 23 June 2015 05:23PM

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

Comments (6)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 27 June 2015 09:47:18PM 0 points [-]

I like the systematics and the level of completion you achieved even though I think some examples are redundant, contrieved or better instances could be found. Yes, criticism is always possible. My main question is how you arrived at the probability judgements for the 2030 and 2050 colums.

Comment author: turchin 29 June 2015 09:13:41PM 1 point [-]

The notion of probability in case of x-risks is completely different from any other probabilities. Because we have to measure probability of unique event which will not have observers by definition. So the best way to apply probability here is just to show our relative stake on probability of one or other scenarios. So, the digits are more or less arbitrary, but have to show that the risks are high and that they are growing, and that the total is around 50 percent, as it was estimated by different x-risks authors: Leslie said that it is 30 pr cent in 200 years, Rees that it is 50 per cent in 100 years. I am going to make another map just about the probability of x-risks, which would include estimates from different authors, and different ideas about how the probability of x-risks should be define.