= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, Sep. 21 - Sep. 27, 2015 - 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 (133)
The second part of that sentence oh so does not follow from the first part.
That's very hard to say without quantifying "likely" and "considerable". One could say the same about most extinction events, for certain definitions of those two words.
I find mood affiliation to be a much more convincing explanation than convoluted definitions of "not likely" and "considerable".
Convincing explanation for what? I thought we were discussing whether or not it was worth spending resources to prevent global extinction from global warming... which is more of a question than an explanation.
How is putting a numerical amount to "not likely" and "considerable" convuluted. That's the basis of any decision probelm.
For Torgo's belief. He didn't ask a question, he stated his belief upfront.
That's why they are separated by the word "but". If I were to say "it rained yesterday, but today it looks like it will be sunny", would you object that "sun today doesn't follow from rain yesterday"?
I believe we should be spending resources to avoid many unlikely existential risks, even those I believe are less likely to be existential risks than climate change (eg. tracking asteroids).