= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stefan_Schubert comments on Sleepwalk bias, self-defeating predictions and existential risk - 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 (11)
Related: Scott Adams' Law of Slow Moving Disasters
"whenever humanity can see a slow-moving disaster coming, we find a way to avoid it. Let’s run through some examples:
Thomas Malthus famously predicted that the world would run out of food as the population grew. Instead, humans improved their farming technology.
When I was a kid, it was generally assumed that the world would be destroyed by a global nuclear war. The world has been close to nuclear disaster a few times, but so far we’ve avoided all-out nuclear war.
The world was supposed to run out of oil by now, but instead we keep finding new ways to extract it from the ground. The United States has unexpectedly become a net provider of energy.
The debt problem in the United States was supposed to destroy the economy. Instead, the deficit is shrinking, the stock market is surging, and the price of gold is plummeting."
Thanks. My claim is somewhat different, though. Adams says that "whenever humanity can see a slow-moving disaster coming, we find a way to avoid it". This is an all-things-considered claim. My claim is rather that sleepwalk bias is a pro-tanto consideration indicating that we're too pessimistic about future disasters (perhaps especially slow-moving ones). I'm not claiming that we never sleepwalk into a disaster. Indeed, there might be stronger countervailing considerations, which if true would mean that all things considered we are too optimistic about existential risk.