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?

What's wrong with being "radical"?

Nothing's wrong with being radical. I'm radical myself on many issues. But his policy is radical and I do disagree with it, so it appears to me to be radically wrong. I am making the case that readers should agree with me on this point.

What exactly is so "lunatic" about this quote? Yes, the reasoning isn't up to LW standards, but that's true of nearly all reasoning outside LW.

I think the suggestion that the President has a deep-seated hatred for white people is ludicrous. If you have any serious evidence that Obama is concealing a burning emnity towards people of European descent then I am willing to weigh it against the evidence I have already seen to the contrary, but at the moment it seems so unlikely to be true that I struggle to imagine how a person could seriously believe it without suffering from some severe cognitive handicap. Thus: it seems like the sort of thing only a lunatic could believe.

He is by no means the only public personality to fantasize about killing a prominent member of the opposing political faction.

Sure, I'm certain plenty of people fantasize about killing their political opponents, but how many of them actually suggest on television that they would like to do so? I've seen Chuck Norris do it, I've seen Glenn Beck do it. I'm sure there are others, but again, I think that telling the nation about how you would enjoy staring into a man's eyes as you choked the life out of him is not the sort of thing a sane, rational person would do with sincerely.

I disagree with him, but you may want to read this before deciding that this is obviously "lunatic".

I agree that not believing in evolution doesn't make him insane, just radically incorrect. Perhaps that particular quote was poor evidence for the "lunatic" thesis.

His Caliphate theory predicts that hardcore socialists and communists will work together with Muslims to overthrow Israel, capitalism, The West, and any other stable countries. He posits a conspiracy.

Let me guess, this is the first time you've been in a discussion with someone whose political views are vastly different from your own.

No, I often engage in political debate. I enjoy it! I am an active member of a minority political party, I attend a University full of intelligent people with varied opinions, I have a wide circle of friends from a range of backgrounds, many of whom disagree with me quite strongly. I have had this exact conversation dozens of times. The fact that you consider it a possibility that I have never encountered someone who disagreed with me is bizarre to me. My assumption was that you are in the same position. I asked if you were joking because I was surprised to find a Glenn Beck apologist in one of the most rational forums on the internet, and I didn't want to look silly if it turned out you were being sarcastic.

I've seen Chuck Norris do it, I've seen Glenn Beck do it. I'm sure there are others

All the celebrities fantasizing about killing Bush.

His Caliphate theory predicts that hardcore socialists and communists will work together with Muslims to overthrow Israel, capitalism, The West, and any other stable countries.

Well, to a large extent hardcore socialists and communists are working together with Islamists.

I asked if you were joking because I was surprised to find a Glenn Beck apologist in one of the most rational forums on the internet

The fact that... (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