= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Open thread, July 16-22, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (297)
Existential risk due to astronomical or technological causes, as opposed to divine intervention, is pretty novel. No one thinks global warming will end humanity.
If you're well familiar with the idea of the world ending, the precise mechanism doesn't seem to be that important.
I think what's novel is the idea that humans can meaningfully affect that existential risk. However that's a lower bar / closer jump than the novelty of the whole idea of existential risk.
"If you're familiar with the idea of Christians being resurrected on Judgment Day, the precise mechanism of cryonics doesn't seem to be that important."
"If you're familiar with the idea of angels, the precise mechanism of airplanes doesn't seem to be that important."
For the purpose of figuring out whether an idea is so novel that people have trouble comprehending it, yes, familiarity with the concept of resurrection is useful.
People are familiar with birds and bats. And yes, the existence of those was a major factor in accepting the possibility of heavier-than-air flight and trying to develop various flying contraptions.