= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bokov comments on US default as a risk to mitigate - 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 (120)
Presumably you have some data to back this up?
What existential risks do the NIH, NASA, and CDC produce?
Lowtech Amish aren't engaging in activities that produce much existential risk. Most of the existential risk we face come as a result of technological progress.
When it comes to building nanobots, I think that something in which NASA is interested.
Various NIH projects are aimed at advancing bioengieering. If someone solve protein folding simulation it's possible that he can build a nanobot with it.
Various NIH research also makes it cheaper for people to machine for gene synthesis and build organisms that do have the possibility to mess up ecosystems.
The antrax attacks in the US were due to antrax from a US government lab. The CDC still has smallpox sample that it doesn't destroy.
But pointing to concret risks isn't the point. Breakthrough research tends to bring up things that you don't forcast.
...including forecasting whether it will occur in a corporate, charity, or government funded lab?
I don't think it makes sense to separate those two much. An advance in a government funded lab can lead to the idea being applied in corporate labs.
Okay, so we agree then? An across-the-board cut to federally funded research is not desirable?
On average I would expect application of research result raise existential risk, so no we don't agree there.
I haven't used the word desirable in this discussion at all. It's besides the point if you want to speak about the effects that things that you can't control have. It leads to a mindkilled arguments as soldiers mentality.
Good point-- I had started this discussion to explore personal/local preparedness strategies, and the effect the same crisis might have on NIH or on MIRI is indeed off-topic.