You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Maximizing Donations to Effective Charities - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: Gleb_Tsipursky 07 December 2015 06:13PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (29)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 13 December 2015 11:25:51PM 1 point [-]

You're badly calibrated :-P

OK, tell me about the medium-term existential risk of an environmental disaster.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 14 December 2015 06:19:47PM -1 points [-]

Lol, thanks for the calibration warning.

Not interesting in discussions of environmental disasters. I've been reading way too much about this with the new climate accord to want to have an LW-style discussion about it. I think we can both agree that there is significant likelihood of problems, such as major flooding of low-lying areas, in the next 20-30 years.

Comment author: Lumifer 14 December 2015 06:37:28PM 0 points [-]

We are facing much bigger short and medium-term existential risks

...magically transforms into...

there is significant likelihood of problems

Heh. So, "the sky is falling!" means "a chance of rain on Monday"?

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 14 December 2015 10:02:58PM 0 points [-]

I just gave one example of the kind of environmental problem quite likely to occur within the medium-term. There are many others. Like I said, not interested in discussing these :-)

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 15 December 2015 01:19:35AM 0 points [-]

Millions of Bangladeshis having to relocate (or build dykes) would indeed be a problem, but hardly an existential risk in the LWian sense of the term.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 15 December 2015 04:31:57AM -1 points [-]

I replied to this point here

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 14 December 2015 11:46:12PM -1 points [-]

I think we can both agree that there is significant likelihood of problems, such as major flooding of low-lying areas, in the next 20-30 years.

This is so nostalgic, this was what the GW alarmists were saying 20 years ago.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 16 December 2015 04:51:03AM 0 points [-]

You still haven't taken up the bet that you said you would

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 December 2015 01:10:23AM 1 point [-]

I think we can both agree that there is significant likelihood of problems, such as major flooding of low-lying areas, in the next 20-30 years.

There were floods in the past that produced damage and likely some in the future but why do you believe it's an Xrisk?

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 15 December 2015 04:31:27AM -1 points [-]

I think floods would only be one type of problem from climate change. Other would be extreme weather, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. These would be quite destabilizing for a number of governments, and contribute to social unrest, which has unanticipated consequences. Even worse, at some point, we can face abrupt climate change.

Now, this is all probabilistic, and I'm not saying it will necessarily happen, but this is a super-short version of why I consider climate change an X-risk.