Lumifer comments on Existential Risk and Existential Hope: Definitions - LessWrong

7 Post author: owencb 10 January 2015 07:09PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (38)
Tags: risk existential xhope xrisk

Comments (38)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 10 January 2015 10:33:14PM *  -1 points [-]

I haven't had a chance to read the report fully yet but my immediate reaction from looking at the first two definitions given is that they don't rely on a specific moral framework or class of moral framework whereas the proposed definition seems to rely on some utilitarian or close to utilitarian notion.

Edit: Now read the whole thing, and it would be nice to have some substantial address to the issue raised in the above paragraph. Also, calling this a technical report seems a little overblown given how short it is. And as a matter of signaling a formal bibliography would be nice.

Comment author: owencb 10 January 2015 11:03:36PM 0 points [-]

I agree that it's short; now added this as a descriptor above. Technical report was the most appropriate category; they're usually longer.

... my immediate reaction from looking at the first two definitions given is that they don't rely on a specific moral framework or class of moral framework whereas the proposed definition seems to rely on some utilitarian or close to utilitarian notion.

We address this, saying:

A lot of the work of this definition is being done by the final couple of words. ‘Value’ refers simply to whatever it is we care about and want in the world, in the same way that ‘desirable future development’ worked in Bostrom’s definition.

What counts as an existential catastrophe does depend on the moral framework (which seems appropriate), but doesn't seem tied to any specific one. I agree that the simple definition (extinction) dodges anything like this, and that that is a point in its favour.

Comment author: DanArmak 11 January 2015 09:19:19PM -1 points [-]

What counts as an existential catastrophe does depend on the moral framework (which seems appropriate), but doesn't seem tied to any specific one.

Different frameworks can definitely disagree on whether some events are catastrophes. E.g., a new World War erupting might seem a good thing to some who believe in the Rapture.

If you're saying that some nontrivial subset of potential catastrophes are universally regarded as such, then I think that should be substantiated. If OTOH you saying this is true as long as you ignore some parts of humanity, then you should specify which parts.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit