DanArmak 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.

Comments (38)

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

Comment author: DanArmak 12 January 2015 09:35:27AM 0 points [-]

This is true - these are two completely different things. And I assume from the comments on this post that the OP does indeed define it subjectively, i.e. via loss of (expected) value. Each is worthy of discussion, and I think the two discussions do mostly overlap, but we should be clear as to what we're discussing.

Cases of extinction that aren't existential risk for some people: rapture / afterlife / end of the world religious scenarios; uploading and consequent extinction of biological humanity (most people today would not accept uploading as substiute to their 'real' life); being replaced by our non-human descendants.

Cases of existential risk (for some peoples' values) that don't involve extinction: scenarios where all remaining humans hold values dramatically different from your own; revelation that one's religion or deeply held morality is objectively wrong; humanity fails to populatte/influence the universe; and many others.

Comment author: Lumifer 12 January 2015 04:03:38PM 0 points [-]

Cases of extinction that aren't existential risk for some people

These are not cases of extinction. Christians wouldn't call the Second Coming "extinction" -- after all, you are getting eternal life :-/ I wouldn't call total uploading "extinction" either.

Comment author: DanArmak 12 January 2015 04:30:36PM 1 point [-]

I would call Armageddon (as part of the Second Coming) extinction. And Christians would call forced total uploading extinction (as a form of death).