100% doesn't work because then you starve. If I re-formulate your question to "is there any rebuttal to why we don't donate way more to charity than we currently do" then the answer depends on your belief system. If you are utilitarian, the answer is definitive no. You should spend way more on charity.

Of course, "leading to global warming" is a subset of "harmful for the environment". Agreed on all counts.

Computing can't harm the environment in any way - it's within a totally artificial human space.

The others ("good") can harm the environment in general, but are much better for AGW.

I think that many physiotherapists could do a better job if they would have body scanners.

The BMI is a horrible metric and having cheap body scanners would move us past the BMI and provide us with better targets for weight management.

Given that, wouldn't having lots and lots of these scanners massively increase medical costs by creating many false positives?

In many cases I wouldn't need to go to the doctor if a good body scanner can tell me what's up with me. If the scanner can tell me whether my teeth are alright, I don't have to go to the dentist.

If I can get a body scan for mammogram from a person who isn't a breast surgery salesman as in the status quo, a false positive is also less likely to get me to do risky treatment.

"the average IQ is now x" (where x is different from 100)

I think you are just being pedantic. When people say something like "the flynn effect has raised the average IQ has increased by 10 points over the last 50 years", they mean that the average person would score 10 points higher on a 1950's IQ test. See also the value of money, which also changes over time due to inflation. When people say "a dollar was worth more 50 years ago", you don't reply "nuh uh, a dollar has always been worth exactly one dollar."

claims of "some scientists estimating" the IQ of a computer, an animal, or a fictional alien species.

I mean it's impossible to do any kind of serious estimate. But I don't think the idea of a linear scale of intelligence is inherently meaningless. So you could give a very rough estimate where nonhuman intelligences would fall on it, and where that would put them relative to humans with such and such IQ.

Have you considered adding the geometric mean for certain questions? It should help a bit to deal with extreamly large answers.

Some things I found interesting:

1) The case for being pro-choice is so strong even neoreactionaries and fascists are pro-choice. Interestingly, on this specific issue, conservatives are to the right of fascists!

2) On political opinions, HBD is about an objective, falsifiable, scientifically mesureable characteristic of the world, whereas the other opinions are opinions. Opinions on HBD also correlates strongly with other views, and so I am interested as to how poeple's opinions would change if it was proved to them that the truth about HBD is the opposite of what they currently believe it to be. Would their other views change?

3) Some of the '90% of humanity die' risks seem extremely low probability to me, and I am perplexed by why so many people chose them:

Nuclear war: +4.800% 326 (20.6%)

The worst case scenario for nuclear war at the hight of the cold war was about 40% of humanity dies. I suppose that its possible that vast numbers of new bombs could be built, without similar investment in bomb shelters, but this does seem a little implausible.

Environmental collapse (including global warming): +1.500% 252 (16.0%)

In the 'Cretaceous hothouse' period CO2 levels were 8x higher, and there was still enough vegetation to support giant dinosaurs far bigger than the largest animal today. The worst-case scenarios are a decrease in economic growth and a migrant crisis, not 90% of humanity dies.

Economic / political collapse: -1.400% 136 (8.6%)

Its difficult enough to imagine political collapse killing 90% of the population in one country. The Syrian civil war has killed 3% of the population. The Japanese invasion of China killed 4%. I'm aware of some wars that killed 50% - parts of the thirty years war, the Mongol invasion of China - but I think these were combined with famines or disease outbreaks. In the 1870 Japanese civil war, the samurai combatants took over 99% casualties, but the non-combatants survived. 90% deaths of one country would be mind-boggling. But 90% deaths of the whole of humanity? A political collapse that affects the entire world, including countries of every culture? Including China and other countries that are not democracies?

Is the NEET lifestyle of welfare more pleasant for the individual than a working life?

Or it could also be that all the matter in the universe has already been converted to "smart matter" and is running basic algorithms and rulesets.....

Is this a continuation of something or is this just a one-off?

I was around back in the day, and can confirm that this is nonsense. NRX evolved separtely. There was a period where it was of interest and explored by a number of LW contributors, but I don't think any of the thought leaders of either group were significantly influential to the other.

There is some philosophical overlap in terms of truth-seeking and attempted distinction between universal truths and current social equilibria, but neither one caused nor grew from the other.

Saw the site mentioned on Breibart:

Link: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

Money Quote:

...Elsewhere on the internet, another fearsomely intelligent group of thinkers prepared to assault the secular religions of the establishment: the neoreactionaries, also known as #NRx.

Neoreactionaries appeared quite by accident, growing from debates on LessWrong.com, a community blog set up by Silicon Valley machine intelligence researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky. The purpose of the blog was to explore ways to apply the latest research on cognitive science to overcome human bias, including bias in political thought and philosophy.

LessWrong urged its community members to think like machines rather than humans. Contributors were encouraged to strip away self-censorship, concern for one’s social standing, concern for other people’s feelings, and any other inhibitors to rational thought. It’s not hard to see how a group of heretical, piety-destroying thinkers emerged from this environment — nor how their rational approach might clash with the feelings-first mentality of much contemporary journalism and even academic writing.

Led by philosopher Nick Land and computer scientist Curtis Yarvin, this group began a ..."

I wasn't around back in the day, but this is nonsense, right? Nrx didn't start on lesswrong, yeah?