Is this a decent summary of what you mean by 'reasonable': noticeably rational in socially acceptable ways, i.e. you use reasons and arguments that are in accordance with group norms?

A reasonable person:

• can explain their reasoning
• is seen as someone who will update their beliefs based on socially acceptable evidence
• is seen to act in accordance with social norms even when the norms are irrational. This means that their behaviour and reasoning are seen as socially acceptable and/or praiseworthy

Sent 150 USD to Against Malaria foundation.

The idea of dumbing people is also present in Bad plan section, "limitation of human or collective intelligence"... But the main idea of preventing human extinction is, by definition to ensure that at least several examples of Homo sapienses are still alive in any given point of time. It is not the best possible definition. It should also include posthumans if they based on humans and share a lot of their properties (and as Bostrom said: could realise full human potential). In fact, we can't said what is really good before we solve Friendly AI problem. And if we know what is good, we could also said what is worst outcome, and so constitute existential catastrophe. But real catastrophe which could happen in 21 century is far from such sophisticated problems of determination ultimate good, human nature and full human potential. It is clear visible physical process of destruction.

There are some ideas of down to top solving problems of control, like idea of transparent society by David Brin, where vigilants will scan the web and video sensors searching for terrorists. So it would be not hierarchical control but net based, pr peer to peer.

I like two extra boxes, but for now I already spent my prize budget two times, which unexpectedly put me in controversial situation: as author of the map I want to make the best and most inclusive map, but as a owner of prize fund (which I pay from personal money earned selling art) I feel my self more screwy :)

A question: is it possible to create risk control system, which is not based on centralized power, like bitcoin is not based on central banking?

For example: local police could handle local crime and terrorists; local health authorities could find and prevent disease spread. If we have many x-risks peers, they could control their neighborhood in their professional space.

Counter example: how it could help in situations like ISIS or other rogue state, which is going (may be) to create a doomsday machine or virus which will be used to blackmail or exterminate other countries?

I accepted your idea about replacing the word “robust" and will award the prize for it.

The main idea of this roadmap is to escape availability bias by listing all known ideas for x-risk prevention. This map will be accompanied by the map of all known x-risks which is ready and will be published soon. More than 100 x-risks have been identified and evaluated.

The idea that some of plans create their own risks is represented in this map with red boxes below plan A1.

But it may be possible to create completely different future risks and prevention map using system approach, or something like a scenarios tree.

Yes, each plan is better to contain specific risks. A1 is better to contain biotech and nanotech risks, A2 is better for UFAI, A3 for nuclear war and biotech an so on. So another map may be useful to correspond risks and prevention methods.

Timeline was already partly replaced with "steps", as was already suggested by "elo" and he was awarded for it.

Phil Torres shows that Bostroms classification of x-risks is not as good as it seems to be, in: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/torres20150121 So I prefer the notion of "human extinction risks" as more clear.

I still don't know how we could fix all the world system problems which are listed in your link without having control of most of the world which returns us to plan A1.

In plans: 1. Is not "voluntary or forced devolution" the same as "ludism" and "relinquishment of dangerous science" which is already in the plan?

1. The idea of uploding was already suggested here in the form of "migrating into simulation" and was awarded.

2. I think that "some movement or event that will cause a paradigmatic change so that humanity becomes more existentially-risk aware" is basically the same idea as "smaller catastrophe could help unite humanity (pandemic, small asteroid, local nuclear war)", but your wording is excellent.

I think I should accept "dramatic social changes”, as it could include many interesting but different topics: demise of capitalism, hipster revolution, internet connectivity, global village, dissolving of national states. I got many suggestions in this line and I could unite them under this topic.

Do you mean METI - messaging to stars? Yes, it dangerous, and we should do it only if everything else fails. That is why I put in into plan C. But by the way SETI is even more dangerous as we could download decryption of alien AI. I have an article about it here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gzv/risks_of_downloading_alien_ai_via_seti_search/

Thank for your suggestions which were the first ones which imply creation of the map on completely different principles.

So in total for now I suggest you 2 award and one from Romashka, total 150 usd. Your username suggests me that you would prefer to keep anonymity, so I could send money to a charity of your choice.

I would use the word resilient rather than robust.

• Robust: A system is robust when it can continue functioning in the presence of internal and external challenges without fundamental changes to the original system.

• Resilient: A system is resilient when it can adapt to internal and external challenges by changing its method of operations while continuing to function. While elements of the original system are present there is a fundamental shift in core activities that reflects adapting to the new environment.

I think that it is a better idea to think about this from a system perspective rather than the specific X-risks or plans that we know about or think are cool. We want to avoid the availability bias. I would assume that there are more X-risks and plans that we are unaware of then we are aware of.

I recommend adding in the risks and relating them to the plans as most of your plans if they fail would lead to other risks. I would do this in a generic way. An example to demonstrate what I am talking about is: with a risk tragedy of the commons and a plan to create a more capable type of intelligent life form that will uphold, improve and maintain the interests of humanity. This could be done by genetic engineering and AI to create new life forms. And, Nanotechnology and biotechnology could be used to change existing humans. The potential risk of this plan is that it leads to the creation of other intelligent species that will inevitably compete with humans.

One more recommendation is to remove the time line from the road map and just have the risks and plans. The timeline would be useful in the explanation text you are creating. I like this categorisation of X risks:

• Bangs (extinction) – Earth-originating intelligent life goes extinct in relatively sudden disaster resulting from either an accident or a deliberate act of destruction.

• Crunches (permanent stagnation) – The potential of humankind to develop into posthumanity is permanently thwarted although human life continues in some form.

• Shrieks (flawed realization) – Some form of posthumanity is attained but it is an extremely narrow band of what is possible and desirable.

• Whimpers(subsequent ruination) – A posthuman civilization arises but evolves in a direction that leads gradually but irrevocably to either the complete disappearance of the things we value or to a state where those things are realized to only a minuscule degree of what could have been achieved.

I don’t want this post to be too long, so I have just listed the common systems problems below:

• Policy Resistance – Fixes that Fail

• Tragedy of the Commons

• Drift to Low Performance

• Escalation

• Success to the Successful

• Shifting the Burden to the Intervenor—Addiction

• Rule Beating

• Seeking the Wrong Goal

• Limits to Growth

Four additional plans are:

1. (in Controlled regression) voluntary or forced devolution

2. uploading human consciousness into a super computer

3. some movement or event that will cause a paradigmatic change so that humanity becomes more existentially-risk aware

4. dramatic societal changes to avoid some existential risks like the over use of resources. An example of this is in the book: The world inside.

You talk about being saved by non-human intelligence, but it is also possible that SETI could actually cause hostile aliens to find us. A potential plan might be to stop SETI and try to hide. The opposite plan (seeking out aliens) seems as plausible though.