In considering the balance of positive and negative effects that organisational and civilization advances have had on the ability to respond to the risk of pathogens, Ord states that āit is hard to know whether these combined effects have increased or decreased the existential risk from pandemicsā (p. 127). This argument, however, seems implausible
If we interpret Ord as saying āthe existential risk from pandemics is just as likely to have increased as to have decreasedā, then Iād agree that that seems implausible. (Though Iām not an expert on the relevant topics.) For that reason, I think that that wasnāt an ideally phrased sentence from Ord.
However, his literal claim is just that itās hard to know whether the risk has risen or fallen. Iād agree with that. It seems to me likely that the risk has fallen, but maybe around a 60-90% chance that thatās true, rather than 99%. (These are quite made-up numbers.) And my estimate of the chance the risks have fallen wouldnāt be very āresilientā (i.e., itād be quite open to movement based on new evidence).
Minor point, regarding:
If we interpret Ord as saying āthe existential risk from pandemics is just as likely to have increased as to have decreasedā, then Iād agree that that seems implausible. (Though Iām not an expert on the relevant topics.) For that reason, I think that that wasnāt an ideally phrased sentence from Ord.
However, his literal claim is just that itās hard to know whether the risk has risen or fallen. Iād agree with that. It seems to me likely that the risk has fallen, but maybe around a 60-90% chance that thatās true, rather than 99%. (These are quite made-up numbers.) And my estimate of the chance the risks have fallen wouldnāt be very āresilientā (i.e., itād be quite open to movement based on new evidence).