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 “it is hard to know whether these combined effects have increased or decreased the existential risk from pandemics” (p. 127). This argument, however, seems implausible
If we interpret Ord as saying “the existential risk from pandemics is just as likely to have increased as to have decreased”, then I’d agree that that seems implausible. (Though I’m not an expert on the relevant topics.) For that reason, I think that that wasn’t an ideally phrased sentence from Ord.
However, his literal claim is just that it’s hard to know whether the risk has risen or fallen. I’d agree with that. It seems to me likely that the risk has fallen, but maybe around a 60-90% chance that that’s true, rather than 99%. (These are quite made-up numbers.) And my estimate of the chance the risks have fallen wouldn’t be very “resilient” (i.e., it’d be quite open to movement based on new evidence).
Minor point, regarding:
If we interpret Ord as saying “the existential risk from pandemics is just as likely to have increased as to have decreased”, then I’d agree that that seems implausible. (Though I’m not an expert on the relevant topics.) For that reason, I think that that wasn’t an ideally phrased sentence from Ord.
However, his literal claim is just that it’s hard to know whether the risk has risen or fallen. I’d agree with that. It seems to me likely that the risk has fallen, but maybe around a 60-90% chance that that’s true, rather than 99%. (These are quite made-up numbers.) And my estimate of the chance the risks have fallen wouldn’t be very “resilient” (i.e., it’d be quite open to movement based on new evidence).