One of the objection I’ve heard from talking about s-risks separate from x-risks is that s-risks are already fully captured by the x-risk category and nothing is gained by making them distinct. A similar objection could reasonably be applied here, that c-risks are just a small subset of x-risks and not worth considering as a separate category in need of a name (rather they would just be x-risks from civilization collapse).
Do you have any thoughts on this? For example, can you think of cases that are c-risks but not x-risks such that they don’t entirely overlap, like maybe a collapse scenario that does not pose an existential risk?
I have tried to lay out in the section on probability, above, that most X-risks are a subset of C-risks as they collapse usually has to happen before an existential event. Most X-risks in their moderate form, such as a nuclear winter lasting a few years, moderate climate change, or a global pandemic seem much more likely to pose a C-risk than an X-risk.
One of the objection I’ve heard from talking about s-risks separate from x-risks is that s-risks are already fully captured by the x-risk category and nothing is gained by making them distinct. A similar objection could reasonably be applied here, that c-risks are just a small subset of x-risks and not worth considering as a separate category in need of a name (rather they would just be x-risks from civilization collapse).
Do you have any thoughts on this? For example, can you think of cases that are c-risks but not x-risks such that they don’t entirely overlap, like maybe a collapse scenario that does not pose an existential risk?
I have tried to lay out in the section on probability, above, that most X-risks are a subset of C-risks as they collapse usually has to happen before an existential event. Most X-risks in their moderate form, such as a nuclear winter lasting a few years, moderate climate change, or a global pandemic seem much more likely to pose a C-risk than an X-risk.