Also, Kemp & Cremer in their X-risk paper argue for existential risk to be measured through systemic risk analysis instead of what they call “hazard-centric” risk analysis, as isolating risks (eg CBRN, ASI) may lead to ignoring common contributing factors to the risks. That lens lends itself well to “institutional buffer”—type interventions for minimizing cascade risks.
Yeah it’s honestly quite amazing/impressive to me, that those looking into this seem to have arrived at very similar insights to Post Keynesians on this point, but have done it without reference to that school of thought (which has been around and developing for more than 100 years)
So I guess my theory is that those working on these ideas could find both a lot of common ground but perhaps further insights they may not yet have considered by engaging more directly with post-Keynsian methodology.
Interesting link of ideas! A few thoughts:
- Nassim Taleb’s conceptualisation of antifragility seems related to the institutional buffer.
- Arguing that under the assumption of strong epistemic cluelessness, consequentialist agents depend on Pascal’s wager type scenarios to choose longtermist policies: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-023-04153-y These wagers might take the form of: https://philarchive.org/rec/BALPMS
https://longtermrisk.org/files/Bracketing_Cluelessness.pdf offers an argument for salvaging cluelessness through isolating certain mechanisms of foresight.
Also, Kemp & Cremer in their X-risk paper argue for existential risk to be measured through systemic risk analysis instead of what they call “hazard-centric” risk analysis, as isolating risks (eg CBRN, ASI) may lead to ignoring common contributing factors to the risks. That lens lends itself well to “institutional buffer”—type interventions for minimizing cascade risks.
Yeah it’s honestly quite amazing/impressive to me, that those looking into this seem to have arrived at very similar insights to Post Keynesians on this point, but have done it without reference to that school of thought (which has been around and developing for more than 100 years)
So I guess my theory is that those working on these ideas could find both a lot of common ground but perhaps further insights they may not yet have considered by engaging more directly with post-Keynsian methodology.