Some of the probability estimate seem a fair bit too high to me.
In case 2, you say the risk of extinction is between 1% and 10%. In that world, there would be 800 million survivors—about the same as the world population in 1750. On the one hand, agriculture would be harder due to a nuclear/asteroid winter—maybe this leads to a >10-fold reduction in agricultural land? But on the other hand, we have massively more scientific and technical knowledge today which has led to a >600% increase in yield since 1750 for some major food crops. I suspect on balance, this would make food supply harder, but not enough to produce a 1% risk of extinction (barring another catastrophe).
A general comment—I think it would be good to make an explicit model which explains how you arrived at a probability estimate—this makes it easier to pinpoint disagreements and to understand underlying reasoning.
Some of the probability estimate seem a fair bit too high to me.
In case 2, you say the risk of extinction is between 1% and 10%. In that world, there would be 800 million survivors—about the same as the world population in 1750. On the one hand, agriculture would be harder due to a nuclear/asteroid winter—maybe this leads to a >10-fold reduction in agricultural land? But on the other hand, we have massively more scientific and technical knowledge today which has led to a >600% increase in yield since 1750 for some major food crops. I suspect on balance, this would make food supply harder, but not enough to produce a 1% risk of extinction (barring another catastrophe).
A general comment—I think it would be good to make an explicit model which explains how you arrived at a probability estimate—this makes it easier to pinpoint disagreements and to understand underlying reasoning.