Thanks! Sorry for the confusing hedge-y claim: academics tend to be a bit guarded sometimes when we should just say things straight out.
I definitely mean that (2) doesn’t follow from (1). But I mean a lot more than that. I mean that if (1) is true, then it’s much harder for (2) to be true. It’s not impossible for (1) and (2) to be true together. But (1) actually makes it much harder, not easier for (2) to be true.
Thanks! Sorry for the confusing hedge-y claim: academics tend to be a bit guarded sometimes when we should just say things straight out.
I definitely mean that (2) doesn’t follow from (1). But I mean a lot more than that. I mean that if (1) is true, then it’s much harder for (2) to be true. It’s not impossible for (1) and (2) to be true together. But (1) actually makes it much harder, not easier for (2) to be true.
No worries, the problem is mine. There is a LOT that I don’t know about these issues.
So if it’s true that existential risk is very high, that makes it much harder to reduce existential risk? Or...
If it’s true that existential risk is very high, it’s not important to do what we can to reduce it?
Or, something else?
Yeah, the second: if it’s true that existential risk is high, it’s less important to do what we can to reduce it.
It can still be important, but not as important.