The effect of most disasters decays over time, but this does not mean that a disaster so big it ends humanity is not possible. So I don’t see why that most societal changes decay over time bears on whether large trajectory changes could happen. Maybe someday, there will be a uniquely huge change.
Also, I don’t understand why Bostrom mentions a “thought” that all sufficiently good civilizations will converge toward an optimal track. This seems like speculation.
Here is a concern I have. It may be that reducing many types of existential risk, like of nuclear war, could lower economic growth.
How do we know that by avoiding war we are not increasing another sort of existential risk, or the risk of permanent economic stagnation? Depending on how much we want to risk a total nuclear war, human development on Earth might have many permanent equilibria.
The effect of most disasters decays over time, but this does not mean that a disaster so big it ends humanity is not possible. So I don’t see why that most societal changes decay over time bears on whether large trajectory changes could happen. Maybe someday, there will be a uniquely huge change.
Also, I don’t understand why Bostrom mentions a “thought” that all sufficiently good civilizations will converge toward an optimal track. This seems like speculation.
Here is a concern I have. It may be that reducing many types of existential risk, like of nuclear war, could lower economic growth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?hpw&rref=
How do we know that by avoiding war we are not increasing another sort of existential risk, or the risk of permanent economic stagnation? Depending on how much we want to risk a total nuclear war, human development on Earth might have many permanent equilibria.