Yes, I agree with that! This is what I consider to be the core concern regarding X-risk. Therefore, instead of framing it as āwhether it would be good or bad for everyone to die,ā the statement āwhether it would be good or bad for no future people to come into existenceā seems more accurate, as it addresses what is likely the crux of the issue. This latter framing makes it much more reasonable to hold some degree of agnosticism on the question. Moreover, I think everyone maintains some minor uncertainties about thisāeven those most convinced of the importance of reducing extinction risk often remind us of the possibility of āfutures worse than extinction.ā This clarification isnāt intended to draw any definitive conclusion, just to highlight that being agnostic on this specific question isnāt as counter-intuitive as the initial statement in your top comment might have suggested (though, as Jim noted, the post wasnāt specifically arguing that we should be agnostic on that point either).
I hope I didnāt come across as excessively nitpicky. I was motivated to write by impression that in X-risk discourse, there is sometimes (accidental) equivocation between the badness of our deaths and the badness of the non-existence of future beings. I sympathize with this: given the short timelines, I think many of us are concerned about X-risks for both reasons, and so itās understandable that both get discussed (and this isnāt unique to X-risks, of course). I hope you have a nice day of existence, Richard Y. Chappell, I really appreciate your blog!
One last clarification Iād want to add is just the distinction between uncertainty and cluelessness. Thereās immense uncertainty about the future: many different possibilities, varying in valence from very good to very bad. But appreciating that uncertainty is compatible with having (very) confident views about whether the continuation of humanity is good or bad in expectation, and thus not being utterly ācluelessā about how the various prospects balance out.
Yes, I agree with that! This is what I consider to be the core concern regarding X-risk. Therefore, instead of framing it as āwhether it would be good or bad for everyone to die,ā the statement āwhether it would be good or bad for no future people to come into existenceā seems more accurate, as it addresses what is likely the crux of the issue. This latter framing makes it much more reasonable to hold some degree of agnosticism on the question. Moreover, I think everyone maintains some minor uncertainties about thisāeven those most convinced of the importance of reducing extinction risk often remind us of the possibility of āfutures worse than extinction.ā This clarification isnāt intended to draw any definitive conclusion, just to highlight that being agnostic on this specific question isnāt as counter-intuitive as the initial statement in your top comment might have suggested (though, as Jim noted, the post wasnāt specifically arguing that we should be agnostic on that point either).
I hope I didnāt come across as excessively nitpicky. I was motivated to write by impression that in X-risk discourse, there is sometimes (accidental) equivocation between the badness of our deaths and the badness of the non-existence of future beings. I sympathize with this: given the short timelines, I think many of us are concerned about X-risks for both reasons, and so itās understandable that both get discussed (and this isnāt unique to X-risks, of course). I hope you have a nice day of existence, Richard Y. Chappell, I really appreciate your blog!
No worries at all (and best wishes to you too!).
One last clarification Iād want to add is just the distinction between uncertainty and cluelessness. Thereās immense uncertainty about the future: many different possibilities, varying in valence from very good to very bad. But appreciating that uncertainty is compatible with having (very) confident views about whether the continuation of humanity is good or bad in expectation, and thus not being utterly ācluelessā about how the various prospects balance out.