There are two possible ways of climate change—relatively mild, which means 4 C increase, and runaway catastrophic, in which atmosphere will become hotter for may be 50 C and humanity goes extinct. The second one is much less probable, less that 1 per cent in my estimation. But its consequences will be much more grave, so it total negative utility may be higher than in first scenario.
Are you going to address this issue? I could provide many links on the second scenario, but it may turn the discussion in the wrong way about it validity, while my question is about distribution of negative utility between more and less probable scenarios.
I will address this issue when I discuss climate change as a GCR, and in particular as a potential x-risk. However, I won’t be doing this for a while, as I intend to do some research first.
There are two possible ways of climate change—relatively mild, which means 4 C increase, and runaway catastrophic, in which atmosphere will become hotter for may be 50 C and humanity goes extinct. The second one is much less probable, less that 1 per cent in my estimation. But its consequences will be much more grave, so it total negative utility may be higher than in first scenario.
Are you going to address this issue? I could provide many links on the second scenario, but it may turn the discussion in the wrong way about it validity, while my question is about distribution of negative utility between more and less probable scenarios.
I will address this issue when I discuss climate change as a GCR, and in particular as a potential x-risk. However, I won’t be doing this for a while, as I intend to do some research first.