I guess that might raise the question if there is a term specifically for x-risks that aren’t s-risks. My sense is that people often use the term “x-risk” for that concept as well, but in some contexts one might want to have another term; to distinguish the two concepts.
Basic argument seems to be: Permanent astronomical hell is also curtailment of humanity’s potential, one that is very high in the dimensions of scope (astronomical) and intensity (involves hellish levels of suffering).
One explanation might be that historically there seemed to have been somewhat of a divide between people worrying about s-risks and x-risks (which were ~ suffering-focused and ~ classic utilitarians), and this framing might’ve helped getting more cooperation started.
I want a word which covers {x-risk, s-risk}, “Existential or worse”.
Doom?
“x-risk” covers “x-risk or worse” right?
Yes, I’d say so.
I guess that might raise the question if there is a term specifically for x-risks that aren’t s-risks. My sense is that people often use the term “x-risk” for that concept as well, but in some contexts one might want to have another term; to distinguish the two concepts.
I always thought s-risks are a subset of x-risks, e.g. that’s how CLR framed it here:
https://longtermrisk.org/s-risks-talk-eag-boston-2017/
Basic argument seems to be: Permanent astronomical hell is also curtailment of humanity’s potential, one that is very high in the dimensions of scope (astronomical) and intensity (involves hellish levels of suffering).
Good framing, but I’m surprised they went for it since it partially obscures S behind its larger more popular brother X.
One explanation might be that historically there seemed to have been somewhat of a divide between people worrying about s-risks and x-risks (which were ~ suffering-focused and ~ classic utilitarians), and this framing might’ve helped getting more cooperation started.
“At least existential”
Gotta be one word or bust