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 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.