FWIW I think people are normally more concerned with flawed realisation scenarios than stagnation scenarios. (I’m not sure whether this changes your basic point.)
Thanks for your comment. I don’t think it changes my point, but in that case “stagnation risk” is also a badly named term here.
I’ve added this edit to the post:
“
On further thought, it may be worth dividing out existential risk into extinction risk, collapse risk, flawed realisation risk and plateauing risk, where extinction and collapse risks seem robust to many more moral theories, but plateauing and flawed realisation risks seem robust to far fewer moral theories.
“
FWIW I think people are normally more concerned with flawed realisation scenarios than stagnation scenarios. (I’m not sure whether this changes your basic point.)
Thanks for your comment. I don’t think it changes my point, but in that case “stagnation risk” is also a badly named term here.
I’ve added this edit to the post:
“ On further thought, it may be worth dividing out existential risk into extinction risk, collapse risk, flawed realisation risk and plateauing risk, where extinction and collapse risks seem robust to many more moral theories, but plateauing and flawed realisation risks seem robust to far fewer moral theories. “