I think to the extent you are trying to draw the focus away from longtermist philosophical arguments when advocating for people to work on extinction risk reduction, that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest (though I’m unsure which side of the fence I’m on).
But I don’t want people casually equivocating between x-risk reduction and EA, relegating the rest of the community to a footnote.
I think it’s a misleading depiction of the in-practice composition of the community,
I think it’s unfair to the people who aren’t convinced by x-risk arguments,
I think it could actually just make us worse at finding the right answers to cause prioritization questions.
I think to the extent you are trying to draw the focus away from longtermist philosophical arguments when advocating for people to work on extinction risk reduction, that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest (though I’m unsure which side of the fence I’m on).
But I don’t want people casually equivocating between x-risk reduction and EA, relegating the rest of the community to a footnote.
I think it’s a misleading depiction of the in-practice composition of the community,
I think it’s unfair to the people who aren’t convinced by x-risk arguments,
I think it could actually just make us worse at finding the right answers to cause prioritization questions.