I didn’t downvote, but I’ll give my two cents after having read the abstract.
Your abstract didn’t leave me wanting to read the rest of your essay.
You say that the cause of our lack of coordination and management of x-risks is because of “human nature.” This is such a nebulous term, it’s unclear how to evaluate this claim, and given many people’s tendency to wax poetic without saying much of substance about human nature, I worry your essay is in this genre. You also say we cannot change human nature. It’s unclear how you would argue for this and why this wouldn’t immediately lead to a defeatist attitude. But given advances in neuroscience, genetics, and AI I strongly doubt that any conception of human nature is as fixed as you would claim. You do later say that a cooperative society is possible, which seems inconsistent with the earlier part of your abstract.
The key to cooperating and managing x-risks, you say, is acquiring an understanding life and human nature. Again, this is too vague to evaluate.
And you say this knowledge can be made quick and easy to acquire, which seems… utopian? So I strongly doubt that the essay would lead to actionable advice.
Thanks for the comment. I changed nebulous “human nature” with a bit less nebulous “nature of life” in the abstract. Unfortunately, I don’t know what other words in abstract (except of the full text of essay) can help to clear up questions that arise and make you want to read the text. But anyway I updated the post with a more detailed synopsis, hope this helps.
I didn’t downvote, but I’ll give my two cents after having read the abstract.
Your abstract didn’t leave me wanting to read the rest of your essay.
You say that the cause of our lack of coordination and management of x-risks is because of “human nature.” This is such a nebulous term, it’s unclear how to evaluate this claim, and given many people’s tendency to wax poetic without saying much of substance about human nature, I worry your essay is in this genre. You also say we cannot change human nature. It’s unclear how you would argue for this and why this wouldn’t immediately lead to a defeatist attitude. But given advances in neuroscience, genetics, and AI I strongly doubt that any conception of human nature is as fixed as you would claim. You do later say that a cooperative society is possible, which seems inconsistent with the earlier part of your abstract.
The key to cooperating and managing x-risks, you say, is acquiring an understanding life and human nature. Again, this is too vague to evaluate.
And you say this knowledge can be made quick and easy to acquire, which seems… utopian? So I strongly doubt that the essay would lead to actionable advice.
Thanks for the comment. I changed nebulous “human nature” with a bit less nebulous “nature of life” in the abstract. Unfortunately, I don’t know what other words in abstract (except of the full text of essay) can help to clear up questions that arise and make you want to read the text. But anyway I updated the post with a more detailed synopsis, hope this helps.