Thanks for sharing this piece and looking for constructive feedback. I’d agree with most of the points made by other commenters. I would also suggest:
Engage more with primary sources and more things written by people outside of effective altruism. There are thousands of climate scientists with interesting things to say, and a relatively small number of people in EA thinking about this.
General humility about this field—we don’t have great data on what the climate and society will be like in 50, 100, 200, 500+ years time, and it’s hard to know what the limits for habitation / adaption will be.
How would you define existential threat? I’ve heard David Wallace-Wells say that he thinks climate change is already an existential threat because it’s already leading us to change how we live our lives. You seem to use Bostrom’s definition. Why do you think it’s better?
Thanks for sharing this piece and looking for constructive feedback. I’d agree with most of the points made by other commenters. I would also suggest:
Engage more with primary sources and more things written by people outside of effective altruism. There are thousands of climate scientists with interesting things to say, and a relatively small number of people in EA thinking about this.
General humility about this field—we don’t have great data on what the climate and society will be like in 50, 100, 200, 500+ years time, and it’s hard to know what the limits for habitation / adaption will be.
How would you define existential threat? I’ve heard David Wallace-Wells say that he thinks climate change is already an existential threat because it’s already leading us to change how we live our lives. You seem to use Bostrom’s definition. Why do you think it’s better?