I agree with paragraph 1 and 2 and disagree with paragraph 3 :)
That is: I agree longtermism and x-risk are much more difficult to introduce to the general population. They’re substantially farther from the status quo and have weirder and more counterintuitive implications.
However, we don’t choose what to talk about by how palatable it is. We must be guided by what’s true, and what’s most important. Unfortunately, we live in a world where what’s palatable and what’s true need not align.
To be clear, if you think global development is more important than x-risk, it makes sense to suggest that we should focus that way instead. But if you think x-risk is more important, the fact that global development is less “weird” is not enough reason to lean back that way.
I agree with paragraph 1 and 2 and disagree with paragraph 3 :)
That is: I agree longtermism and x-risk are much more difficult to introduce to the general population. They’re substantially farther from the status quo and have weirder and more counterintuitive implications.
However, we don’t choose what to talk about by how palatable it is. We must be guided by what’s true, and what’s most important. Unfortunately, we live in a world where what’s palatable and what’s true need not align.
To be clear, if you think global development is more important than x-risk, it makes sense to suggest that we should focus that way instead. But if you think x-risk is more important, the fact that global development is less “weird” is not enough reason to lean back that way.