Executive summary: The author argues that Toby Ord fails to provide sufficient evidence to support his high estimates of 1⁄10,000 and 1⁄30 chance of existential catastrophe from natural or engineered pandemics, respectively, by 2100.
Key points:
Ord provides little evidence that natural pandemics pose a 1⁄10,000 existential risk, especially as historical pandemics showed civilization’s resilience. Fossil records also show disease rarely causes mammalian extinctions.
Ord argues gain-of-function research could enable engineered pathogens threatening humanity, but gives no detailed case for how this leads to a 1⁄30 existential risk.
Ord claims states may develop catastrophic pathogens as deterrents, but this claim needs much more substantiation given the challenges of engineering such pathogens.
Ord suggests democratized biotech could empower malign actors, but most experts are skeptical biotech enables engineering radically new or catastrophic pathogens. Ord provides no counterarguments.
Governance issues may exacerbate risks, but don’t directly support Ord’s specific risk estimates.
Ord’s extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which is lacking. More is needed to justify his high risk estimates over expert skepticism.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The author argues that Toby Ord fails to provide sufficient evidence to support his high estimates of 1⁄10,000 and 1⁄30 chance of existential catastrophe from natural or engineered pandemics, respectively, by 2100.
Key points:
Ord provides little evidence that natural pandemics pose a 1⁄10,000 existential risk, especially as historical pandemics showed civilization’s resilience. Fossil records also show disease rarely causes mammalian extinctions.
Ord argues gain-of-function research could enable engineered pathogens threatening humanity, but gives no detailed case for how this leads to a 1⁄30 existential risk.
Ord claims states may develop catastrophic pathogens as deterrents, but this claim needs much more substantiation given the challenges of engineering such pathogens.
Ord suggests democratized biotech could empower malign actors, but most experts are skeptical biotech enables engineering radically new or catastrophic pathogens. Ord provides no counterarguments.
Governance issues may exacerbate risks, but don’t directly support Ord’s specific risk estimates.
Ord’s extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which is lacking. More is needed to justify his high risk estimates over expert skepticism.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.