I don't see how that paper illustrates that Bolstrom is a "James Bond Villian"... I also don't think that is a very constructive or productive way to criticize

I don't see how that paper illustrates that Bolstrom is a "James Bond Villian"... I also don't think that is a very constructive or productive way to criticize longtermists beliefs or arguments. I would much rather under the specific issues you have as I don't feel like I understand your position very well. > nitpicks percentage probabilities of environmental catastrophe (and the downstream effects of those catastrophes) in order to distinguish them from the real threats, which are characterized in part by Bostrom's assigned percentage probability ranges to such things as nanotechnological breakthroughs, neurotechnical rewiring of brains, I don't see much discussion, let alone nitpicking of those probabilities, nor do I seem any assignment of probability ranges in that paper. The closest I can find is where he discounts the predicted reduction of GPD due to global warming by comparing it to the last century of global GDP growth on page 13. To me this does seem a bit myopic as the potential for secondary effects, like an uptick in regional conflicts or the disruptive effects of mass migration seem extremely hard to predictively model and discount. The only place where I see Bostrom make probabalistic claims is where he talks about how the chances of a plateaued or recurrent collapse scenario seem to decrease as the time scale increases which the chances of a posthuman or extinction scenario increase. While we can't ascribe specific or even vague probabilities to these scenarios with any degree of accuracy for any timeframe, the overall statement about how these probabilities change as the timescale increases seems very reasonable. If this is what you disagree with, I'd be very curious to understand your reasoning.