5 ms·

Which is very worrying! That's part of why I left big tech to work on detecting novel pandemics. [1] Luckily, the people capable of killing everyone seem not

by jefftk 3y ago

Which is very worrying! That's part of why I left big tech to work on detecting novel pandemics. [1] Luckily, the people capable of killing everyone seem not to have wanted to so far. But if the bar keeps lowering, at some point it will be accessible to "humanity is a cancer" folks and I do think we'll see serious efforts to wipe out humanity. [1] https://www.jefftk.com/p/computational-approaches-to-pathogen-detection https://www.jefftk.com/p/computational-approaches-to-pathoge...

jebarker 3y ago
Who are the "humanity is a cancer" folk? I thought this was a trope used to discredit environmentalists?
- jefftk 3y ago
  Most people think continued existence of humanity is good, which includes environmentalists. But there are some people who either think (a) avoiding suffering is overwhelmingly important, to the extent that a universe without life is ideal or (b) the world would be better off without humans because of the vast destruction we cause. I'm not claiming this is a common view, but it doesn't have to be a common view to result in destruction if destruction gets sufficiently straightforward. For some writing in this direction, see https://longtermrisk.org/risks-of-astronomical-future-suffering/ https://longtermrisk.org/risks-of-astronomical-future-suffer... which argues that as suffering-focused people they should not try to kill everyone primarily because they are unlikely to succeed and https://philarchive.org/archive/KNUTWD https://philarchive.org/archive/KNUTWD ("Third, the negative utilitarian can argue that losing what currently exists on Earth would not be much of a loss, because of the following very plausible observation: overall, sentient beings on Earth fare terribly badly. The situation is not terrible for every single individual, but it is terrible when all individuals are considered. We can divide most sentient beings on Earth into the three categories of humans, non-human animals in captivity, and wild non-human animals, and deal with them in turn. ...")
  - jebarker 3y ago
    This doesn't really answer my question. These are arguments for why threat actors might hold the belief that "humanity is cancer", but it doesn't actually provide evidence that this is a credible threat in the real world.
    - jefftk 3y ago
      The two people I cited at the end are examples of philosophers who think a lifeless world is preferable to the status quo and to futures we are likely to get. These aren't arguments for why someone might hold the belief, but evidence that some people do seriously hold the belief. (Another example here would be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo)
      - jebarker 3y ago
        Fair enough. I don't doubt there are people in the world that hold this view. I just don't know how credible they are as a threat to humanity.
    - SkyMarshal 3y ago
      Elon Musk and Joe Rogan were just complaining about one of them on Rogan’s podcast a day or two ago. He was on the cover of Time magazine, but I can’t find it on Time’s site. If you dig up that podcast on YT you should be able to see it.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      The calculation of considering something is a credible threat directly corresponds with the ease of implementation. If I said "I am going to drop a nuke on jebarker" that's not a credible threat unless I happen to be a nation state. Now, if I said "I'm going to come to jebarkers house and blast him with a 12 gauge" and I'm from the US, that is a credible threat in most cases due to the ease of which I can get a weapon here. And this comes down to the point of having a magic machine in which you could ask for the end of the world. The more powerful that machine gets the bigger risk it is for everyone. You ever see those people that snap and start killing everyone around them? Would you want them to have a nuke in that mood? Or a 'lets turn humanity in to grey goo' option?
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Movies and strawmen alike.

by jefftk 3y ago

jebarker 3y ago

Who are the "humanity is a cancer" folk? I thought this was a trope used to discredit environmentalists?

jefftk 3y ago
Most people think continued existence of humanity is good, which includes environmentalists. But there are some people who either think (a) avoiding suffering is overwhelmingly important, to the extent that a universe without life is ideal or (b) the world would be better off without humans because of the vast destruction we cause. I'm not claiming this is a common view, but it doesn't have to be a common view to result in destruction if destruction gets sufficiently straightforward. For some writing in this direction, see https://longtermrisk.org/risks-of-astronomical-future-suffering/ https://longtermrisk.org/risks-of-astronomical-future-suffer... which argues that as suffering-focused people they should not try to kill everyone primarily because they are unlikely to succeed and https://philarchive.org/archive/KNUTWD https://philarchive.org/archive/KNUTWD ("Third, the negative utilitarian can argue that losing what currently exists on Earth would not be much of a loss, because of the following very plausible observation: overall, sentient beings on Earth fare terribly badly. The situation is not terrible for every single individual, but it is terrible when all individuals are considered. We can divide most sentient beings on Earth into the three categories of humans, non-human animals in captivity, and wild non-human animals, and deal with them in turn. ...")
- jebarker 3y ago
  This doesn't really answer my question. These are arguments for why threat actors might hold the belief that "humanity is cancer", but it doesn't actually provide evidence that this is a credible threat in the real world.
  - jefftk 3y ago
    The two people I cited at the end are examples of philosophers who think a lifeless world is preferable to the status quo and to futures we are likely to get. These aren't arguments for why someone might hold the belief, but evidence that some people do seriously hold the belief. (Another example here would be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo)
    - jebarker 3y ago
      Fair enough. I don't doubt there are people in the world that hold this view. I just don't know how credible they are as a threat to humanity.
  - SkyMarshal 3y ago
    Elon Musk and Joe Rogan were just complaining about one of them on Rogan’s podcast a day or two ago. He was on the cover of Time magazine, but I can’t find it on Time’s site. If you dig up that podcast on YT you should be able to see it.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    The calculation of considering something is a credible threat directly corresponds with the ease of implementation. If I said "I am going to drop a nuke on jebarker" that's not a credible threat unless I happen to be a nation state. Now, if I said "I'm going to come to jebarkers house and blast him with a 12 gauge" and I'm from the US, that is a credible threat in most cases due to the ease of which I can get a weapon here. And this comes down to the point of having a magic machine in which you could ask for the end of the world. The more powerful that machine gets the bigger risk it is for everyone. You ever see those people that snap and start killing everyone around them? Would you want them to have a nuke in that mood? Or a 'lets turn humanity in to grey goo' option?
ipaddr 3y ago
Movies and strawmen alike.