Putting these other two in the same category as “existential risk” seems like a mistake. This seems especially obvious in the case of (the present, normal rate of) death and existential risk. Bostrom’s talk gives an annual death rate of 56 million, whereas if you take future generations into account, a 1% reduction in existential risk could save 10^32 lives.
And if you don’t take people who don’t exist into account, is it still a mistake?
And if you don’t take people who don’t exist into account, is it still a mistake?