If global warming gets worse, but people get enough richer, then they could end up better off. If an unfriendly intelligence explosion occurs, then it kills everyone no matter how well the economy is doing. His argument only applies to risks of marginal harm to the average quality of life, not to risks of humanity getting wiped out entirely.
If global warming gets worse, but people get enough richer, then they could end up better off.
Tautologically, yes. But the two hypotheses are not independent. Global warming is predicted to destroy wealth—that is the only reason we care about it.
If global warming gets worse, but people get enough richer, then they could end up better off. If an unfriendly intelligence explosion occurs, then it kills everyone no matter how well the economy is doing. His argument only applies to risks of marginal harm to the average quality of life, not to risks of humanity getting wiped out entirely.
Tautologically, yes. But the two hypotheses are not independent. Global warming is predicted to destroy wealth—that is the only reason we care about it.
This is not tautological. Wealth is highly correlated with wellbeing but not logically equivalent.
It seems like you have redefined the meaning of some terms here.
The tautology lies in the word “enough”.