Do you agree with any of this? Is there a point where you think it goes too far? If so, say where it goes too far and explain why.
Ethics. You can’t take for granted that the actions in question will have the effects you claim, and that neither they nor the disposition to take them have comparable costs.
Less importantly:
Simple opportunity cost. Most of those don’t sound like very efficient ways to buy x-risk reduction. (I realize the ways in which this objection is contingent on limited resources etc.)
Destroying civilization would entirely defeat the point, for most plausible value systems.
Ethics. You can’t take for granted that the actions in question will have the effects you claim, and that neither they nor the disposition to take them have comparable costs.
Less importantly:
Simple opportunity cost. Most of those don’t sound like very efficient ways to buy x-risk reduction. (I realize the ways in which this objection is contingent on limited resources etc.)
Destroying civilization would entirely defeat the point, for most plausible value systems.
Ethics is a virtue that is kept in service of utility optimization, and should bow before an explicit argument of sufficient quality.
(I posted the parent, and deleted it as not satisfactorily saying what I wanted to, not realizing that there was a reply. Mea culpa.)
Interesting thing is that replies to deleted comments are always by Vladimir Nesov.