From: Russell Wallace (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Aug 12 2006 - 18:15:43 MDT
On 8/13/06, Brian Atkins <email@example.com> wrote:
> But my point is a constrained
> case dealing specifically with existential risks.
Yes, so's mine - it's precisely because we're dealing with existential risks
that this issue is worth spending effort on.
Stepping outside the
> least-risky viewpoint temporarily, as a lark or creative aid, might still
> useful in such a case, but if you live there permanently and
> believe in a reality which provides for ultimate okayness despite a 99%
> rate then we seem to be into unnecessary risk territory.
Minimizing risk is precisely what I advocate. The problem is that our
Cro-Magnon brains are programmed to give systematically wrong answers in
this area: "Feel good in the belief that one is reducing risk" and "Actually
reduce risk" are _different and incompatible_ goals. I advocate choosing the
second instead of the first.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 25 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT