Two kinds of risk
- S-risks: risks of gigantic suffering in the future.
- X-risks (existential risks): risks that humanity goes extinct or that civilization collapses.
Which one should we put first to have the best impact?
A speciesist case for x-risks
Some say: "We should focus on x-risks because humans matter much more."
The author points out two problems:
- there's no way to justify giving humans more weight just for being human;
- even giving humans much more weight, the number of beings that could be affected by s-risks is astronomically bigger. So preventing s-risks would still be more worthwhile.
"Humanity is needed to prevent suffering"
Others say: "We should prevent human extinction because only humans will be able to reduce suffering in the future."
That depends on how humanity will act. There are three scenarios:
- humanity continues and causes less suffering than if it went extinct;
- humanity goes extinct;
- humanity continues and causes more suffering, for example by spreading exploitation or creating digital minds that suffer.
The first is the best; the third is worse than the second. So it's not enough to make sure humanity survives: we need to make sure of how it will act.
"Focusing on humans brings in more resources"
Some say that, since people are speciesist, talking only about humans would bring in more support. But that risks reinforcing speciesism, which is one of the biggest sources of s-risks.
In short
- S-risks are about suffering; x-risks are about human extinction.
- Even giving humans more weight, s-risks affect far more beings.
- Humanity surviving is only good if it reduces suffering.