[extropy-chat] RISKS: hazard comparisons

[Brett Paatsch]

From: "Amara Graps" <amara at amara.com>

> Brett Paatsch:
> >Asteroids are non-partisan and don't differentiate voter preferences
> >highly in any given electoral period.
> 
> Fortunately...

Yes, I'm glad asteroids don't take sides.

I think I've confounded Robert's initial post by mixing in two things - 
two different sorts of risks -  the risks faced by all people (person-kind
if you like) versus the risks one faces as an individual in a world of 
other people and politics - sorry about that.  

I am glad that some folks (like Robert) do take a different (wider) view
of risks that the average politician or the punter that votes. But when 
one *personally* considers one's own overall risks to survival - I think
its not asteroids or even bacteria that are the greatest threat - its 
still other people - their actions and inactions - their beliefs acted on.

I think the biggest threats to Robert's survival are not asteroids or
viruses either. 

There need be no malice on their part for other people to be dangerous
too us (or indeed we to them). Poor judgement (or erroneous beliefs
acted on) are enough. 
  
> >They aren't lonely phenomenon in that respect unfortunately.

By this I meant that there are many things that are important to the
long term of both individuals and person-kind that don't get 
consideration in elections in the "free-world" because for a party
to get elected they only have to beat the other party at the ballot
box they don't have to offer real choice on a range of issues.

Many important issues (to particular people) don't constitute a
meaningful 'wedge' because they are of interest to too few voters.
- Like asteroids and viruses. 
 
> It's better to see some evaluations and numbers to gauge the risks.

Yes.
 
> Planetary Defense Conference: Protecting the Earth from 
> Asteroids A summary of papers from a 4-day AIAA conference
> held February 23-26
> 
> http://128.102.38.40/impact/news_detail.cfm?ID=136#top
> 
> Be careful though, you know that occasionally astronomers
> see opportunities to gain funding for their research, so please
> don't think that science is politics-free. (I'm sure you already
> know that.)

It's worth differentiating politics per se I think from party politics
as it is most commonly experienced in the established systems of
the west. 

To me politics per se arises naturally in all human interaction because
we are social and alive and because at any given time there is limited
actual resources. I can't imagine intelligent resource contingent life 
manifesting without politics. But this is not what most people mean
usually by the word. 
 
> Amara
> 
> P.S. You know how much I hate these kind of discussions.

I don't think you like discussions on politics, especially ones that
spiral downwards into emotive exchanges (as frequently happens)
- I don't see much point in those either.

> I would prefer much more to see people today  as pro-living,
> rather than pro-risks or pro-deaths.

I'd prefer it too - when it is true. Who'd want to live an excessively
pessimistic life?  But when it isn't true I don't want my wishful thinking
to get in the way of a correct diagnosis and to thereby live a shorter
lesser life.  

Optimism (or perhaps the avoidance of pessimism) is important to
extropes. But so is problem solving. Too much optimism and one doesn't
even see a problem to solve. A lot of the problems one faces (including
the problems of personal survival and increased longevity) are of an
intrinsically political nature. 

Brett Paatsch

PS: I almost didn't post this because I'm not saying all much - I'm just
clarifying - or chatting ;-)