[ExI] The Avalanche Threat

Robert Picone rpicone at gmail.com
Sun Sep 16 03:15:45 UTC 2007

On 9/15/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Stathis writes
> > On 15/09/2007, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> The key factor is that another human being is a resourceful antagonist,
> >> unlike avalanches and car accidents. Any sign of instability or hostility
> >> from another human (or group of humans) has to be recognized as
> >> a very serious danger.  And this hasn't changed at all in the last
> >> 100,000 years.
> >
> > Yes, but you still have to *rationally* assess the risk from your
> > co-worker versus other risks. If he has been doing his rubber band
> > trick for the last 30 years, with no other evidence of hostile or
> > dangerous behaviour, this is different to the case where the behaviour
> > is new and perhaps indicative of a developing psychotic episode.
> Yes, I think that's right. Likewise if we knew with very high probability
> that Iran was going to be no more of a threat than it has been the last
> fifty years, then it would be quite irrational to worry much about it.
> On the other hand, if your neighbor or coworker has repeated sworn
> that he will kill you, and that the only thing that's been stopping him
> heretofore has been lack of opportunity or technology, and his
> circumstances are now changing, we're right back to having to
> regard this as very, very dangerous.
> Lee

Hmm, and if said coworker was seen holding a steak knife, while
talking about eating and issuing fatwas against stabbing techniques,
all while you were known to have a gun on your person, as were several
others who had sided with you, would this count as having his
circumstances change?

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list