Existential Proactivity

[Jazzy]

It occurs to me that this forum is in most ways reactive, rather than proactive, and that we should be prepared somewhat better to meet the future.

The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk


Many scientists are concerned that developments in human technology may soon pose new, extinction-level risks to our species as a whole. Such dangers have been suggested from progress in AI, from developments in biotechnology and artificial life, from nanotechnology, and from possible extreme effects of anthropogenic climate change. The seriousness of these risks is difficult to assess, but that in itself seems a cause for concern, given how much is at stake. (For a brief introduction to the issues in the case of AI, with links to further reading, see this recent online article by Huw Price and Jaan Tallinn.)

The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk — a joint initiative between a philosopher, a scientist, and a software entrepreneur — begins with the conviction that these issues require a great deal more scientific investigation than they presently receive. Our aim is to establish within the University of Cambridge a multidisciplinary research centre dedicated to the study and mitigation of risks of this kind. We are convinced that there is nowhere on the planet better suited to house such a centre. Our goal is to steer a small fraction of Cambridge's great intellectual resources, and of the reputation built on its past and present scientific pre-eminence, to the task of ensuring that our own species has a long-term future. (In the process, we hope to make it a little more certain that we humans will be around to celebrate the University's own millenium, now less than two centuries hence.)

Content from External Source

This link (and others like it which might be better known by someone here) may supply some pointers.

http://cser.org

 

[Mick West]

Well, I'm a proponent of Preemptive Debunking:
https://www.metabunk.org/content/131-The-Case-for-Preemptive-Debunking

But the problem, as noted above, is how to decide if something is worth debunking. Often the best you can hope for is to nip theories in the bud as they are forming, not actually before they exist. Some things might seem rather silly. I barely thought the Obamacare RFID hoax was worth debunking, and yet it's my most popular post.

 

[Jazzy]

Well, I'm a proponent of Preemptive Debunking:
https://www.metabunk.org/content/131-The-Case-for-Preemptive-Debunking

But the problem, as noted above, is how to decide if something is worth debunking. Often the best you can hope for is to nip theories in the bud as they are forming, not actually before they exist. Some things might seem rather silly. I barely thought the Obamacare RFID hoax was worth debunking, and yet it's my most popular post.

You're absolutely right, but not quite catching on to the point I'm trying to make (which has only just occurred to me, so I'm not clear about it either) which is something like an attempt to map the whole scenario as if you were in a battlefield. Obtain some sort of overview by establishing some form of associateship with any body who is attempting a similar overview.

I thought it might help with pre-emption, that's all. I'll stop because I realize I'm beginning to talk like George.

I see what you mean about that RFID stuff. Oh brave new world.