Comment author: Daniel_Eth 07 April 2017 12:25:21AM 0 points [-]

Looks like good work! My biggest question is how would you get people to actually do this? I'd imagine there are a lot of people that would want to go to Mars since that seems like a great adventure, but living in a submarine in case there's a catastrophe isn't something that I think would appeal to many people, nor is funding the project.

Comment author: turchin 07 April 2017 07:11:11AM 3 points [-]

If we promise that people who want to go to Mars have to serve a year on a refuge-submarine, there will be a lot of volonteers - and we could choose the best.

Or we could collect the crews the same way as military crews are collected - combining prestige and salary.

Comment author: JacobLBryan 06 April 2017 10:57:28AM 0 points [-]

When you get to scenario three where a nuclear submarine is operating under a private non-governmental organization I have to wonder about precedent for governments allowing fissile material into private control, especially absent a lot of the governmental controls that existing power plants have in place.

(You have a typo in figure 1, years not tears.)

Comment author: turchin 06 April 2017 12:34:47PM 2 points [-]

Thanks for typo hint!

I think that they mostly should be operating under general government control. There are also several private companies which licensed to make nuclear power plants etc like Westinghouse, and the same companies could operate nuclear powered ships and submarines.

14

Surviving Global Catastrophe in Nuclear Submarines as Refuges

Our article about using nuclear submarines as refuges in case of a global catastrophe has been accepted for the Futures  journal and its preprint is available online. Preventing global risks or surviving them is good application of EA efforts. Converting existing nuclear submarines into refuges may be cheap intervention with high... Read More
Comment author: MikeJohnson 09 December 2016 05:50:20PM *  4 points [-]

Yes, it would be quite civilizationally embarrassing to accidently p-zombie ourselves... more generally, it seems valuable to understand tradeoffs in consciousness. This seems to be an important component in any far-future planning.

Also- Andres has done some interesting exploratory work re: defining the problem of future drug epidemics, and discussing game-theoretic considerations.

Comment author: turchin 09 December 2016 07:36:47PM 1 point [-]

If we make an AGI which doesn't have qualia, it will probably will prove that no such thing exist and proceed with p-zombie us.

So in may be better to pursued the way to AGI which probably will provide it with qualia, and one such way is human upgrade

Comment author: turchin 09 December 2016 02:41:53PM 6 points [-]

I agree on your main premises - about importance of qualia, especially from the point of x-risks. For example, if humans will be uploaded, but without qualia, they will become p-zombies.

If qualia of extreme pleasure could be created and transferred, super-addictive drug epidemic will happen.

I have been thinking about qualia a lot and have some theories, but now I am concentrated on another topic.

Comment author: turchin 19 November 2016 06:33:15PM *  2 points [-]

My point of view: There were 3 possible outcomes of the election, H win, T win, no clear result. I used to think that the last is worst outcome, as it would result in civil war, end of progress etc. It still could happen if sides will increase mutual animosity. But it has very small probability.

Two other outcomes both could have positive and negative effects on x-risks. T-win negative outcomes are listed in the article, and I agree. Positive outcomes could be following: preventing nuclear war with Russian in short term and Thiel (who supports FAI) in the administration.

Negative outcome in case of H win: Higher probability of war with Russian over no-fly zone in Syria. Positive: everything else will be the same.

Disclaimer: I would vote for H if I can.

It may be also interesting to compare Trump-risk with risk of other leaders of nuclear powers, including Putin, Xi and Kim in North Korea, and even may be Le Pen (if she win) in France, Modi in India and Brexit.

Comment author: turchin 19 November 2016 06:20:38PM 2 points [-]

See also: What a Trump Presidency Means for Human Survival: One Expert’s Take
Phil Torres

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/torres20161114

Comment author: Denkenberger 13 November 2016 09:35:23PM 1 point [-]

That might work, though people would probably prefer fishing. But with a 10 km diameter impact, there probably would not be much fish or plankton.

Comment author: turchin 14 November 2016 12:53:40AM 0 points [-]

But may be some bacteria could still be suspended in the water as well as some organics?

Comment author: Denkenberger 07 November 2016 01:16:07PM 1 point [-]

Very nice! I would add another stage of defense of alternate foods. If we were actually prepared with these, then I don't think we would get civilization collapse for 1 km diameter and maybe not even for 10 km.

Comment author: turchin 07 November 2016 03:06:36PM 0 points [-]

I am now working on an article about submarines as possible refuges in case of a global catastrophe. One of idea I had for food provision for it is filtering of water to get plankton, the same ways as whale do it. What do you think about feasibility of such approach?

6

The Map of Impact Risks and Asteroid Defense

This map is part of the “ Map of Natural Risks ” which is in turn part of the map “ Typology of Global Risks. ”    The main ideas of the map   1. The danger posed by asteroids is diminishing as technology advances, mostly because we will prove... Read More

View more: Next