Bostrom's Maxipok principle suggests reducing existential risk should be the overwhelming focus for those looking to improve humanity's long-term prospects. This rests on an implicitly dichotomous view of future value, where most outcomes are either near-worthless or near-best.

We argue against the dichotomous view, and against Maxipok. In the coming century, values, institutions, and power distributions could become locked-in. But we could influence what gets locked-in, and when and whether it happens at all—so it is possible to substantially improve the long-term future by channels other than reducing existential risk.

And this is a fairly big deal: both because Maxipok could mean leaving value on the table, and in some cases because following Maxipok could actually do harm.

This is a summary of “Beyond Existential Risk”, by Will MacAskill and Guive Assadi. The full version is available on our website.

Defining Maxipok

Picture a future where some worry that terrorist groups could use advanced bioweapons to wipe out humanity. The world's governments could coalesce into a strong world government that would reduce the extinction risk from 1% to 0%, or maintain the status quo. But the world government would lock in authoritarian control and undermine [...]

---

Outline:

(01:10) Defining Maxipok

(02:30) Is future value all-or-nothing?

(03:33) The case for Dichotomy

(06:55) The case against Dichotomy

(08:34) Non-existential interventions can persist

(11:26) So what?

---

First published:

Source:

Linkpost URL:
https://www.forethought.org/research/beyond-existential-risk

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.