The post compares space colonization and terrestrial lifeboats as X-risk mitigation strategies, concluding that space colonies may offer better long-term survival guarantees despite higher costs. Longer summary

This post discusses the merits of colonizing space versus creating terrestrial lifeboats as strategies to mitigate existential risks (X-risks) to humanity. The authors, Nick D and Rob S, compare the costs, feasibility, and effectiveness of off-world colonies and Earth-based closed systems. They explore the challenges and benefits of each approach, including isolation from global catastrophes, technological requirements, and potential for research and economic opportunities. The collaboration concludes that while terrestrial lifeboats are more cost-effective and easier to implement, space colonies might offer better long-term guarantees for human survival due to the difficulty of abandoning them. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the argument that terrorism is less concerning than mundane accidents, showing how excluding 'outlier' events can dangerously skew risk assessments for threats like terrorism and pandemics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the common argument that terrorism shouldn't be a major concern because it kills fewer people than mundane accidents like falling furniture. He points out that this reasoning is flawed because it often arbitrarily excludes major events like 9/11 as 'outliers'. Using examples like earthquakes in Haiti and the 1918 flu pandemic, he demonstrates how excluding extreme events can drastically skew risk assessments. He argues that for some threats, including terrorism, pandemics, and existential risks, these 'outlier' events are actually the most important consideration. The post concludes by expressing concern that this flawed reasoning might be applied after a future catastrophic terrorist attack, undermining the importance of prevention efforts. Shorter summary