Drama!

Alas, “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the other forms that have been tried” (Winston Churchill). I suspect a better system is out there waiting to be found. Undoubtedly it will be democratic in important ways, but it might not be democratic in the same way leading democracies are now.

“I sent the email with that subject several days back but have not received any word back.”

We have now resent our response. Check your spam folder…

I sent the email with that subject several days back but have not received any word back. Thanks. John

Sure, send us an email with the subject “Lifeboat Foundation John Hunt” at [email protected] and we’ll give you author access to our blog, etc.

On the other hand, Richard brings up a good point by essentially saying that there needs to be some sort of editorial structure so that there can be positions which are representative of the Lifeboat Foundation. I view many of the pages of the LF website as being (somewhat) the official positions of the LF. Unfortunately, those pages do no allow for feedback from lay commenters like myself. Perhaps there could be another part of the website established where official “papers” could be published and feedback allowed.

This leads me to one other idea. The LF has assembled a very impressive collections of experts into its various boards. My presumption has been that this blog only has contributions from its official bloggers or perhaps also from any of its many board members. But these people are generally professionals who have credentials justifying their having been invited to be on a board. Also, my feeling is that the frequency of posting on this blog to rare. e.g. There have only been five articles in the last 53 days.

I myself would love to submit articles for consideration and there might be other people would would like to as well. Can we do that? That would be pretty cool!

P.S. Incidentally, so far Alexei, you are my favorite blogger here. Your posts have addressed practical ways (e.g. bunkers) of addressing existential risks. It seems as though you are really searching for solutions and not just addressing the issue in an “academic” mindset.

We could have democratic society with strict laws about dangerouse activities. Indeed, dictatorships are often coorupted states where laws could be altered by bribery.

So I argued for global democrtaicaly elected and controlled goverment, not autoritarian power.

Also I argued not for banning science but for putting it in safe places, which will help to grow good projects — and this would lead to even quicker development of science than today.

But a lot of negative reaction that I encounter showed me that most likly such plans would not be realised.

Commenters, we all need to respect the author’s preface that his ideas are intended for public evaluation (think white board, folks, or initial brainstorming) rather than as policies he advocates for implementation. Your disagreement with one or more specific items, even if valid, doesn’t negate the value of this timely discussion. Those of us who have children should think of this as their future at stake.

Second, one addition as to risks to address- Applying Nick Bostrom’s definition of existential risk, one which “threatens to cause the extinction of earth-originating intelligent life or to reduce its quality of life… permanently and drastically”, to the broader global catastrophic risks category, I would add sustained political repression as a very real danger. This scenario could have a 20% or higher probability in the decades ahead. Most important, this may also be a risk which timely, thoughtful discussion and planning can substantially reduce, either by prevention or mitigation (i.e. David Brin’s Transparent Society as one simplified example).

For further discussion see my postings at http://www.sustainablerights.blogspot.com.

If a system of restricting and limiting information for safety’s sake makes global sense, then I suggest an editorial system of reviewing and revising information for your readers’ sakes makes local sense. Inasmuch as it represents a private individual’s position, why does L.F. post it here at all?

I expect much better from this organization.

But I think you don’t understand the main idea: the sciense should not be banned. It should be opened to everyone, but in safe places.

Look for example on driving — it is open to everyone, but after passing exams.

Or look on laws on toy missle constructions in US. Everyone can start learn how to built the missle, but to actually lunch it you need permission, and you could do it only after several years of learning. And in order to start bigger one uou must have experience with small ones.

And no body have right to start chain reaction on uranium at his home, but everybody could go to the university and learn and work in the safe laboratory.

How can we prevent situation there one bioterrorist could kill half of human population without system of global control?