Talk:Existential risk studies

What?

Where did ERS come from? It didn't exist prior to 2023. It looks like a wanna-be term. Sources say it is "new" and "emerging" ie. mainly coming from one institution in England, predominately hanging on the reputation of one person. Until this concept finds general acceptance, outside of Cambridge, it should probably be merged into Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, or create a new article that summarizes the book that promotes the idea. Wikipedia does not generate buzz for new ideas, or try to legitimize new ideas, it follows what already exists and right now I don't see a lot of evidence for this term and its ideas having widespread adoption, how could it, it was just invented in 2023. -- GreenC 16:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The rationale is in this talk page, but so far the consensus doesn't seem in favor of the creation of this article. I don't want to dismiss the effort that went into it, but it would have been good to wait and try to reach a consensus before creating the article. Alenoach (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Although an article "Existential risk" may arguably be warranted, the term "existential risk studies" is relatively rare, and I believe that it would be more useful for readers to primarily focus on existential risks than about those who study it. For most people, a long section about the "Background" and the "History" is not as essential as explanations of the concepts.

Although the article is thoroughly researched, it sometimes presents ideas in a more radical or stereotyped way than the authors intend. For example, the Maxipok rule was introduced as "a rule of thumb, a prima facie suggestion, rather than a principle of absolute validity"§9.6. And the focus on genocide is a bit weird, as if saying that an existential catastrophe is technically significantly worse than a genocide makes you guilty of complacency towards genocides. Nevertheless, I think there is an effort to give a fair overview of the topic. Alenoach (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Before anything, be aware that the article was approved on review.

The suggestion that "it would be more useful for readers to primarily focus on existential risks than about those who study it" and "a long section about the "Background" and the "History" is not as essential as explanations of the concepts" are so, so below the purpose of this encyclopedia that I dont think its worthy to answer in detail. Readers deserve and, indeed, they need this information if they want any qualified knowledge about these concepts. The field of study subsumes the concepts.

The article clearly states that there is more than one paradigm of ERS, yet the canonical first wave definitions can, indeed, be seem as somewhat radical, thats is a common perception of people within and outside the field.

The part about the Maxipok rule was not as well researched as the others, I will try to expand and make it more precise, and I invite anyone interested in contributing.

The relation between existential risk and genocide is a common object of debate both within and outside the field, the sources are enough to confirm this. Its not weird at all. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There is literally an history section answering your questions. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "approved". Articles can be and are often deleted at WP:AFD or moved back to AfC. All that is required is consensus.

• First, numerous editors over the years have attempted to create articles about existential risk, and each one has been completely different from the other, with some overlap. Had we gone along with it, we would currently have 5 or 6 completely different articles on the same topic, each taking different approaches. Wikipedia requires a single article on each topic. Arguably, we already have that article in Global catastrophic risk. The Human extinction was another one of those splits that somehow stuck, though I believe it should be merged into Global catastrophic risk.
• Second, ERS as a distinct and recognized field of study is a rare concept. A search of the Internet Archive corpus of 30+ million books, journals etc,, found 6 hits, none very significant. I'd never even heard of it before. It's all centered on England. The term seems to have become more popular with the publication of the book Era of Global Risk: An Introduction to Existential Risk Studies, in 2023.
• Third, this article discusses none of this: the history of the term, who uses it.
• Fourth, this article might as well be called "Bostrom's existential risk studies" because he makes up the majority of the discussion. Again, very English centric and very Bostrom centric.
• Fifth, I don't know why we would redirect Existential risk to this article, which is essentially taking a historiography approach. Compare with Global_catastrophic_risk#Organizations, which lists many organizations that are not all in England, English authors, or only within a couple English universities.

To me ERS sounds like intellectual buzz, there is no real evidence the term has established a wide acceptance. Wikipedia is not the place to generate acceptance, it follows trends, not create them. -- GreenC 02:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree about merging human extinction with global catastrophic risk; they are different hypothetical topics that can organize different content. Human extinction could include more discussion of slow processes, for example. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Fundamentally, a hypothetical risk and a field of research are different topics. (Cf. religion and religious studies.) I agree that the current article is awkward about scope and secondary recognition, but that's more subjective. As your first point lays out, there is some kind of trend here to follow. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Existential risk is a concept of existential risk studies, there is no other plausible statement about this. I would like to ask you to express your opinion on the matter of the redirection of existential risk to its specific section here. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@JoaquimCebuano Disagree for now; the GCR article is better. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

1) These are completely different topic, but that hardly matter for this article here.

2) Arbitrarily restrictive search, put it on google scholar and you have a different result, more importantly, these institutions focused on the study of existential risks are institutions of existential risk studies, all the discussion around existential risks are discussions within existential risk studies.

3) It does, it simply does, even if the current size doesnt satisfy you.

this article discusses none of this: the history of the term, who uses it.

I don't know why we would redirect Existential risk to this article, which is essentially taking a historiography approach.

Whats is your point even?

4) The article clearly states the centrality of Bostrom and the different approaches that have been consolidated in the so-called third wave of the field. Being English centered is completely true but doesnt matter at all.

5) Because 'existential risk' is a concept of existential risk studies.

That last point is the most important. I made a simple question for you in your user talk page, I asked if you have any reason to state that 'existential risk' isnt a term of existential risk studies, and you didnt answer. That question is the only important question in this discussion. And I will once again affirm: existential risk is a concept of existential risk studies. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@JoaquimCebuano Regarding 2), be wary of WP:SYNTHESIS. "Existential risk" is a phrase in the English language that can have a wide variety of scopes. The more content is spelled out by reliable secondary sources, the better. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesnt have a 'wide variety of scopes', this is a misunderstanding caused by ERS extensive publicity and deep pocket funding. The secondary sources are in the article, this discussion has not engaged sufficiently with them. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Reply,

• 5) Is world history a concept of world history (field)? A field does not necessarily own the concept it is named for. Another example Peter Brown and Late Antiquity, a concept he developed and a school of thought associated with him. But, it's also the name of a historical period, studied by anyone outside the Late Antiquity school of thought.
• 4) Have you ever wondered why it seems to be in England, centered on Bostrom and the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, that existential risk is so frequently used? Other countries, universities, organization, and people study this topic but they may or may not call it existential risk.
• 3) People searching for existential risk are probably looking for what is discussed at global catastrophic risks.
• 2) "institutions focused on the study of existential risks are institutions of existential risk studies" -- Wikipedia has to accommodate all editors and all POVs. Right now this article reads more like existential risk studies (Bostrom)
• 1) That's fine it is my opinion, that doesn't have consensus, not trying to implement it.

-- GreenC 15:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's restart this conversation, I now understand better your position and I think its in good faith and your concern is worthy, we are actually concerned with the same thing but adopting different perspectives.

5) its true and a field does not necessarily owns the concept it is named for. But, as the sources used in this article demonstrate with sufficient reliability, i believe, this concept is still necessarily attached to its creation within ERS. [More on that next]

4) i do wonder and I have a partial answer for the why, an answer that POV so i will not try to expose it here. We are mostly disagreeing about what is 'this topic' and if it is one and the same. My point is that 'Global catastrophic risk' is not co-extensive with existential risk, and while GCR is a broad, diversely defined concept, with no exact source; existential risk is a specific concept with a specific source. My concern is, truly, that this specificity is not preserved and sufficiently demonstrated in GCR. Actually, GCR tends to mixing both and provoking an unnecessary confusion between the two. We should note that there is many fields of studies and research programs which intersect this 'risk, disaster, calamity' nexus. GCR does not presents this with due weight, as many of these fields and research programs focus in the analysis of 'global catastrophe' but are marginally mentioned. GCR comes close to using existential risk as an organizing principle of the whole article, while not satisfactorily disclosing its specificity. The section devoted to existential risk definition is minimal and lacking. Its true that existential risk is, arguably, a subclass of GCR, but existential risk authors, literature and concepts are the actual concept being discussed in GCR, as they make most of the sources used and the organization of the page. So my problem is that, currently, GCR is not being true to its purposed topic, and acts as elevating a particular definition of this field to its general conception, a definition that is eccentric and highly criticized by a substantial amount of scholars of risk and disaster that adopt a different conception of catastrophe and calamity, concepts not based on 'posthuman potentiality' but on well being and human rights, two things that ER is not known for privileging. Thats why Carlo Cremer and Luke Kemp talk so strikingly about democratizing risk and the methodological (concerning) flaws of ERS.

3) This might be true, but if someone is searching for existential risk supposing that it is the same as GCR, they are equivocated and need to be redirected to the article that actually provides the specific definition of ER, and only then move to GCR if thats what they want. Arguments based on 'what people are looking for' are not normative, Wikipedia strives for the access to reliable and impartial information. To redirect them to GCR is a form of veiled endorsement of this equivocated synonymity.

2) Again, existential risk is a concept defined originally by Nick Bostrom, and Nick Bostrom is the main reference in ERS. The article does provide an overview on the internal diversity of the field, even if these sections need expansion. You should note that internal diversity is something that ERS is currently struggling for, so its not a fault of the article. You can read, for example, The statement on Pluralism in Existential Risk Studies, which expresses the scholars "support for the necessity for the community concerned with existential risk to be pluralistic, containing a diversity of methods, approaches and perspectives, that can foster difference and disagreement in a constructive manner. We recognise that the field has not yet achieved this necessary pluralism, and commit to bring about such pluralism.".

1) This has not been sufficiently discussed, so there is not consensus for anything. But this is the only true statement that can be made based on the sources. I challenge anyone to provide a reliable source use of existential risk that isnt intellectually related to ERS, even if proposing the need to a new concept of existential risk less similar to Bostrom and the transhumanist version of it. All that has been written on existential risk is from scholar of either the ERS standard transhumanist techno-utopian wing or the critical pluralists of ERS, and even the latter can be reliably related to the field by their scholarly trajectory and the explicit discussion of ERS conception.

In brief, GCR needs to be expanded and rectified, which doesnt mean to 'purge' existential risk studies from it, but framing the field in its specificity and due weight. In the meanwhile, existential risk should be redirect to the article that really discusses its context of definition and its rigorous definition. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@JoaquimCebuano Are you still defending ERS, or trying to claim content in the GCR article? The x-risk draft was carefully integrated into it by @Ego.Eudaimonia: in 2021, and I split out the scenarios. Indeed they are not identical concepts, but we already have a Human extinction article, and the content about analyzing risk overlaps more with GCRs. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Existential risks are not extinction risks, extinction has immediately nothing to do with ERS conceptions of human potentiality and its realization. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@JoaquimCebuano That's putting a lot of weight on Bostrom's definition. English universities do not dictate the English language, and neither do individual professors. If the ERS sources are consistent with this definition, then it may be appropriate for ERS, but content about GCRs belongs in the GCR article. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You are just repeating the same abstract remark without even engaging with the sources, I provided sources in this article and I have been basing my argument on them. I already asked to be shown any reputable sources that makes an use of 'existential risk' unrelated to ERS, and no such thing has been pointed until now.

The thing that makes this most unreasonable is that GCR treatment of existential risk is entirely based on ERS theorists and literature. If I am guilty of "putting a lot of weight on Bostrom's definition", then why GCR article itself uses Bostrom in the definition of existential risks?

In the lede we find = Bostrom, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, Future of Humanity Institute, Future of Life Institute.

Then, in the Defining existential risks, we find = Bostrom, Toby Ord

In the rest, we find again the same two authors appearing in all the mentions of 'existential risk', with some additional ones, such as Anders Sandberg, Yudkowsky, also ERS theorists.

You accuse me of making unsourced claim, but it appears like you have not take a recent and serious look on these sources. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC World history is a great example. Possibly "existential risk" could become a disambiguation page like that when a sufficient number of relevant articles are established. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)