Jump to content

Talk:Global catastrophic risk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mixing of the hypothetical scenario and the field of study

[edit]

One major fault of this article is the way in which it induces a confusion between a hypothetical event, diversely imagined and theorized along history (both in religious thought and outside it), with a specific (yet not monolithic) framework that emerged in the very recent period and became known mainly as 'existential risk', especially in philosophical literature, which is substantially related, even a byproduct, of the longtermist ethics. "Global catastrophic risk" works well as a generalization of specific catastrophic scenarios that date from the atomic bomb invention to the theorization of extreme global warming scenarios or even uncontrollable virus pandemic. In this sense, global catastrophic risk could be thought as the nonfiction dimension of fictional apocalyptic scenarios, corresponding to the article apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. This confusion is problematic because it hurts the principle of undue weight, as one specific research program is allowed to define the whole idea, which is historically irreducible such attempt of framing; the field of studies itself also suffers from this restrictive linkage, as it is not allowed the necessary space and the freedom to develop its own history, ideas and institutions.

Given that, i think that a kind of 'split' would greatly improve the quality of content and its impartiality. This article could retain its name and part of the content that is less attached to existential risk studies (existential risk authors would still be present all along the text), and then it could branch into a specific article for this area - which could be called 'existential risk studies' (ERS), a name with widespread use by the related institutions and authors (Existential Risk Studies, The Era of Global Risk: An Introduction to Existential Risk Studies, Democratising Risk: In Search of a Methodology to Study Existential Risk). JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was an existential risk draft in 2020; I was involved. See Draft talk:Existential risk and this. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Dont you think that it would be better to reframe it as 'Existential risk studies'? the confusion problem would be solved imo. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoaquimCebuano What sources do you have supporting that title? WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoaquimCebuano It's possible that the field of study is a more distinct topic and that organizing around it would address the problem that the 2020 draft ran into. Still, it would need stronger support than you have provided. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. That is a far less common title. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Biohistorian15 It passed AFC and is live at existential risk studies. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main picture

[edit]

Does the image of an asteroid hitting the Earth deserve to be at the top here? On one side, it's a simple image that anyone can understand. But on the other side, it doesn't really provide information, and the probability of a very large asteroid hitting the Earth is relatively negligible (less than 1 in a million per century, even ignoring possible countermeasures). So it may give a biased impression of the importance of this kind of risk. Alenoach (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]