The precipice - to fall?

Hmm, have just finished reading The precipice: existential risk & the future of humanity, by Toby Ord & am not sure if I agree with its suppositions - but, to be generous, I am a better person for having read it, no doubt! One thing that I would like to share, in full, is the list of what not to do:

• Don't regulate prematurely: at the right time, regulation may be a very useful tool for reducing existential risk. But right now, we know very little about how best to do so. Pushing for ill-considered regulation would be a major mistake;
• Don't take irreversible actions unilaterally: some countermeasures may make our predicament even worse (think radical geoengineering or publishing the smallpox genome). So we should be wary of the unilateralist's curse, where the ability to take actions unilaterally creates a bias towards action by those with the most rosy estimates;
• Don't spread dangerous information:studying existential risk means exploring the vulnerabilities of our world. Sometimes this turns up new dangers. Unless we manage such information carefully, we risk making ourselves even more vulnerable;
• Don't exaggerate the risks: there is a natural tendency to dismiss claims of existential risk as hyperbole. Exaggerating the risks plays into that, making it harder for people to see that there is sober, careful analysis amidst the noise;
• Don't be fanatical: safeguarding our future is extremely important, but it is not the only priority for humanity. We must be good citizens within the world of doing good. Boring others with countless talks about this cause is counterproductive. Cajoling them about why it is more important than a cause they hold dear is even worse;
• Don't be tribal: safeguarding our future is not left or right, not eastern or western, not owned by the rich or the poor. It is not partisan. Framing it as a political issue on one side of a contentious divide would be a disaster. Everyone has a stake in our future & we must work together to protect it;
• Don't act without integrity: when something immensely important is at stake & others are dragging their feet, people feel licensed to do whatever it takes to succeed. We must never give in to such temptation. A single person acting without integrity could stain the whole cause & damage everything we hope to achieve;
• Don't despair: despairing would sap our energy, cloud our judgement & turn away those looking to help. Despair is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whilst the risks are real & substantial, we know of no risks that are beyond our power to solve. If we hold our heads high, we can succeed; and,
• Don't ignore the positive: while the risks are the central challenges facing humanity, we can't let ourselves be defined by them. What drives us is our hope for the future. Keeping this at the centre of our thinking will provide us (& others) with the inspiration we need to secure our future! (pp. 212-4)

Although it is unlikely that I will return to discussing this any further, unfortunately, there are a number of particular items that I would like to initially draw attention to, based upon my simplistic & relativistic reading:

1. Existential risk - although not necessarily a 'new' concept, I was extremely interested in how it was framed, as something to consider above & (well) beyond daily concerns;
2. Teachers vs engineers - this I found to be particularly surprising. Following on from what not to do is what you can do & the biggest emphasis is on getting a technical career/job, e.g. computer programmer, climate scientist and/or manager. What there was not was an encouragement to be a 'thinker' (like the author) & actually consider what direction(s) will be most useful, so as to direct the technical innovators, i.e. give them places to work towards;
3. Earn more, give more - which is the answer if you can't (or won't) commit to a career change, because money changes everything! Whilst that is (perhaps) harsh, I am not (at all) sure that an admonishment to create more money is inherently useful, as it is premised upon a false (or inadequate) premise. It reminds me of what Weber found with the 'protestant work ethic' & how if you have more money, you can do more good. Which leads to such things as e.g. Hillsong church & Donald J Trump;
4. Love of Singer - like Singer & books/thoughts such as, e.g. 'animal liberation', this a book that derives from ethics, but is not an 'ethical' book. As an ethicist will tell you, such things are 'practical ethics', aka morality. With the relation to Singer, I wonder if it there is anything to an Australian philosopher going to Oxford, in the midst of significant social change;
5. Not conservative, but frozen - with all the admonishments for the future human, it seems that change is strangely absent. How humans are to change all these things & live for millions of years, yet not be changed themselves is beyond me; and,
6. Effect of attending CND rallies as a child - briefly alluded to in the book is that little historical nugget. What affect that has on the thought seems self-evident. That being said, nuclear war/proliferation is an existential risk & we must use that experience to inform us in preparing for further innovations & their inherent (social) changes.

I am certainly not the loudest voice here, but one thing that is most self-evident is to consider & discuss such things - there can be no doubt that non-critical questioning, to allow for alternative possibilities, to remain with a blinkered view of both self & the future is what will be most detrimental to the progression of humanity - surely with the 'rights' come the responsibilities!