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)

Are you engaging with sources that disagree with Bostrom's definition?

For example: "Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker calls existential risks a "useless category" and warns that "Frankensteinian fantasies" could distract from real, solvable threats such as climate change and nuclear war. "Sowing fear about hypothetical disasters, far from safeguarding the future of humanity, can endanger it," he writes in his upcoming book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress." from https://www.science.org/content/article/could-science-destroy-world-these-scholars-want-save-us-modern-day-frankenstein

Mainstream search results for "existential risk" have been dominated by ERS material from the last few years, but if you use a search engine that allows search by date range like (for now) Google Scholar, you can find many examples of plain English uses of the phrase. For example, this 1900-2000 search gives 193 results, the first of which says:

"The reinsurer divides existential risks into "planned" and "unplanned." The planned are those risks which only have bad effects when aggregated. Although he gives no example, he evidently means such things as the use of aerosals, where no adverse effect is noticeable until their use is widespread. Unplanned existential risks on the other hand, are chance events such as auto accidents. Yet, the author points out, these unplanned existential risks become planned in the aggregate. For instance, its known that West Germany is going to have 8,500 auto accident fatalities, or thereabouts, each year." Best, Chris F. "Risk takes on an existential nature." Risk Management 36.2 (1989): 52-53.

WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinker doesnt disagree with Bostrom definition, he disagrees with the whole thing, not proposing anything in its place.

It hasnt been 'dominated', this is the difference between a casual conjunction of words and a concept, existential risk as a concept is a concept of ERS. The citation you just provided confirms this, because a fatality has nothing to do with existential risk. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@JoaquimCebuano Conceptual distinction has already been discussed here.

The main open issues are complying with WP:NPOV, not misleading our readers, and appropriately organizing content across related articles. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What was the conclusion? I must have missed...

You are forcing your POV in the article. Have you even seem what the sources used in the introduction say about ERS?

Cremer & Kemp 2021, p. 1.:

Over the past two decades, scholars have begun to methodically study human extinction and global catastrophes. This field of “Existential Risk Studies” (ERS) aims (i) to identify existential and catastrophic risks; (ii) map out the potential causes of existential catastrophes; (iii) understand the ethical implications of such calamities and (iv) devise effective strategies for mitigation and prevention."

No mention of Bostrom in the whole first page.

Beard, S. J. & Torres, Phil 2020, p. 2.:

It is thus hardly surprising that a new field focused on the long-term survival of our

species is emerging. This has variously been referred to as “Existential Risk Studies” (ERS),

“Existential Risk Research” and “Existential Risk Mitigation.” For the present purposes, we will

use the acronym “ERS”, to fit with related fields such as Futures Studies, Science and

Technology Studies and Disaster Studies. The aim of this paper is to explore the historical

development of ERS and, in doing so, to identify points of convergence and divergence between

different researchers studying existential risk. We argue that there have been multiple ERS

paradigms or ‘waves’, i.e. sets of concepts and practices in the sense of Thomas Kuhn (1922-

1996). These can be distinguished according to the following issues: (i) definitions of key terms,

(ii) motivating values, (iii) classificatory systems, and (iv) methodologies.

No mention of Bostrom in the whole page. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 13:41, 9 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)

I don't know enough about this to weigh in, but I can offer one recent example of high-quality media coverage: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/06/10/are-we-doomed-heres-how-to-think-about-it. Patrick (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That article does not mention "existential risk studies". It mentions Bostrom along with many other thinkers. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Havent you tried to put Bostrom as the creator of the field in the first line? So why do you affirm and deny his relation to the field at the same time? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposing move to draft

There are reliable sources that mention "existential risk studies", but many questions about this article remain unresolved.

The page author's reasoning in the previous discussion is incoherent and self-contradictory. For example, I mention that we already have a Human extinction article, and they say the concept in question is broader (Bostrom's definition). I try to mention Bostrom in the lead section, and they quote sources saying the field is about human extinction.

Without consensus on basic content issues, the article does not belong in mainspace for now. There are multiple well-established articles that could accommodate sources discussing recent research, and further discussion could explore merge options. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I said that human extinction and existential risk are two different concepts with different philosophical concerns and different intellectual histories. Thats is not hard to understand. Which concept i said was broader? I dont understand your point.

Basic consensus? It was just you and another editor who made several statement which are truly contradictory, as I already pointed. The article was approved in the review process, which implies a degree validity for the mainspace. Open the deletion process if you want.

I honestly didnt see a single coherent argument against the article in this whole discussion, just superficial analogies, ad hoc rules, and lots of questioning without a apparent desire to read and understand the sources. Not a single source was present to sustain these objections, this alone says a lot. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

As Joaquim said above: "GCR is a broad, diversely defined concept; existential risk is a specific concept with a specific source". I agree with that. So, let's allow ER to do its thing. It does not compete with GCR, ER is just a branch off the trunk of GCR. This is not ideal from a Wikipedia organizational perspective, but is reality. GCR can continue to be the general top level article, with schools like ERS having their own article. I think Joaquim has demonstrated ESR is a thing with reliable sources. Articles about "studies" are different from articles about the topic being studied. For example Science and Technology Studies is not about physics and computing. So this article would not have a list of scenarios like GCR. It would remain focused on the narrow topic of ESR, which has its own philosophy, proponents, and solutions. Again though, this article is a "studies" and would look like other studies articles, it won't attempt to pull in everything, there needs to be a clear connection in the sources that it is part of ESR. -- GreenC 16:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC We can move to draftspace while the content is improved. Merging is not the only possible outcome.

In the last week, you, @Alenoach:, and I have pointed out content weaknesses, yet the page author has been too busy making unfocused walls of text on the talk page to address them in the live article. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on existential risk studies

Does the article contain any NPOV issue? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with existential risk and the difference between existential risk and existential risk studies.

Is the second term a specific meaning i.e. a field of thought? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thats the question. As I have repeatedly argued here, existential risk as a concept is a concept originated and essentially related to the field of existential risk studies. Every source I found confirms this, and none of the editors contesting this relation have presented a single source contradicting this. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment It seems a talk page discussion is already ongoing. Its possible an RFC like this could be a bit too early especially while the article is new and in flux. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This discussion cannot continue with the same users, I already exposed all my reasons and I am not sure there is a consistent argument behind all the discrediting. My reasoning is allegedly "incoherent and self-contradictory" and apparent my arguments are just "unfocused walls of text". So this cannot continue. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Honestly, I've never seen an article that (arguably) did not contain NPOV. A vague and open ended question probably won't accomplish much. RfCs usually need to be specific in order to get consensus eg. "Should the first sentence say A. <this> or B. <that>? Please choose option A or B.". Otherwise it will just be commentary and no direction. This is why we try to discuss what the RfC will say, beforehand. Seems to me your real question is "Should existential risk redirect to this article, or Global catastrophic risk." Given that question, you might actually achieve something: consensus on where this term goes. -- GreenC 17:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If there is (arguably) a reason to believe it contains NPOV issues, so lets argue, point to me a single problematic sentence or a single source that contradict the current presentation. I already asked for that multiple times. I dont think this "I've never seen an article that (arguably) did not contain NPOV" is reasonable or even true, nonetheless there is a NPOV mark, which (supposedly) means that a problem has been presented here in the talk page, I am honestly asking other editors to review whether there is a consistent problem exposed here and if this does apply to the article.

I am mainly concerned with the mark, not the redirection now. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you want to remove the banner? You should frame the question that way: should the NPOV banner be kept or removed. That way, you will be able to get consensus to take some action when the RfC closes in 30 days. -- GreenC 18:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Or, perhaps more usefully: What specific changes would be necessary to correct any NPOV issues in the article? Patrick (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there is disagreement this article should exist due to a WP:NPOVVIEW situation: "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article", ie. it's a fork of Global catastrophic risk. My position is it is a WP:SPINOFF article, because the topic is of a field of study, not about the subject itself. And the field of study is somewhat insular to a few people and institutions. ESR is arguably small and not well congealed, but Joaquim has produced sources to support it. -- GreenC 19:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if this article is a WP:POVFORK, it should be merged or deleted. And that question should probably be resolved prior to any currently proposed version of the RfC. I think the New Yorker article I linked above supports keeping it, but I would need to review that and also to read more closely this and related articles to give even an informed non-expert opinion. The topic interests me, so I might do so, but it won't be today.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a WP:SPINOFF, and disagree with the statement that it is a WP:POVFORK. The article is in substantial part based on a source that is independent and critical to the concept: Beard and Torres 2020. The article [1] where Steven Pinker is cited calling existential risks a "useless category" contributes to notability too, somewhat ironically. Finally, the article has a substantial section dedicated to criticism.

I personally have a lot of concern over English's Wikipedia Anglocentrism due to proliferation of articles about concepts like this one and equally of ones in opposition such as TESCREAL, but I don't find that to be against Wikipedia's policies. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I am brazilian, so you can be sure that i also find anglocentrism to be problematic. But the point is not that we are being anglocentric by framing the subject as the article currently does, but that the subject itself has been anglocentric in its development. Wikipedia should disclose this origin and development, not disagree with it. Being anglocentric has not prevented, however, the global influence of these concepts, as I have encountered them in brazilian universities, so there is a real need to rectify the problems of the subject presentation in global catastrophic risk.

About Beard and Torres, you should note that their article cannot be described as 'critical of the field', but is, more precisely, 'critical within the field'. Only later did Torres somewhat broke more radically with ERS. If you look other sources, you will see that they mention and endorsed the intellectual history initiated by Beard and Torres. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I am really grateful for your disposition to read the article and the sources, I think there is overwhelming support for each and every sentence in this article. It should be noted that while GreenC has somewhat softened their position, at least accommodating the continued existence of the article, the user has not provided a single source whatsoever to support their assumption that existential risk is a synonym of global catastrophic risk, or any other claim made in this talk page. 'Existential risk' is essentially dependent on the concept of human potentiality defined by ERS theorists, and this concept of potentiality draws heavily on transhumanism. Existential risks are not about extinction, as has been claimed here, because it is actually a risk of not realizing such potentiality. So extinction is only an aspect of the risk. Its not simply that GCR is about the subject and ERS is about the field, but they are independently concepts that come from different theories of calamity, even if they overlap partially. Thats the reason why existential risk should be redirected to here (but thats another discussion). JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably. One prominent apparent issue is that the current article is essentially two different articles under the same title.

The first article is about an apparently notable yet loosely defined and pluralistic emerging field of study.

The second article is about a specific, narrow, philosophical conception of "existential risk". WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The article presents three concepts under the concept section, could have been more, but nonetheless all of them are concepts originated and formulated within the field. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

How is this about neutrality at all? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be within the scope of WP:NPOV, does it? If there is material to split out to a separate article, then this would be governed by notability and content forking policies instead. NicolausPrime (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@NicolausPrime As noted in the previous discussion, this definition of "existential risk" has repeatedly been determined not fit for a standalone article. It's a philosophical definition; it can be summarized in a paragraph. Many sources mention it in the context of generally notable topics like GCR, extinction, effective altruism, etc. It's harder to find notable discussion about the definition, but maybe one could count the aforementioned "useless category" comment from Pinker, which doesn't count for mainstream presentation. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And how is this related to NPOV? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a neutrality issue, whether the field of studies should be merged or remain as its own article. Senorangel (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Update. The page author started an ANI discussion about me, which included:

• multiple potential NPOV issues here I hadn't specifically mentioned
• multiple users confused about my justification for removing the "concepts" section

We can discuss whether the "concepts" section is worth restoring, but at the time it seemed like undue weight and possibly redundant.WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

To spare people having to go to ANI, I'm copying here the NPOV concerns that have been raised by User:Voorts:

@JoaquimCebuano: I think Weyer is correct that there were some NPOV issues:

1. Referring to Bostrom's essay as "foundational".
2. "Perhaps mostly significantly, the EA community has contributed a momentous amount of financial resources to ERS, fueling the expansion of its academic and popular reputation."
3. You characterize Schuster & Woods's quite scathing critique:

   There is a stunning lack of attention in existential risk studies to the huge amount of research, activism, and human rights work on the history and prevention of genocides. The technocratic outlook and terminological narowness of Bostrom's assessments are partly at fault, but more disconcerting is the way his work ends up disclosing a colonialist attitude that downplays the history of genocides and Indigenous suffering.

   as follows: Some scholars consider the concept of existential risk established within ERS to be excessively restrictive and narrow, which discloses an attitude of neglect to the history of genocides, especially the one related with the colonial genocide of indigenous peoples.

NicolausPrime (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Stop making unexplained claims, stop repeating your assumed conceptions, use sources and arguments. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

My answer to these questions was:

1) It is foundational, all the sources affirmed the same thing, thats not my fault at all. If there is another word, then i am open to change, no one tried to change this specific phrase.

2) Its true, but i am open to rephrasing, that hasnt not been a subject of debate until now.

3) Cant see the problem...

I think that the bottom issue is that none of these problems have been presented here, and the changes of content didnt attempt to address these issues at all, if this was the topic of discussion, then a consensus could be reached. The second problem is that we are, truly, trivializing verifiability. Without sources, anything goes. And no one pointed a single source that contradicts the current presentation. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Before even judging the truth of these issues, I must say that this list was a strange detour. Voorts, at first, said that the notification appeared to be about content dispute, and that ANI wasnt the proper place for it. Then the editor provided this list of issues. Well, ANI is not the place to discuss content, I started a discussion about WeyerStudentOfAgrippa disruptive behavior, and the fact is that none of these issues have been pointed by WeyerStudentOfAgrippa. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There are no significant NPOV issues. Concerns raised by Weyer are not a matter of NPOV, but of content presentation and separation. Concerns raised by Voorts are minor and, if correct, can be just boldly improved by small adjustments to wording. Neutrality of many, if not basically all articles written about a matter that is subject to controversy can be improved, yet most don't have an NPOV tag, so I don't see any good reason to keep such tag on this article either. NicolausPrime (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@NicolausPrime Disagree regarding template I added. There is now extensive discussion without clear consensus. Moreover, I have already tried to make specific changes to improve content that have now disappeared from the live article. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@NicolausPrime You see, the user is way too comfortable ignoring the discussion that developed here, in which they didnt even engaged properly. None of the users that weighted on the rfc agreed with the need for a neutrality template. Can WeyerStudentOfAgrippa just 'disagree' with 4 or 5 editors? Simply as that? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there may be a (possibly narrow) consensus for removing the NPOV tag. So I'm going remove it now. If someone else than Weyer feels this is wrong, e can restore it and then carefully discuss what is preventing the article from being NPOV. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You can see that I addressed Voorts second point, I would like your feedback about it. Regarding 3., I honestly cant see what should be the obvious problem. Thinking about it, I may have diluted too much of the criticism? But I cant see how another formulation would be satisfactorily. Regarding 1., I see 'foundational' as something that lays foundations, it can be 'puffering', but is not necessarily so, given that the effect can be retroactively confirmed. The 'The Extended Mind' was foundational to the Extended mind thesis, I dont think this formulation goes against the neutrality policy, given its base on reliable sources. I can provide the quotes if needed. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is as follows:

1. I don't consider the word "foundational" to be non-NPOV. If there is any deeper concern, then it is on Voorts to elucidate.

2. These phrases are gone from the article already.

3. Perhaps "an attitude of neglect to" could be replaced with "a colonialist attitude that neglects" to characterize the quote from Schuster & Woods more accurately.

NicolausPrime (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

JoaquimCebuano I do not see a NPOV problem here. This is much ado about nothing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with removing the tag given the absence of any dramatic NPOV violations, and I don't think this is a POV fork exactly, but I would note a couple of concerns from a brief review of the article. First, the fact that "foundational" is currently used four (!) times in Wikipedia voice to describe Bostrom's work is not great. Even if supported by reliable sources, one use of the term is plenty -- and in the absence of a clear-cut scholarly consensus that doesn't seem possible with the current level of sourcing, couching it in a direct quote might make more sense than using Wikipedia voice. And second, speaking of sources, the article seems to rely overwhelmingly on a paper published only on SSRN, which is generally unreliable and not peer reviewed. If there aren't enough robust sources to support the article, a freestanding article is not appropriate -- and the inevitable difficulty of maintaining NPOV is just one of many reasons why. -- Visviva (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ugh, what a rookie mistake on my side, I was so focused on the NPOV matter that I didn't realize SSRN is only a preprint host. Given how much of the article's text is based on this source, I'm afraid it will be hard for this article to stay in the mainspace. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Beard and Torres article has been used as a source in major academic publication, such as Existential Risks in Peace and Conflict Studies and Calamity Theory: Three Critiques of Existential Risk, to name just two. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  As I said in the sub-commentary to Prime, I think that the widespread use of Beard and Torres article by other reputable academic sources provide a strong confirmation of its reliability as an intellectual history of the field. In using only sources that explicitly refer to "existential risk studies", I did adopt a very strict approach to sourcing, which was not truly necessary. As I argued before, 'existential risk' is a concept of existential risk studies, as much as 'existential condition' is a concept of existentialism - one does imply the other, even if not explicitly stated. This is an uncontroversial point in the intellectual history of the field, as I have provided here. The problem is that some editors are refusing to accept this evidence, and also refusing to provide any alternative or contrary evidence for this concept. Assumed beliefs are, at the moment, prevailing over sourcing policy and impartiality. If that were to be recognized, there would be no point in claiming lack of notability.

  The issue with 'foundational' has already been discussed here; as I said back then, while its true that 'foundational' can sound promotional, it is not necessarily so. Foundational is something that lays foundations, 'The Extended Mind' essay was foundational to the Extended mind thesis, there is no alternative to this formulations. I repeated the word where I thought it was worth reaffirming, given my belief that the sections should provide different (chronological, thematic, synoptic, critical) presentations; but I will look again to see if we could use other formulation in these parts.

  Note that your commentary has motivated the same user to add yet another tag to the article, which might be their fifth, I would be good if you could express your opinion on its necessity. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  I believe what you said is sufficient to include Beard and Torres per WP:USEBYOTHERS. From my point of view, since reliable sources cite it, it's very helpful to use this source to provide context. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Global Policy source

The RFC last month revealed that core sources in the article are preprints, but I searched today and found Hobson & Corry (2023), which has been mysteriously absent but appears to be peer-reviewed. Thus, notability is probably not a major issue, but the article is still focusing on the views of a few individual scholars with little attribution. An article on ERS that is properly written forward from the strongest sources may be a completely different article from this one. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Extremely vague. What scholars are lacking? How different would be? Can you substantiate your point before adding yet another tag? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose Weyer wants to say that Hobson & Corry (2023) are lacking. So, let's add content based on this source and then remove the tag? NicolausPrime (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Weyer, thanks for finding this source. I think this settles the dispute about notability. However, your use of Template:cleanup appears incorrect: it's a tag intended for non-content-focused cleanups. Instead of tagging, per WP:BOLD I encourage you to just incorporate this source into the article. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Just so it can be reverted like my other changes? Adding a source is easy, rewriting to give due weight is harder, and doing so against whatever coalition apparently wants this article to have content issues may be harder still. Anyone can improve the article with or without templates, but they can be helpful for both readers and editors. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a new source and it appears reliable, so adding content sourced to it will give you a lot of leverage and an outright revert is very unlikely. And I don't have a reason at the moment to believe Joaquim is trying to prevent you from improving the article or giving more weight to newly found reliable sources, this is just a normal content dispute. NicolausPrime (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)