Their K is a call to diversify not reject existential risk

(Nathan Alexander Sears, , 6-6)

Existential risk poses challenging questions for governance that—with humanity's limited wisdom—are difficult to answer. Who decides humanity's “grand strategy”? Who provides “existential security”? In essence, who speaks and acts on behalf of “humanity”? (Sears, 2020b). The Precipice only begins to answer such difficult questions. Since the study of existential risk is both in its infancy and has tended to be dominated by white English-speaking men—like myself and Ord—there are no doubt serious blind spots in how we conceptualize “humanity” and “existential risk.” As Mitchell and Chaudhury (2020) recently argued, It is often claimed that the “end of the world” is approaching—but whose world, exactly, is expected to end? … Their central aim is to diagnose the gravest global threats and to offer strategies to protect the future of what they regard as “humanity.” Yet, despite their claims to universality, we argue that these “end of the world” discourses are more specifically concerned about protecting the future of whiteness. Personally, I see Ord's book as making a valuable contribution to a particular understanding of existential risk, shaped largely by the author's conception of “humanity's potential.” I see Mitchell and Chaudhury's critique as not just an important call for greater diversity in the study of existential risk, but as a challenge to critically reflect on the meaning of “humanity”—including its past, present, and future. What some see as “humanity's potential” may for others represent an “existential catastrophe” (see Grove, 2019; Mitchell, 2017). Thus, it may be necessary for the “long reflection” to precede “existential security” (p. 189); for only reflection might make it possible to build shared understandings about what “humanity” is, the existential risks “we” face, and how to go about “securing our potential.”