If I were to ask the question "What threat poses the greatest risk to society/humanity?" to several communities I would expect to get some answers that follow a predictable trend:
If I asked the question on an HBD blog I'd probably get one of the answers demographic disaster/dysgenics/immigration.
If I asked the question to a bunch of environmentalists they'd probably say global warming or pollution.
If I asked the question on a leftist blog I might get the answer: growing inequality/exploitation of workers.
If I asked the question to Catholic bishops they might say abortion/sexual immorality.
And if I were to ask the question on LessWrong (which is heavily populated by Computer scientists and programmers) many would respond with unfriendly AI.
One of these groups might be right, I don't know. However I would treat all of their claims with caution.
Edit: This may not be a bad from thing from an instrumental rationality perspective. If you think that the problem you're working on is really important then you're more likely to put a good effort into solving it.
In characterizing this trend, it seems as though you are assuming that membership in these various communities is mutually exclusive. However, this doesn't have to be the case. For example, a person may be both a Catholic and a leftist. Thus, a good follow-up question might be: To what extent does leftist politics and Catholicism have an impact on a person's evaluation of risk. For example, one could compare Pope Benedict with Pope Francis, who are both Catholic, with each other and potentially conclude that income inequality/exploitation influences Francis' conceptualization of risk to society to a greater degree than abortion or sexual immorality.
If I were to ask the question "What threat poses the greatest risk to society/humanity?" to several communities I would expect to get some answers that follow a predictable trend:
If I asked the question on an HBD blog I'd probably get one of the answers demographic disaster/dysgenics/immigration.
If I asked the question to a bunch of environmentalists they'd probably say global warming or pollution.
If I asked the question on a leftist blog I might get the answer: growing inequality/exploitation of workers.
If I asked the question to Catholic bishops they might say abortion/sexual immorality.
And if I were to ask the question on LessWrong (which is heavily populated by Computer scientists and programmers) many would respond with unfriendly AI.
One of these groups might be right, I don't know. However I would treat all of their claims with caution.
Edit: This may not be a bad from thing from an instrumental rationality perspective. If you think that the problem you're working on is really important then you're more likely to put a good effort into solving it.