I started reading "Existential Risk Prevention" and ended up in an article by Bostrom titled "Existential Risk". I will read both. One of the existential risks classified as a "Bang" is 4.3 We’re living in a simulation and it gets shut down:

"A case can be made that the hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation should be given a significant probability [27]. The basic idea behind this so-called “Simulation argument” is that vast amounts of computing power may become available in the future (see e.g. [28,29]), and that it could be used, among other things, to run large numbers of fine-grained simulations of past human civilizations. Under some not-too-implausible assumptions, the result can be that almost all minds like ours are simulated minds, and that we should therefore assign a significant probability to being such computer-emulated minds rather than the (subjectively indistinguishable) minds of originally evolved creatures. And if we are, we suffer the risk that the simulation may be shut down at any time. A decision to terminate our simulation may be prompted by our actions or by exogenous factors."

A brief comment on this statement since it appears to be a real and present danger in the minds of many people: That God will destroy the earth is an existential threat perceived by adherents of a number of religions. The risk is managed by engaging in specified rituals or actions enabling the perception of the likelihood of the threat coming to fruition to be manipulated by those in power or seeking power. Related concepts are that God will not destroy or permit the destruction of ALL humans or that God will not permit the destruction of God’s creation. The first cedes enormous power to those who are perceived as holding the keys to salvation; the second is a rationalization for doing nothing.

Back to reading. Thank you for sharing this link.

I like the separation of pan-generational from other trans-generational concerns and lumping simulation and extra-terrestrial contact into "external concerns". I just wish the last paragraph and especially the last sentence was punchier. He should not end with a sentence including the word "multidecadle". It partly stifles the growing feeling of that-was-an-awesome-paper as your brain hiccups to reread the word a 2nd or 3rd time.