Is this necessarily true? Say there is tighter nuclear regulation being enacted in 2031, or nuclear material will run out in the 2030s, or it expects peace to happen in the 2030s? Would these situations not reduce the likelihood of Iran having a nuke? I would expect with all things being equal the likelihood going up over time, but external events may cause them to decrease more than they increase.

What does "solving alignment" actually look like? How will we know when it's been solved (if that's even possible)?

I'm starting to think you're trolling.

• Views and challenges are unique for each mountain, hence not banal by definition.
• How do you define greatness? Would climbing something that no one else has ever climbed before, despite being attempted multiple times by professionals, fall under your definition?
• I find your "still decide to waste resources" argument poor. Where does the logic end? Should people have zero fun and live like beggars just to donate every last cent to fighting malaria? Why are you commenting on LessWrong when you could be out doing something altruistic?

I suspect you don't know much about mountaineering based on your comments:

• "Mountaineering is a rather banal adventure" - have you ever climbed a mountain? If so, how dangerous was it? I doubt those that have climbed K2 consider it banal.

• "zero greatness in mountaineering" - there are still unclimbed peaks and new routes to already-summited peaks.

• "noble and altruistic ways to risk your life" - some people don't care about nobility or altruism the way LW users do.

See the third paragraph of the “Proximity” section.