Should we worry that the risk of omnicide is increased by the growth of movements like EA and longtermism that draw attention to the extent and prevalence of suffering and the desirability of its reduction?
One way of ending suffering would be to eliminate all life. If we convince more and more people of the problem of suffering, and the necessity to do something about it, do we also inadvertently increase the likelihood that some people will conclude that to end suffering we must end the world? With technological advances, it is possible that a very small number of actors would need to be convinced that this is a good idea for it to become a real risk over time.
This is a good question, but I worry you can make this argument about many ideas, and the cost of self-censorship is really not worth it. For example:
As a semi-outsider working on the fringes of this community, my impression is that EA is way too concerned about what is good/bad to talk about. There are ideas, posts and words with negative EV in the short run, but I feel that's all outweighed by the virtue of vigorous debate and capacity for free thinking.
On a more serious note, I am philosophically concerned about the argument "the possibility of s-risks implies we should actually increase x-risk", and am actively working on this. Happy to talk more if it's of mutual interest.
Thank you for your reply. I would not wish to advocate for self-censorship but I would be interested in creating and spreading arguments against the efficacy of doomsday projects, which may help to avert them.