Not a true extinction-level threat (see my question on that if you wish). Add answers as you see fit.
For now, the plan is to resolve by the end of 2025 according to simple democratic opinion. Obviously I ask that everyone plays in the spirit of earnest and truth-seeking. Depending on how long manifold lasts we may see certain options disappear one by one, especially as soon as (if) we go interstellar.
Related questions
@Joshua It may have been better to do as a poll, but there seem to be some advantages to this which I opted for. Basically just resolve based on overall consensus (plurality).
Maybe I'll start posting some specifying my opinion, that would be interesting but a bit weird. Currently I must say I'm startled and troubled climate is so far ahead on both questions (true existential threat and this one). I'd see it as a remote possibility more on this one, certainly not when it comes to a true existential threat.
@josh Good point. I would say whichever first takes us back sufficiently far to qualify. By definition it probably precludes any other option––even if another option had the potential to cause greater damage, as soon as we're taken back to the stone age the qualification has been met. So if an asteroid demolishes Central America and sets the global economy back 100 years, it doesn't qualify. If the resulting instability causes nuclear war, but only portions of Russia and North America are reduced to rubble, it doesn't qualify. If then someone unleashes a synthetic virus that demolishes the entire human population and modern civilization ceases to function, I suppose the correct answer would have been the synthetic virus. Do you think that's a good approach?