[mkyc]

You can't summarize that paper. The responses to the various objections are vital; they are part of the central argument, not tangential to it. The positive argument is also much richer than you portray it, and therefore much more convincing.

Save your summaries for techcrunch. They are not for refereed writing on subject X (i.e. 'existential risk') by the foremost authority on subject X. If you're not reading the whole thing (perhaps 2 or 3 times), you may as well not read it.

[Semiapies]

Especially when the "summary" is incorrect.

[tptacek]

What'd I mess up?

[Semiapies]

For one, there is no "ergo, we are doomed" - quite the opposite:

"So this is why I conclude that the silence of the night sky is golden, and why, in the search for extraterrestrial life, no news is good news. It promises a potentially great future for humanity."

[TheSOB88]

I think you are reading the root comment with the wrong perspective in mind. He is saying we are doomed if there is life on Mars.

[Semiapies]

Nor is the writer saying that.