  Studying potential global catastrophes is vital. The high stakes of
existential risk studies (ERS) necessitate serious scrutiny and
self-reflection. We argue that existing approaches to studying existential risk
are not yet fit for purpose, and perhaps even run the risk of increasing harm.
We highlight general challenges in ERS: accommodating value pluralism, crafting
precise definitions, developing comprehensive tools for risk assessment,
dealing with uncertainty, and accounting for the dangers associated with taking
exceptional actions to mitigate or prevent catastrophes. The most influential
framework for ERS, the 'techno-utopian approach' (TUA), struggles with these
issues and has a unique set of additional problems: it unnecessarily combines
the study of longtermism and longtermist ethics with the study of extinction,
relies on a non-representative moral worldview, uses ambiguous and inadequate
definitions, fails to incorporate insights from risk assessment in relevant
fields, chooses arbitrary categorisations of risk, and advocates for dangerous
mitigation strategies. Its moral and empirical assumptions might be
particularly vulnerable to securitisation and misuse. We suggest several key
improvements: separating the study of extinction ethics (ethical implications
of extinction) and existential ethics (the ethical implications of different
societal forms), from the analysis of human extinction and global catastrophe;
drawing on the latest developments in risk assessment literature; diversifying
the field, and; democratising its policy recommendations.
