called risksandreligion.org.

One paragraph is called "To survive, we must go extinct."
This sounds vaguely like millenialist eschatology, but I could be wrong.

I hope to join you at 16 oz someday.

…collectively. This ranges from external risks, an asteroid impact for example. to risks that come from human activity, like global warming. Another kind of risk in play is the growing influence of human superstitions/religions, which often lead to apocalyptic actors. Then there are the risks of unintended consequences from things we do, and we may not see them until we are drowning in them. Attacking Iraq in 2003 is a short scale example of the dangers posed by unintended consequences. This leads to the greatest risk humans faces as a species: The danger that we will not evolve consciously, at a fast enough pace, to survive the social and environmental chaos we created:

The fate of potentially billions of future generations depends on our actions this century. Just as certain intellectuals have been on the "right side of history" with respect to issues like gender equality, gay marriage, animal rights, and so on, so too must humanity position itself on the "right side of futurology" with respect to phenomena, from climate change to superintelligence, that could irreversibly compromise our potential to reach a posthuman state.

If the moral rationality of our ends fails to match the instrumental rationality of our means, then a catastrophe could be all but guaranteed.

This is a genuinely unique moment in human history. We're approaching a potentially catastrophic collision between (a) neoteric technologies that will enable humanity to manipulate and rearrange the physical world in unprecedented ways, and (b) archaic belief systems about what reality is like and, even more importantly, how it ought to be. The fact is that we're no longer irresponsible kids playing with matches — we're irresponsible kids playing with flamethrowers that could burn down the entire global village. And there's perhaps no better manifestation of our irresponsibility than our continued infatuation with faith-based beliefs in ancient revelations.... If we don't grow up as a species, as the late Christopher Hitchens liked to say, then we could be headed for grief.

Again, the passage quoted is more of an outline of talking points, useful for analyzing the risks (threats) that humans must immediately address to avoid rapid decline and likely extinction.

This brings us to the author's final risk, which is that humans have not yet evolved physically and mentally into the kind of humans the future requires. For example, humans currently cannot (or will not) fully grasp the consequences of their actions, in advance. They lack the concept-generating mechanisms needed to objectify existential threats (like global warming) so they can truly comprehend it. There are clear limitations inherent in the mental machinery of humans, which is reflexively blocked by the willful denial of reality. This results in a failure to take decisive action so that the next generation can survive. (Some philosophers call this "cognitive closure" or "epistemic boundedness.")

Humanity could thus be conceptually blind to any number of risks in the universe; such risks would be unknowable not necessarily because they're convoluted or esoteric, but because the computers behind our eyes simply weren't designed to understand them.

In closing, the author introduces one high-concept solution for further discussion: A global push to rapidly accelerate the advancement of science, while, at the same time, developing a qualitative superintelligence that can help us save ourselves.