I've read it now and it was quite interesting. Though it did not really shift my conclusions. The only update I had was that we might even know less about the long term consequences (2100+) than I thought before. 

I think that tipping elements could make a significant contribution to the destabilization of global civilization, which ultimately could contribute to collapse. This would likely not happen via temperature, but by other disruptive elements like significant sea level rise or destruction of ecosystem. However, the main effects of this are likely beyond 2100. Therefore, I am really unsure how this will ultimately play out. I think to make a good estimate of this we are currently knowing too little. Hopefully, the next special report of the IPCC will be about this. This would make things likely much clearer. Therefore, I'll probably not investigate this much further right now, as things seem to uncertain. 

Hmm I feel like this is already a lot of line breaks. Most of the paragraphs are only ~ 5 sentences or less.

And at least for me bolding breaks the reading flow. 

I used table S4, which includes a longer list of possible tipping points. 

Just did a quick calculation. If you assume the minimal value as the trigger, you get ~0.61°C additional warming at 3°C warming. 

Also, a lot more of the points are triggered at lower warming than this. 

Yes, that is how I would interpret their Table S4, which seems like the main summary of their findings. 

What was your impression of how the media represented their findings? It feels to me like the media often represents tipping points as happening instantaneous, while most of them are rather in the time scale of centuries. 

However, you could make an argument that staying much below that is also sensible, as the tipping points are not only triggered by temperature, but also by physical processes like the dilution of salt concentrations in sea water. 

Also, for writing this section I used the estimated values. If you use the minimal values for triggering the tipping points the picture becomes more grim. 

Thank you for the recommendation! I'll read through it and update the permanent version on Github. 

Hi Corentin. Thanks for the comments. I plan to also look more into biodiversity and societal tipping points, but I haven't yet found the time. 

Concerning the reformating, maybe it's just me, but I have a much harder time reading those executive summary style posts and therefore I would rather leave it the way it is. 

This podcast episode feels like something out of a different timeline after the rough time EA has gone through since then. Would be very curious to hear if the opinions of the things said in the podcast are considerably different now?

Surely, they are more modern than utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has been developed in the 19th century, while all the other ones mentioned are from the 20th century. And it is not their "novelty" which is interesting, but that they are a direct follow up and criticism of things like utilitarianism.  Also, I don't think that post above was an endorsement of using fascism, but instead a call to understand the idea why people even started with fascism in the first place. 

The main contribution of the above mentioned fields of ideas to EA is that they highlight that reason is not a strong tool, as many EA think it is. You can easily bring yourself into bad situation, even if you follow reason all the way. Reason is not something objective, but born from your standpoint in the world and the culture you grow up in. 

And if EA (or you) have considered things like existentialism, structuralism, post-structuralism I'd love to see those arguments why it is not important to EA. Never seen anything in this regard.