I am a Ph.D. student in international relations at Columbia University. I study international cooperation against global catastrophic risks and the international politics of AI. I have a regional interest in China and serve as a fellow at the Weatherhead East Asian Institute at Columbia University. Prior to joining Columbia, I was a research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University and received a B.A. in political science from the University of Hong Kong.
Here are a couple of thoughts from an IR perspective:
Case 1: 50% population loss, no infrastructure damage, no climate change (e.g. a limited pandemic)
Case 2: 90% population loss, infrastructure damage, and extreme climate change (e.g. nuclear war that caused nuclear winter)
Case 3: a catastrophe causes the deaths of 99.99% of people (leaving 800 thousand survivors), extensive infrastructure damage, and temporary climate change (e.g. a more severe nuclear winter/asteroid impact, plus the use of biological weapons).
As you can see, the higher the percentage of deaths, the less IR theory has to say about the situation. I think the central insight is that the number of survivors determines people's identities (whether they think of themselves as part of a nation or as part of humanity as a whole). This, in turn, affects whether there will be internal competition over resources among different groups. In other words, we cannot simply assume that the survivors can effectively allocate resources among themselves. Internal resource competition can lead to excess/unnecessary deaths. Paradoxically, the percentage of such excess deaths might be Case 1 > Case 2 > Case 3.
Thanks for the recommendations! Glad to see that you've compiled an IR reading list related to EA causes.