The purpose of this study was to examine the threats from climate change coverage in the media. The climate threats start to appear more frequently in the media and because of that it is important to examine what the media conveys to the viewers and readers since it may effect how people act when it comes to climate threats. In this study newspaper has been examined, more specifically daily press and evening press. The papers chosen was Aftonbladet and Expressen, which represented evening press, and Dagens Nyheter represented daily press. The method applied was both a quantitative and qualitative text analysis. With the quantitative method variables were formed and tested against the material. After that the result were analyzed qualitative to gain greater depth with the result. The theory used in this study is primarily framing but also agenda setting and news value are used. The variables were formed after the theories, which mainly focused on framing, and specific frames. The specific frames were: conflict frame, human interest frame, economic consequences frame, morality frame and responsibility frame. The result showed that the newspapers framed the issue pretty similar. All the newspapers used the conflict frame and the human interest frame the least. The responsibility frame was used often and the government was usually given the responsibility. The newspapers differ when it comes to morality frame and the economic consequences frame. The daily paper used the morality frame more often then the evening press and the evening press used the economic consequences frame more frequently, portraying the climate threat.

The purpose of this study was to examine how the climate summits arranged by the UN in Kyoto 1997, Copenhagen 2009 and Paris 2015 was portrayed by the Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter. The purpose was also to examine how the problem of climate change was portrayed in the paper in conjunction with the above mentioned climate summits. This was done by using the method critical discourse analysis. A total of 39 articles published in Dagens Nyheter during the time of the different summits was thoroughly analyzed using the method. The results show that Climate change is consequently described as an important issue and a problem that could result in large consequences for the entire planet if the different negotiating parts at the summits could not reach an agreement. The negotiations are described as tough, with countries having big difficulties reaching an agreement. In articles from all three summits the negotiating parts will, or unwillingness, to cooperate and taking responsibility for the situation is described as a key factor in order for the summits to achieve success. However, the media discourse in Dagens Nyheter regarding what taking responsibllity actually means has changed between the different conferences. In the Kyoto-articles being a responsible actor for preventing climate change were described to act according to the line of action already established by the United Nations. However the articles from the meetings held in Copenhagen and Paris described responsibility as something that can only be performed within the political frameworks realm of possibllity.The results also show that solutions to the problem of climate change are described exclusively as something that needs to be done within a liberal economic framework. Economic growth is described as something necessary for countries to develop and humanity’s adjustments to climate change must therefore be done without disrupting the current economic balance too severely.

Derek Parfit är kanske en av vår tids mest kända moralfilosofer. Parfit inleder sin första bok Reasons and Persons med att ställa frågan: vad har vi mest skäl att göra? Hans fråga berör vad som egentligen har betydelse, en fråga som han fortsätter att beröra i sin andra bok On What Matters. Filosofen Toby Ord argumenterar i sin bok The Precipice för att den utmaning som definierar vår tid, och bör ha en central prioritering, är utmaningen att skydda mänskligheten emot så kallade existentiella risker. En existentiell risk är en typ av risk som hotar att förstöra, eller förhindra, mänsklighetens långsiktiga potential. Ord menar att vi idag befinner oss vid en kritisk tidpunkt i mänsklighetens historia som kan vara helt avgörande för om det ens kommer existera en framtid för mänskligheten. Men om vi bör skydda mänskligheten emot existentiella risker, så kan en lämplig följdfråga vara i vilken ordning vi bör prioritera olika existentiella risker. Den svenske filosofen Nick Bostrom har liksom Ord länge förespråkat att existentiella risker bör tas på allvar. Han menar att preventiva åtgärder bör vidtas. I sin bok Superintelligens argumenterar Bostrom, både omfattande och väl, för att den existentiella risk som kan te sig som mest brådskande, och kanske allvarligast, är artificiell intelligens. Bostrom menar att vi har goda skäl att tro att utveckling av artificiell intelligens kan eskalera till den grad att mänsklighetens öde kan hamna bortom vår egen kontroll. Det han syftar på är att människan just nu är den dominerande agenten på jorden och därför innehar en stor kontroll, men att så inte alltid behöver vara fallet. Bostroms tes kunde te sig som okonventionell då den presenterades, men kan även te sig så idag vid en första anblick. Han har dock fått explicit medhåll av personer som Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Yuval Noah Harari och Max Tegmark, som antingen håller med eller resonerar i liknande banor. Även jag själv finner Bostroms antaganden välgrundade. Slutsatsen som många drar är därför att vi bör betrakta artificiell intelligens som en existentiell risk som ska prioriteras högt. Jag kommer dock i denna text att argumentera för tesen att vi inte bör betrakta artificiell intelligens som en existentiell risk. Tesen följer från en invändning som jag kommer att kalla för AI-paradoxen. Det tycks enligt invändningen som att artificiell intelligens inte kan leda till en existentiell katastrof givet vissa premisser som flera i debatten om artificiell intelligens tycks acceptera. Texten i uppsatsen är strukturerad på följande sätt. I avsnitt 2 kommer jag att återge det övergripande argumentet som cirkulerar i debatten om artificiell intelligens som ett hot. I avsnittet kommer jag också förklara några viktiga termer och begrepp. I avsnitt 3 börjar jag med att titta på den första premissen i argumentet, samt resonera om dess rimlighet. I avsnitt 4 går jag sedan vidare till den andra premissen i argumentet och gör samma sak med den. Väl i avsnitt 5 så väljer jag att presentera min egen idé som jag kallar för AI-paradoxen, vilket är en invändning mot argumentet. I avsnitt 6 diskuterar jag sedan AI-paradoxens implikationer. Avslutningsvis, i avsnitt 7, så ger jag en övergripande sammanfattning och en slutsats, samt några sista reflektioner. / Derek Parfit is perhaps one of the most famous moral philosophers of our time. Parfit begins his first book Reasons and Persons by asking the question: what do we have most reason to do? His question touches upon what really matters, a question he continues to touch upon in his second book On What Matters. The philosopher Toby Ord argues in his book The Precipice that the challenge that defines our time, and should have a central priority, is the challenge of safeguarding humanity from so-called existential risks. An existential risk is a type of risk that threatens to destroy, or prevent, humanity’s longterm potential. Ord means that today we are at a critical time in the history of humanity that can be absolutely decisive for whether there will even exist a future for humanity. But if we are to safeguard humanity from existential risks, then an appropriate question may be in what order we should prioritize different existential risks. The Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom, like Ord, has long advocated that existential risks should be taken seriously. He believes that preventive measures should be taken. In his book Superintelligence Bostrom argues, both extensively and well, that the existential risk that may seem most urgent, and perhaps most severe, is artificial intelligence. Bostrom believes that we have good reason to believe that the development of artificial intelligence can escalate to the point that the fate of humanity can end up beyond our own control. What he is referring to is that humans are currently the dominant agent on earth and therefore has great control, but that this does not always have to be the case. Bostrom's thesis may have seemed unconventional when it was presented, but it can also seem so today at first glance. However, he has been explicitly supported by people like Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Yuval Noah Harari and Max Tegmark, who either agree or reason similarly. I myself also find Bostrom's assumptions well-founded. The conclusion that many draw is therefore that we should regard artificial intelligence as an existential risk that should be given a high priority. However, in this text I will argue for the thesis that we should not regard artificial intelligence as an existential risk. The thesis follows from an objection of my own, which I call the AI ​​paradox. According to the objection, it seems that artificial intelligence cannot lead to an existential catastrophe given certain premises that many in the debate about artificial intelligence as a threat seem to accept. The text in the essay is structured as follows. In section 2 I will present the main argument circulating in the debate about artificial intelligence as a threat. In the section I will also explain some important terms and concepts. In section 3 I begin by looking at the first premise in the argument, and also reason about its plausibility. In section 4 I proceed to the second premise in the argument and examine it similarly. Once in section 5 I choose to present my own idea, which I call the AI ​​paradox, which is an objection to the argument. In section 6 I discuss the implications of the AI ​​paradox. Finally, in section 7, I give an overall summary and a conclusion, as well as some last reflections.