[This comment just responds to one part of what you said, not the whole thing]
Even if thatās the case, speeding along their timeline helps many people (or other sentient beings) who may not have been helped at all.
I do think that that can be valuable, but I personally expect that changing āwhere civilization ends upā is much more important than changing how fast we get there. To expand on my thinking on this, hereās a section from a post I drafted last year but keep not quite getting around to polishing + publishing:
---
Beckstead writes that our actions might, instead of or in addition to āslightly or significantly alter[ing] the worldās development trajectoryā, speed up development:
In many cases, ripple effects from good ordinary actions speed up development. For example, saving some childās life might cause his countryās economy to develop very slightly more quickly, or make certain technological or cultural innovations arrive more quickly.
Technically, I think that increases in the pace of development are trajectory changes. At the least, they would change the steepness of one part of the curve. We can illustrate this with the following graph, where actions aimed at speeding up development would be intended to increase the likelihood of the green trajectory relative to the navy one:
This seems to be the sort of picture Benjamin Todd has in mind when he writes:
One way to help the future we donāt think is a contender is speeding it up. Some people who want to help the future focus on bringing about technological progress, like developing new vaccines, and itās true that these create long-term benefits. However, we think what most matters from a long-term perspective is where we end up, rather than how fast we get there. Discovering a new vaccine probably means we get it earlier, rather than making it happen at all.
However, I think speeding up development could also affect āwhere we end upā, for two reasons.
Firstly, if it makes us spread to the stars earlier and faster, this may increase the amount of resources we can ultimately use. We can illustrate this with the following graph, where again actions aimed at speeding up development would be intended to increase the likelihood of the green trajectory relative to the navy one:
Secondly, more generally, speeding up development could affect which trajectory weāre likely to take. For example, faster economic growth might decrease existential risk by reducing international tensions, or increase it by allowing us less time to prepare for and adjust to each new risky technology. Arguably, this might be best thought of as a way in which speeding up development could, as a side effect, affect other types of trajectory change.
---
(The draft post was meant to be just āA typology of strategies for influencing the futureā, rather than an argument for one strategy over another, so I just tried to clarify possibilities and lay out possible arguments. If I was instead explaining my own views, Iād give more space to arguments along the lines of Toddās.)
I know itās a struggle to balance polishing and publishing. I find it challenging to balance myself. But Iād love to read your post when you have it up all the way. I think a lot of us are curious about the interaction between longtermism, immediacy, and philanthropic investment.
[This comment just responds to one part of what you said, not the whole thing]
I do think that that can be valuable, but I personally expect that changing āwhere civilization ends upā is much more important than changing how fast we get there. To expand on my thinking on this, hereās a section from a post I drafted last year but keep not quite getting around to polishing + publishing:
---
Beckstead writes that our actions might, instead of or in addition to āslightly or significantly alter[ing] the worldās development trajectoryā, speed up development:
Technically, I think that increases in the pace of development are trajectory changes. At the least, they would change the steepness of one part of the curve. We can illustrate this with the following graph, where actions aimed at speeding up development would be intended to increase the likelihood of the green trajectory relative to the navy one:
This seems to be the sort of picture Benjamin Todd has in mind when he writes:
However, I think speeding up development could also affect āwhere we end upā, for two reasons.
Firstly, if it makes us spread to the stars earlier and faster, this may increase the amount of resources we can ultimately use. We can illustrate this with the following graph, where again actions aimed at speeding up development would be intended to increase the likelihood of the green trajectory relative to the navy one:
Secondly, more generally, speeding up development could affect which trajectory weāre likely to take. For example, faster economic growth might decrease existential risk by reducing international tensions, or increase it by allowing us less time to prepare for and adjust to each new risky technology. Arguably, this might be best thought of as a way in which speeding up development could, as a side effect, affect other types of trajectory change.
---
(The draft post was meant to be just āA typology of strategies for influencing the futureā, rather than an argument for one strategy over another, so I just tried to clarify possibilities and lay out possible arguments. If I was instead explaining my own views, Iād give more space to arguments along the lines of Toddās.)
I know itās a struggle to balance polishing and publishing. I find it challenging to balance myself. But Iād love to read your post when you have it up all the way. I think a lot of us are curious about the interaction between longtermism, immediacy, and philanthropic investment.