<<If you believe that under constant conditions and at equilibrium, the expected value of the average welfare in the wild is at most (or, perhaps by resource efficiency and symmetry, equal to) 0, then you should believe, a priori, that under changing conditions, it is negative, and so, with it, the total welfare would also be negative in expectation.>>
This makes sense to me.
<<Since conditions are constantly changing, you should expect, a priori, the net welfare in the wild to be negative.>>
I don’t see why this follows from the previous sentence? One might not believe that “under constant conditions and at equilibrium, the expected value of the average welfare in the wild is at most 0.” Therefore one need not necessarily expect net welfare to be negative under changing conditions?
The “under constant conditions and at equilibrium, the expected value of the average welfare in the wild is at most 0.” was assumed for that last inference. I’ll update the intro to make this more explicit. Thanks!
<<If you believe that under constant conditions and at equilibrium, the expected value of the average welfare in the wild is at most (or, perhaps by resource efficiency and symmetry, equal to) 0, then you should believe, a priori, that under changing conditions, it is negative, and so, with it, the total welfare would also be negative in expectation.>>
This makes sense to me.
<<Since conditions are constantly changing, you should expect, a priori, the net welfare in the wild to be negative.>>
I don’t see why this follows from the previous sentence? One might not believe that “under constant conditions and at equilibrium, the expected value of the average welfare in the wild is at most 0.” Therefore one need not necessarily expect net welfare to be negative under changing conditions?
The “under constant conditions and at equilibrium, the expected value of the average welfare in the wild is at most 0.” was assumed for that last inference. I’ll update the intro to make this more explicit. Thanks!