I’ve been interested in seeing more research on this, so thank you for writing it.
Your main argument
I’m sympathetic to your claim, namely:
“Population growth is unlikely to be the best way of keeping humanity safe from extinction risks”
From what I remember of reading WWOTF, I didn’t get the impression that MacAskill was claiming that it was the best way. (I might be misremembering) Rather, I thought his argument was:
“In a world where many people having fewer children is better for humanity’s longterm future, Will thinks the sign is probably the other way round”
Your 50% model
I thought your claim of a 50% chance of artificial people this millennium was interesting. I tried following your guesstimate model but it was a struggle to review it. Perhaps a separate write-up focusing on this would be of value?
I’ve been interested in seeing more research on this, so thank you for writing it.
Your main argument
I’m sympathetic to your claim, namely:
“Population growth is unlikely to be the best way of keeping humanity safe from extinction risks”
From what I remember of reading WWOTF, I didn’t get the impression that MacAskill was claiming that it was the best way. (I might be misremembering) Rather, I thought his argument was:
“In a world where many people having fewer children is better for humanity’s longterm future, Will thinks the sign is probably the other way round”
Your 50% model
I thought your claim of a 50% chance of artificial people this millennium was interesting. I tried following your guesstimate model but it was a struggle to review it. Perhaps a separate write-up focusing on this would be of value?