I believe the effects of one’s actions decay to practically 0 after at most around 100 years, so I do not think it matters whether the theoretically affectable universe is infinite or not. Even if it was, one could simply use limits to figure out which action is best.
Thanks Vasco. While I agree with what I interpret to be your actionable takeaway (to ethically act as if our actions’ consequences are finitely circumscribed in time and space), I don’t see where your confidence comes from that the effects of one’s actions decay to practically 0 after at most around 100 years, especially given that longtermists explicitly seek and focus on such actions. I’m guessing you have a writeup on the forum elaborating on your reasoning, in which case would you mind linking to it?
Hi Mo,
I believe the effects of one’s actions decay to practically 0 after at most around 100 years, so I do not think it matters whether the theoretically affectable universe is infinite or not. Even if it was, one could simply use limits to figure out which action is best.
Thanks Vasco. While I agree with what I interpret to be your actionable takeaway (to ethically act as if our actions’ consequences are finitely circumscribed in time and space), I don’t see where your confidence comes from that the effects of one’s actions decay to practically 0 after at most around 100 years, especially given that longtermists explicitly seek and focus on such actions. I’m guessing you have a writeup on the forum elaborating on your reasoning, in which case would you mind linking to it?
My post Reducing the nearterm risk of human extinction is not astronomically cost-effective? is somewhat related, but it does not empirically analyse how fast effects decay over time. Uncertainty over time and Bayesian updating is the best analysis on this I am aware of. I have just updated the comment I had left there to explain my claim that effects decay to practically 0 after at most 100 years.
Much appreciated, thanks again Vasco.