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.
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.