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?
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.