One key question for the debate is: what can we do / what are the best ways to “increas[e] the value of futures where we survive”?
My guess is it’s better to spend most effort on identifying possible best ways to “increas[e] the value of futures where we survive” and arguing about how valuable they are, rather than arguing about “reducing the chance of our extinction [vs] increasing the value of futures where we survive” in the abstract.
I agree- this is what I mean by my clarification of the tractability point above. One of the biggest considerations for me personally in this debate is whether there are any interventions in the ‘increasing the value of the future’ field which are as robust in their value as extinction risk reduction.
One key question for the debate is: what can we do / what are the best ways to “increas[e] the value of futures where we survive”?
My guess is it’s better to spend most effort on identifying possible best ways to “increas[e] the value of futures where we survive” and arguing about how valuable they are, rather than arguing about “reducing the chance of our extinction [vs] increasing the value of futures where we survive” in the abstract.
I agree- this is what I mean by my clarification of the tractability point above. One of the biggest considerations for me personally in this debate is whether there are any interventions in the ‘increasing the value of the future’ field which are as robust in their value as extinction risk reduction.