Longtermism doesn’t get you out of the crazy train at all. In a lot of crazy train frameworks, the existence of people is net negative, so a large future for humanity is the worst thing that could happen.
This is one of the reasons I’m concerned about people taking these sort of speculative expected value calculations too seriously: I don’t want someone trying to end humanity because they futzed up on a math problem.
Longtermism doesn’t get you out of the crazy train at all. In a lot of crazy train frameworks, the existence of people is net negative, so a large future for humanity is the worst thing that could happen.
This is one of the reasons I’m concerned about people taking these sort of speculative expected value calculations too seriously: I don’t want someone trying to end humanity because they futzed up on a math problem.
Curious to know why you think these frameworks are crazier than the frameworks that say it’s net positive.
Or are you saying it’s too crazy in both cases and that we should reduce extinction risks (or at least not increase them) for non-longtermist reasons?