On nuclear winter, besides my crosspost for Bean’s analysis linked above, I looked more in-depth into the famine deaths and extinction risk (arriving to an annual extinction risk of 5.93*10^-12). I also got an astronomically low annual extinction risk risk from asteroids and comets (2.20*10^-14) and volcanoes (3.38*10^-14).
I think this study also implies as astronomically low extinction risk from climate change.
And the entire future is huge, it’s like 10x lives. So reducing x-risk by even a tiny fraction, say y%, this century saves 10(x−2)⋅y (a huge number of) lives in expectation.
I believe y is not supposed to be in the exponent.
This compares long-run effects with short-run effects without attempting to evaluate the long-run effects of interventions not deliberately targeted at reducing existential catastrophe this century.
Great points, Fin!
On nuclear winter, besides my crosspost for Bean’s analysis linked above, I looked more in-depth into the famine deaths and extinction risk (arriving to an annual extinction risk of 5.93*10^-12). I also got an astronomically low annual extinction risk risk from asteroids and comets (2.20*10^-14) and volcanoes (3.38*10^-14).
I think this study also implies as astronomically low extinction risk from climate change.
I believe y is not supposed to be in the exponent.
Relatedly:
Why Charities Usually Don’t Differ Astronomically in Expected Cost-Effectiveness.
Saving lives in normal times is better to improve the longterm future than doing so in catastrophes?.
Thanks Vasco!