Hoo boy, I think we can get a paradox out of this:
Givewell is looking at the loss of potential life for the people that currently exist. Save 30000 lives that live for an average of 50 years each, and that’s 30000*50 =1.5 million years worth of potential lives saved.
Suppose the population stayed constant at 10^10 people forever, with average 50 years left.
In the event of a human extinction, the number of potential life years lost if the apocalypse happened today would be 50*10^10.
Now what happens if we survive another hundred years, and the extinction happens then?
Well, there are still 10^10 people averaging 50 years left, so the number of potential life years lost as a result of the apocalypse is… 50*10^10.
So it seems like if you go by the givewell calculations, delaying the apocalypse makes no difference at all! In fact, if the population were to increase, then the amount of potential life lost in the extinction would be greater, so arguably delaying would make it worse.
Hoo boy, I think we can get a paradox out of this:
Givewell is looking at the loss of potential life for the people that currently exist. Save 30000 lives that live for an average of 50 years each, and that’s 30000*50 =1.5 million years worth of potential lives saved.
Suppose the population stayed constant at 10^10 people forever, with average 50 years left.
In the event of a human extinction, the number of potential life years lost if the apocalypse happened today would be 50*10^10.
Now what happens if we survive another hundred years, and the extinction happens then?
Well, there are still 10^10 people averaging 50 years left, so the number of potential life years lost as a result of the apocalypse is… 50*10^10.
So it seems like if you go by the givewell calculations, delaying the apocalypse makes no difference at all! In fact, if the population were to increase, then the amount of potential life lost in the extinction would be greater, so arguably delaying would make it worse.