I wonder how to correctly conceptualize the idea of “a net-negative influence on civilization” in view of the fact that the future is highly uncertain and that that uncertainty is a major motivating factor.
E.g., assume at some time point t1, a longtermist’s proposed plan has higher expected longterm value than an alternative plan because the alternative plan takes a major risk. The longtermist’s plan is realized and at some later time point t2 someone points out that the alternative plan would have produced more value between t1 and t2 (tacitly assuming the risk not realizing between t1 and t2 because the realized longterm plan has successfully avoided it).
Would that constitute an example of what these critics would call a “net-negative influence on civilization”? If so, it’s just a fallacy. If not, then what comparison exactly is meant?
More generally: How to plausibly construct a “counterfactual” world in view of large uncertainties? It seems the only valid comparison would not be between the one realization that actually emerged from a certain behavior and one (potentially overly optimistic) realization that might have emerged from an alternative behavior, but between whole ensembles of realizations. This goes similarly for the effects of drug regulation, workplace laws, historic technology bans etc.
I wonder how to correctly conceptualize the idea of “a net-negative influence on civilization” in view of the fact that the future is highly uncertain and that that uncertainty is a major motivating factor.
E.g., assume at some time point t1, a longtermist’s proposed plan has higher expected longterm value than an alternative plan because the alternative plan takes a major risk. The longtermist’s plan is realized and at some later time point t2 someone points out that the alternative plan would have produced more value between t1 and t2 (tacitly assuming the risk not realizing between t1 and t2 because the realized longterm plan has successfully avoided it).
Would that constitute an example of what these critics would call a “net-negative influence on civilization”? If so, it’s just a fallacy. If not, then what comparison exactly is meant?
More generally: How to plausibly construct a “counterfactual” world in view of large uncertainties? It seems the only valid comparison would not be between the one realization that actually emerged from a certain behavior and one (potentially overly optimistic) realization that might have emerged from an alternative behavior, but between whole ensembles of realizations. This goes similarly for the effects of drug regulation, workplace laws, historic technology bans etc.