Thank you for this. It’s a useful contribution, and I upvoted it.
I’d be interested in some discussion about when we’d expect this mathematics to be materially useful, especially when compared with other hard elements of doing this sort of forecast.
Example: if I want to estimate the extent to which averting a gigatonne of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions influences the probability of human extinction, I suspect that the Fisher-Tippett-Gnedenko theorem isn’t very important (shout if you disagree). Other considerations (like: “have I considered all the roundabout/indirect ways that GHG emissions could influence the chance of human extinction?”) are probably more important.
Thank you for this. It’s a useful contribution, and I upvoted it.
I’d be interested in some discussion about when we’d expect this mathematics to be materially useful, especially when compared with other hard elements of doing this sort of forecast.
Example: if I want to estimate the extent to which averting a gigatonne of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions influences the probability of human extinction, I suspect that the Fisher-Tippett-Gnedenko theorem isn’t very important (shout if you disagree). Other considerations (like: “have I considered all the roundabout/indirect ways that GHG emissions could influence the chance of human extinction?”) are probably more important.