When it comes to comparing non-longtermist problems from a longtermist perspective, I find it useful to evaluate them based on their āstickinessā: the rate at which they will grow or shrink over time.
A problemās stickiness is its annual growth rate. So a problem has positive stickiness if it is growing, and negative stickiness if it is shrinking. For long-term planning, we care about a problemās expected stickiness: the annual rate at which we think it will grow or shrink. Over the long termāi.e. time frames of 50 years or moreāwe want to focus on problems that we expect to grow over time without our intervention, instead of problems that will go away on their own.
For example, global poverty has negative stickiness because the poverty rate has declined over the last 200 years. I believe its stickiness will continue to be negative, barring a global catastrophe like climate change or World War III.
On the other hand, farm animal suffering has not gone away over time; in fact, it has gotten worse, as a growing number of people around the world are eating meat and dairy. This trend will continue at least until alternative proteins become competitive with animal products. Therefore, farm animal suffering has positive stickiness. (I would expect wild animal suffering to also have positive stickiness due to increased habitat destruction, but I donāt know.)
The difference in stickiness between these problems motivates me to focus more on animal welfare than on global poverty, although Iām still keeping an eye on and cheering on actors in that space.
I wonder which matters more, a problemās āabsoluteā stickiness or its growth rate relative to the population or the size of the economy. But I care more about differences in stickiness between problems than the numbers themselves.
Tentative thoughts on āproblem stickinessā
When it comes to comparing non-longtermist problems from a longtermist perspective, I find it useful to evaluate them based on their āstickinessā: the rate at which they will grow or shrink over time.
A problemās stickiness is its annual growth rate. So a problem has positive stickiness if it is growing, and negative stickiness if it is shrinking. For long-term planning, we care about a problemās expected stickiness: the annual rate at which we think it will grow or shrink. Over the long termāi.e. time frames of 50 years or moreāwe want to focus on problems that we expect to grow over time without our intervention, instead of problems that will go away on their own.
For example, global poverty has negative stickiness because the poverty rate has declined over the last 200 years. I believe its stickiness will continue to be negative, barring a global catastrophe like climate change or World War III.
On the other hand, farm animal suffering has not gone away over time; in fact, it has gotten worse, as a growing number of people around the world are eating meat and dairy. This trend will continue at least until alternative proteins become competitive with animal products. Therefore, farm animal suffering has positive stickiness. (I would expect wild animal suffering to also have positive stickiness due to increased habitat destruction, but I donāt know.)
The difference in stickiness between these problems motivates me to focus more on animal welfare than on global poverty, although Iām still keeping an eye on and cheering on actors in that space.
I wonder which matters more, a problemās āabsoluteā stickiness or its growth rate relative to the population or the size of the economy. But I care more about differences in stickiness between problems than the numbers themselves.
Do you know if anyone else has written more about this?