Just to clarify this was just my first attempt with no outside review and it is far from final, so I’m open to the possibility that there are problems with the flowchart itself.
Also, as I have said to other commenters my idea of a guided flowchart is that nuances and explanations would be in the accompanying guidance, but not necessarily alluded to in the flowchart itself which is supposed to stay fairly high-level and simple.
On your specific question, my thinking was:
If we cannot become safe (achieve existential security) then we will hit an existential catastrophe eventually. In this case we can either focus on the near-term or perhaps on the middle-term. Focusing on middle-term (accepting we cannot reduce x-risk) could entail speeding up sustainable economic growth. So tackling climate change would be a good thing to do. Focusing on near term would actually send you to things like global health, animal welfare etc. so now I’m now thinking it’s already clear that my flowchart is very incomplete even from my point of view as you may need further questions after “We can become safe?”.
If you’re not willing to bet on small probabilities of success I think that reducing x-risk is not for you, as there is a very small probability that our efforts will counterfactually avert an existential catastrophe. In this case it seems that tackling climate change is the next best longtermist option as we can reliably reduce expected global warming for example through green technology investment.
I guess my main point though is that this flowchart is far from final and there are certainly improvements that can be made! Also that accompanying guidance would be essential for such a flowchart.
Great chart! Another minor wording thing: I don’t know whether to interpret “Most influential time in future” as “[This is the] most influential time in future” or “The most influential time is still to come.” From the context, I think it’s the second, but my first reading was the first. :-)
Why is climate change the result of answering “no” to “We can become safe?” and “Small chance of success OK?”
Just to clarify this was just my first attempt with no outside review and it is far from final, so I’m open to the possibility that there are problems with the flowchart itself.
Also, as I have said to other commenters my idea of a guided flowchart is that nuances and explanations would be in the accompanying guidance, but not necessarily alluded to in the flowchart itself which is supposed to stay fairly high-level and simple.
On your specific question, my thinking was:
If we cannot become safe (achieve existential security) then we will hit an existential catastrophe eventually. In this case we can either focus on the near-term or perhaps on the middle-term. Focusing on middle-term (accepting we cannot reduce x-risk) could entail speeding up sustainable economic growth. So tackling climate change would be a good thing to do. Focusing on near term would actually send you to things like global health, animal welfare etc. so now I’m now thinking it’s already clear that my flowchart is very incomplete even from my point of view as you may need further questions after “We can become safe?”.
If you’re not willing to bet on small probabilities of success I think that reducing x-risk is not for you, as there is a very small probability that our efforts will counterfactually avert an existential catastrophe. In this case it seems that tackling climate change is the next best longtermist option as we can reliably reduce expected global warming for example through green technology investment.
I guess my main point though is that this flowchart is far from final and there are certainly improvements that can be made! Also that accompanying guidance would be essential for such a flowchart.
Great chart! Another minor wording thing: I don’t know whether to interpret “Most influential time in future” as “[This is the] most influential time in future” or “The most influential time is still to come.” From the context, I think it’s the second, but my first reading was the first. :-)