Excellent post! I think the thing of some (hopefully non-trivial) fraction of people/​capital/​agents will want to promote The Good, while hopefully a near-zero fraction will want to specifically promote The Bad seems especailly important to me.
A couple snippets I wrote last year are relevant:
https://​​forum.effectivealtruism.org/​​posts/​​JdDnPmZsSuBgh2AiX/​​space-settlers-will-favour-meat-alternatives about how it is unlikely factory farminig will persist in space, because people with more cosmopolitan values will go to space.
https://​​forum.effectivealtruism.org/​​posts/​​fosBQPAokSsn4fv77/​​cosmic-nimbys-and-the-repugnant-conclusion about how we might miss out on a lot of value by having too few people with really high welfare rather than far more people with marginally lower welfare (kind of an anti-repugnant-conclusion).
But yours is more systematic, these focused on just narrow pieces of the relevant idea space.
Excellent post! I think the thing of some (hopefully non-trivial) fraction of people/​capital/​agents will want to promote The Good, while hopefully a near-zero fraction will want to specifically promote The Bad seems especailly important to me.
A couple snippets I wrote last year are relevant:
https://​​forum.effectivealtruism.org/​​posts/​​JdDnPmZsSuBgh2AiX/​​space-settlers-will-favour-meat-alternatives about how it is unlikely factory farminig will persist in space, because people with more cosmopolitan values will go to space.
https://​​forum.effectivealtruism.org/​​posts/​​fosBQPAokSsn4fv77/​​cosmic-nimbys-and-the-repugnant-conclusion about how we might miss out on a lot of value by having too few people with really high welfare rather than far more people with marginally lower welfare (kind of an anti-repugnant-conclusion).
But yours is more systematic, these focused on just narrow pieces of the relevant idea space.