For example, we might decide that marginally increasing economic growth isn’t too dangerous after all (e.g. because the negative effects of the poor meat eater problem, increased emissions, or increased anthropogenic existential risk are outweighed by the benefits).
Regarding x-risk, did you mean:
(1) “Marginally increasing economic growth causes a (perhaps extremely slight) net increase in anthropogenic x-risk slightly, but this could be outweighed by other benefits unrelated to anthropogenic x-risk”?
Or (2): “Marginally increasing economic growth causes some things that increase in anthropogenic x-risk for some reasons, and some things that decrease it, and it’s unclear what the net effect on anthropogenic x-risk are?”
If you mean (2), I agree. If you meant (1), I think it’s quite unclear, but my current, quite uncertain guess is that marginally increasing economic growth probably slightly decreases x-risk on balance. (And this is almost entirely due to the effects on anthropogenic x-risk, since natural x-risks are probably far lower.) This guess is largely based on this paper’s conclusions (I lack the background to judge its arguments in detail).
Following that paper, I think growth might increase x-risk in the near-term (say ~100-200 years), and might decrease x-risk in the long-term (if the growth doesn’t come at the cost of later growth). I meant (1), but was thinking about the effect of x-risk in the near-term.
(Minor point) You write:
Regarding x-risk, did you mean:
(1) “Marginally increasing economic growth causes a (perhaps extremely slight) net increase in anthropogenic x-risk slightly, but this could be outweighed by other benefits unrelated to anthropogenic x-risk”?
Or (2): “Marginally increasing economic growth causes some things that increase in anthropogenic x-risk for some reasons, and some things that decrease it, and it’s unclear what the net effect on anthropogenic x-risk are?”
If you mean (2), I agree. If you meant (1), I think it’s quite unclear, but my current, quite uncertain guess is that marginally increasing economic growth probably slightly decreases x-risk on balance. (And this is almost entirely due to the effects on anthropogenic x-risk, since natural x-risks are probably far lower.) This guess is largely based on this paper’s conclusions (I lack the background to judge its arguments in detail).
Following that paper, I think growth might increase x-risk in the near-term (say ~100-200 years), and might decrease x-risk in the long-term (if the growth doesn’t come at the cost of later growth). I meant (1), but was thinking about the effect of x-risk in the near-term.