That’s a good point I hadn’t considered! I don’t think that’s OP’s crux, but it is a coherent explanation of their neartermist cause prioritization.
It really is a nice point, Gage! Like Ariel, I also guess it is not driving OP’s neartermist prioritisation, as OP has funded lots of longtermist work, and this is also significantly less valuable under person-affecting views (unless OP thinks most of the benefits of longtermist interventions respect reducing deaths of people currently alive).
Thanks Gage!
That’s a good point I hadn’t considered! I don’t think that’s OP’s crux, but it is a coherent explanation of their neartermist cause prioritization.
It really is a nice point, Gage! Like Ariel, I also guess it is not driving OP’s neartermist prioritisation, as OP has funded lots of longtermist work, and this is also significantly less valuable under person-affecting views (unless OP thinks most of the benefits of longtermist interventions respect reducing deaths of people currently alive).