Oh, yes, something I forgot to mention explicitly was that it sounded like you were talking primarily about timescales of centuries, which I donât think is typically what longtermists are focused on. I think the typical view among longtermists is something like the following: âIf things go well, humanityâor whatever we becomeâcould last for such an incredibly long time that even a very small tweak to our trajectory, which lasts a substantial portion of that time, will ultimately matter a huge deal.* And it can matter much more than a larger âboostâ that would ultimately âwash outâ on the scale of years, decades, or centuries.â
This isnât to say that economic growth isnât important for longtermists, but rather that, if it is important to longtermists, that may be primarily because of its effects on other aspects of our trajectory. E.g., existential risk. (And itâs currently not totally clear whether itâs good or bad for x-risk, though I think the evidence leans somewhat towards it being good; see e.g. Existential Risk and Economic Growth. Other sources are linked to from my crucial questions series.)
Though growth could also matter more âdirectlyâ, because a faster spread to the stars may reduce the ultimate astronomical waste. (There are also longtermists who may not care about astronomical waste, such as suffering-focused longtermists.)
In any case, the way you made the argument felt more âmedium-termistâ than âlongtermistâ to me. I share that feeling partly because it may provide useful info regarding how persuasive other longtermists would find that argument, and whether they feel itâs really a âlongtermistâ argument.
*If you want to be mathy, you can think of this as the area between two slightly different curves ultimately being very large, if we travel a far enough distance along the x axis.
Oh, yes, something I forgot to mention explicitly was that it sounded like you were talking primarily about timescales of centuries, which I donât think is typically what longtermists are focused on. I think the typical view among longtermists is something like the following: âIf things go well, humanityâor whatever we becomeâcould last for such an incredibly long time that even a very small tweak to our trajectory, which lasts a substantial portion of that time, will ultimately matter a huge deal.* And it can matter much more than a larger âboostâ that would ultimately âwash outâ on the scale of years, decades, or centuries.â
This isnât to say that economic growth isnât important for longtermists, but rather that, if it is important to longtermists, that may be primarily because of its effects on other aspects of our trajectory. E.g., existential risk. (And itâs currently not totally clear whether itâs good or bad for x-risk, though I think the evidence leans somewhat towards it being good; see e.g. Existential Risk and Economic Growth. Other sources are linked to from my crucial questions series.)
Though growth could also matter more âdirectlyâ, because a faster spread to the stars may reduce the ultimate astronomical waste. (There are also longtermists who may not care about astronomical waste, such as suffering-focused longtermists.)
In any case, the way you made the argument felt more âmedium-termistâ than âlongtermistâ to me. I share that feeling partly because it may provide useful info regarding how persuasive other longtermists would find that argument, and whether they feel itâs really a âlongtermistâ argument.
*If you want to be mathy, you can think of this as the area between two slightly different curves ultimately being very large, if we travel a far enough distance along the x axis.