In which case I’m not understanding your model. The ‘Cost per life year’ box is $1bn/EV. How is that not a one off of $1bn? What have I missed?
If the cost is 1B total to reduce risk for the subsequent century
As noted above, if people only live 70 years, then on PAA there’s no point wondering what happens after 70 years.
I guess I’d be surprised if pricing by TRIA gives a huge discount
yeah, I don’t think people have looked at this enough to form views on the figure. McMahan does want to discount future wellbeing for people by some amount, but is reluctant to be pushed into giving a number. I’d guess it’s something like 2% a year. The effect something like assuming a 2% pure time discount.
Ah. So the EV is for a single year. But I still only see $1bn. So your number is “this is the cost per life year saved if we spend the money this year and it causes an instanteous reduction in X-risk for this year”?
So your figure is the cost effectiveness of reducing instanteous X-risk at Tn, where Tn is now, whenever now is. But it’s not the cost effectiveness of that reduction at Tf, where Tf is some year in the future, because the further in the future this occurs, the less the EV is on PAA. If I’m wondering what the cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of T0, it would be to spend $1bn in 10 years and cause a reduction at T10, on your model I increase the mean age by 10 years to 48, the average cost per year become $12k. From the perspective of T10, reducing X-risk in the way you say at T10 is, again $9k.
By contrast, for totalists the calculations would be the same (excepting inflation, etc.).
Also, not sure why my comment was downvoted. I wasn’t being rude (or, I think, stupid) and I think it’s unhelpful to downvote without explanation as it just looks petty and feels unfriendly.
Also, not sure why my comment was downvoted. I wasn’t being rude (or, I think, stupid) and I think it’s unhelpful to downvote without explanation as it just looks petty and feels unfriendly.
I didn’t downvote, but:
In which case I’m not understanding your model. The ‘Cost per life year’ box is $1bn/EV. How is that not a one off of $1bn? What have I missed?
The last two sentences of this come across as pretty curt to me. I think there is a wide range in how people interpret things like these, so it is probably just a bit of a communication style mismatch. (I think I have noticed a myself having a similar reaction to a few of your comments before where I don’t think you meant any rudeness).
I think it’s unhelpful to downvote without explanation as it just looks petty and feels unfriendly.
I agree with this on some level, but I’m not sure I want there to be uneven costs to upvoting/downvoting content. I think there is also an unfriendliness vs. enforcing standards tradeoff where the marginal decisions will typically look petty.
I didn’t see it as all that snipey. I think downvotes should be reserved for more severe tonal misdemeanours than this.
There’s a bit of difficult balance between necessary policing of tone and engagement with substantive arguments. I think as a rule people tend to talk about tone too much in arguments to the detriment of talking about the substance.
In which case I’m not understanding your model. The ‘Cost per life year’ box is $1bn/EV. How is that not a one off of $1bn? What have I missed?
As noted above, if people only live 70 years, then on PAA there’s no point wondering what happens after 70 years.
yeah, I don’t think people have looked at this enough to form views on the figure. McMahan does want to discount future wellbeing for people by some amount, but is reluctant to be pushed into giving a number. I’d guess it’s something like 2% a year. The effect something like assuming a 2% pure time discount.
The EV in question is the reduction in x-risk for a single year, not across the century. I’ll change the wording to make this clearer.
Ah. So the EV is for a single year. But I still only see $1bn. So your number is “this is the cost per life year saved if we spend the money this year and it causes an instanteous reduction in X-risk for this year”?
So your figure is the cost effectiveness of reducing instanteous X-risk at Tn, where Tn is now, whenever now is. But it’s not the cost effectiveness of that reduction at Tf, where Tf is some year in the future, because the further in the future this occurs, the less the EV is on PAA. If I’m wondering what the cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of T0, it would be to spend $1bn in 10 years and cause a reduction at T10, on your model I increase the mean age by 10 years to 48, the average cost per year become $12k. From the perspective of T10, reducing X-risk in the way you say at T10 is, again $9k.
By contrast, for totalists the calculations would be the same (excepting inflation, etc.).
Also, not sure why my comment was downvoted. I wasn’t being rude (or, I think, stupid) and I think it’s unhelpful to downvote without explanation as it just looks petty and feels unfriendly.
I didn’t downvote, but:
The last two sentences of this come across as pretty curt to me. I think there is a wide range in how people interpret things like these, so it is probably just a bit of a communication style mismatch. (I think I have noticed a myself having a similar reaction to a few of your comments before where I don’t think you meant any rudeness).
I agree with this on some level, but I’m not sure I want there to be uneven costs to upvoting/downvoting content. I think there is also an unfriendliness vs. enforcing standards tradeoff where the marginal decisions will typically look petty.
Yeah, on re-reading, the “How is that not a one off of $1bn?” does seem snippy. Okay. Fair cop.
I didn’t see it as all that snipey. I think downvotes should be reserved for more severe tonal misdemeanours than this.
There’s a bit of difficult balance between necessary policing of tone and engagement with substantive arguments. I think as a rule people tend to talk about tone too much in arguments to the detriment of talking about the substance.