I won’t respond to your second/third bullets; as you say it’s not a defense of the claim itself, and while it’s plausible to me that many conclusions go through on much shorter timelines, I still want to understand the basis for the actual arguments made as best I can. Not least because if I can’t defend such arguments, then my personal pitches for longtermism (both to myself and to others) will not include them; they and I will focus on the next e.g. 10,000 years instead.
To be clear, this makes a lot of sense to me, and I emphatically agree that understanding the arguments is valuable independently from whether this immediately changes a practical conclusion.
To be clear, this makes a lot of sense to me, and I emphatically agree that understanding the arguments is valuable independently from whether this immediately changes a practical conclusion.