I agree there’s a very high degree of uncertainty. But I’d guess at maybe 58% odds that climate change will be bad in the long run. I’d imagine the aquatic impacts will largely rebound long term while the terrestrial ones will be long lasting. I agree there’s high uncertianty, but sometimes it’s worth acting on +ev actions even given loads of uncertainty.
Thanks for the interesting discussion, Abraham and Matthew! I have coincidentally been thinking about this over the past few days.
I agree there’s high uncertianty, but sometimes it’s worth acting on +ev actions even given loads of uncertainty.
I agree. Uncertainty about whether wild animals have positive or negative lives should directionally update one towards supporting interventions which improve their lives, and away from ones which increase/decrease positive/negative animal-years. However, it could still be the case that one’s best guess for the welfare per animal-year is sufficiently away from 0 for the latter interventions to be more cost-effective. I am not aware of any quantitative analysis arguing one way or the other.
I agree there’s a very high degree of uncertainty. But I’d guess at maybe 58% odds that climate change will be bad in the long run. I’d imagine the aquatic impacts will largely rebound long term while the terrestrial ones will be long lasting. I agree there’s high uncertianty, but sometimes it’s worth acting on +ev actions even given loads of uncertainty.
How did you get to 58%? That seems pretty precise so interested in the reasoning there.
Vibes! 60 felt too high, 55 too low!
Thanks for the interesting discussion, Abraham and Matthew! I have coincidentally been thinking about this over the past few days.
I agree. Uncertainty about whether wild animals have positive or negative lives should directionally update one towards supporting interventions which improve their lives, and away from ones which increase/decrease positive/negative animal-years. However, it could still be the case that one’s best guess for the welfare per animal-year is sufficiently away from 0 for the latter interventions to be more cost-effective. I am not aware of any quantitative analysis arguing one way or the other.