Theoretically, it is possible that Life can be better or worse forba given level of economic prosperity. Doesn’t this challenge the model (not that I think 3% a year multipliers are likely over the long term)
I’m not sure how to deal with this but I think the original argument is likely to work in some more robust/limited form. Or may it has to be limited to economic productivity only.
I think the only thing that changes is that you might disaggregate the economic flowthrough from the other stuff, which may or may not change the upper bound, and may or may not have higher returns depending on the theory and particular trade off between giving opportunities. I think this matters more with things that seek to fundamentally shift society. Imagine anti imperial outfits getting more traction earlier on, or slavery, or feminism. It could plausibly have lasting effects out of proportion for longer than donating to a poor house?
Theoretically, it is possible that Life can be better or worse forba given level of economic prosperity. Doesn’t this challenge the model (not that I think 3% a year multipliers are likely over the long term)
I’m not sure how to deal with this but I think the original argument is likely to work in some more robust/limited form. Or may it has to be limited to economic productivity only.
I think the only thing that changes is that you might disaggregate the economic flowthrough from the other stuff, which may or may not change the upper bound, and may or may not have higher returns depending on the theory and particular trade off between giving opportunities. I think this matters more with things that seek to fundamentally shift society. Imagine anti imperial outfits getting more traction earlier on, or slavery, or feminism. It could plausibly have lasting effects out of proportion for longer than donating to a poor house?