I think your 80,000 Hours link could use more coherence. One bullet point is:
You think there is great value to preserving the Earth’s ecosystems and biodioversity.
This is not a utilitarian sentiment. Aren’t you guys supposed to be utilitarians here?
I’m not particularly concerned by preserving nature for its own sake. In parks is fine, but not on a global scale. I thought this was a commonality with most people here.
If the climate cause is useful to humans, then we must first understand effects on humans. The Sherwood and Huber paper is the strongest point I have seen on that.
Nor is heat stress of the kind they talk about accounted for by existing models. Precise models of this effect are impossible since we know so little about it. We just don’t see this effect today. There’s no data. How can you be precise? Without flashy models then maybe you can’t publish your paper in a nice journal. But if we are actually interested in being useful then a rough but passably accurate model is better than precise garbage!
I think your 80,000 Hours link could use more coherence. One bullet point is:
This is not a utilitarian sentiment. Aren’t you guys supposed to be utilitarians here?
I’m not particularly concerned by preserving nature for its own sake. In parks is fine, but not on a global scale. I thought this was a commonality with most people here.
If the climate cause is useful to humans, then we must first understand effects on humans. The Sherwood and Huber paper is the strongest point I have seen on that.
Nor is heat stress of the kind they talk about accounted for by existing models. Precise models of this effect are impossible since we know so little about it. We just don’t see this effect today. There’s no data. How can you be precise? Without flashy models then maybe you can’t publish your paper in a nice journal. But if we are actually interested in being useful then a rough but passably accurate model is better than precise garbage!