There are two statements in this summary that I find somewhat confusing:
“He then discusses some reasons why our time might be unusual, but ultimately concludes that he does not think that the ‘hinge of history’ claim holds true.”
“Overall, MacAskill thinks that these arguments provide evidence that our time may be the most influential.”
I haven’t dived into the working paper yet, but these two statements seem contradictory. Is it possible to not be at the hinge of history but live during the most influential time? I thought being at the hinge of history ≈ being at the most influential time. What am I missing?
MacAskill thinks that (2) provides evidence that our time may be the most influential, but this evidence isn’t strong enough to overcome the stronger arguments against this hypothesis.
There are two statements in this summary that I find somewhat confusing:
“He then discusses some reasons why our time might be unusual, but ultimately concludes that he does not think that the ‘hinge of history’ claim holds true.”
“Overall, MacAskill thinks that these arguments provide evidence that our time may be the most influential.”
I haven’t dived into the working paper yet, but these two statements seem contradictory. Is it possible to not be at the hinge of history but live during the most influential time? I thought being at the hinge of history ≈ being at the most influential time. What am I missing?
MacAskill thinks that (2) provides evidence that our time may be the most influential, but this evidence isn’t strong enough to overcome the stronger arguments against this hypothesis.