I am not sure proximity in time is the best proxy for tractability. The ratio between the final and current global GDP seems better, as it accounts for both the time horizon, and rate of change/​growth over it. Intuitively, for a fixed time horizon, the higher the rate of change/​growth, the harder it is to predict the outcomes of our actions, i.e. tractability will tend to be lower. The higher tractability linked to a short time of perils may be roughly offset by the faster rate of change over it. Maybe Aschenbrenner’s paper on existential risk and growth can inform this?
Note I am quite sympathetic to influencing the longterm future. As I said, I have been donating to the LTFF. However, I would disagree that donating to the LTFF is astronomically (e.g. 10 OOMs) better than to the Animal Welfare Fund.
I am not sure proximity in time is the best proxy for tractability. The ratio between the final and current global GDP seems better, as it accounts for both the time horizon, and rate of change/​growth over it. Intuitively, for a fixed time horizon, the higher the rate of change/​growth, the harder it is to predict the outcomes of our actions, i.e. tractability will tend to be lower. The higher tractability linked to a short time of perils may be roughly offset by the faster rate of change over it. Maybe Aschenbrenner’s paper on existential risk and growth can inform this?
Note I am quite sympathetic to influencing the longterm future. As I said, I have been donating to the LTFF. However, I would disagree that donating to the LTFF is astronomically (e.g. 10 OOMs) better than to the Animal Welfare Fund.