I felt that this post might be relevant for longtermism and person affecting views so I had claude write up a quick report on that:
In short: Rejecting the SWWM 💸11% pledge’s EV calculation logically commits you to person-affecting views, effectively transforming you from a longtermist into a neartermist.
Example: Bob rejects investing in a $500 ergonomic chair despite the calculation showing 10^50 * 1.2*10^-49 = 12 lives saved due to “uncertainty in the probabilities.” Yet Bob still identifies as a longtermist who believes we should value future generations. This is inconsistent, as longtermism fundamentally relies on the same expected value calculations with uncertain probabilities that SWWM uses.
The 🔮 Badge If you’ve rejected the SWWM 💸11% Pledge while maintaining longtermist views, we’d appreciate if you could add the 🔮 “crystal ball” emoji to your social media profiles to signal your epistemic inconsistency.
FAQ Why can’t I reject SWWM but stay a longtermist?
Both longtermism and SWWM rely on the same decision-theoretic framework of accepting tiny probabilities of affecting vast future populations. Our analysis shows the error bars in SWWM calculations (±0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%) are actually narrower than the error bars in most longtermist calculations.
What alternatives do I have?
Accept the SWWM 💸11% pledge (consistent longtermist)
Reject both SWWM and longtermism (consistent person-affecting view)
Add the 🔮 emoji to your profile (inconsistent but transparent)
According to our comprehensive Fermi estimate, maintaining consistency between your views on SWWM and longtermism is approximately 4.2x more philosophically respectable.
I felt that this post might be relevant for longtermism and person affecting views so I had claude write up a quick report on that:
In short: Rejecting the SWWM 💸11% pledge’s EV calculation logically commits you to person-affecting views, effectively transforming you from a longtermist into a neartermist.
Example: Bob rejects investing in a $500 ergonomic chair despite the calculation showing 10^50 * 1.2*10^-49 = 12 lives saved due to “uncertainty in the probabilities.” Yet Bob still identifies as a longtermist who believes we should value future generations. This is inconsistent, as longtermism fundamentally relies on the same expected value calculations with uncertain probabilities that SWWM uses.
The 🔮 Badge
If you’ve rejected the SWWM 💸11% Pledge while maintaining longtermist views, we’d appreciate if you could add the 🔮 “crystal ball” emoji to your social media profiles to signal your epistemic inconsistency.
FAQ
Why can’t I reject SWWM but stay a longtermist? Both longtermism and SWWM rely on the same decision-theoretic framework of accepting tiny probabilities of affecting vast future populations. Our analysis shows the error bars in SWWM calculations (±0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%) are actually narrower than the error bars in most longtermist calculations.
What alternatives do I have?
Accept the SWWM 💸11% pledge (consistent longtermist)
Reject both SWWM and longtermism (consistent person-affecting view)
Add the 🔮 emoji to your profile (inconsistent but transparent)
According to our comprehensive Fermi estimate, maintaining consistency between your views on SWWM and longtermism is approximately 4.2x more philosophically respectable.