Iâd also be interested in dwebbâs thoughts on this.
Iâll share my own reactions in a few comment replies.
I think itâs true that both Greaves and MacAskill and other longtermists mostly focus on attractor states (and even more specifically on existential catastrophes), and that the second leading contender is something like âspeeding up progressâ.
I think this is an important enough point that it wouldâve been better if dwebbâs final paragraph had instead been right near the start. It seems to me like that caveat is key to understanding how the rest of the post connects to other arguments for, against, and within longtermism. (But as I noted elsewhere, I still think this post is useful!)
Iâd also be interested in dwebbâs thoughts on this.
Iâll share my own reactions in a few comment replies.
I think itâs true that both Greaves and MacAskill and other longtermists mostly focus on attractor states (and even more specifically on existential catastrophes), and that the second leading contender is something like âspeeding up progressâ.
I think this is an important enough point that it wouldâve been better if dwebbâs final paragraph had instead been right near the start. It seems to me like that caveat is key to understanding how the rest of the post connects to other arguments for, against, and within longtermism. (But as I noted elsewhere, I still think this post is useful!)