One reason might be that this framework seems to bake totalist utilitarianism into longtermism (by considering expansion/contraction and average willbeing incrase/decrease) as the two types of longtermist progress/regress, whereas longtermism is compatible with many ethical theories?
It’s phrased in broadly utilitarian terms (though ‘wellbeing’ is a broad enough concept potentially encompass concerns that go well beyond normal utilitarian axiologies), but you could easily rephrase using the same structure to encompass any set of concerns that would be consistent with longtermism, which is still basically consequentialist.
I think the only thing you’d need to change to have the generality of longtermism is to call ‘average wellbeing increase/decrease’ something more general like ‘average value increase/decrease’ - which I would have liked to do but I couldn’t think of phrase succinct enough to fit on the diagram that didn’t sound confusingly like it meant ‘increase/decrease to average person’s values’.
This is because aliens might exist and also intelligent life could re-evolve on our planet. Thus there are counterfactual rates of existence and well-being per person that are non-zero. e.g. There might be an alien race in our lightcone that is going to perfectly tile the universe, using every unit of resources and converting those resources at the maximal rate into utility. If that were the case, human extinction would on expectation both be an expansion and increase in wellbeing per person.
Additionally if the average wellbeing per person < 0 (if you believe such a thing is possible), then contraction is positive EV not negative. This is a generalization of the idea that if human well being per person < alien well being per person, human extinction raises well being per person.
These are both reasonable points, and I’m just going to invoke the ‘out of scope’ get-out-of-jail-free card on them both ;)
You have to form a view on whether our descendants will tend to be more, equally or less ‘good’ than you’d expect from other alien species, which would imply extinction is somewhere between very bad, somewhat bad, or perhaps very good respectively.
Obviously you need some opinion on how likely aliens with advanced technology are to emerge elsewhere. Sandberg, Drexler and Ord have written a [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404) suggesting ways in which we could be—and remain- the only intelligent life in the local universe. But that maybe helps explain the Fermi paradox without giving much clarity on how likely life is to emerge in future.
Anyone want to try and steelman why we should use traditional x-risk terminology instead of these terminologies?
This is an important post and should have more traction. I strongly believe the community should start using your proposed terminology.
One reason might be that this framework seems to bake totalist utilitarianism into longtermism (by considering expansion/contraction and average willbeing incrase/decrease) as the two types of longtermist progress/regress, whereas longtermism is compatible with many ethical theories?
It’s phrased in broadly utilitarian terms (though ‘wellbeing’ is a broad enough concept potentially encompass concerns that go well beyond normal utilitarian axiologies), but you could easily rephrase using the same structure to encompass any set of concerns that would be consistent with longtermism, which is still basically consequentialist.
I think the only thing you’d need to change to have the generality of longtermism is to call ‘average wellbeing increase/decrease’ something more general like ‘average value increase/decrease’ - which I would have liked to do but I couldn’t think of phrase succinct enough to fit on the diagram that didn’t sound confusingly like it meant ‘increase/decrease to average person’s values’.
Also this isn’t really the point of your post but human extinction does not necessarily imply contraction and also it can change well-being per person.
This is because aliens might exist and also intelligent life could re-evolve on our planet. Thus there are counterfactual rates of existence and well-being per person that are non-zero. e.g. There might be an alien race in our lightcone that is going to perfectly tile the universe, using every unit of resources and converting those resources at the maximal rate into utility. If that were the case, human extinction would on expectation both be an expansion and increase in wellbeing per person.
Additionally if the average wellbeing per person < 0 (if you believe such a thing is possible), then contraction is positive EV not negative. This is a generalization of the idea that if human well being per person < alien well being per person, human extinction raises well being per person.
These are both reasonable points, and I’m just going to invoke the ‘out of scope’ get-out-of-jail-free card on them both ;)
You have to form a view on whether our descendants will tend to be more, equally or less ‘good’ than you’d expect from other alien species, which would imply extinction is somewhere between very bad, somewhat bad, or perhaps very good respectively.
Obviously you need some opinion on how likely aliens with advanced technology are to emerge elsewhere. Sandberg, Drexler and Ord have written a [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404) suggesting ways in which we could be—and remain- the only intelligent life in the local universe. But that maybe helps explain the Fermi paradox without giving much clarity on how likely life is to emerge in future.