1. I think that the odds are so low that they're swamped by other arbitrarily low odds. Like, I think that donating to a charity that reduces existential risks is probably better for increasing odds of infinite value. Also, saving lives makes them more likely to have kids who will live forever.
2. Yes! I think that this is pretty hard to deny, as shown by the good arguments for longtermism.
There's a big difference between ensuring that future people who will definitely exist have good lives, and creating future people so that they can have positive lives. The former trumps the latter, which makes s-risk much more important than x-risk.
I often struggle with articles like this. Thanks for making philosophy so readable.
Thanks!
1. I think that the odds are so low that they're swamped by other arbitrarily low odds. Like, I think that donating to a charity that reduces existential risks is probably better for increasing odds of infinite value. Also, saving lives makes them more likely to have kids who will live forever.
2. Yes! I think that this is pretty hard to deny, as shown by the good arguments for longtermism.
There's a big difference between ensuring that future people who will definitely exist have good lives, and creating future people so that they can have positive lives. The former trumps the latter, which makes s-risk much more important than x-risk.