Your stated prior would cause you to ignore even strong evidence in favour of an existential risk charity. It is therefore wrong (at least in this domain).
I think that the right way to take future generations into account is to consider a log normal distribution with high variance. High variance allows for the existence of very high expected value options while still requiring massive Bayesian regression relative to other options in the face of sufficiently heavy uncertainty.
Your stated prior would cause you to ignore even strong evidence in favour of an existential risk charity. It is therefore wrong (at least in this domain).
I think that the right way to take future generations into account is to consider a log normal distribution with high variance. High variance allows for the existence of very high expected value options while still requiring massive Bayesian regression relative to other options in the face of sufficiently heavy uncertainty.