It makes the same kind of sense as still planning for a business-as-usual 10-20 year future.
Agreed. I don’t know whether that approach to planning makes sense either, though. Given a high (say 90%)[1] p(doom) in the short term, would a rational actor change how they life their life? I’d think yes, in some easier ways to accept (assigning a higher priority to short-term pleasure, maybe rethinking effortful long-term projects that involve significant net suffering in the short term) as well as some less savoury ways that would probably be irresponsible to post online but would be consistent with a hedonistic utilitarian approach (i.e., prioritizing minimizing suffering).
Choosing 90% because that’s what I would confidently bet on—I recognize many people in the community would assign a lower probability to existential catastrophe at this time.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Agreed. I don’t know whether that approach to planning makes sense either, though. Given a high (say 90%)[1] p(doom) in the short term, would a rational actor change how they life their life? I’d think yes, in some easier ways to accept (assigning a higher priority to short-term pleasure, maybe rethinking effortful long-term projects that involve significant net suffering in the short term) as well as some less savoury ways that would probably be irresponsible to post online but would be consistent with a hedonistic utilitarian approach (i.e., prioritizing minimizing suffering).
Choosing 90% because that’s what I would confidently bet on—I recognize many people in the community would assign a lower probability to existential catastrophe at this time.