that would greatly increase the chance we paused again later
I think that a “bad” pause, where we pause despite current/immediate risk being low, which e.g. causes China to catch up if it’s unilateral, or which powerful special interests (probably rightly) point out that it doesn’t do much to immediately reduce risk, could backfire and reduce the likelihood of a pause in the future. I overall currently feel basically 50-50 on whether pausing “early” increases or decreases the likelihood of a later pause.
I think that a “bad” pause, where we pause despite current/immediate risk being low, which e.g. causes China to catch up if it’s unilateral, or which powerful special interests (probably rightly) point out that it doesn’t do much to immediately reduce risk, could backfire and reduce the likelihood of a pause in the future. I overall currently feel basically 50-50 on whether pausing “early” increases or decreases the likelihood of a later pause.