By how much does my intervention on climate change mitigate existential risk?
The question is bad because it presupposes that the intervention could only decrease and not increase existential risk.
To the extent that climate change might lead to increasing other x-risks it’s because it destroys capital (buildings next to the sea and fertile land) and societies has to deal that that loss of capital.
The more economic growth we have the easier it is for society to deal with loss of capital. An intervention that pays for a lower carbon foodprint with lower economic growth might very well make things worse instead of better.
The core about what scientific thinking is about is to isolate factors. It’s much easier to reason about direct effects and that’s why it makes sense to investigate direct effects.
To the extent that climate change might lead to increasing other x-risks it’s because it destroys capital (buildings next to the sea and fertile land) and societies has to deal that that loss of capital.
The more economic growth we have the easier it is for society to deal with loss of capital. An intervention that pays for a lower carbon foodprint with lower economic growth might very well make things worse instead of better.
That seems to me to be another argument against the standard framing. If you look at “x-risk from climate change,” you could accurately conclude that your intervention decreases x-risk from climate change – without realizing that it increases existential risk overall.
If you ask instead, “By how much does my intervention on climate change affect existential risk?” (I agree that using ‘mitigate’ was bad for the reasons you say), you could conclude that it leads to an increase because it stifles economic growth. Once again, the standard framing doesn’t ask the right question.
In general, the new framing does not prevent you from isolating factors, it only prevents you from ignoring part of the effect of a factor.
The question is bad because it presupposes that the intervention could only decrease and not increase existential risk.
To the extent that climate change might lead to increasing other x-risks it’s because it destroys capital (buildings next to the sea and fertile land) and societies has to deal that that loss of capital.
The more economic growth we have the easier it is for society to deal with loss of capital. An intervention that pays for a lower carbon foodprint with lower economic growth might very well make things worse instead of better.
The core about what scientific thinking is about is to isolate factors. It’s much easier to reason about direct effects and that’s why it makes sense to investigate direct effects.
That seems to me to be another argument against the standard framing. If you look at “x-risk from climate change,” you could accurately conclude that your intervention decreases x-risk from climate change – without realizing that it increases existential risk overall.
If you ask instead, “By how much does my intervention on climate change affect existential risk?” (I agree that using ‘mitigate’ was bad for the reasons you say), you could conclude that it leads to an increase because it stifles economic growth. Once again, the standard framing doesn’t ask the right question.
In general, the new framing does not prevent you from isolating factors, it only prevents you from ignoring part of the effect of a factor.
I think you are deluding yourself when you think you can examine the future >50 years down the road without ignoring parts of the effects of a factor.