3 ms·

> The sum is always negative no matter how low the risk of extinction. That makes this model rather useless for arguing what must be done. For example, it's ri

> The sum is always negative no matter how low the risk of extinction. That makes this model rather useless for arguing what must be done. For example, it's ridiculously, incredibly unlikely that making tea will lead to extinction by nuclear armageddon. But it's not impossible. As such, making tea would also have an infinite, negative expected value. It would be effectively as bad as just pressing the nuclear button. That being said, I think your only problem is in assuming that the human race is infinitely valuable. It's not. There's definitely a limit to how much an individual would give up to prevent extinction.

danieltillett 10y ago
I did say that the net present value is impossible to calculate ;) More seriously what would you pay to avoid the extinction of humanity? If the answer is everything then the price is infinite.
- intended 10y ago
  I would pay X-1 dollars, where X is the cost of creating a shelter for me and the people I care about from the apocalypse. There's a bunch of weird issues in this analysis when you pit morally good outcomes vs economically good outcomes.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Yes there certainly is. The best way to think about this I think is that the price you are willing to pay is a finite amount close to the maximum you are capable of paying. There might be difference between people in how close to the theoretical maximum they are willing to pay, but the differences are relative small in comparison to the total most are willing to pay.
- slavik81 10y ago
  How much would a person pay to avoid their own death? I'm not willing to give up skiing, despite that doing so would slightly decrease the probability of accidental death. I enjoy it too much, and there's no point in living a life without joy. Similarly, there is a limit as to what the human race as a whole is willing to give up to prevent extinction. For example, it's not worth it to put every person on Earth into a lifetime of miserable slavery just to decrease the odds of extinction from 1% to 0.9%.

danieltillett 10y ago

I did say that the net present value is impossible to calculate ;) More seriously what would you pay to avoid the extinction of humanity? If the answer is everything then the price is infinite.

intended 10y ago
I would pay X-1 dollars, where X is the cost of creating a shelter for me and the people I care about from the apocalypse. There's a bunch of weird issues in this analysis when you pit morally good outcomes vs economically good outcomes.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Yes there certainly is. The best way to think about this I think is that the price you are willing to pay is a finite amount close to the maximum you are capable of paying. There might be difference between people in how close to the theoretical maximum they are willing to pay, but the differences are relative small in comparison to the total most are willing to pay.
slavik81 10y ago
How much would a person pay to avoid their own death? I'm not willing to give up skiing, despite that doing so would slightly decrease the probability of accidental death. I enjoy it too much, and there's no point in living a life without joy. Similarly, there is a limit as to what the human race as a whole is willing to give up to prevent extinction. For example, it's not worth it to put every person on Earth into a lifetime of miserable slavery just to decrease the odds of extinction from 1% to 0.9%.