@xriskology thank you for linking to my article in your @motherboard piece. but imo the stern number doesn't work here even w the caveat
stern's main interest is in defending an "approx zero" time discount rate against others
-
-
others defend higher rate not bc of higher extinction prob but bc of other ethics (eg rawlsianism)
-
stern got 0.1 by: "i'm basing this on extinction which is unlikely; here's a number that sounds low"
-
[3] by other experts. Does that make sense? Thoughts?
-
re 2, i meant the number "sounded low" relative to other discount rates which were based on things other than xrisk prob
-
if it was intended as a serious estimate of xrisk prob, it's remarkable that the review has no text justifying it as such
-
and afaik stern hasn't written about xrisk at all, so if he made an estimate, would it be really an "expert estimate"?
-
i don't think this damages your case; other nums were higher and from more relevant sources. just, why include stern?
- 3 more replies
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.