Great post! Just one thing to note would be, even if there is no discount rate, you should still value the future instrumentally less because there is uncertainty about what will happen. (I think)
Thanks Noah! Yeah, I agree. Though I'd distinguish between "catastrophe risk" (the risk of the future not existing or having negative value), which intrinsically lowers a future life's expected value, and uncertainty about whether attempts to do good actually influence the far future (like whether an advocacy campaign actually reduces nuclear risk), which don't tackle the question of whether future lives are intrinsically as valuable as present lives or not.
Great post! Just one thing to note would be, even if there is no discount rate, you should still value the future instrumentally less because there is uncertainty about what will happen. (I think)
Thanks Noah! Yeah, I agree. Though I'd distinguish between "catastrophe risk" (the risk of the future not existing or having negative value), which intrinsically lowers a future life's expected value, and uncertainty about whether attempts to do good actually influence the far future (like whether an advocacy campaign actually reduces nuclear risk), which don't tackle the question of whether future lives are intrinsically as valuable as present lives or not.
Good point!