Jelle Donders

• Jelle Donders 19 Mar 2025 16:34 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: jasoncrawford’s comment on: Re­sponses to Toby Ord’s ‘cri­tique’ of progress stud­ies?

  Yes, that’s correct. Ord’s writes this about discount rates:

  The issue raised by this paper has also been masked in many economic analyses by an assumption of pure time-preference: that society should have a discount rate on value itself. If we use that assumption, we end up with a somewhat different argument for advancing progress — one based on impatience; on merely getting to the good stuff sooner, even if that means getting less of it.

  Even then, the considerations I’ve raised would undermine this argument. For if it does turn out that advancing progress across the board is bad from a patient perspective, then we’d be left with an argument that ‘advancing progress is good, but only due to fundamental societal impatience and the way it neglects future losses’. The rationale for advancing progress would be fundamentally about robbing tomorrow to pay for today, in a way that is justified only because society doesn’t (or shouldn’t) care much about the people at the end of the chain when the debt comes due. This strikes me as a very troubling position and far from the full-throated endorsement of progress that its advocates seek.

  So what’s the best argument for having a discount rate on value itself?

[Question] Re­sponses to Toby Ord’s ‘cri­tique’ of progress stud­ies?

• Jelle Donders 18 Oct 2023 10:14 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: jasoncrawford’s comment on: Marc An­dreessen pens “Techno-Op­ti­mist Man­i­festo.” Discuss

  This works both ways imo. You can boldly state things in a manifesto, and people can boldly criticize it.

• Jelle Donders 18 Oct 2023 10:12 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: jasoncrawford’s comment on: Marc An­dreessen pens “Techno-Op­ti­mist Man­i­festo.” Discuss

  The precautionary principle is objectively bad? That’s a massive assumption that only holds if you are somehow confident that nuclear war, engineered pandemics, advanced AI derailing society etc. are all impossible, right?

• Jelle Donders 27 Mar 2023 10:24 UTC

  1 point

  on: Why con­sumerism is good actually

  To see the other perspective, try replacing “consumption” with food and “consumerism” with obesity. We only have 1 earth (for the foreseeable future), and rampant consumerism leads to a very inefficient conversion from its resources to value.

  Also, you can still be anti-consumerism while agreeing that the global south would ideally see higher consumption. Reducing obesity doesn’t mean we shouldn’t feed the starving.