by Jelle Donders1 min read16th Mar 20253 comments

2

Frontpage

I was wondering if anyone has a good response to Toby Ord's reservations about progress studies.

In summary, Ord argues that it's far from obvious that advancing progress is inherently good or bad, since this depends on whether it also accelerates humanity's extinction, undermining standard economic arguments for progress.

New Answer
Ask Related Question
New Comment

1 Answers

delton137

Apr 13, 2025

2

I think Leopold Aschenbrenner's argument here is interesting to consider: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/securing-posterity/?ref=forourposterity.com 

(full paper https://globalprioritiesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Philip-Trammell-and-Leopold-Aschenbrenner-Existential-Risk-and-Growth.pdf) 

Regarding discount rate, 0% discount is pretty common in EA circles, I think, although I think many recognize it should be at least a bit above 0% to account for epistemic uncertainty about how long humans will continue to exist. 

2 comments, sorted by
top scoring
Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 8:20 PM
[-]jasoncrawford1mo 1

My first reaction was that this seems to be assuming a zero discount rate on the future. I haven't had a chance to really dig into it though

Reply
[-]Jelle Donders1mo 1

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?

Reply