We all know about the INT (intensity, neglected-ness, tractability) framework. However, I've found myself having to compare problems who are very large in scale (like long-term S-risks) and seem urgent (must be solved in this century, otherwise they would create large-scale suffering that is almost impossible to revert), versus problems who could be even more important in terms of scale (even infinite, according to the theory of infinite ethics) and are very neglected but they don't need to be tackled this century. The INT framework helps with scale and neglected-ness, but how to consider urgency in that case?
Hide table of contents
4
0
0
Reactions
0
0
New Answer
New Comment
1 Answers sorted by
I gave an answer here:
"I think what matters about urgency should be captured by a version of neglectedness that accounts for future resources that will otherwise be spent on the problem. If something is not urgent, we might not expect it to be neglected in the long run, as others will come to work on it. If urgent, there's a risk few will work on it in time."
(Excuse the formatting, on mobile.)
I gave an answer here:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/vyYsM2AEwh5CJqjju/urgency-in-the-itn-framework?commentId=fSarqZDsh8FRt63xS
"I think what matters about urgency should be captured by a version of neglectedness that accounts for future resources that will otherwise be spent on the problem. If something is not urgent, we might not expect it to be neglected in the long run, as others will come to work on it. If urgent, there's a risk few will work on it in time."
(Excuse the formatting, on mobile.)