I interpret this as using different discount rates (specifically, pure time preference, to distinguish from discounting for marginal utility or exogenous extinction risk). Is that right? That is, temporal radicalists have pure time preference = 0, while the others have pure time preference > 0.
Or do you mean something else by "how long into the future you're willing to look"?
I do not think its about discount rates. I was recently corrected on this point
here
[https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ySP5ZhXsxWXv7suv2/can-we-agree-on-a-better-name-than-near-termist-not?commentId=jZy2zHLqFjYc6tFkL].
It looks like conservatives and moderates thinking closer to the present have
other better reasons like population axiologies or tractability concerns or
something along those lines.
1
Michael_Wiebe
1y
In that case, "how long into the future you're willing to look" doesn't seem to
capture what's going on, since 'neartermists' are equally willing to look into
the future.
I interpret this as using different discount rates (specifically, pure time preference, to distinguish from discounting for marginal utility or exogenous extinction risk). Is that right? That is, temporal radicalists have pure time preference = 0, while the others have pure time preference > 0.
Or do you mean something else by "how long into the future you're willing to look"?