Apologies if this has been discussed before. I would like to get your opinion on whether economic activity is good or bad [for hedonistic non-speciesist utility], ceteris paribus. Let's say you could add raw productivity to world GDP, or to the tax revenue of a western nation, for free but without directing it to any specific cause. Would this do more good than harm?

Reasons why it could do good:
- making people richer usually makes them happier
- trickle-down effects might prevent some suffering of the very poor
- some government revenue is invested in general research, some of which might reduce animal suffering or contribute to better pain relief etc. in the future
- It could make space colonization slightly more or less likely
- It could make a good singularity slightly more likely

Reasons why it could do harm:
- poor meat-eater problem
- some laws and institutions cause more suffering than they prevent; putting pressure on defunding them could reduce such suffering
- It could make space colonization slightly more or less likely
- It could make a bad singularity slightly more likely

I'm not asking about strength of the effect (probably low), but rather the sign. Your opinion?

It increases some X-risks. Nuclear annihilation is already on the table. There's also genetically modified viruses, grey goo, bad singularity, and things that nobody has thought of yet. It also increases the damage of coronal mass ejections and natural disasters that destroy important places (although that last one probably doesn't qualify an X-risk).

It decreases others. Meteor strikes. Supervolcano eruptions. Gamma ray bursts. Things nobody has thought of yet.

There's one I'm not sure about. Technology helps us fight diseases, but it also means we tend to congregate in cities which makes pandemics more likely.

DanielLC wrote:It also increases the damage of coronal mass ejections and natural disasters that destroy important places.

It seems that this destroyed value would be created by economic growth in the first place, so unless its destruction is accompanied with exceptional suffering one might not expect a reduction of economic growth to be better.

I agree with the X-risks, even though I would add some of the ones you mention to be increasing/decreasing could also be affected in the other direction, e.g. X-risks from viruses or grey goo could be counteracted by the existence of off-world colonies, which would require funding. Conversely, space travel could lead to artificially caused meteor strikes (or other gravity attacks from space).

What about nonhuman animal suffering? I know spreading WAS to other planets could increase suffering, and maybe that's a big effect from economic growth (via X-risk and the colonization probability). But on earth, would we expect economic growth to cause or prevent more nonhuman animal suffering, all things considered?

More economic growth probably means less WAS in the short term (with high uncertainty, given that the sign of climate change is very unclear). However, the effect of economic growth on the shape of the future dominates. This sign is very unclear to me. I think it's common to confuse increasing the amount of economic development with increasing the rate of it. It's not too controversial that economic growth historically has had benefits in terms of humaneness and cooperation, but the question is whether making it happen faster or slower is better. The argument that "faster econ growth means less asteroid risk" strikes me as potentially a rationalization; asteroids are negligible compared with the more direct consequences of economic growth for AI and the shape of the future.

It seems that this destroyed value would be created by economic growth in the first place, so unless its destruction is accompanied with exceptional suffering one might not expect a reduction of economic growth to be better.

The economic growth would allow us to support a larger population. If it suddenly reverses itself after the population growth, that would be bad.

In addition, if we ignore unlikely probabilities of large disasters, we might become reliant on the technology. If shipping is easy, so we grow food mostly in certain areas, and then shipping suddenly becomes hard, we wouldn't even be able to support the same population we could have without the technology.

But on earth, would we expect economic growth to cause or prevent more nonhuman animal suffering, all things considered?

Economic growth causes the poor meat eater problem. I suspect it also causes people to become well-off enough to be able to afford to care about animal suffering. That doesn't appear to have done much so far, though. It might help us find a good meat substitute, such as in vitro meat.

Population growth causes us to clear cut forests, decreasing wild animal suffering. I think economic growth would mean that we can support a higher population with fewer resources, so it would decrease the amount of deforestation.