Since they have formulae to quantize this, they would probably weigh the marginal utility of, say, a billion less hungry people now against a -1% chance reduction of annihilation of the human race, and say the latter is a clear winner.
Maybe you can count a cultural shift as just another parameter. They seem to weigh survivability super high, above anything else even. The argument there is likely that nothing matters if we aren't alive to ask these questions. I doubt they're considering "societal upheaval" as a species threat, but if it got bad enough to be on their radar, perhaps they would support (normally unpalatable) solutions to that too.
It's all about us reweighting our parameters such that our heuristic functions evaluate towards branches that ensure long-term species survival, and the argument that we're doing the opposite of that now in many areas due to short-term, emotional reasoning.
Caveat: Not a longtermist here, just projecting based on what I've read of them so far.
Maybe you can count a cultural shift as just another parameter. They seem to weigh survivability super high, above anything else even. The argument there is likely that nothing matters if we aren't alive to ask these questions. I doubt they're considering "societal upheaval" as a species threat, but if it got bad enough to be on their radar, perhaps they would support (normally unpalatable) solutions to that too.
It's all about us reweighting our parameters such that our heuristic functions evaluate towards branches that ensure long-term species survival, and the argument that we're doing the opposite of that now in many areas due to short-term, emotional reasoning.
Caveat: Not a longtermist here, just projecting based on what I've read of them so far.