Assuming this is true, it seems reasonable that on larger timescales, and with greater resources, even more future human lives can be saved. It's a refreshing view, considering my main impetus for a long time has been, "Reduce suffering in the universe." Actively trying to create more life is antithetical to that goal, as suffering is an integral experience of a sufficiently intelligent being. I don't mean to say that that's where I've landed, but my mind is beginning to claw at the edified ethical structures it has built up, thanks to this mega-long-term frame.
Does it make sense to make the universe more welcoming to life, if life is the vehicle of suffering? Would Super-AI's possibly have unbounded levels of suffering-potential? If there is a non-zero chance of that being true, is creating AI the ultimate ethical iniquity possible?
The people that were saved by this fertilizer, did their lives contribute to a net reduction in suffering in the universe? I'm doubtful of that but I'm beginning to question the edge value of this Singerian utilitarian philosophy.
I love that its anonymous and simple and the donations are transparent. Does anyone by chance know if there are restrictions on charities receiving anonymous bitcoin donations?
