Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 25
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Baum, Seth D. 2016. The Ethics of Space Exploration.


    Miller, James D. and Felton, D. 2016. The Fermi Paradox, Bayes’ Rule, and Existential Risk Management. Futures,


    Baum, Seth D. 2015. The far future argument for confronting catastrophic threats to humanity: Practical significance and alternatives. Futures, Vol. 72, p. 86.


    Beckstead, Nick 2015. How much could refuges help us recover from a global catastrophe?. Futures, Vol. 72, p. 36.


    Denkenberger, David C. and Pearce, Joshua M. 2015. Feeding everyone: Solving the food crisis in event of global catastrophes that kill crops or obscure the sun. Futures, Vol. 72, p. 57.


    Jebari, Karim 2015. Existential Risks: Exploring a Robust Risk Reduction Strategy. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 21, Issue. 3, p. 541.


    Last, Cadell 2015. Big Historical Foundations for Deep Future Speculations: Cosmic Evolution, Atechnogenesis, and Technocultural Civilization. Foundations of Science,


    Sandberg, Anders 2015. Risks of Artificial Intelligence.


    Baum, Seth D. and Handoh, Itsuki C. 2014. Integrating the planetary boundaries and global catastrophic risk paradigms. Ecological Economics, Vol. 107, p. 13.


    Jebari, Karim 2014. What to Enhance: Behaviour, Emotion or Disposition?. Neuroethics, Vol. 7, Issue. 3, p. 253.


    Jebari, Karim 2014. Of Malthus and Methuselah: does longevity treatment aggravate global catastrophic risks?. Physica Scripta, Vol. 89, Issue. 12, p. 128005.


    Miller, Lantz Fleming 2014. Is Species Integrity a Human Right? A Rights Issue Emerging from Individual Liberties with New Technologies. Human Rights Review, Vol. 15, Issue. 2, p. 177.


    Sandberg, Anders 2014. Ethics of brain emulations. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 26, Issue. 3, p. 439.


    Tonn, Bruce and Stiefel, Dorian 2014. Human extinction risk and uncertainty: Assessing conditions for action. Futures, Vol. 63, p. 134.


    Armstrong, Stuart and Sandberg, Anders 2013. Eternity in six hours: Intergalactic spreading of intelligent life and sharpening the Fermi paradox. Acta Astronautica, Vol. 89, p. 1.


    Bostrom, Nick 2013. Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority. Global Policy, Vol. 4, Issue. 1, p. 15.


    Karlsson, Rasmus 2013. Ambivalence, irony, and democracy in the Anthropocene. Futures, Vol. 46, p. 1.


    Maher, Timothy and Baum, Seth 2013. Adaptation to and Recovery from Global Catastrophe. Sustainability, Vol. 5, Issue. 4, p. 1461.


    Angelin, Marcus Rahm, Martin Gabrielsson, Erik and Gumaelius, Lena 2012. Rocket Scientist for a Day: Investigating Alternatives for Chemical Propulsion. Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 89, Issue. 10, p. 1301.


    Baum, Seth D. Haqq-Misra, Jacob D. and Karmosky, Chris 2012. Climate Change: Evidence of Human Causes and Arguments for Emissions Reduction. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 18, Issue. 2, p. 393.


    ×

Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development

  • Nick Bostrom (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0953820800004076
  • Published online: 01 January 2009
Abstract

With very advanced technology, a very large population of people living happy lives could be sustained in the accessible region of the universe. For every year that development of such technologies and colonization of the universe is delayed, there is therefore a corresponding opportunity cost: a potential good, lives worth living, is not being realized. Given some plausible assumptions, this cost is extremely large. However, the lesson for standard utilitarians is not that we ought to maximize the pace of technological development, but rather that we ought to maximize its safety, i.e. the probability that colonization will eventually occur. This goal has such high utility that standard utilitarians ought to focus all their efforts on it. Utilitarians of a ‘person-affecting’ stripe should accept a modified version of this conclusion. Some mixed ethical views, which combine utilitarian considerations with other criteria, will also be committed to a similar bottom line.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Utilitas
  • ISSN: 0953-8208
  • EISSN: 1741-6183
  • URL: /core/journals/utilitas
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×