Our best models and data do say that innovation rates would fall with population. https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/how-much-more-innovation-before-pause

I just now noticed this. Why not contact me if you have questions, or at least point me to your post? I don't automatically hear anytime someone mentions my name, after all. 

Yes, the idea is that we value stuff about our culture that will be lost if it is replaced by other very different cultures. People in the Roman Empires who liked its cultures should have wanted to prevent its fall and replacement by the Christian culture. 

Why talk about an outside view then? To get you to see that your culture is threatened from the outside.

You say that markets give evidential conditionals while decisions want causal conditionals. For this comment, I'm not taking a position on which conditional we want for decisions. I'm just saying that both trades and the decision advised should use the same conditional, but I'm not saying which one that is. 

Market estimates will converge to the most profitable P(X if A), the one that wins bets vs other versions. And that is the version you want to use when you make decisions.

I respond here: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/decision-conditional-prices-reflect

"if a investor doesn't review a proposal, we assume that they are submitting an unconditional sell bid."  Of ALL of their shares, at any price? Seems a way to force a sale at a low price. 

Also call markets don't aggregate info as well as continuous double auctions, and you aren't offering any incentives to find and add info. 

Metaculus wouldn't work if it didn't offer incentives for participants. The fact that they aren't monetary doesn't mean they won't induce the same sort of problems you worry about above.

Surely we should compare, for particular topics, the magnitude of actual sabotage to the magnitude of the info value gained. And there are many ways to design markets to reduce the rate of sabotage. 

Seems to me I spent a big % of my post arguing against the rapid growth claim. 

Come on, most every business tracks revenue in great detail. If customers were getting unhappy with the firm's services and rapidly switching en mass, the firm would quickly become very aware, and looking into the problem in great detail. 

You complain that my estimating rates from historical trends is arbitrary, but you offer no other basis for estimating such rates. You only appeal to uncertainty. But there are several other assumptions required for this doomsday scenario. If all you have is logical possibility to argue for piling on several a priori unlikely assumptions, it gets hard to take that seriously.