IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2509.04855.html

The Paradox of Doom: Acknowledging Extinction Risk Reduces the Incentive to Prevent It

Author

Listed:
  • Jakub Growiec
  • Klaus Prettner

Abstract

We investigate the salience of extinction risk as a source of impatience. Our framework distinguishes between human extinction risk and individual mortality risk while allowing for various degrees of intergenerational altruism. Additionally, we consider the evolutionarily motivated "selfish gene" perspective. We find that the risk of human extinction is an indispensable component of the discount rate, whereas individual mortality risk can be hedged against - partially or fully, depending on the setup - through human reproduction. Overall, we show that in the face of extinction risk, people become more impatient rather than more farsighted. Thus, the greater the threat of extinction, the less incentive there is to invest in avoiding it. Our framework can help explain why humanity consistently underinvests in mitigation of catastrophic risks, ranging from climate change mitigation, via pandemic prevention, to addressing the emerging risks of transformative artificial intelligence.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakub Growiec & Klaus Prettner, 2025. "The Paradox of Doom: Acknowledging Extinction Risk Reduces the Incentive to Prevent It," Papers 2509.04855, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2509.04855
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.04855
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tangren Feng & Shaowei Ke, 2018. "Social Discounting and Intergenerational Pareto," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1537-1567, September.
    2. Arthur J. Robson & Larry Samuelson, 2009. "The Evolution of Time Preference with Aggregate Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1925-1953, December.
    3. Charles I. Jones, 2024. "The AI Dilemma: Growth versus Existential Risk," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 575-590, December.
    4. Martin L. Weitzman, 2012. "GHG Targets as Insurance Against Catastrophic Climate Damages," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 14(2), pages 221-244, March.
    5. Taisuke Imai & Tom A Rutter & Colin F Camerer, 2021. "Meta-Analysis of Present-Bias Estimation using Convex Time Budgets," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(636), pages 1788-1814.
    6. Jonathan Cohen & Keith Marzilli Ericson & David Laibson & John Myles White, 2020. "Measuring Time Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(2), pages 299-347, June.
    7. Blanchard, Olivier J, 1985. "Debt, Deficits, and Finite Horizons," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(2), pages 223-247, April.
    8. Ian W. R. Martin & Robert S. Pindyck, 2015. "Averting Catastrophes: The Strange Economics of Scylla and Charybdis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(10), pages 2947-2985, October.
    9. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    10. Graciela Chichilnisky & Peter J. Hammond & Nicholas Stern, 2020. "Fundamental utilitarianism and intergenerational equity with extinction discounting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 397-427, March.
    11. Gomme, Paul & Rupert, Peter, 2007. "Theory, measurement and calibration of macroeconomic models," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 460-497, March.
    12. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2000. "An axiomatic approach to choice under uncertainty with catastrophic risks," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 221-231, July.
    13. Arthur J. Robson, 2001. "The Biological Basis of Economic Behavior," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(1), pages 11-33, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Billot, Antoine & Qu, Xiangyu, 2025. "Stationary altruism and time consistency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    2. Dong-Xuan, Bach & Qu, Xiangyu, 2025. "Restricted dominant unanimity and social discounting," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    3. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    4. Jason Collins & Boris Baer & Ernst Juerg Weber, 2016. "Evolutionary Biology in Economics: A Review," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 92(297), pages 291-312, June.
    5. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Kemel, Emmanuel & Panin, Amma & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2024. "Time for tea: Measuring discounting for money and consumption without the utility confound," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    6. Danzer, Alexander M. & Zeidler, Helen, 2024. "Present Bias in Choices over Food and Money," IZA Discussion Papers 17415, IZA Network @ LISER.
    7. Cheung, Stephen L. & Tymula, Agnieszka & Wang, Xueting, 2021. "Quasi-Hyperbolic Present Bias: A Meta-Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 14625, IZA Network @ LISER.
    8. Alexander M. Danzer & Helen Zeidler, 2024. "Present Bias in Choices over Food and Money," Working Papers 239, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    9. Christos Kotsogiannis & Robert Schwager, 2022. "Present bias and externalities: Can government intervention raise welfare?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1480-1506, August.
    10. Tom-Reiel Heggedal & Thomas McKay, 2024. "Discounting in finite-time bargaining experiments," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 504-518, December.
    11. Akin, Zafer & Yavas, Abdullah, 2023. "Elicited Time Preferences and Behavior in Long-Run Projects," MPRA Paper 117133, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Alexander M. Danzer & Helen Zeidler, 2024. "Present Bias in Choices over Food and Money," CESifo Working Paper Series 11454, CESifo.
    13. Kılıç, Hakan & Canbolat, Pelin Gülşah & Güneş, Evrim Didem, 2026. "Markov decision processes: Monotonicity of optimal policy in exponential and quasi-hyperbolic discounting parameters," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 328(3), pages 877-893.
    14. Thomas, Ranjeeta & Galizzi, Matteo M. & Moorhouse, Louisa & Nyamukapa, Constance & Hallett, Timothy B., 2024. "Do risk, time and prosocial preferences predict risky sexual behaviour of youths in a low-income, high-risk setting?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    15. Mikhail Pakhnin, 2023. "Collective choice with heterogeneous time preferences," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 715-746, July.
    16. Jindrich Matousek & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2022. "Individual discount rates: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 318-358, February.
    17. Fabrizio Adriani & Silvia Sonderegger, 2014. "Evolution of similarity judgements in intertemporal choice," Discussion Papers 2014-06, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    18. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    19. Atahan Afsar; José Elías Gallegos; Richard Jaimes; Edgar Silgado Gómez & Jos� El�as Gallegos & Richard Jaimes & Edgar Silgado G�mez, 2020. "Reconciling Empirics and Theory: The Behavioral Hybrid New Keynesian Model," Vniversitas Económica, Universidad Javeriana - Bogotá, vol. 0(0), pages 1-41.
    20. Belzil, Christian & Sidibé, Modibo, 2016. "Internal and External Validity of Experimental Risk and Time Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 10348, IZA Network @ LISER.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I30 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General
    • O11 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2509.04855. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.