If you are pessimistic about global catastrophic risk from future technology and you are most concerned with people alive today rather than future folk, slower growth is better unless the effects of growth are so good that they outweigh time discounting.
But growth in the poorest countries is good because it contributes negligibly to research and national economies are relatively self-contained, and more growth there means more human lives lived before maybe the end.
Also, while more focused efforts are obviously better in general than trying to affect growth, there is (at least) one situation where you might face an all-or-nothing decision: voting. I’m afraid the ~my solution here~ candidate will not be available.
If you are pessimistic about global catastrophic risk from future technology and you are most concerned with people alive today rather than future folk, slower growth is better unless the effects of growth are so good that they outweigh time discounting.
But growth in the poorest countries is good because it contributes negligibly to research and national economies are relatively self-contained, and more growth there means more human lives lived before maybe the end.
Also, while more focused efforts are obviously better in general than trying to affect growth, there is (at least) one situation where you might face an all-or-nothing decision: voting. I’m afraid the ~my solution here~ candidate will not be available.