Comments
Develop and deploy a system to protect Earth from impacts from large asteroids, etc.
More from the author
Curated and popular this week
This post is co-authored with Ben Garfinkel. It is cross-posted from the CEA blog. A PDF version can be found here.
Summary: Some strategic decisions available to the effective altruism m...
Disclaimer: Although I work on the Groups Team at CEA, I’m writing this in a personal capacity, and this post does not constitute an endorsement by CEA.
Agency - the realisation that you really can just do things.
TL;DR
Biosecurity needs people (of any background) who are agentic and have a high execution velocity and track record....
50
TL;DR: I'm releasing a website that ranks philanthropists according to EA principles and research, and allows users to re-rank the list using their own assumptions. I'd like feedback and help making it better. I'd especially like ideas for how to make the results more trustworthy. Funding may be available.
I recently built Impact List (impactlist.xyz), a site which ranks people by their positive impact via donations.
The goal is t...
Recent opportunities to take action
ALLFED and related projects like seed banks seem pretty uncontroversially likely to reduce the risk of human extinction.
If "uncontroversially" means something like "we can easily see that their net effect is to reduce extinction risk," then I disagree. To give just two examples, the known availability of alternative foods might decrease the perceived cost of nuclear war, thus making it more likely; and it might instill a sense of false confidence in decision-makers, effectively diverting attention and funding from more effective risk-reduction measures. I'm perhaps willing to believe that, after weighing up all these considerations, we can all agree that the net effect is to reduce risk, but I think this is far from obvious.
Yeah, if you count "may distract from an even better intervention" as a reason why something is "not obviously good", then I think that basically nothing is obviously good. (Which might be true, just pointing out that this criticism seems pretty general.)
I agree, and in fact "nothing is obviously good" describes my (tentative) view reasonably well, at least if (i) the bar for 'obviously' is sufficiently high and (ii) 'good' is to be understood as roughly 'maximizing long-term aggregate well-being.'
Depending on the question one is trying to answer, this might not be a useful perspective. However, I think that when our goal is to actually select and carry out an altruistic action, this perspective is the right one: I'd want to simply compare the totality of the (wellbeing-relevant) consequences with the relevant counterfactual (e.g., no action, or another action), and it would seem arbitrary to me to exclude certain effects because they are due to a general or indirect mechanism.
(E.g., suppose for the sake of the argument that I'm going to die in a nuclear war that would not have happened in a world without seed banks. - I'd think that my death makes the world worse, and I'd want someone deciding about seed banks today to take this disvalue into account; this does not depend on whether the mechanism is that nuclear bombs can be assembled from seeds, or that seed banks have crowded out nuclear deproliferation efforts, or whatever.)
I think it's a better idea to first identify ideas that are better than doing nothing - which in itself can be difficult! - and then prioritize those.
I think there are talented people who could be convinced to work on the long term future if they are given a task to do which is uncontroversially better than doing nothing. I agree it's better to prioritize actions than just work on the first one you think of, but starting with a bar of 'optimal' seems too high.
I agree. However, your reply makes me think that I didn't explain my view well: I do, in fact, believe that it is not obvious that, say, setting up seed banks is "better than doing nothing" - and more generally, that nothing is obviously better than doing nothing.
I suspect that my appeal to "diverting attention and funding" as a reason for this view might have been confusing. What I had in mind here was not an argument about opportunity cost: while true, I did not want to say that an actor that set up a seed bank could perhaps have done better by doing something else instead (say, donating to ALLFED).
Instead, I was thinking of effects on future decisions (potentially by other actors), as illustrated by the following example:
Of course, this particular example is highly unlikely. And worlds w1 and w2 would differ in lots of other aspects. But I believe considering the example is sufficient to see that extinction risk from nuclear war might be lower in world w2 than in w1, and thus that setting up a seed bank is not obviously better than doing nothing.