Hide table of contents

SUMMARY: 

ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate.

Donate to ALLFED

FULL ARTICLE:

I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community. 

Read our funding appeal

At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety.

Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal today.

ALLFED’s funding situation

Without new funding ALLFED will need to cut half of our budget in the coming months, the outcome of which will be making significant cut backs to our team in June. This will reduce by about half our capacity to produce research, support governments, and develop practical interventions that could reduce the risk of global catastrophic food system failure during catastrophic events.

The case for ALLFED’s work, and why we think maintaining full current capacity is valuable

Today we are launching an urgent 2025 Appeal to ask for your help. With your support, we can continue advancing this work and protect the progress we have made, moving from research and planning to real-world applications that could shape global preparedness when it is most needed.

ALLFED is currently the only organization in the world focused exclusively on preventing global food system collapse in scenarios such as nuclear winter, engineered pandemics, or a widespread loss of infrastructure. 

In 2024 alone, we submitted 16 academic papers, advised policymakers across several continents, and supported governments including the UK, Argentina, and the Swedish Presidency of the Nordic Council in preparing for catastrophic food shocks such as abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios (ASRSs). This week we published our 2024 Annual Report where you can find out more.

Many of our current projects, such as advancing resilient food technologies and integrating them into policy frameworks, are in the position to scale and deliver real-world impact. With stable funding, we can transition this work from research and planning into practical applications, including pilot projects and expanding the reach of our policy. These steps will help bring resilient food solutions into the hands of governments, communities, and international actors.  You can find out more here about some of the pilots ALLFED would like to conduct.

How this connects to AI and other risks

The shift in funding toward AI safety is understandable, and we agree that AI safety is important. But AI also exacerbates other catastrophic risks. For example: 

  • AI may heighten nuclear tensions, accelerate arms races, and increase miscalculation risks.
  • AI could lower barriers to engineering pandemics, worsening biosecurity threats.
  • AI-enabled cyberattacks could disrupt electricity and industry, triggering severe food system failures.

This makes the case for diversified funding across multiple risk areas. Continued investment in resilient food solutions is a critical component of mitigating cascading global risks, including but not limited to those caused by unsafe AI. For example, AI risk experts have suggested investing in redundancy in critical infrastructure and rapid repair plans to reduce AI risk, which ALLFED has been working on for a long time.

Now more than ever, there is a need to prepare for abrupt global cooling resulting from a nuclear exchange, or a collapse of critical infrastructure from a pandemic or cyberattacks. Our work on resilient food solutions could increase the chances that a global catastrophic food system failure does not become the secondary disaster that collapses civilization in the wake of such an event.

What we’re asking for

We are seeking to raise $800,000 in grants and gifts in 2025. This funding would allow us to:

  • Continue producing policy-relevant research on extreme food system risks at full-strength
  • Start to move forward with planned pilot projects to test scalable resilient food solutions
  • Deepen collaborations with governments and institutions
  • Sustain our team, and avoid shrinking in June. 

The annual level of funding we need at ALLFED to remain operationally strong represents less than 1% of the EA community’s current support for AI safety. I’ve always said that AI safety should get more total money than resilience, but I believe that at recent levels of funding for resilience, the marginal cost effectiveness is still competitive with AI safety.

We welcome support at any level. 

We invite you to give at allfed.info/donate, share our appeal with your networks, or get in touch at appeals@allfed.info if you have any questions or would like to discuss a larger gift or funding opportunity.

Thank you for reading. If you’re able, now is the time to help us bridge this gap and keep this work moving forward. 

We are grateful for everything this community has helped us achieve so far, and hopeful for what we can do next, together.

Donate to ALLFED
Comments14


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Sorry to hear man. I tried to reach out to someone at OP a few months ago when I heard about your funding difficulties but I got ignored :(. Anyways, donated $100 and made a twitter thread here

This also made it more salient to me the need to become more independent of larger donors, so I'll be messaging some Sentinel readers to get more paid subscriptions

Thanks so much!

Seems like an important organization to keep going. I just donated ~$6K. I'm considering donating more, but I'd be quite curious to know first whether there's any reason in particular that OpenPhil isn't funding this?

Thank you both for your interest. OpenPhil recently responded to us on this, here's what we know: 

Different OpenPhil teams have discussed ALLFED's appeal for support that to see if there would be a fit, and they have concluded that there currently isn't a fit for ALLFED.

To clarify further, ALLFED has never received any grants from Open Philanthropy. No direct reason for this has been offered.

Thanks for everything you all do! Have been consistently impressed with ALLFED's work and its importance. Donated $1000 NZD, hope it helps somewhere. Good luck with the triaging

Thanks for all your efforts. I think donating to ALLFED saves human lives roughly as cost-effectively as GiveWell's top charities[1], so I would say it is a good opportunity for people supporting global health and development interventions[2].

  1. ^

    I estimated policy advocacy to increase resilience to global catastrophic food shocks is 4.08 times as cost-effective as GiveWell's top charities.

  2. ^

    Although I believe the best animal welfare interventions are way more cost-effective, and I do not know whether saving human lives is beneficial or harmful accounting for effects on animals.

cwa
11
0
0
6
3

I'm really sorry to hear about this --- I think ALLFED's work fills a really important niche. I donated and would encourage others to do so as well!

Kiwis who want to contribute tax-deductibly can make a donation via EA NZ's Gift Trust account.
(Note that you need to select ‘Allocate my donation to’ → ‘One charity or project supported by this Gift Account’ → ‘ALLFED’ to ensure your donation is allocated correctly)

Just made a small donation myself :)

[comment deleted]0
0
0
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 23m read
 · 
Or on the types of prioritization, their strengths, pitfalls, and how EA should balance them   The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone is trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the first in a series of posts examining the state of cause prioritization and proposing strategies for moving forward.   Executive Summary * Performing prioritization work has been one of the main tasks, and arguably achievements, of EA. * We highlight three types of prioritization: Cause Prioritization, Within-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization, and Cross-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization. * We ask how much of EA prioritization work falls in each of these categories: * Our estimates suggest that, for the organizations we investigated, the current split is 89% within-cause work, 2% cross-cause, and 9% cause prioritization. * We then explore strengths and potential pitfalls of each level: * Cause prioritization offers a big-picture view for identifying pressing problems but can fail to capture the practical nuances that often determine real-world success. * Within-cause prioritization focuses on a narrower set of interventions with deeper more specialised analysis but risks missing higher-impact alternatives elsewhere. * Cross-cause prioritization broadens the scope to find synergies and the potential for greater impact, yet demands complex assumptions and compromises on measurement. * See the Summary Table below to view the considerations. * We encourage reflection and future work on what the best ways of prioritizing are and how EA should allocate resources between the three types. * With this in mind, we outline eight cruxes that sketch what factors could favor some types over others. * We also suggest some potential next steps aimed at refining our approach to prioritization by exploring variance, value of information, tractability, and the
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I recently read a blog post that concluded with: > When I'm on my deathbed, I won't look back at my life and wish I had worked harder. I'll look back and wish I spent more time with the people I loved. Setting aside that some people don't have the economic breathing room to make this kind of tradeoff, what jumps out at me is the implication that you're not working on something important that you'll endorse in retrospect. I don't think the author is envisioning directly valuable work (reducing risk from international conflict, pandemics, or AI-supported totalitarianism; improving humanity's treatment of animals; fighting global poverty) or the undervalued less direct approach of earning money and donating it to enable others to work on pressing problems. Definitely spend time with your friends, family, and those you love. Don't work to the exclusion of everything else that matters in your life. But if your tens of thousands of hours at work aren't something you expect to look back on with pride, consider whether there's something else you could be doing professionally that you could feel good about.
 ·  · 14m read
 · 
Introduction In this post, I present what I believe to be an important yet underexplored argument that fundamentally challenges the promise of cultivated meat. In essence, there are compelling reasons to conclude that cultivated meat will not replace conventional meat, but will instead primarily compete with other alternative proteins that offer superior environmental and ethical benefits. Moreover, research into and promotion of cultivated meat may potentially result in a net negative impact. Beyond critique, I try to offer constructive recommendations for the EA movement. While I've kept this post concise, I'm more than willing to elaborate on any specific point upon request. Finally, I contacted a few GFI team members to ensure I wasn't making any major errors in this post, and I've tried to incorporate some of their nuances in response to their feedback. From industry to academia: my cultivated meat journey I'm currently in my fourth year (and hopefully final one!) of my PhD. My thesis examines the environmental and economic challenges associated with alternative proteins. I have three working papers on cultivated meat at various stages of development, though none have been published yet. Prior to beginning my doctoral studies, I spent two years at Gourmey, a cultivated meat startup. I frequently appear in French media discussing cultivated meat, often "defending" it in a media environment that tends to be hostile and where misinformation is widespread. For a considerable time, I was highly optimistic about cultivated meat, which was a significant factor in my decision to pursue doctoral research on this subject. However, in the last two years, my perspective regarding cultivated meat has evolved and become considerably more ambivalent. Motivations and epistemic status Although the hype has somewhat subsided and organizations like Open Philanthropy have expressed skepticism about cultivated meat, many people in the movement continue to place considerable hop