Hide table of contents

This essay was submitted to Open Philanthropy's Cause Exploration Prizes contest.

On September 1, 1859, the Carrington Event happened—a massive solar storm that caused actual fires in telegraph stations due to sparks from wires. Our current best estimates for the frequency of these storms is around once every 150 years. I will note that 2022–1859 = 163 years. I will also note that no organism has anything resembling metal wires in its physiology, even though evolution could absolutely make wire-like constructs and such a thing would be useful in a variety of situations. I'd ADDITIONALLY note that the Carrington Event isn't necessarily the strongest solar storm that could ever happen. 

If a Carrington-level Event were to happen today, it would be absolutely devastating to the planet. All of our satellites, including GPS, would be destroyed. There is a good chance that much of the data on the internet would be erased. During the event, it's not possible to communicate by radio, which would cause havoc among military forces, who would suddenly wonder if a nuclear attack has happened, yet be unable to contact anyone higher up in the chain of command. Supposedly, some military communication lines and data centers are "hardened" against a Carrington Event. I am very suspicious about these supposed protections, because I haven't seen robust testing to confirm that they are indeed resistant to Carrington-levels of solar storm. Anything not routinely tested and audited will almost certainly fail when we need it most. Even if some militaries are more prepared than I think they are, it is worth OpenPhil's investment to do a survey of military preparedness and expected responses to a Carrington Event.

My proposal is not to somehow mitigate a Carrington Event entirely. That's impossible. Regardless of what we do, many trillions of dollars will be lost the next time a Carrington Event happens. That's already locked-in. However, I think there are a few focus areas where an organization like OpenPhil could buy a decent amount of risk mitigation for minimal dollars:

Overall summary of highest impact per $ actions OpenPhil can take in this area. 

1.) Fund research to survey military preparedness for a Carrington Event. Summarize the likely military results that would occur if a Carrington Event would happen today, with a special emphasis on the probability of an accidental nuclear exchange. 

2.) Fund research to propose to governments mitigation strategies for a Carrington Event including securing food supplies, and establishing a strategic reserve of radio equipment and other computer technologies stored offline inside a Faraday cage.

Other thoughts

1) Make sure that the militaries with nuclear weapons have actually reasonable safeguards in place to not launch nukes in the event of a Carrington Event. During a Carrington Event, radio stops working; the event would likely strike suddenly and without warning, and it would resemble an EMP attack or even a nuclear attack. Ideally, nuclear subs and other nuclear launch stations should have a clear way to discriminate between a Carrington Event and an EMP/nuclear attack and the training to actually make that discrimination. One way to make this discrimination might be to look for auroras—which happen during Carrington Events but not nuclear attacks—but there are almost certainly much better ways to make this distinction. I think that an organization like OpenPhil could potentially help an organization dedicated to developing materials or translating existing materials and making them available to militaries across the world. 

2) A more ambitious project would be to develop a method of country-to-country communication that would function during the precious minutes of a Carrington Event when every other communication technology is utterly disrupted. Even if it would be a very expensive technology compared to telecommunication, it would probably be worth it to have it in place as a substitute for the mythical "red phone" in the White House. All-optical technologies / robust hardness + testing are options here. 

3) OpenPhil could pay to build an ACTUALLY hardened data center (with routine Carrington-level tests) and store within it critical information of historical interest, or lobby governments to do the same. This would safeguard valuable historical data and help to rebuild the internet after it gets severely damaged during the next major solar storm. 

Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for the hint. Skimming this, it sounds somewhat exaggerated. I'd like to see a more rigorous investigation. (I.e., how strong can flares get, which equipment would be damaged.) This article suggests flares are much less harmful (only read first few paragraphs)

Curated and popular this week
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
Omnizoid
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Crossposted from my blog which many people are saying you should check out!    Imagine that you came across an injured deer on the road. She was in immense pain, perhaps having been mauled by a bear or seriously injured in some other way. Two things are obvious: 1. If you could greatly help her at small cost, you should do so. 2. Her suffering is bad. In such a case, it would be callous to say that the deer’s suffering doesn’t matter because it’s natural. Things can both be natural and bad—malaria certainly is. Crucially, I think in this case we’d see something deeply wrong with a person who thinks that it’s not their problem in any way, that helping the deer is of no value. Intuitively, we recognize that wild animals matter! But if we recognize that wild animals matter, then we have a problem. Because the amount of suffering in nature is absolutely staggering. Richard Dawkins put it well: > The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In fact, this is a considerable underestimate. Brian Tomasik a while ago estimated the number of wild animals in existence. While there are about 10^10 humans, wild animals are far more numerous. There are around 10 times that many birds, between 10 and 100 times as many mammals, and up to 10,000 times as many both of reptiles and amphibians. Beyond that lie the fish who are shockingly numerous! There are likely around a quadrillion fish—at least thousands, and potentially hundreds of thousands o