Hide table of contents

CEA is excited to announce that EAGxMars will take place in October 2040.[1] We look forward to welcoming ambitious members of the community for a weekend[2] of talks, networking and civilisation-building on this relatively nearby planet.

Applications will open in 2030 to give attendees sufficient time to make their journeys physically possible. We will make a slack channel to help people coordinate on this.

Who is EAGxMars for?

EAGxMars will be a locally-organised conference designed primarily for people:

  • Familiar with the core ideas of effective altruism;
  • Interested in learning more about what to do;
  • Who can get to Mars.

What’s the difference between a “normal” EAGx and EAGxMars?

The target audience is different - EAGx events are for people comfortable with planes, trains and other parochial modes of transportation. EAGxMars is for people who are ambitious.

How much are tickets? Is there financial aid?

We will offer discounts and financial support to make sure that cost is not prohibitive for anyone. The whole thing is probably prohibitive enough as it is.

Will I need a visa?

We don’t yet have this information available.

  1. ^

    Precise dates TBC. These kinds of details aren’t top of mind for us at present.

  2. ^

    It’s possible that attendees will plan on staying for longer than a weekend, given the journey. We might organise some retreats around the event.

Comments15


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I'd just like to give a shotout to the organisers for their great work!

I don't think anyone appreciates how hard running a conference can be at the best of times. But on Mars, the logistical difficulties are on another planet: the organisers have had astronomical health and safety challenges,  and don't get them started on the availability of vegan catering... 

Yep, big +1 here. I really appreciate this moonshot effort, truly ambitious.

Shall I tweet and tag Elon? (and grimes)

Sadly, I had to cancel EAGxMercury due to deconstruction work. 

This deadpan logistical footnote is my favorite; I actually lol’d: “ It’s possible that attendees will plan on staying for longer than a weekend, given the journey. We might organise some retreats around the event.”

Do you know approx. how many COVID-19 boosters one needs to attend?

Is that a new type of rocket? I've not heard of it but good luck.

~20, assuming trend is linear. If it's exponential, god help us all

Would love to know the feasibility of growing potatoes on the soil in the conference’s area just in case something goes awry

I've heard there will be a pre-event meetup to check out the soil! Pleaes check Swapcard nearer the time.

ALLFED is presenting on this, pretty sure. Make sure to fully fill out your Swapcard and tell people you’re interested in this and I’m sure they’ll be happy to have additional one on ones about the topic.

Yes, ALLFED will be there. We have the hydrogen single cell protein, glycerin, and vinegar worked out. This should give us enough time to make a balanced, palatable, vegan diet.

This is really messing with my OCD. Please rename all other EAGxs to EAGxEarth!

Will we need to email Clare whenever some new oxygen needs producing?

Yes, thanks for the heads up, I'll email nearer the time (2025 maybe)

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
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
2
32
CEEALAR
· · 1m read