Wow this is another mind-blower. Is it akin to the idea of perception? or self fulfilling prophecy? For example, if I think Person A is not trustworthy then I will gravitate towards find evidence to support my perception? Why did I think Person A wasn't trustworthy in the first place? was it from a feeling? an actual action that took place between me and Person A? Or that Person B told me that Person A wasn't trustworthy; but since I trust Person B I believe what Person B is telling me about Person A?
I’m trying to reconcile claims about continued population growth with what we often see in natural systems, where populations tend to move toward some form of equilibrium over time.
In ecology, for example, predator–prey dynamics (like deer and wolves) create feedback loops that prevent indefinite growth. While humans obviously don’t follow the same biological constraints, it seems we do have our own balancing mechanisms—economic, social, and cultural. As well as human caused climate change/pollution can also be affecting the ability for women to become pregnant?
For instance, in many developed countries, declining fertility rates suggest that as societies become more urbanized, educated, and economically stable, population growth slows or even reverses. That looks less like “explosive growth indefinitely” and more like a transition toward stabilization.
So my question is: To what extent do EA models account for these kinds of equilibrium dynamics—especially demographic transitions and declining birth rates? And under what assumptions would continued large-scale growth still hold?
We are matter and we really matter. It is mind blowing to me that "there will be a million future people for every person alive today". We are here now doing the things we are doing due to actions taken by our ancestors thousands of years ago. The fact that we (a subset of humans) are here reading articles from EA and 80,000 hours is something that I'm grateful for and I want to spread the word about why we need to think of future people.
I went to this site and attempted to click on the Non-trivial privacy policy: https://archive.non-trivial.org/privacy-policy and got the "this site can't be reached" message.
There is a moral hazard in treating refuges—whether they are high-tech bunkers or colonies in Mars/Moon—as one of the biosecurity projects to address existential risk. We risk decoupling the interests of the global elite from the survival of the general population. If the wealthy can afford a 'way out,' the collective incentive to solve existential threats on Earth from engineered pandemics or AI misalignment is weakened. We should be investing in 'public good' safety measures, not private lifeboats.
I found the 80,000 Hours data on anthropogenic risks particularly striking when compared to "common" low-probability events.
Specifically, the fact that a 100-year consistent play of the 6/49 lottery yields odds of 1 in 1,300 to win the jackpot makes the 1 in 10 estimate for unaligned AI or 1 in 30 for engineered pandemics feel much more real. Yet we dream about winning the lottery and not focus on a negative risk that is likely to happen during our lifetime.
The spending table also highlights a massive gap in neglectedness was also shocking to me:
The fact that luxury goods spending ($1.3T) nearly matches total Global R&D ($1.5T) suggests a massive misallocation of time/talent and financial resources.
Comparing Musk's net worth (approx. $200B–$250B) to the global climate spend (>$300B) illustrates how concentrated the power to influence has become.
Securing our future is the ultimate multi-generational project. My personal drive comes from wanting to leave a stable legacy for the next generation (my daughther and her children), but we cannot afford to treat AI safety or pandemic prevention as 'problems for the youth' to solve later.
We need to bridge the gap between the emerging talent in the Effective Altruism community and the established leadership of Millenials, Gen X and Boomers. Solving 1-in-10 risks requires a 'total talent' approach that spans every age group and professional background.
Hi from 2026! You’re about to graduate and head into Applied Sciences—that analytical mind is going to be your superpower.
Right now, you probably don’t think twice about what’s on your dinner plate. You eat whatever mom makes and you want to join your friends at the fast food places. But I’ve been studying Effective Altruism (EA) and learned a sobering reality: factory farming. In the '80s, this is becoming the silent standard. Imagine intelligent animals squeezed into cages so small they can’t move, living in darkness without fresh air.
Agricultural expert Bailey Norwood rates animal welfare from -10 to 10. Pigs and caged hens score a -5, meaning their lives involve so much suffering they would be better off dead. It’s a strange contradiction: we’re starting to treat pets like "fur babies," yet we subject animals of similar intelligence to industrial misery.
You’ll want to go vegetarian immediately (delicious meat alternatives and vegetarian options on the menu will become more readily available), but as an "Applied Science" person, consider how to have an even bigger impact than just changing your own diet:
Earning to Give: Your future career will allow you to donate to high-impact charities like Mercy for Animals. One professional salary can fund campaigns that spare millions from those "-5" conditions.
Career Strategy: You can use your data and science skills to work directly for animal advocacy, fixing the food system from the inside.
Use that big heart and sharp mind to help those with the least power.
I have a question: does anyone know of research—particularly within the EA space—on how rising pet ownership (cats/dogs) may influence total meat consumption or demand for animal products?
This is a great video—I think it would have been especially useful to watch at the beginning of the Intro to EA course. It gives a clear overview of how effective altruism emerged and highlights the contributions of Toby Ord and Will MacAskill.
Wow this is another mind-blower. Is it akin to the idea of perception? or self fulfilling prophecy? For example, if I think Person A is not trustworthy then I will gravitate towards find evidence to support my perception? Why did I think Person A wasn't trustworthy in the first place? was it from a feeling? an actual action that took place between me and Person A? Or that Person B told me that Person A wasn't trustworthy; but since I trust Person B I believe what Person B is telling me about Person A?
I’m trying to reconcile claims about continued population growth with what we often see in natural systems, where populations tend to move toward some form of equilibrium over time.
In ecology, for example, predator–prey dynamics (like deer and wolves) create feedback loops that prevent indefinite growth. While humans obviously don’t follow the same biological constraints, it seems we do have our own balancing mechanisms—economic, social, and cultural. As well as human caused climate change/pollution can also be affecting the ability for women to become pregnant?
For instance, in many developed countries, declining fertility rates suggest that as societies become more urbanized, educated, and economically stable, population growth slows or even reverses. That looks less like “explosive growth indefinitely” and more like a transition toward stabilization.
So my question is:
To what extent do EA models account for these kinds of equilibrium dynamics—especially demographic transitions and declining birth rates?
And under what assumptions would continued large-scale growth still hold?
We are matter and we really matter. It is mind blowing to me that "there will be a million future people for every person alive today". We are here now doing the things we are doing due to actions taken by our ancestors thousands of years ago. The fact that we (a subset of humans) are here reading articles from EA and 80,000 hours is something that I'm grateful for and I want to spread the word about why we need to think of future people.
A good ancestor can build a better tomorrow if they have the following traits
I went to this site and attempted to click on the Non-trivial privacy policy: https://archive.non-trivial.org/privacy-policy and got the "this site can't be reached" message.
There is a moral hazard in treating refuges—whether they are high-tech bunkers or colonies in Mars/Moon—as one of the biosecurity projects to address existential risk. We risk decoupling the interests of the global elite from the survival of the general population. If the wealthy can afford a 'way out,' the collective incentive to solve existential threats on Earth from engineered pandemics or AI misalignment is weakened. We should be investing in 'public good' safety measures, not private lifeboats.
I found the 80,000 Hours data on anthropogenic risks particularly striking when compared to "common" low-probability events.
Specifically, the fact that a 100-year consistent play of the 6/49 lottery yields odds of 1 in 1,300 to win the jackpot makes the 1 in 10 estimate for unaligned AI or 1 in 30 for engineered pandemics feel much more real. Yet we dream about winning the lottery and not focus on a negative risk that is likely to happen during our lifetime.
The spending table also highlights a massive gap in neglectedness was also shocking to me:
Securing our future is the ultimate multi-generational project. My personal drive comes from wanting to leave a stable legacy for the next generation (my daughther and her children), but we cannot afford to treat AI safety or pandemic prevention as 'problems for the youth' to solve later.
We need to bridge the gap between the emerging talent in the Effective Altruism community and the established leadership of Millenials, Gen X and Boomers. Solving 1-in-10 risks requires a 'total talent' approach that spans every age group and professional background.
Dear Young Linda,
Hi from 2026! You’re about to graduate and head into Applied Sciences—that analytical mind is going to be your superpower.
Right now, you probably don’t think twice about what’s on your dinner plate. You eat whatever mom makes and you want to join your friends at the fast food places. But I’ve been studying Effective Altruism (EA) and learned a sobering reality: factory farming. In the '80s, this is becoming the silent standard. Imagine intelligent animals squeezed into cages so small they can’t move, living in darkness without fresh air.
Agricultural expert Bailey Norwood rates animal welfare from -10 to 10. Pigs and caged hens score a -5, meaning their lives involve so much suffering they would be better off dead. It’s a strange contradiction: we’re starting to treat pets like "fur babies," yet we subject animals of similar intelligence to industrial misery.
You’ll want to go vegetarian immediately (delicious meat alternatives and vegetarian options on the menu will become more readily available), but as an "Applied Science" person, consider how to have an even bigger impact than just changing your own diet:
Use that big heart and sharp mind to help those with the least power.
Love, your 2026 Self
I have a question: does anyone know of research—particularly within the EA space—on how rising pet ownership (cats/dogs) may influence total meat consumption or demand for animal products?
This is a great video—I think it would have been especially useful to watch at the beginning of the Intro to EA course. It gives a clear overview of how effective altruism emerged and highlights the contributions of Toby Ord and Will MacAskill.