Most animals are wild animals, so the answer to this question should focus on them.
Most animals today are wild animals, but for the answer to this question to focus on them, most future animals would also have to be wild.
Fwiw my intuition is that most future animals will be wild because it seems more likely that we terraform by seeding ecosystems than that we export energy inefficient factory farming. That said: a) I feel uncertain about that position. b) The post-AGI future will be pretty weird, and our distinction of wild vs farmed animals probably won't map neatly onto future sentient beings.
I feel this is 100% the case in my university. For some anecdata, the upcoming 5 events at my university's career advising unit are:
How to get an internship in 1 minute: what to say at MEMEnginy[1]
Assure a convincing presentation: CV and elevator pitch workshop
Shine in the interview: how to explain your value with confidence
How to create a functional webpage with AI and no-code? rapid prototyping
Key competencies to stand out in the labour market
As Matt noted, I think they're really optimising for the placement rate post-graduation, rather than helping students grow into the best versions of themselves. Because of this when I talk to other students on how to stand out professionally, I always tell them to avoid the career advising unit.
I disagree with your point that saving the child's life is something you need to continuously reinvest in[1]. But I do think that you're pointing at something adjacent more along the lines of:
Giving out bed nets doesn't fundamentally solve global poverty
Solving global poverty is better than continuously giving out bed nets
Therefore, EAs should focus less on bed nets and more on solutions for global poverty.
I kind of agree with this. Imo the only real long-term solution is economic growth. But that said, two points:
Saving a child's has positive flow through effects that help with growth (for example, it returns many productive years back into the economy)
There are EA people who are also thinking about growth (here, here, here, or here) or science for global health interventions which also help (here).
Funnily enough, your Malaria vaccine is an example of something that Open Philanthropy Coefficient Giving has funded. They funded a bunch of malaria vaccine research, notably the stage 3 trials of one of the two vaccines (I forgot which one)
I haven't read much about moral objectivity versus non-objectivity because it seems like forming an opinion on this debate wouldn't change how I actually behave that much.
That said my not-thought-through intuitions are very non-realist.
Given that OP is not funding WAW and invertebrate welfare, I’ve selected Wild Animal Initiative and the Arthropoda Foundation as my top votes. SWP was also a high vote but slightly less because I'm more bullish on the VOI of Wild Animal initiative and Arthropoda foundation
That said, I'm guilty of "not enough time to research the orgs". There’s a reasonably high chance (~75%) that I would change these top votes with more reading, probably by prioritising less well-known orgs.
I think there is a spelling mistake
I'm guessing you meant "AI company execs".
Otherwise great post, thanks for writing it up!
Most animals today are wild animals, but for the answer to this question to focus on them, most future animals would also have to be wild.
Fwiw my intuition is that most future animals will be wild because it seems more likely that we terraform by seeding ecosystems than that we export energy inefficient factory farming. That said:
a) I feel uncertain about that position.
b) The post-AGI future will be pretty weird, and our distinction of wild vs farmed animals probably won't map neatly onto future sentient beings.
I feel this is 100% the case in my university. For some anecdata, the upcoming 5 events at my university's career advising unit are:
As Matt noted, I think they're really optimising for the placement rate post-graduation, rather than helping students grow into the best versions of themselves. Because of this when I talk to other students on how to stand out professionally, I always tell them to avoid the career advising unit.
MEMEnginy is a university fair where companies come to the faculty of engineering and present themselves to students.
I disagree with your point that saving the child's life is something you need to continuously reinvest in[1]. But I do think that you're pointing at something adjacent more along the lines of:
I kind of agree with this. Imo the only real long-term solution is economic growth. But that said, two points:
Funnily enough, your Malaria vaccine is an example of something that
Open PhilanthropyCoefficient Giving has funded. They funded a bunch of malaria vaccine research, notably the stage 3 trials of one of the two vaccines (I forgot which one)Once the child is >5y/o their chance to die drops a lot. Once you save their live once, you really don't have to reinvest to save their life again.
(I couldn't find the graph for sub-Saharan Africa, but it looks kind of the same)
I found this recently, just wanted to comment that it's been super helpful, thanks!
I haven't read much about moral objectivity versus non-objectivity because it seems like forming an opinion on this debate wouldn't change how I actually behave that much.
That said my not-thought-through intuitions are very non-realist.
(edit: spelling/clarity)
Thanks for sharing!
I couldn't find the quote in the linked PDF. It's maybe at another link (?)
In the graph of your active member count, do you know what the flat table tops are ?
Given that OP is not funding WAW and invertebrate welfare, I’ve selected Wild Animal Initiative and the Arthropoda Foundation as my top votes. SWP was also a high vote but slightly less because I'm more bullish on the VOI of Wild Animal initiative and Arthropoda foundation
That said, I'm guilty of "not enough time to research the orgs". There’s a reasonably high chance (~75%) that I would change these top votes with more reading, probably by prioritising less well-known orgs.
Great work!