There is one, and I think is the main flaw of the presented argument: A lot of problems are only considered pressing because of our expectations regarding the future. Improving the latter is not "solving anything", but simply clearing up priorities.

As someone who has dedicated their PhD to researching forecasting, I think this article raises an important point—but states it too bluntly, which ultimately muddles its central argument.

First, some context. Broadly speaking, all decisions are made on the basis of expectations about the future. It follows that anything which shifts those expectations can affect decisions in meaningful ways. This is easy to overlook, but it matters for how we evaluate forecasting interventions.

Furthermore, it is not easy to observe the effects of research. Consider the work of the Forecasting Research Institute. Much of what FRI does is research, and most of the benefits of research accrue in the future and are not easily traced back to any single input. The same difficulty applies more generally: since we cannot observe the counterfactual world in which a forecasting intervention was never made, measuring its effect is genuinely hard. How many decisions were improved? We may never know with precision.

That said, I do think the author raises a valid concern. We should be highly skeptical of the large investments of time and money by philanthropic actors and others in this space. Since many people find forecasting inherently enjoyable, there is a real risk that enthusiasm is doing some of the work that evidence should be doing—the elephant in the brain. I share that worry.

Where I part ways with the author is on the framing. The central argument of this piece should be: "We should rigorously review EA funding related to forecasting." That is a claim I agree with strongly. But the article instead reaches for a bolder headline—"Forecasting is overrated"—and there I disagree entirely. Most people in the world have never heard of structured forecasting, even though it could help a substantial number of them make better decisions in both business and personal life. Forecasting is not overrated. If anything, it is profoundly underrated.

My suggestion would be to get peers with actual topic-relevant knowledge to review funding proposals. 

I am not sure whether this is currently done, but it is standard practice in governmental science funding. 

I understand that it is the funders decision to collect peer reports, but I guess it is an easy way to spot projects that are targeted towards funders, not impact.

Hi Robert, thanks for answering. I would like to add two more points to what you already said: 

1. To get more bang for relatively little organising, why not get just a few air filters for those rooms which are most crowded? 100+ air filters seem indeed like a lot (I calculated with 12).

2. It would perhaps be easier to get data on the health benefit related to reducing indoor air pollution. There are plenty of studies on this, I will try to find a good one. This alone may be sufficient to justify the expense. Reducing respiratory diseases would come on top. 

I would like to see this discussion re-ignited. I got sick at EAGxBerlin2024, ironically missing a talk on „The economic value of reducing indoor infections“, which argues that UVC-lamps are a very cost-effective measure for indoor gatherings (https://www.d-fine.com/en/news/reducing-indoor-infections/). 

I understand that it is difficult to estimate the effect of indoor air quality improvements to EA events (which include reduced air pollution AND reduced pathogen load), because these events may be different from what has been studied in the past, e.g. there already is existing ventilation, some people wear masks, many are young etc. I still encourage people with more expertise in the area to try to make an estimate (@Dawn Drescher - I could not reach your weblink). 
 
I firmly believe that investing in air purification at EAG(x) is worthwhile, as the associated costs are relatively minor, and Eli_Nathan's  arguments against this, as the former organizer, lack validity.

I list them below: 

1. not sure there’s a way to rent air filtration equipment 
   
   Response: There is (now). The cost of renting 20 industrial-grade air purifiers for one weekend seems to be roughly 2500 pounds. Given the number of attendees at EAG, air purification is certainly cheaper than the shirts. (I just picked the first google response to base my estimate on: https://www.cas-hire.co.uk/air-cleaners/healthcare-bacterial-and-odour-control/)

2. quite logistically challenging 

   Response: How? As I understand it, air filter are directly shipped to the destination, and then shipped back afterwards. My volunteering experience tells me that organizers worry about stuff that I would consider of lesser importance, such as getting the number of toilets on descriptions exactly right. Renting a ton of furniture (as is the case for EAGxBerlin) surely is as logistically challenging, if not more.

3. there are also trade-offs re noise pollution

   Response: What are these? Modern air filters tend to be relatively silent. In my experience, they are barely noticeable, even without anyone talking. Never has a guest at my house noticed the sound of my air filter (and the noise level is much lower than at EAG).

4. at the end of the day there are other marginal improvements to the conference I’m more excited about making

   Response: Since when does it make sense to implement only the „best“ improvements? Is it not sufficient to robustly improve the event? I understand that the organizers do not want unnecessary additional hassle with this, but it does not seem to be more hassle than most other things at such events. 

@Gordon Seidoh Worley also suggested that we bring our home equipment. Whilst I do not think that many are able and willing to do this, my air filter is lightweight and I would have been willing to bring it. If a small share (say 3%) of participants brought their equipment this could suffice as well.

I am tagging an event organizer here just so that this comment gets read by someone, @RobertHarling - the honor is yours.

Thank you so much! This helps me make a decision.

Thanks Ren for this in-depth article. This is pure gold! Btw: I happened to read something related a couple of days ago: why-you-should-publish-your-research-in-academic-fashion. Maybe you should ask the author to link to your post?

Also: You have written "paper" instead of "journal" on the first line of your subsection Open access mega journals.

 

Thanks so much for the review! I would like to add that there is some evidence that simple acupressure mats help alleviate low back pain.

Thank you for writing this blogpost! 

I wondered whether you also specifically looked at population decline in developed countries? I would have thought that the most interesting question would be along the lines: Could demographic collapse in developed countries lead to decreased civilizational resilience? As trammell pointed out: Developed countries seem to be prone to population decline in the next century, particularly if the social trend to have fewer babies continues. I think it is also a bit misleading to talk about changes in total world population when the composition of this population is changing across time too.