I thought this was a nice objective overview of the current situation, the downside, and stratospheric aerosol injection. It didn't feel too much like AI content either to me, despite the high AI rating. 

Edit: I don't like the title though. "a climate conversation we need to have" is claudespeak and fake sounding. Just say the thesis. Maybe "Cooling the planet is a good idea with not enough planning yet" or whatever the main takeaway should be. 

I disagree with a lot, yes. But some I agree with. I'm interested in resilience, long-term thinking, and challenges to my understanding of the world, so the Great Simplification is an interesting mirror view. They are thinking ahead of me if I'm wrong about resources/growth.

Edit: I listened and was impressed how well read he was and how much he knew my own position. I think his points about the debt were good, and his examples of instability are well thought out. I still have some basic disagreements but I want to listen to more by him. 

What's it about? The url barely hints.

This was really easy to read with an interesting core idea, thanks for writing this up!

Couple reasons. 
I feel like it deserves an entire post. And before I do that, I want to spend time directly on researching the subject, rather than just going off of the stuff I've come across so far. Basically, I don't feel very qualified. I've been focusing on biodiversity. Partly because there isn't other EA guidance on biodiversity. I do want to get to^[1] the intersection of biodiversity x wild animal welfare. 

My inadequate response to your point about whether it is reliable way to improve the flourishing of the future:
I think you are right that I overstated it. Some species probably would not improve the flourishing of the far future.
That being said, I lean toward most species (maybe not most individuals) having net positive lives. I lean toward low-neuron count lives mattering less than the sum of their parts in aggregate. I think the saturation view holds water. I think the future can easily solve almost all the negative utility in wildlife. Based on this combination of assumptions, I think I can safely claim biodiversity almost always will improve the flourishing of the far future. 

But I don't want to claim so in every case. I'm not sure how many species would be net negative, and a lot of other important facts on the ground. As you said, there is a lot of uncertainty which is not improved by my own lack of reading. (Also I didn't mention all the other issues with counterfactual spending, reduction in progress timelines etc. But generally I think it is a good option for improving the flourishing of the future.) 

1. ^{^}

   There is a long list of things I want to be more informed about. Wild animal welfare in the upper parts of the list, top 20% I would say.

Pst, missing title

It's not for frequent visitors, it's for people visiting for the first time. This makes sense to me, as repeat visitors will know where to go inside the forum. 

But even the new and upvoted tab is filled with 1-2 week old posts for me. I'm not sure if that is intentional. Tbh it is probably the correct amount of content and ideal for most busy EAs. Unfortunately I started checking daily, (I do not think this is good) and discovered the "all posts" page. So I just click over to there immediately now. 

The forum is slow enough to be manageable for daily readers. I suppose eventually it might speed up and I can go back to the upvoted and filtered page. 

Fyi You posted the article+citations in the submission field twice. 

For what its worth, it looks to me like most of this isn't your own words. You said you only used AI for structure and punctuation, but Claude's writing style adds a lot of examples of "things you are not saying" and I see that throughout the article. There are many other AI-isms but I'm not going to ennumerate them all. 

There might be really good content here, but it feels like you aren't carefully trimming this article to respect readers' time.

I disagree that step one is convincing effective altruists. Other cause areas are more important, and it's not a priority to gather more support for nature/biodiversity. I think biodiversity/nature gets most of its value from flourishing future scenarios. Achieving those flourishing futures is far more important, and a prerequisite! Working on the greater priorities of x-risk and global health etc, should be the majority of EA's time and effort, but still it is good to spend some time thinking about the futures that we want aim toward and eventually live in.

I think it is a better use of resources to aim the existing environmentalists to better priorities within their own stated objectives. Hence focusing on that instead of "why does biodiversity matter in the first place" in order to convince new people.

That being said, I agree that most of the philosophy and evidence for the value of biodiversity/ecosystems is not rigorous and it is a gap that sorely needs addressing. So I did finally contribute some philosophizing as to why biodiversity might be valuable. (Part of a sequence trying to properly assess the value of nature, both instrumental and intrinsic.)

This is way outside my area of expertise but here are a few thoughts:

There are strategic oil reserves in many countries for this exact reason. 

There is some optional oil use, so those could reduce, while replacement fuel/power was built out.

Coal and retired coal plants exist as a stopgap. 

There are some known large untapped oil reserves, I think? I believe they are much lower quality oil and so not worth extracting right now. But if the world desperately needed oil, they would be a backup option.

Afaik, this is a known weakness and there are plans and research you can read about it from humanitarian organizations, military, national preparedness, and so on.

Oil shocks have happened, so those are good ways to examine what actually happens when oil supply suddenly drops. I don't think famines resulted, but there was serious damage? And we do have lots of other power generation online now.