I really like this list of critiques of the ITN framework and its focus on the misuse of the neglectedness heuristic. Curious to hear what you think about it. In this case, I don’t think it should carry much weight. Just as I suspect most EA-aligned people would still consider voting useful (and even with low turnout rates, we wouldn’t call voting “neglected”), discussing red lines for authoritarian drift also seems useful - even if it’s already being discussed outside EA.
Sometimes it feels like we interpret the “N” in the ITN framework as “we shouldn’t bother talking about things that people outside EA are already discussing.” But if that were the right interpretation, we wouldn’t be talking about many of the issues we currently do, would we?
Do you have evidence for footnote 2 (i.e. that many hunter-gatherer societies have ~25% of their men dying of violence before reproducing)?
It’s not a core claim of your argument, but I paused a bit at this passage:
"The economic history book A Farewell to Alms notes that many of the pre-colonization Pacific Islands were both relatively wealthy and relatively healthy, a status they achieved by killing between two-thirds and three-quarters of children at birth."
I haven’t read A Farewell to Alms, so I may be missing context. But if it does make a strong claim along these lines (both about the magnitude and about a causal relationship with wealth/health), I’d be interested in how robust the underlying evidence is.
A couple of things that made me hesitate:
“Pacific islands” isn’t a very homogeneous geographical or socio-cultural category. I assume this refers broadly to Polynesia + Micronesia + Melanesia (+/− Australia?), but the societies in these regions seem quite diverse, so grouping them together may risk smoothing over important differences (a bit like a very low-resolution map of a very large territory).
The data we have on pre-colonisation societies in these regions can be quite limited and sometimes comes from sources (e.g. missionaries or early settlers) that may not always have aimed at careful ethnographic accuracy. That makes me a bit cautious about strong quantitative claims. For example, the ongoing debate around Rapa Nui and Jared Diamond’s collapse narrative illustrates how interpretations can shift with new evidence (see Humankind and related discussions).
Again, I realize this isn’t central to your overall argument. I mainly wanted to flag it as something that might benefit from a bit more nuance or sourcing, both to avoid potential misunderstandings and because it touches on broader questions about how we interpret and generalize about pre-industrial societies. Also, I grew up in Tahiti so I tend to pay extra attention to claims about pre-colonisation societies in that region. Not because I think everything was ideal or necessarily better, but because it seems like our knowledge is still quite limited (and risks remaining so forever), and it’s easy to overstate certainty.
I think this is one of the best write-ups on biosecurity I’ve read recently. Thank you, @Abhishaike!
I did have a small hiccup when reading about Palantir, and about Jake Adler and Kathleen McMahon being linked to Peter Thiel via funding or former positions. I know this is a linkpost, but since we’re on the EA Forum, it seems worth reminding readers that Peter Thiel is not a friend of EA (he believes we are the Antechrist and has called for billionaires to abandon the Giving Pledge).
I think it is important because this kind of relationship is often blamed on EA. Doing “Palantir for biosecurity,” and getting funding from Peter Thiel to enhance biosecurity looks a bit sketchy to me.
I wanted to flag that, and to say it in a comment so people who’ve thought about this more than me can change my mind if needed!
Thank you for putting this together! Do you think you might have time at some point to add a one-line takeaway for each, or the main reason someone might want to read it?
I don’t think the ITN framework applies to the argument made in this post, which, at least as I read it, does not argue for “politics” to be a new EA cause area. I’m not sure whether I believe that “everything” is politics, but certainly many things are — and it wouldn’t make sense to treat that as a single cause area and apply the ITN framework to it.
What I understand the author to be arguing, rather, is that political context is essential to analyze, discuss, and research withtin EA. Getting involved in politics seems to be only one suggestion among others in the post — more in the sense that “it’s useful to have some EAs explore this path,” rather than “this should be a priority.”
Thank you, Lizka, for this post. I focus on pandemic preparedness, and I had assumed that biosecurity was primarily a “longtermist” cause. I felt uncomfortable not having a settled personal view on longtermism as a philosophy. Reading your post and the linked references reassured me that it is fine not to claim longtermism as my motivation. I still want to learn more about moral philosophy to eventually form my own view on longtermism, but in the meantime I now think it is reasonable to say that I share the goals and the drive to contribute, even if my reasons do not fully align with those of longtermists. David Thorstad’s series also gave me some food for thought: https://reflectivealtruism.com/2023/11/18/exaggerating-the-risks-part-12-millett-and-snyder-beattie-on-biorisk/ - Do you know of any circulated survey that gives insights into what motivates EAs to work on this or that cause/intervention (i.e longtermist worldview or not)?
Thank you, James, for this excellent map and thoughtful breakdown of biosecurity interventions. It’s very helpful for someone like me who is still orienting in this space.
I’m currently working as a Blue Book trainee at the European Commission’s Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) on the stockpiling of medical countermeasures. My current goal is to build expertise in strategic stockpiling (qualification and quantification of MCMs to stockpile, governance) and link that to reducing global catastrophic biological risks.
I’d love to ask the community for guidance on what concrete steps I should take now to become proficient in this domain:
Which technical skills are most useful? Who should I talk to upskill in those?
Which research communities, projects, or partnerships are doing high-leverage work on stockpiles (especially in an EU or global context) that I could engage with?
What knowledge gaps exist that a part-time PhD could usefully address?
Any suggestions or connections would be much appreciated. Thanks again for opening up this map and for the broader community’s insights.
I think this is a great post! I love how you framed these ideas differently in the main text and the appendices - it makes them very clear. I wish this were more widely circulated, and that people who disagree would explain why in the comments. This topic deserves much more discussion!
What are your views on insider vs outsider strategy for someone who wants to have an impact on biosecurity/pandemic preparedness, prevention, and response (PPR) policies at the European Union level? - More specifically, how would you compare potential impact between landing a pivotal position in the EU where you could influence policy implementation directly versus for instance creating a think tank focused on advocating for a specific intervention (such as far-UVC)?
I know the short answer is probably 'it depends' (of one's skill set, desires, luck, need for financial security, etc.), but I'm looking for insights on the insider versus outsider strategy discussion, as I'm wary that I might myself prioritize the former because of a lack of agency, thus missing on the possibility of doing work on more highly neglected/highly promising things.
I've talked to people who have opposite views on this matter, and I find it very important for me (and anyone maybe) to form a personal opinion. I love the work done at Blueprint Biosecurity for instance, and I know many EAs who do very cool advocacy/research work without relying on professional opportunities offered by already-in-place institutions. I admire them, and I'd be proud to showcase the same kind of commitment, but I really want to understand what path would lead me to a most impactful career, and i'm looking for advice on how to go about thinking about this.
Or maybe both strategies are not mutually exclusive? Maybe we need everyone doing cool stuff everywhere? Yeah, sure, but still, if you have strong opinions, please share (and not only regarding biosec) :)
I really like this list of critiques of the ITN framework and its focus on the misuse of the neglectedness heuristic. Curious to hear what you think about it. In this case, I don’t think it should carry much weight. Just as I suspect most EA-aligned people would still consider voting useful (and even with low turnout rates, we wouldn’t call voting “neglected”), discussing red lines for authoritarian drift also seems useful - even if it’s already being discussed outside EA.
Sometimes it feels like we interpret the “N” in the ITN framework as “we shouldn’t bother talking about things that people outside EA are already discussing.” But if that were the right interpretation, we wouldn’t be talking about many of the issues we currently do, would we?
Nice read! Thank you :)
Do you have evidence for footnote 2 (i.e. that many hunter-gatherer societies have ~25% of their men dying of violence before reproducing)?
It’s not a core claim of your argument, but I paused a bit at this passage:
I haven’t read A Farewell to Alms, so I may be missing context. But if it does make a strong claim along these lines (both about the magnitude and about a causal relationship with wealth/health), I’d be interested in how robust the underlying evidence is.
A couple of things that made me hesitate:
Again, I realize this isn’t central to your overall argument. I mainly wanted to flag it as something that might benefit from a bit more nuance or sourcing, both to avoid potential misunderstandings and because it touches on broader questions about how we interpret and generalize about pre-industrial societies. Also, I grew up in Tahiti so I tend to pay extra attention to claims about pre-colonisation societies in that region. Not because I think everything was ideal or necessarily better, but because it seems like our knowledge is still quite limited (and risks remaining so forever), and it’s easy to overstate certainty.
I think this is one of the best write-ups on biosecurity I’ve read recently. Thank you, @Abhishaike!
I did have a small hiccup when reading about Palantir, and about Jake Adler and Kathleen McMahon being linked to Peter Thiel via funding or former positions. I know this is a linkpost, but since we’re on the EA Forum, it seems worth reminding readers that Peter Thiel is not a friend of EA (he believes we are the Antechrist and has called for billionaires to abandon the Giving Pledge).
I think it is important because this kind of relationship is often blamed on EA. Doing “Palantir for biosecurity,” and getting funding from Peter Thiel to enhance biosecurity looks a bit sketchy to me.
I wanted to flag that, and to say it in a comment so people who’ve thought about this more than me can change my mind if needed!
Thank you for putting this together! Do you think you might have time at some point to add a one-line takeaway for each, or the main reason someone might want to read it?
I don’t think the ITN framework applies to the argument made in this post, which, at least as I read it, does not argue for “politics” to be a new EA cause area. I’m not sure whether I believe that “everything” is politics, but certainly many things are — and it wouldn’t make sense to treat that as a single cause area and apply the ITN framework to it.
What I understand the author to be arguing, rather, is that political context is essential to analyze, discuss, and research withtin EA. Getting involved in politics seems to be only one suggestion among others in the post — more in the sense that “it’s useful to have some EAs explore this path,” rather than “this should be a priority.”
Do you think my reading is wrong?
Thank you, Lizka, for this post. I focus on pandemic preparedness, and I had assumed that biosecurity was primarily a “longtermist” cause. I felt uncomfortable not having a settled personal view on longtermism as a philosophy. Reading your post and the linked references reassured me that it is fine not to claim longtermism as my motivation. I still want to learn more about moral philosophy to eventually form my own view on longtermism, but in the meantime I now think it is reasonable to say that I share the goals and the drive to contribute, even if my reasons do not fully align with those of longtermists. David Thorstad’s series also gave me some food for thought: https://reflectivealtruism.com/2023/11/18/exaggerating-the-risks-part-12-millett-and-snyder-beattie-on-biorisk/ - Do you know of any circulated survey that gives insights into what motivates EAs to work on this or that cause/intervention (i.e longtermist worldview or not)?
Thank you, James, for this excellent map and thoughtful breakdown of biosecurity interventions. It’s very helpful for someone like me who is still orienting in this space.
I’m currently working as a Blue Book trainee at the European Commission’s Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) on the stockpiling of medical countermeasures. My current goal is to build expertise in strategic stockpiling (qualification and quantification of MCMs to stockpile, governance) and link that to reducing global catastrophic biological risks.
I’d love to ask the community for guidance on what concrete steps I should take now to become proficient in this domain:
Any suggestions or connections would be much appreciated. Thanks again for opening up this map and for the broader community’s insights.
Vincent
I think this is a great post! I love how you framed these ideas differently in the main text and the appendices - it makes them very clear. I wish this were more widely circulated, and that people who disagree would explain why in the comments. This topic deserves much more discussion!
Hello :) I've seen the website's down. Is this org still up and running?
Hi! Thanks for this thread <3
What are your views on insider vs outsider strategy for someone who wants to have an impact on biosecurity/pandemic preparedness, prevention, and response (PPR) policies at the European Union level? - More specifically, how would you compare potential impact between landing a pivotal position in the EU where you could influence policy implementation directly versus for instance creating a think tank focused on advocating for a specific intervention (such as far-UVC)?
I know the short answer is probably 'it depends' (of one's skill set, desires, luck, need for financial security, etc.), but I'm looking for insights on the insider versus outsider strategy discussion, as I'm wary that I might myself prioritize the former because of a lack of agency, thus missing on the possibility of doing work on more highly neglected/highly promising things.
I've talked to people who have opposite views on this matter, and I find it very important for me (and anyone maybe) to form a personal opinion. I love the work done at Blueprint Biosecurity for instance, and I know many EAs who do very cool advocacy/research work without relying on professional opportunities offered by already-in-place institutions. I admire them, and I'd be proud to showcase the same kind of commitment, but I really want to understand what path would lead me to a most impactful career, and i'm looking for advice on how to go about thinking about this.
Or maybe both strategies are not mutually exclusive? Maybe we need everyone doing cool stuff everywhere? Yeah, sure, but still, if you have strong opinions, please share (and not only regarding biosec) :)