Iād be interested to hear a bit more about ALLFEDās thinking regarding how doing the āProjects in need of fundingā would reduce existential risk.
For example, to what extent are they aimed at reducing risks of extinction, vs risks of unrecoverable collapse, vs risks of unrecoverable dystopia? Or perhaps some of the projects are primarily aimed at saving lives in the nearer-term (rather than longtermist concerns)? Or at helping ALLFED itself develop (e.g., by gaining credibility, networks, funding), to increase how effectively you can pursue other projects which have more direct relevance to longtermism?
And to the extent that ALLFED expects these projects to achieve longtermist goals, is that because ALLFED thinks:
The project would reduce the number of deaths as a fairly direct result of a sun-blocking catastrophe or loss of electricity/āindustry, which then fairly directly, meaningfully reduces extinction risk
This would imply ALLFED thinks extinction risk as a fairly direct result of those things isnāt already super low
The project would reduce the number of deaths as a fairly direct result of one of those catastrophes, which then reduces the chance of further catastrophes and conflict, which then in turn reduces extinction risk
The project would reduce the length of time between the initial catastrophe and the recovery, which would reduce extinction risk
Perhaps because the longer that interim time is, the more chance there is of further catastrophes or conflict
Perhaps because that period would be anarchic, and during it thereās a meaningfully increased risk of states or nonstate actors doing dangerous things that increase extinction risk
A version of one of the above, but focused on risks of unrecoverable collapse or unrecoverable dystopia rather than risks of extinction
In general, reducing numbers of deaths and global instability is just a good proxy for reducing existential risk, even if one hasnāt explicitly mapped out the interim steps
[Something else]
(This is just a quick way of slicing up the possibilities; you donāt have to categorise things that way, of course.)
(Also, Iām aware that these questions overlap a bunch with things already said in this post and in prior ALLFED-related posts and presentations. Feel free to point me to relevant parts of those things, request I make these questions more specific, etc.)
One of the proposed projects on which I currently feel particularly unsure of the longtermist theory of change for is:
Building heating for losing electricity/āindustry ā Because the loss of electricity/āindustry is likely to be sudden, keeping people warm is an urgent need. Options we want to investigate include retrofitting ovens to burn wood for heating.
At first glance, itās hard for me to imagine why this would be a high-priority variable to influence if weāre adopting a longtermist perspective (though itās more plausible to me that it could be a decently cost-effective way toāin expectationāsave lives in the coming generations).
Thanks for the feedback. We do think there is a compelling case for saving expected lives in the present generation cost effectively. On the long-term future, we do not have a quantitative model for how important extinction versus unrecoverable collapse versus negative trajectory changes are in these scenarios (and in terms of mitigation from interventions). So I would say it is closest to:
reducing numbers of deaths and global instability is just a good proxy for reducing existential risk
In this way, our situation seems analogous to the situation of someone who is caring for a sapling, has very limited experience with saplings, has no mechanistic understanding of how saplings work, and wants to ensure that nothing stops the sapling from becoming a great redwood. It would be hard for them to be confident that the saplingās eventual long-term growth would be unaffected by unprecedented shocksāsuch as cutting off 40% of its branches or letting it go without water for 20% longer than it ever had beforeāeven taken as given that such shocks wouldnāt directly/āimmediately result in its death. For similar reasons, it seems hard to be confident that humanityās eventual long-term progress would be unaffected by a catastrophe that resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths.
Thanks for this interesting post :)
Iād be interested to hear a bit more about ALLFEDās thinking regarding how doing the āProjects in need of fundingā would reduce existential risk.
For example, to what extent are they aimed at reducing risks of extinction, vs risks of unrecoverable collapse, vs risks of unrecoverable dystopia? Or perhaps some of the projects are primarily aimed at saving lives in the nearer-term (rather than longtermist concerns)? Or at helping ALLFED itself develop (e.g., by gaining credibility, networks, funding), to increase how effectively you can pursue other projects which have more direct relevance to longtermism?
And to the extent that ALLFED expects these projects to achieve longtermist goals, is that because ALLFED thinks:
The project would reduce the number of deaths as a fairly direct result of a sun-blocking catastrophe or loss of electricity/āindustry, which then fairly directly, meaningfully reduces extinction risk
This would imply ALLFED thinks extinction risk as a fairly direct result of those things isnāt already super low
The project would reduce the number of deaths as a fairly direct result of one of those catastrophes, which then reduces the chance of further catastrophes and conflict, which then in turn reduces extinction risk
The project would reduce the length of time between the initial catastrophe and the recovery, which would reduce extinction risk
Perhaps because the longer that interim time is, the more chance there is of further catastrophes or conflict
Perhaps because that period would be anarchic, and during it thereās a meaningfully increased risk of states or nonstate actors doing dangerous things that increase extinction risk
A version of one of the above, but focused on risks of unrecoverable collapse or unrecoverable dystopia rather than risks of extinction
In general, reducing numbers of deaths and global instability is just a good proxy for reducing existential risk, even if one hasnāt explicitly mapped out the interim steps
[Something else]
(This is just a quick way of slicing up the possibilities; you donāt have to categorise things that way, of course.)
(Also, Iām aware that these questions overlap a bunch with things already said in this post and in prior ALLFED-related posts and presentations. Feel free to point me to relevant parts of those things, request I make these questions more specific, etc.)
One of the proposed projects on which I currently feel particularly unsure of the longtermist theory of change for is:
At first glance, itās hard for me to imagine why this would be a high-priority variable to influence if weāre adopting a longtermist perspective (though itās more plausible to me that it could be a decently cost-effective way toāin expectationāsave lives in the coming generations).
Thanks for the feedback. We do think there is a compelling case for saving expected lives in the present generation cost effectively. On the long-term future, we do not have a quantitative model for how important extinction versus unrecoverable collapse versus negative trajectory changes are in these scenarios (and in terms of mitigation from interventions). So I would say it is closest to:
As Nick Beckstead said: