Thanks for writing this. Here’s one way this could look:
No, probably $6 billion isn’t quite enough to end world hunger. Here are the facts about food scarcity/security over time, and here are ways to address the problem that you might not have considered (e.g. fortifying food with micronutrients, malnutrition isn’t just about inadequate calories)
Turns out there is a community of people thinking about what you couldachieve with that kind of money, and they’re thinking about causes beyond food scarcity/security. Often the best ways to spend it aren’t what you might initially think.
And here’s the elevator pitch for what a range of EA orgs could do with $6 billion, starting with a couple which are closest to ‘solving world hunger’.
Here’s a ladder to more longtermist/growth-focused/risk-focused interventions, and what $6 billion could achieve on that front, and why you might also care about them if you cared about the world hunger stuff.
Here’s a call to action for EA in general.
Definitely possible to mess up, and should be pitched as an interesting/relevant bit of popular writing about EA rather than anything actually aimed at getting Elon/other billionaires to pay attention.
Thoughts on whether this is worth pitching to a couple media outlets? Thoughts on which person/org might be well-placed to write it? My guess is someone from OWID could be especially good.
Yes, I think this is worth drafting for CapX or pitching elsewhere (but CapX looks to have a decent readership, and it seems most important to have something published somewhere quickly that looks professional and can be easily shared).
I’d be very conservative about the “growth-focused/risk-focused interventions” part (would not mention AI risk at all, for example). I think the important thing for people to take away is “this problem is hard, here are people who treat it as such, come read their stuff”, and moving away from “here are good, concrete ways to spend money” seems like it could detract from that. (But I do like e.g. bringing up the tiny budget of the Biological Weapons Convention, and other things that are easier to understand.)
If you draft a piece, I’ll gladly read over it and help you flesh out any sections you’re unsure about, as soon as I can — if that would help. I’m not free to write an entire article myself now, but I want to do what I can to increase the likelihood of something being written.
Thanks for writing this. Here’s one way this could look:
No, probably $6 billion isn’t quite enough to end world hunger. Here are the facts about food scarcity/security over time, and here are ways to address the problem that you might not have considered (e.g. fortifying food with micronutrients, malnutrition isn’t just about inadequate calories)
Turns out there is a community of people thinking about what you could achieve with that kind of money, and they’re thinking about causes beyond food scarcity/security. Often the best ways to spend it aren’t what you might initially think.
And here’s the elevator pitch for what a range of EA orgs could do with $6 billion, starting with a couple which are closest to ‘solving world hunger’.
Here’s a ladder to more longtermist/growth-focused/risk-focused interventions, and what $6 billion could achieve on that front, and why you might also care about them if you cared about the world hunger stuff.
Here’s a call to action for EA in general.
Definitely possible to mess up, and should be pitched as an interesting/relevant bit of popular writing about EA rather than anything actually aimed at getting Elon/other billionaires to pay attention.
Thoughts on whether this is worth pitching to a couple media outlets? Thoughts on which person/org might be well-placed to write it? My guess is someone from OWID could be especially good.
Yes, I think this is worth drafting for CapX or pitching elsewhere (but CapX looks to have a decent readership, and it seems most important to have something published somewhere quickly that looks professional and can be easily shared).
I’d be very conservative about the “growth-focused/risk-focused interventions” part (would not mention AI risk at all, for example). I think the important thing for people to take away is “this problem is hard, here are people who treat it as such, come read their stuff”, and moving away from “here are good, concrete ways to spend money” seems like it could detract from that. (But I do like e.g. bringing up the tiny budget of the Biological Weapons Convention, and other things that are easier to understand.)
If you draft a piece, I’ll gladly read over it and help you flesh out any sections you’re unsure about, as soon as I can — if that would help. I’m not free to write an entire article myself now, but I want to do what I can to increase the likelihood of something being written.
Thanks, this all sounds reasonable!
So I have at least one small media outlet that would publish (CapX). I think the question is who would write it. I can’t see flaws in your outline.