Living in New Zealand can sometimes feel like an obstacle to doing good effectively. We’re far from the EA hubs in the UK/US, and from opportunities for direct work on global health & development.
But are there any areas where we might have an advantage? Here are some possibilities that the community has been discussing recently:
As a low-risk environment for AI training. Alethios argues that NZ’s legislative environment and geothermal resources could make us a good candidate for AI data/training centres.
As a safe zone for global catastrophic risk. Many have noted that NZ’s position as an isolated island nation makes us more resilient to risks like nuclear winter and pandemics.
As a leverage point for animal welfare. Animal Policy International chose to work in New Zealand because we have high(er) welfare standards that could be used to drive change elsewhere.
As a good place for donating/earning to give. NZ is among the wealthiest nations in the world. While you won’t make top-dollar here compared to e.g. the US, on a global scale we’re still very well placed to donate.
As a thought leader. NZ has a longstanding reputation as the “social laboratory of the world”, piloting policies like women’s suffrage and inflation targeting. Perhaps we could continue this in other areas?
It’s interesting to see that some of the challenges of living in NZ— like our geographic isolation— also create some of the potential opportunities.
Of course, this is just a preliminary list. If you have other thoughts or ideas, we’d love to hear from you! What do you think NZ should be focusing on? Or if you’re from elsewhere, what do you think your country’s comparative advantage is?
So New Zealand actually has a quite unique situation that I’m not sure really exists elsewhere, and I’ve sent messages to people at EA NZ a few times advocating for research into this:
New Zealand has a Global Impact Visa:
Where selection is solely based on individuals’ focus on positively impacting the world
That isn’t tied to employment or other traditional immigration categories
And where a non-governmental non-profit organization selects the recipients
This is kind of remarkable anywhere, but especially given it’s NZ. I’d be pretty excited for EA NZ (or a nonprofit made for this purpose) to try to gain access as the second-nominating organization for this visa.
This could unlock a rare, valuable immigration pathway for:
• Early-stage talent from less-developed, or otherwise less-suitable countries to gain access to a top job market for skill development, earning to give/earning to gain runway, or just a more stable / useful situation for them to work and live in
• People working on civilizational robustness or longtermist initiatives that would benefit from NZ’s status as a safe zone for global catastrophic risk
While this could take time, and has significant uncertainty of success, unlocking this sort of immigration possibility, which seems ~only possible in NZ, could be quite valuable.
It seems this pathway no longer exists?
You’re right! Good to know.
ChatGPT on this & implications: https://chatgpt.com/share/e/687ab695-de44-800c-a4e7-ebe0f4b73338
Yes, and one other reason why I can have higher impact in New Zealand is that universities fund PhD students, unlike the US in general.
I moved away from New Zealand (to Switzerland) because of how poorly PhDs are funded in NZ. I mean, it’s significantly less than minimum wage (because it’s a scholarship, not a salary).
In Switzerland I earned about 3x as much. Yes, I had to pay tax, health insurance and so on. But I could still live comfortably and save, and it was motivating to think of it as a real job. Switzerland is one of the best places in the world to do a PhD—I think in Norway the pay is similar—but in many European countries you will earn much better than in NZ.
I guess we know what to put on Switzerland’s list of advantages then! 🇨🇭
(Along with good chocolate)
:) though I was talking about whether there could be funding for a high impact project at all, rather than the amount.
I still don’t think anything beats a good bar of Whittaker’s :)
Fascinating! I didn’t know that wasn’t standard
A lot of PHD students do get funded in the US and Europe, but its not as much of a “standard” part of the process as New Zealand I don’t think.
In the US, most funding for PhDs is external to the universities. In my experience, internal funding is more open to projects outside the mainstream.
Being a bit pedantic, sorry, you seem to be using the term “comparative advantage“ to refer to “absolute advantage, in comparison to other countries”. I think it’s important to keep these concepts separate to avoid confusion. Well every country (or every individual) basically must have a compared advantage in some thing not every country will necessarily have an absolute advantage in anything.
Yes, you’re right— most of the examples are more in the absolute advantage camp. Would be keen to hear suggestions for NZ’s comparative advantage in the technical/economic sense too though 🙂
This may be true for other countries with a high standard of living, but I’ve found that in contrast to my American colleagues working in social justice causes, I’m significantly less burdened than them by the threats to my own communities and by the trauma of that existence. Trying to do effective work for others, particularly towards longterm problems, when you yourself are in danger is SO MUCH harder. Rationality is rarely accessible for those in fight-or-flight, and those problems compound.
Living here in New Zealand, I’m not scared about a medical emergency putting me in insurmountable debt, or my children dying in a school shooting, or my democratic institutions eroding (for now!), on and on. This higher baseline places me at a significant advantage to contribute to the wellbeing of others in less safe places.
I think about this question regarding Australia sometimes :) I asked about this at the “Australia’s AI crossroads” event recently, i.e. whether / how Australia in particular could contribute on AI. I guess some of these things might also be relevant in NZ to some extent. Here’s what the speakers said (there’s also a recording):
Not hosting one of the major AI labs means we can be a trusted third party in negotiations
Relatedly I guess we also have history / relations with the west and with China
History working on catastrophic risks with the Canberra Commission (although this was 30 years ago so it’s not obvious to me that it really means anything)
Apparently Australia is known for rolling out trustworthy regulatory software (I don’t know if this is true). The person who said this thinks we have the potential to be world-leading in trustworthy AI if we get a good regulatory framework in place
I’m not sure I find these suggestions very compelling but thought they were interesting nonetheless!
Thanks for sharing! Australia and NZ have a lot of similarities, so there’s probably some overlap.
That’s an interesting point re: the west/China. Both having a colonial background and being in Asia-Pacific opens up some interesting sets of relationships.
The Mountains, the Sea, and the Rivers.
Awww. Yes!