Red team : Many EA causes seem to assume that the current society will continue on its current trajectory for a long time, despite the fact that it is dependant on a massive amount of non-renewable fossil fuels, and is thus unsustainable. It is unlikely that alternatives sources of energy, like solar, wind or nuclear can replace fossil fuels at the speed and scale required since they themselves depend on a limited supply of metals, and depend on fossil fuels for their transportation (trucks) and manufacturing (extraction of minerals).
Given that, shouldn’t EA causes be repriorized based on the assumption that the current energy-intensive industrial society is a temporary thing?
A few more element of context :
Oil is expected to decline in the medium to short term, between 2025 and 2040, even with high discoveries. Trends that prevented such decline in the past (better technology, more investment) appear to have reached their limits.
90% of products are made of or transported by oil. Food production is also very dependent on fossil fuels. Most post-WWII recessions have been preceded by high oil prices, including the 2008 crisis, so a prolonged energy descent could mean the end of growth, leading to a disruptions of political and economic systems.
This would make some causes with energy-intensive solutions less promising, since they would be unattractive in an energy-constrained world. I have in mind most longtermist causes, asteroid prevention, or even development of cultured meat. Depending on the timing (so more uncertain), the development of artificial intelligence might also be impaired for the same reasons.
Red team : Many EA causes seem to assume that the current society will continue on its current trajectory for a long time, despite the fact that it is dependant on a massive amount of non-renewable fossil fuels, and is thus unsustainable. It is unlikely that alternatives sources of energy, like solar, wind or nuclear can replace fossil fuels at the speed and scale required since they themselves depend on a limited supply of metals, and depend on fossil fuels for their transportation (trucks) and manufacturing (extraction of minerals).
Given that, shouldn’t EA causes be repriorized based on the assumption that the current energy-intensive industrial society is a temporary thing?
A few more element of context :
Oil is expected to decline in the medium to short term, between 2025 and 2040, even with high discoveries. Trends that prevented such decline in the past (better technology, more investment) appear to have reached their limits.
90% of products are made of or transported by oil. Food production is also very dependent on fossil fuels. Most post-WWII recessions have been preceded by high oil prices, including the 2008 crisis, so a prolonged energy descent could mean the end of growth, leading to a disruptions of political and economic systems.
This would make some causes with energy-intensive solutions less promising, since they would be unattractive in an energy-constrained world. I have in mind most longtermist causes, asteroid prevention, or even development of cultured meat. Depending on the timing (so more uncertain), the development of artificial intelligence might also be impaired for the same reasons.
You can find the detailed reasoning and sources in a draft that we are currently writing for the EA Forum : https://​​docs.google.com/​​document/​​d/​​1Mte_x4hsW5XiccCkHkW-iAUvNM_qwenKMCQazXxNJrc/​​edit# (and we are looking for reviewers, if someone is interested!)