As there are downvotes but without any comments, below is a thread I really encourage people to agree vote on in order to help assess this intervention’s effectiveness (please only vote for what you think—not what you think other people are downvoting because of):
This is super helpful, I have tried to reflect this better in an updated title. The shelters I am fairly certain can but built for this material cost (not including labor as in a pinch I think these could be made by a wide range of people, perhaps even by the inhabitants themselves). But it is right that cost effectiveness is much harder than simply summing up material costs—one would have to cost the total solution and also have some grasp of the reduction in x-risk, which is far beyond the scope of what I have done. I simply found a physical structure that seems quite robust.
I should probably emphasize more that the ideal outcome here is of course first that we don’t pursue dangerous mirror bio research. And if that happens, that the “next-in-line” ideal outcome would be for gov’ts to create such shelters and distribute them more like Nordic countries have distributed nuclear shelters—not just for “the elites”.
There are large downsides from this intervention—it could be seen by another nation state as preparation for biowarfare and thus contribute to a bioweapons arms race.
Highly agree with this! In fact, I hope that if a significant number of shelters is produced, that the primary effect would be to help make the case for stopping development of dangerous mirror bio research. It just happens to be that my expertise and experience lends itself more naturally to this rather grim work. I would be very happy to work on something more uplifting next—I am very open to suggestions for the next problem I can help tackle (having been a small part of bringing down the cost of wind energy dramatically).
As there are downvotes but without any comments, below is a thread I really encourage people to agree vote on in order to help assess this intervention’s effectiveness (please only vote for what you think—not what you think other people are downvoting because of):
The cost effectiveness claim is misleading or worse.
This is super helpful, I have tried to reflect this better in an updated title. The shelters I am fairly certain can but built for this material cost (not including labor as in a pinch I think these could be made by a wide range of people, perhaps even by the inhabitants themselves). But it is right that cost effectiveness is much harder than simply summing up material costs—one would have to cost the total solution and also have some grasp of the reduction in x-risk, which is far beyond the scope of what I have done. I simply found a physical structure that seems quite robust.
This post could potentially be bad PR for EA (e.g. “altruists are preparing for doom”)
I should probably emphasize more that the ideal outcome here is of course first that we don’t pursue dangerous mirror bio research. And if that happens, that the “next-in-line” ideal outcome would be for gov’ts to create such shelters and distribute them more like Nordic countries have distributed nuclear shelters—not just for “the elites”.
Something else about downsides of this intervention
Something else about the account this is posted from
Something else about how this is presented on the EAF
Something else technical (including cost effectiveness)
The author does not have sufficient background in the required fields to make assertions about environmental concentrations etc.
The post seems to be trying to sell readers these shelters.
I have reservations about only rich people being able to afford these shelters while the rest of us would be left exposed.
There are large downsides from this intervention—it could be seen by another nation state as preparation for biowarfare and thus contribute to a bioweapons arms race.
I think we should stop a bio catastrophe from happening, and not preparing for doom.
Highly agree with this! In fact, I hope that if a significant number of shelters is produced, that the primary effect would be to help make the case for stopping development of dangerous mirror bio research. It just happens to be that my expertise and experience lends itself more naturally to this rather grim work. I would be very happy to work on something more uplifting next—I am very open to suggestions for the next problem I can help tackle (having been a small part of bringing down the cost of wind energy dramatically).
The lack of evidence for positive pressure makes this intervention premature.
There are problems with using serial filters.
The account posting this has previously caused damage to the EA community by the way it has engaged with the topic of DEI.
I have reservations about the account this being posted from being anonymous.