The idea is to upgrade the Future of Life Award to be more desirable. The prizemoney would be increased from $50k to$10M SEK (roughly $1.1M) per individual to match the Nobel Prizes. Both for prestige, and to make sure ideal candidates are selected, the selection procedure would be reviewed, adding extra judges or governance mechanisms as needed. This would not immediately mean that longtermism has something to match the prestige of a Nobel, but it would give a substantial reward and offer top longtermists something to strive for.
How much of the prestige is the money value, how much just the age of the prize, and how much the association with a fancy institution like the Swedish monarchy?
I seem to remember that Heisenberg etc were more excited by the money than the prize, back in the day.
The money isn’t necessary—see the Fields Medal. Nor is the Swedish Monarchy—see the Nobel Memorial Prize in Econ. Age obviously helps. And there’s some self-reinforcement—people want the prize that others want. My guess is that money does help, but this could be further investigated.
The Jacobs Foundation awards $1m prizes to scientist as a grant—I think this might be one of the biggest—one could award $5-10m to make it the most prestigious prize in the world.
A Longtermist Nobel Prize
All Areas
The idea is to upgrade the Future of Life Award to be more desirable. The prizemoney would be increased from $50k to$10M SEK (roughly $1.1M) per individual to match the Nobel Prizes. Both for prestige, and to make sure ideal candidates are selected, the selection procedure would be reviewed, adding extra judges or governance mechanisms as needed. This would not immediately mean that longtermism has something to match the prestige of a Nobel, but it would give a substantial reward and offer top longtermists something to strive for.
(A variation on a suggestion by DavidMoss)
How much of the prestige is the money value, how much just the age of the prize, and how much the association with a fancy institution like the Swedish monarchy?
I seem to remember that Heisenberg etc were more excited by the money than the prize, back in the day.
The money isn’t necessary—see the Fields Medal. Nor is the Swedish Monarchy—see the Nobel Memorial Prize in Econ. Age obviously helps. And there’s some self-reinforcement—people want the prize that others want. My guess is that money does help, but this could be further investigated.
The Jacobs Foundation awards $1m prizes to scientist as a grant—I think this might be one of the biggest—one could award $5-10m to make it the most prestigious prize in the world.
I think Templeton Prize has become prestigious because they give more money than the Nobel on purpose.