Here are two additional potential reasons for giving to ALLFED, which didn’t seem important enough to include in my already-long parent comment:
Funding ALLFED to complete more of its proposed activities seems likely to provide substantial value of information regarding ALLFED, alternative foods, and the GCRs ALLFED focuses on.
But maybe this benefit is reduced now that Open Phil have made the above-mentioned grant.
ALLFED/Denkenberger appear thoughtful and open to counterarguments and feedback.
And two additional potential reasons against, which again seemed insufficiently important to mention above:
Perhaps work on alternative foods could have a “moral hazard” effect, increasing the likelihood of GCRs and agricultural shortfalls?
But a substantial effect of that nature seems quite unlikely to me. And ALLFED do already account for this possibility in their cost-effectiveness model.
ALLFED have gotten some coverage in media outlets (e.g., here, here, and here). I mostly see this as impressive and probably good, and my impression is that they’re pretty thoughtful about this. But I guess there could be risks of low-fidelity communication and reputational harm (see also memetic downside risks).
In particular, some of their ideas could be mutated by the media into something like fringe survivalist/prepper ideas. (Though maybe the coronavirus pandemic reduces this risk, as that fringe might seem a little less fringey now…)
Thanks, MichaelA! On neglectedness, it is true that $3 million is very large in this space. However, the Open Phil funded group decided to propose to work on alternative foods that they already had expertise in. This includes cellulosic sugar, duckweed, forest products including inner bark, mushrooms, and sprouts. With the exception of cellulosic sugar, these alternative foods are higher cost than the ones that ALLFED is prioritizing. Low cost is important for feeding nearly everyone and maintaining stability of civilization. Therefore, we don’t believe that the highest priority sun-blocking solutions (cellulosic sugar, methane single cell protein, hydrogen single cell protein, cold tolerant crops, greenhouses, seaweed, and leaf protein concentrate) are significantly less neglected now. Furthermore, the Open Phil funded project is generally not working on interventions for losing electricity/industry, so that remains highly neglected.
That’s useful info, and sounds to me like a fair point. Thanks :)
But then this strikes me as tying back into the idea that “Perhaps [ALLFED] seemingly not having been funded by the EA Long-Term Future Fund, Open Phil, and various other funders is evidence that there’s some reason not to support them, which I just haven’t recognised?”
Here that question can take a more concrete form: If Open Phil chose to fund a group that’d work on alternative foods that ALLFED thinks will be less promising than the alternative foods ALLFED focuses on, but didn’t choose to fund ALLFED (at least so far), does that mean:
Open Phil are making a mistake?
ALLFED are wrong about which foods are most promising?
Perhaps because they’re wrong about the relative costs, or because there are other considerations which outweigh the cost consideration?
ALLFED are right about which foods are most promising, but there’s some other overriding reason why the other team was a better donation opportunity?
E.g., perhaps at the present margin, what’s most needed is more academic credibility and that team could get it better than ALLFED could?
There’s some alternative explanation such that Open Phil’s decisions are sound but also ALLFED is a good donation opportunity?
E.g., perhaps there’s some reason why Open Phil in particular shouldn’t fund ALLFED at this stage, even if it thought ALLFED was a good opportunity for other donors?
I don’t really know how likely each of those possible implications are (and thus I don’t have strong reason to believe 2 or 3 are the most likely implications). So this is just a confusing thing and a potential argument against donating to ALLFED, rather than a clearly decisive argument.
I’d be interested in your (or other people’s) thoughts on this—but would also understand if this is inappropriate to discuss publicly.
(Btw, I wouldn’t want readers to interpret this as a major critique or an expression of strong doubt. I’d expect to have at least some doubt or reservation with regards to basically any place I choose to donate to, work for, etc. - prioritisation is hard! - and I’m still planning to give ~4% of my income this year to ALLFED.)
Here are two additional potential reasons for giving to ALLFED, which didn’t seem important enough to include in my already-long parent comment:
Funding ALLFED to complete more of its proposed activities seems likely to provide substantial value of information regarding ALLFED, alternative foods, and the GCRs ALLFED focuses on.
But maybe this benefit is reduced now that Open Phil have made the above-mentioned grant.
ALLFED/Denkenberger appear thoughtful and open to counterarguments and feedback.
E.g., Denkenberger’s statement here.
And two additional potential reasons against, which again seemed insufficiently important to mention above:
Perhaps work on alternative foods could have a “moral hazard” effect, increasing the likelihood of GCRs and agricultural shortfalls?
But a substantial effect of that nature seems quite unlikely to me. And ALLFED do already account for this possibility in their cost-effectiveness model.
ALLFED have gotten some coverage in media outlets (e.g., here, here, and here). I mostly see this as impressive and probably good, and my impression is that they’re pretty thoughtful about this. But I guess there could be risks of low-fidelity communication and reputational harm (see also memetic downside risks).
In particular, some of their ideas could be mutated by the media into something like fringe survivalist/prepper ideas. (Though maybe the coronavirus pandemic reduces this risk, as that fringe might seem a little less fringey now…)
Thanks, MichaelA! On neglectedness, it is true that $3 million is very large in this space. However, the Open Phil funded group decided to propose to work on alternative foods that they already had expertise in. This includes cellulosic sugar, duckweed, forest products including inner bark, mushrooms, and sprouts. With the exception of cellulosic sugar, these alternative foods are higher cost than the ones that ALLFED is prioritizing. Low cost is important for feeding nearly everyone and maintaining stability of civilization. Therefore, we don’t believe that the highest priority sun-blocking solutions (cellulosic sugar, methane single cell protein, hydrogen single cell protein, cold tolerant crops, greenhouses, seaweed, and leaf protein concentrate) are significantly less neglected now. Furthermore, the Open Phil funded project is generally not working on interventions for losing electricity/industry, so that remains highly neglected.
That’s useful info, and sounds to me like a fair point. Thanks :)
But then this strikes me as tying back into the idea that “Perhaps [ALLFED] seemingly not having been funded by the EA Long-Term Future Fund, Open Phil, and various other funders is evidence that there’s some reason not to support them, which I just haven’t recognised?”
Here that question can take a more concrete form: If Open Phil chose to fund a group that’d work on alternative foods that ALLFED thinks will be less promising than the alternative foods ALLFED focuses on, but didn’t choose to fund ALLFED (at least so far), does that mean:
Open Phil are making a mistake?
ALLFED are wrong about which foods are most promising?
Perhaps because they’re wrong about the relative costs, or because there are other considerations which outweigh the cost consideration?
ALLFED are right about which foods are most promising, but there’s some other overriding reason why the other team was a better donation opportunity?
E.g., perhaps at the present margin, what’s most needed is more academic credibility and that team could get it better than ALLFED could?
There’s some alternative explanation such that Open Phil’s decisions are sound but also ALLFED is a good donation opportunity?
E.g., perhaps there’s some reason why Open Phil in particular shouldn’t fund ALLFED at this stage, even if it thought ALLFED was a good opportunity for other donors?
I don’t really know how likely each of those possible implications are (and thus I don’t have strong reason to believe 2 or 3 are the most likely implications). So this is just a confusing thing and a potential argument against donating to ALLFED, rather than a clearly decisive argument.
I’d be interested in your (or other people’s) thoughts on this—but would also understand if this is inappropriate to discuss publicly.
(Btw, I wouldn’t want readers to interpret this as a major critique or an expression of strong doubt. I’d expect to have at least some doubt or reservation with regards to basically any place I choose to donate to, work for, etc. - prioritisation is hard! - and I’m still planning to give ~4% of my income this year to ALLFED.)