Those expected value arguments about low probability but very high yield opportunities (moonshots) being more valuable than lower yield, but more certain ones, always rubbed me the wrong way. I suppose because in a very real sense, a 1% odds outcome might as well be 0% odds, specially for something that will only be attempted once, but I was also thinking about the economy. I suspect the overwhelming majority of economic activity is directed at lower risk, lower yield opportunities, and that it is necessary for things to be this way for the economy to function: there is some optimal proportion of the economy that should be dedicated to moonshots of course, but I wonder what that is. And similarly for altruism, there is probably some optimal proportion of altruistic effort that should be directed to moonshots, relative to effort on lower risk, lower yield stuff.
Has anyone written about this, about what would be the best proportion of moonshots to non-moonshots in EA? In the economy? My point is that it’s not as simple as saying moonshots are better.
I also recently read someone saying that the worst case with a moonshot is that nothing happens, but that is not true, the moonshot has opportunity cost, all the time, effort, and money spent on it could’ve been used on something else.
Another cost with a failed moonshot is damage to reputation. If I think that there is a 5% chance of another pandemic in the next 10 years and I spend the next 5 years working to mitigate it, there is a 95% chance that everyone who tells me I am crazy will end up looking like they were right.
Those expected value arguments about low probability but very high yield opportunities (moonshots) being more valuable than lower yield, but more certain ones, always rubbed me the wrong way. I suppose because in a very real sense, a 1% odds outcome might as well be 0% odds, specially for something that will only be attempted once, but I was also thinking about the economy. I suspect the overwhelming majority of economic activity is directed at lower risk, lower yield opportunities, and that it is necessary for things to be this way for the economy to function: there is some optimal proportion of the economy that should be dedicated to moonshots of course, but I wonder what that is. And similarly for altruism, there is probably some optimal proportion of altruistic effort that should be directed to moonshots, relative to effort on lower risk, lower yield stuff.
Has anyone written about this, about what would be the best proportion of moonshots to non-moonshots in EA? In the economy? My point is that it’s not as simple as saying moonshots are better.
I also recently read someone saying that the worst case with a moonshot is that nothing happens, but that is not true, the moonshot has opportunity cost, all the time, effort, and money spent on it could’ve been used on something else.
Another cost with a failed moonshot is damage to reputation. If I think that there is a 5% chance of another pandemic in the next 10 years and I spend the next 5 years working to mitigate it, there is a 95% chance that everyone who tells me I am crazy will end up looking like they were right.
A much of the debate on this topic comes down to questions about risk-aversion and the relevant psychology and decision theory thereof, ex: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/vnsoy47psQ5KaeHhB/difference-making-risk-aversion-an-exploration
Although there are other considerations of course.