Though I also think your comment could be read as implying that you think megaprojects wonât themselves be cost-effective /â labour-effective /â in other senses efficient, relative to some bar like 80k or FHI or GiveWellâs recommended charities or ACEâs recommended charities. (Were you indeed thinking that?)
I think I disagree with that. That is, Iâd guess that at least a few megaprojects that would be worth doing if we had the right founders will also clear the relevant efficiency bar. (I also think that at least a few wonât clear the relevant efficiency bar. And, of course, most megaprojects that arenât worth doing will also not clear the relevant efficiency bar.)
I havenât attempted any relevant Fermi estimates or even really properly qualitatively thought about this before. My tentative disagreement is just based on the following fuzzy thoughts:
The set âmegaprojects that would be worth doing if we had the right foundersâ is probably fairly large, so it wouldnât be that hard for at least a few to clear those bars?
It seems plausible there are multiple ambitious ideas that could make like >1000x as large a dent in the worldâs problems as other things weâre excited about do, while absorbing >1000x as many resources, such that overall theyâre similarly efficient?
Megaprojects can benefit from economies of scale
(But now that Iâve started to draft this reply, I realise that this might be an important question, that its answer isnât immediately obvious, and that Iâve hardly thought about it at all and I donât feel confident about my fuzzy thoughts on it. Also, in any case, this wouldnât mean I overall disagree with your comment and wouldnât change my views on what I said in the post itself.)
Yeah, I agree with that.
Though I also think your comment could be read as implying that you think megaprojects wonât themselves be cost-effective /â labour-effective /â in other senses efficient, relative to some bar like 80k or FHI or GiveWellâs recommended charities or ACEâs recommended charities. (Were you indeed thinking that?)
I think I disagree with that. That is, Iâd guess that at least a few megaprojects that would be worth doing if we had the right founders will also clear the relevant efficiency bar. (I also think that at least a few wonât clear the relevant efficiency bar. And, of course, most megaprojects that arenât worth doing will also not clear the relevant efficiency bar.)
I havenât attempted any relevant Fermi estimates or even really properly qualitatively thought about this before. My tentative disagreement is just based on the following fuzzy thoughts:
The set âmegaprojects that would be worth doing if we had the right foundersâ is probably fairly large, so it wouldnât be that hard for at least a few to clear those bars?
It seems plausible there are multiple ambitious ideas that could make like >1000x as large a dent in the worldâs problems as other things weâre excited about do, while absorbing >1000x as many resources, such that overall theyâre similarly efficient?
Megaprojects can benefit from economies of scale
(But now that Iâve started to draft this reply, I realise that this might be an important question, that its answer isnât immediately obvious, and that Iâve hardly thought about it at all and I donât feel confident about my fuzzy thoughts on it. Also, in any case, this wouldnât mean I overall disagree with your comment and wouldnât change my views on what I said in the post itself.)