There is general resistance to buying things made in poor countries, which EA has argued against at length. But there is even more resistance to buying things made in poor countries that have higher greenhouse gas emissions than local products, like flown cut flowers. However, since the US is willing to spend around $10 million to save a statistical life, and since much of the total cost of saving a life with an intervention to reduce radon concentrations in homes is the energy to power the ventilation fan, it is probably millions of dollars worth of energy to save a life. I’ve estimated that it costs much less in energy to save a life in a poor country by giving them employment even for something like flown cut flowers.
The dexterous manipulation of malleable, unpredictable fabric remains one of the genuinely unsolved challenges in robotics. Even where automation is technically feasible, the economics of deploying it against a workforce earning $65 a month remains deeply unfavorable—robots have high fixed costs, must be retooled for different product lines, and, as orders fluctuate, cannot flex up or down the way a human workforce can. Human labor in physical manufacturing may eventually be made redundant, but even apparel manufacturers in China today still rely on human tailors to drive their production.
Yes, and I think that there will be a window where AI automates most knowledge work, but then the large economic growth that results would mean that there would be much greater demand for products that require physical labor. So I think it’s important for poor countries to get ready to export a lot of these goods.
On emissions: income generation for low-income country workers clearly does far more for welfare than reductions in the embodied emissions of what they produce. The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is a live example of getting this wrong. It applies the same compliance burden to LIC exporters as to wealthy ones, with no exemption or reduction for countries whose marginal ton of emissions is funding the income that lifts households out of poverty. The result is a regressive tax on exactly the structural transformation that should be subsidized.
On the AI window: agree that AI automation of knowledge work will, if anything, raise the relative value of in-person physical labor, and that the resulting growth expands demand for the goods and in-person services that labor produces. There is a narrow window to build the export manufacturing bases and labor mobility pathways to enable the African workforce to ride that wave towards income convergence.
There is general resistance to buying things made in poor countries, which EA has argued against at length. But there is even more resistance to buying things made in poor countries that have higher greenhouse gas emissions than local products, like flown cut flowers. However, since the US is willing to spend around $10 million to save a statistical life, and since much of the total cost of saving a life with an intervention to reduce radon concentrations in homes is the energy to power the ventilation fan, it is probably millions of dollars worth of energy to save a life. I’ve estimated that it costs much less in energy to save a life in a poor country by giving them employment even for something like flown cut flowers.
Yes, and I think that there will be a window where AI automates most knowledge work, but then the large economic growth that results would mean that there would be much greater demand for products that require physical labor. So I think it’s important for poor countries to get ready to export a lot of these goods.
Strong agreement on both points.
On emissions: income generation for low-income country workers clearly does far more for welfare than reductions in the embodied emissions of what they produce. The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is a live example of getting this wrong. It applies the same compliance burden to LIC exporters as to wealthy ones, with no exemption or reduction for countries whose marginal ton of emissions is funding the income that lifts households out of poverty. The result is a regressive tax on exactly the structural transformation that should be subsidized.
On the AI window: agree that AI automation of knowledge work will, if anything, raise the relative value of in-person physical labor, and that the resulting growth expands demand for the goods and in-person services that labor produces. There is a narrow window to build the export manufacturing bases and labor mobility pathways to enable the African workforce to ride that wave towards income convergence.