I replied about this before to one of your posts. Maybe I did not explain it well. In short, two guys wrote a paper about how combinations of heat and humidity above certain levels could kill everyone who lacks access to air conditioning in large regions of the world, or at least force them to evacuate their countries. Do you have any opinion on the priority level of understanding this compared with other climate causes?
Sorry, I missed your previous comment. I’m not an expert on climate change and this not necessarily the best place for this discussion of why this is neglected within effective altruism—I would recommend that you post your question to Effective Altruism Hangout facebook group and ask for an answer. The reason that you get downvoted is that you post on many different threads even though it’s not really related to the discussion.
I would recommend you reading this: before posting though:
https://80000hours.org/2016/05/how-can-we-buy-more-insurance-against-extreme-climate-change/
However, here are my two cents:
everybody here agrees that climate change is an important problem
most scientists agree that the most likely outcome is not that the whole planet will be pretty much uninhabitable. However, there is a chance that this will be true and extreme risks from climate change is a topic that many people in the EA community care about (see:(https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/ ))
in effective altruism, we also look at ‘neglectedness’. Many people work on climate change, fewer care about risks from emerging technology ((https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/ )), this is why climate change is not more of a priority area.
I’m sorry that I took this site seriously. It’s obvious to me now that you’re really about posting self-congratulatory pseudo-sophisticated ramblings in an attempt to garner attention. This also lessens my optimism for the global warming cause, since even people who claim to be all about effectiveness don’t bother to assess what the biggest effects are. Maybe this cause is just signaling all the way down.
By the way, I am not a subscriber to the AI religion. I really suggest you consider Christianity. It’s much more compelling.
I think your 80,000 Hours link could use more coherence. One bullet point is:
You think there is great value to preserving the Earth’s ecosystems and biodioversity.
This is not a utilitarian sentiment. Aren’t you guys supposed to be utilitarians here?
I’m not particularly concerned by preserving nature for its own sake. In parks is fine, but not on a global scale. I thought this was a commonality with most people here.
If the climate cause is useful to humans, then we must first understand effects on humans. The Sherwood and Huber paper is the strongest point I have seen on that.
Nor is heat stress of the kind they talk about accounted for by existing models. Precise models of this effect are impossible since we know so little about it. We just don’t see this effect today. There’s no data. How can you be precise? Without flashy models then maybe you can’t publish your paper in a nice journal. But if we are actually interested in being useful then a rough but passably accurate model is better than precise garbage!
I replied about this before to one of your posts. Maybe I did not explain it well. In short, two guys wrote a paper about how combinations of heat and humidity above certain levels could kill everyone who lacks access to air conditioning in large regions of the world, or at least force them to evacuate their countries. Do you have any opinion on the priority level of understanding this compared with other climate causes?
Sorry, I missed your previous comment. I’m not an expert on climate change and this not necessarily the best place for this discussion of why this is neglected within effective altruism—I would recommend that you post your question to Effective Altruism Hangout facebook group and ask for an answer. The reason that you get downvoted is that you post on many different threads even though it’s not really related to the discussion. I would recommend you reading this: before posting though: https://80000hours.org/2016/05/how-can-we-buy-more-insurance-against-extreme-climate-change/
However, here are my two cents:
everybody here agrees that climate change is an important problem
the ‘wet bulb’ phenomenon is known and mortality from heatstrokes is included in most assessments of overall cost of climate change. see https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/cause/climate-change/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/climate-change-2/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/modelling-climate-change-cost-effectiveness/
most scientists agree that the most likely outcome is not that the whole planet will be pretty much uninhabitable. However, there is a chance that this will be true and extreme risks from climate change is a topic that many people in the EA community care about (see:(https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/ ))
you don’t propose a particular intervention, but rather highlight a particular bad effect from climate change. There’s more active discussion on what is the best thing we can do about climate change rather than listing the various effects (https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/ccl/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/cool-earth/
in effective altruism, we also look at ‘neglectedness’. Many people work on climate change, fewer care about risks from emerging technology ((https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/ )), this is why climate change is not more of a priority area.
I’m sorry that I took this site seriously. It’s obvious to me now that you’re really about posting self-congratulatory pseudo-sophisticated ramblings in an attempt to garner attention. This also lessens my optimism for the global warming cause, since even people who claim to be all about effectiveness don’t bother to assess what the biggest effects are. Maybe this cause is just signaling all the way down.
By the way, I am not a subscriber to the AI religion. I really suggest you consider Christianity. It’s much more compelling.
I think your 80,000 Hours link could use more coherence. One bullet point is:
This is not a utilitarian sentiment. Aren’t you guys supposed to be utilitarians here?
I’m not particularly concerned by preserving nature for its own sake. In parks is fine, but not on a global scale. I thought this was a commonality with most people here.
If the climate cause is useful to humans, then we must first understand effects on humans. The Sherwood and Huber paper is the strongest point I have seen on that.
Nor is heat stress of the kind they talk about accounted for by existing models. Precise models of this effect are impossible since we know so little about it. We just don’t see this effect today. There’s no data. How can you be precise? Without flashy models then maybe you can’t publish your paper in a nice journal. But if we are actually interested in being useful then a rough but passably accurate model is better than precise garbage!