I agree—this sounds a bit like a “weak” version of the case for Allfed, right? IGM Forum kind of agree with this prediction, but less intensely. On the other hand, I wonder about what would be the marginal impact of an EA project on that. I don’t think this is neglected—I have recently read many journalists voicing these concerns, and I see some people in food systems concerned with similar problems in global supply chains… but then perhaps we could start discussing if neglectedness is still a useful metric when we deal if world-level problems.
I personally don’t think journalists have been voicing these concerns in anything like a manner proportionate to the risk of megadeath (compared with something like, say, climate change, which has become a perennial font of public hysteria even though its impact on quality of life will likely be minimal for most areas of the globe.)
Climate change’s effects on desertification and rising sea levels could plausibly either directly or indirectly kill tens of millions over the coming century- which isn’t exactly good news, but… given our global population size, tens of millions could statistically die from various causes over the course of a century and the average person will probably never notice, especially when most of those deaths will occur in ecologically marginal areas where life was never easy to begin with.
If Zeihan’s analysis is correct, then hundreds of millions could plausibly perish from war and famine just over the coming decade. If so, “keep global trade in fertiliser inputs cheap and safe” would have to be considered a project of overwhelming importance for rational altruists.
I agree—this sounds a bit like a “weak” version of the case for Allfed, right?
IGM Forum kind of agree with this prediction, but less intensely.
On the other hand, I wonder about what would be the marginal impact of an EA project on that. I don’t think this is neglected—I have recently read many journalists voicing these concerns, and I see some people in food systems concerned with similar problems in global supply chains… but then perhaps we could start discussing if neglectedness is still a useful metric when we deal if world-level problems.
I personally don’t think journalists have been voicing these concerns in anything like a manner proportionate to the risk of megadeath (compared with something like, say, climate change, which has become a perennial font of public hysteria even though its impact on quality of life will likely be minimal for most areas of the globe.)
Climate change’s effects on desertification and rising sea levels could plausibly either directly or indirectly kill tens of millions over the coming century- which isn’t exactly good news, but… given our global population size, tens of millions could statistically die from various causes over the course of a century and the average person will probably never notice, especially when most of those deaths will occur in ecologically marginal areas where life was never easy to begin with.
If Zeihan’s analysis is correct, then hundreds of millions could plausibly perish from war and famine just over the coming decade. If so, “keep global trade in fertiliser inputs cheap and safe” would have to be considered a project of overwhelming importance for rational altruists.