I agree that everyone should be secure during a global or local biological risk event. Shelters are effective in protecting persons from contagion for extended periods of time, given that these are self-sufficient for that period.
Probably the most (marginally) cost-effective (and (thus) profitable) solutions relate to upgrading existing homes to bio shelters. A service like this can be welcome by governments on which the biosecurity conundrum is slowly creeping with the currently increased EA advocacy. Universal (global, at least among major powers) preparedness directs this uncomfortable attention to increased cooperation on health matters rather than the ‘explosion’ of someone’s patience and acting in a risky manner.
For example, sound window and door seals alongside with ventilator filters through which even anthrax does not pass, compact balanced (vegan?) food that elegantly fits in empty spaces and can be even consumed outside of emergency, and water and waste infrastructure agreements with cities and backups (water synthesizers probably too costly? - but a tank for 2 people who drink 2 liters per day for 100 days still fits above a closet) can cover needs comprehensively and together cost under $500.[1] This should score highly on your metrics except the passion one—it is like providing people some tape and resolving their questions about if the closet will hold the tank, will it taste poorly, etc.
Regarding your metrics, I would substitute the crowd protection for accessibility/popularity. Of course, you’d probably be interested in protecting a strategic set of industry, ethics, spirituality, etc thought leaders first before maybe machine operators get protected with scarce resources, to allow the re-emergence of prosperous society, and if you are looking for an R&D investment, this is what you would narrate, but even these leaders could hesitate to support something that would privilege them so glaringly. So, maybe strive for affordability/popularity among cool people, but acknowledge that not everyone would be able to afford at least the first prototypes, before economies of scale reduce the price.
Other ideas that I have include (some of which are complementary):
Underground bunkers where experts collaborate on thought development (comprehensive set that advances human morality and progress) within their fields of expertise and rotate (not everyone has to always be there but if maybe 4 are around at least 2 are always underground). They can work on developing systems or scaling up already beneficial solutions efficiently. This should also work for nuclear and general warfare protection. Rapid vaccine development researchers should be present disproportionately (to keep supported while resolving the issue on ground).
Remoting work (so that economy does not decline during biorisky events). Powers can be interested in weakening others’ economies, in order to gain advantage. If economy is relatively unaffected (in addition to persons’ health), then there is no point in waging war.
Animal farm proofing. When animal farms are protected during human biorisky periods, less pathogen mutations can occur, which contributes to human security. Plus, animals are protected for any intrinsic value (assuming that their lives are net positive) and for the value to humans. Automating animal farms can also benefit the animals, especially if they would feel nervous about humans (14:21–19:54). Animal farms can be added to shelters.
Crop protection. Food is a strategic industry. Seed/spore varieties should probably be protected, to enable people benefit from special drought/flood resistant/high yield/better taste etc varieties and could extend the time survivable in a shelter if they are sustainably farmed there. This can be commercially interesting to enthusiasts and nations with little farm land, such as Singapore, that already invests in space-efficient production.
Libraries. Libraries of nice texts should be gathered at the shelters. Humans should be able to develop their thinking (thus aspect of humanity?) while waiting for others to resolve the issues or in their free time. Digital libraries are possible.
Power generators or power grid assurances/airtightness. Human-powered generators (‘bicycles’ etc) can come to mind, but
Permanent/perpetual disinfection that can safely act when humans are present (e. g. not like UV light). If this could cover entire cities, that would be great. Covering shelters would be nice but applicable only when people would be coming in and out.
Relatedly to disinfecting incoming humans (and products), disinfectant entry chambers could be a great alternative to fully isolated shelters. For example, these could soak clothes in disinfectant and ‘shower’ the person.
Comfortable (and fashionable) overalls. If it turns out that people have to wear overalls all the time when they go out, these should be comfortable and nice looking/undiscernible.
Bathroom solutions. These could relate to the combination of disinfecting bathrooms and overalls.
Nanofilters that one almost does not feel but are entirely protective. It should be that the larger the surface area the easier it is to breathe. For example folded filter backpacks or stomach fans can ease breathing while reducing the amount of material covering face. Assisted ventilation could also help.
Industry norms. In the case of an increased risk situation, industries should be able to increase their biosafety based on an already developed and rehearsed protocol. For example, food products transfer should be air-tight after boiling or the machine rooms should be sealed etc. Non-food products should be disinfected (e. g. by UV light or heat) before (airtight) packaging. Etc.
Transport norms. Transportation of goods should not spread pathogens. Disinfecting before travels, of travel contact surfaces (roads, etc), before joining a place where goods are aggregated (customs line, port, …) should be very facile /stations should exist.
Storage disinfection. Warehouses should also be disinfected, sealed, and incoming goods disinfected before stocking.
Disinfectant production. The production of disinfectant should be possible to be significantly raised rapidly and sustainably. For example, ethanol production by microorganisms can be facilitated by distilleries. Iodine production from soil and sea could work.
Shelter enjoyability. Persons should really be looking forward to getting into a shelter, and be used to some of the things there (e. g. compact food, library, …). Shelters should be a ‘reward’ stimulating environment. Thus, activities one can do there should be enjoyable. In addition to intellectual, spiritual, civilization-preserving and biorisk solving (if applicable) engagement, also exercise should be available. Adequate rest, nutrition, and temperature should also be possible. Participants should be able to enjoy time with others by vetting them (ideally prior to the risky event). Interaction courses, materials, and programs should also be available.
Heating and cooling systems that can be operated with little power. Possibly, isolation materials for places in very cold environments and cooling mechanisms for hot environments and underground.
So, it seems that making bioshelters is relatively facile and that it could be possible for persons and goods move in between of them safely. Certain materials production should be possible to be increased during more risky situations, but most solutions should already be implemented. Actually, these solutions could prevent the spread of transmittable diseases overall, so could be popular among governments.
I just want to flag for potential readers that I am thinking about the wording in the comment above on uncontacted peoples. I feel uncomfortable with the wording and perhaps implicit comparisons made above but am new to the forum so am seeking advice on how to handle this.
The wording is really bad, and it seems like the beliefs are really, really bad (“species”).
RE: “Shoot everyone else”. It’s plausible that it’s objectively optimal for these tribes to be hostile as they are. Many educated people might come to that conclusion, based on readings of history.
“Species” refers to homo sapiens sapiens. Even if you look at history, for example in the Middle Ages in Europe (The Better Angels of Our Nature), you could possibly be less interested in allowing humans to develop further, extrapolating from the trends at that time. It could have been a chance that industry allowed for specialization and currently we are at the position of protecting all ours and others’ wellbeing. It could have been that actually torture instruments undergo significant development, monarchs fight for territory, and overtake each other in threatening people with suffering to yield and work on land.
It would have been optimal for the monarch to also be relatively hostile. However, their benevolence would have been exclusive to a selected few (or themselves). I suggest that the moral circles of the future civilization are expanded. Since there would be no external accountability in the event of a disaster, the protected group should have this principle internalized. It may be that bonobos would also be hostile to others if needed but it can also be likely that if bonobos and humans develop to the same technological level, humans will be more exclusive in advancing wellbeing to other individuals and species. Since natural evolution is not as time constrained, it may be better to protect bonobos than human tribes with little to no contact with other humans to safeguard a positive development of future civilization.
Ok, I saw images and read stories, which may be selected to fit the texts where they are introduced and be captured by an unfamiliar device relatively near the persons, in which these humans aimed arrows at the camera or threw spears at helicopters with emergency aid. It is also possible that these humans hunt and use devices which can be thrown or released by a spring to cover relatively longer distances fast.
Some articles specify that at least some of these groups’ members had negative experiences with some other humans and so the groups chose to discontinue interacting. So, it may be that some ancestors in the human groups have been traumatized and the emotional perception of others is carried forward. In general, when no unfamiliar devices are causing them fear or when they do not need to hunt or otherwise protect themselves, they can be supporting each other and other species in wellbeing.
However, notwithstanding any possible rationale for any hostility in some cases, I guess that the intuition/norm leaders of these groups would not aim for scaling up wellbeing across moral circles as much as possible.
Similarly, leaders of other homo sapiens sapiens groups, who could have gained dominance by the use of force, the threat of such, or limited support when they could have increased others’ wellbeing, may be unlikely to extend wellbeing prioritizing norms across the sentience landscape.
Thus, ‘shoot everyone else’ can be understood as accurate, if one focuses on its normative meaning. It means rather than emotionally focusing on others in order to increase their own wellbeing and support the wellbeing of the other, if that is what the other prefers, or support them otherwise if this is generally good, these people seek to reduce others’ pursuit and development of their objectives, in order to reduce the need of engaging with them, including by the use of force or threat of such. Shooting is one way to achieve this objective.
I do dumber stuff all the time than this, but I want you to know that this reads like a shallow rationalization or even reiteration of the original sentiment.
The comment is using what I call “EA rhetoric” which has sort of evolved on the forum over the years, where posts and comments are padded out with words and other devices. To the degree this is intended to evasive, this is further bad as it harms trust. These devices are perfectly visible to outsiders.
I think you care and I’m not sure you see this and it seems good to know as I think other people will have similar takes.
The comment is using what I call “EA rhetoric” which has sort of evolved on the forum over the years, where posts and comments are padded out with words and other devices. To the degree this is intended to evasive, this is further bad as it harms trust. These devices are perfectly visible to outsiders.
I agree that this has evolved on the forum over the years and it is driving me insane. Seems like a total race to the bottom to appear as the most thorough thinker. You’re also right to point out that it is completely visible to outsiders.
shallow rationalization or even reiteration of the original sentiment
It is an explanation and an elaboration that seeks to explain the sentiment, so that you and other readers can better understand the intuitive/emotional meaning, which is that protecting abusive and neglectful human societies may be suboptimal.
“EA rhetoric” which has sort of evolved on the forum over the years, where posts and comments are padded out with words and other devices.
Notwithstanding that Forum users can use rhetorical devices to attract attention, limit readers’ critical thinking and response and motivate them to an impulsive action, or gain credibility by using specific expressions, readers can always critically think, react, and focus on the content rather than form.
To the degree this is intended to evasive, this is further bad as it harms trust. These devices are perfectly visible to outsiders.
If users point out any of these devices, the authors may reduce or eliminate their usage. Open critique and positive responses should gain trust. Trust would be undermined by ignorance. Even though these devices are visible, they may not always be discerned or concretely pointed out by users.
I think you care and I’m not sure you see this and it seems good to know as I think other people will have similar takes.
For example, I can point out an appeal to emotion and possibly a false implication without a concrete request. You are implying that if I do not respond, I do not care about a specific topic, such as protecting the future or the populations of groups called uncontacted peoples.
Further, you are implying your ‘vulnerability’ in expressing that you are uncertain whether I see this and rhetorically empowering me to a free action in this exchange, which can motivate me to a response through my willingness to ‘assure’ the vulnerable.
‘It seems good to know’ can be understood as an (abstract) threat of being considered uninformed (and thus shameful or worthy of exclusion) if I do not acknowledge your comment, while agreeing may seem to be the solution to avert being considered as such.
‘I think other people will have similar takes’ appeals to the thread to exclusion, which can further motivate me to respond, since intuitively, animals could fear exclusion.
So, I ask you to refrain from appealing to emotion in your comments. Before you post a comment, analyze whether it can be interpreted as seeking to gain attention by motivating the reader’s emotions. If so, change it so that the same suggestion is conveyed without an appeal to emotions. These suggestions can be better perceived and (perhaps—although ideally only content would be always considered) met with positive implementation of your suggestions by readers.
Further, I ask you to have concrete/more elaborated complaints and/or suggestions, which can be useful to the Forum users. For example, which wording, specifically is bad, is it just the word “species” or does it relate to another idea that I suggested, or are you referring to the expression “shoot everyone else,” and if so, are you mostly concerned about the generalization ‘everyone’ or the assumption ‘shoot.’
What beliefs are bad and bad from what perspective? Do you think that I am not focusing on understanding the realities of these individuals and instead making assumptions based on objectification, or is it that my moral values are incorrect because I do not prioritize humans over bonobos, or are you commenting on anything else that you are not explicitly stating?
By offering a reasoning behind your specific complaint, you could perhaps point me out to an alternative thinking about the problem, or a resource that I could review. Then, I could alter or change my thinking, present a counterargument, or share another resource. Suggesting an alternative solution can have similar thought/solution development effect.
I don’t think I agree with you on the above. I see myself as trying to help. In my opinion, the consequences of some of the writing here seems pretty serious.
Whether right or wrong, I’m going to disengage now.
I agree that everyone should be secure during a global or local biological risk event. Shelters are effective in protecting persons from contagion for extended periods of time, given that these are self-sufficient for that period.
Probably the most (marginally) cost-effective (and (thus) profitable) solutions relate to upgrading existing homes to bio shelters. A service like this can be welcome by governments on which the biosecurity conundrum is slowly creeping with the currently increased EA advocacy. Universal (global, at least among major powers) preparedness directs this uncomfortable attention to increased cooperation on health matters rather than the ‘explosion’ of someone’s patience and acting in a risky manner.
For example, sound window and door seals alongside with ventilator filters through which even anthrax does not pass, compact balanced (vegan?) food that elegantly fits in empty spaces and can be even consumed outside of emergency, and water and waste infrastructure agreements with cities and backups (water synthesizers probably too costly? - but a tank for 2 people who drink 2 liters per day for 100 days still fits above a closet) can cover needs comprehensively and together cost under $500.[1] This should score highly on your metrics except the passion one—it is like providing people some tape and resolving their questions about if the closet will hold the tank, will it taste poorly, etc.
Regarding your metrics, I would substitute the crowd protection for accessibility/popularity. Of course, you’d probably be interested in protecting a strategic set of industry, ethics, spirituality, etc thought leaders first before maybe machine operators get protected with scarce resources, to allow the re-emergence of prosperous society, and if you are looking for an R&D investment, this is what you would narrate, but even these leaders could hesitate to support something that would privilege them so glaringly. So, maybe strive for affordability/popularity among cool people, but acknowledge that not everyone would be able to afford at least the first prototypes, before economies of scale reduce the price.
Other ideas that I have include (some of which are complementary):
Underground bunkers where experts collaborate on thought development (comprehensive set that advances human morality and progress) within their fields of expertise and rotate (not everyone has to always be there but if maybe 4 are around at least 2 are always underground). They can work on developing systems or scaling up already beneficial solutions efficiently. This should also work for nuclear and general warfare protection. Rapid vaccine development researchers should be present disproportionately (to keep supported while resolving the issue on ground).
Remoting work (so that economy does not decline during biorisky events). Powers can be interested in weakening others’ economies, in order to gain advantage. If economy is relatively unaffected (in addition to persons’ health), then there is no point in waging war.
Animal farm proofing. When animal farms are protected during human biorisky periods, less pathogen mutations can occur, which contributes to human security. Plus, animals are protected for any intrinsic value (assuming that their lives are net positive) and for the value to humans. Automating animal farms can also benefit the animals, especially if they would feel nervous about humans (14:21–19:54). Animal farms can be added to shelters.
Crop protection. Food is a strategic industry. Seed/spore varieties should probably be protected, to enable people benefit from special drought/flood resistant/high yield/better taste etc varieties and could extend the time survivable in a shelter if they are sustainably farmed there. This can be commercially interesting to enthusiasts and nations with little farm land, such as Singapore, that already invests in space-efficient production.
Libraries. Libraries of nice texts should be gathered at the shelters. Humans should be able to develop their thinking (thus aspect of humanity?) while waiting for others to resolve the issues or in their free time. Digital libraries are possible.
Power generators or power grid assurances/airtightness. Human-powered generators (‘bicycles’ etc) can come to mind, but
Permanent/perpetual disinfection that can safely act when humans are present (e. g. not like UV light). If this could cover entire cities, that would be great. Covering shelters would be nice but applicable only when people would be coming in and out.
Relatedly to disinfecting incoming humans (and products), disinfectant entry chambers could be a great alternative to fully isolated shelters. For example, these could soak clothes in disinfectant and ‘shower’ the person.
Comfortable (and fashionable) overalls. If it turns out that people have to wear overalls all the time when they go out, these should be comfortable and nice looking/undiscernible.
Bathroom solutions. These could relate to the combination of disinfecting bathrooms and overalls.
Nanofilters that one almost does not feel but are entirely protective. It should be that the larger the surface area the easier it is to breathe. For example folded filter backpacks or stomach fans can ease breathing while reducing the amount of material covering face. Assisted ventilation could also help.
Industry norms. In the case of an increased risk situation, industries should be able to increase their biosafety based on an already developed and rehearsed protocol. For example, food products transfer should be air-tight after boiling or the machine rooms should be sealed etc. Non-food products should be disinfected (e. g. by UV light or heat) before (airtight) packaging. Etc.
Transport norms. Transportation of goods should not spread pathogens. Disinfecting before travels, of travel contact surfaces (roads, etc), before joining a place where goods are aggregated (customs line, port, …) should be very facile /stations should exist.
Storage disinfection. Warehouses should also be disinfected, sealed, and incoming goods disinfected before stocking.
Disinfectant production. The production of disinfectant should be possible to be significantly raised rapidly and sustainably. For example, ethanol production by microorganisms can be facilitated by distilleries. Iodine production from soil and sea could work.
Shelter enjoyability. Persons should really be looking forward to getting into a shelter, and be used to some of the things there (e. g. compact food, library, …). Shelters should be a ‘reward’ stimulating environment. Thus, activities one can do there should be enjoyable. In addition to intellectual, spiritual, civilization-preserving and biorisk solving (if applicable) engagement, also exercise should be available. Adequate rest, nutrition, and temperature should also be possible. Participants should be able to enjoy time with others by vetting them (ideally prior to the risky event). Interaction courses, materials, and programs should also be available.
Heating and cooling systems that can be operated with little power. Possibly, isolation materials for places in very cold environments and cooling mechanisms for hot environments and underground.
So, it seems that making bioshelters is relatively facile and that it could be possible for persons and goods move in between of them safely. Certain materials production should be possible to be increased during more risky situations, but most solutions should already be implemented. Actually, these solutions could prevent the spread of transmittable diseases overall, so could be popular among governments.
[Edited to remove offensive language]
This could be sold to governments that spent more than this amount per person as a reactive measure.
I just want to flag for potential readers that I am thinking about the wording in the comment above on uncontacted peoples. I feel uncomfortable with the wording and perhaps implicit comparisons made above but am new to the forum so am seeking advice on how to handle this.
The wording is really bad, and it seems like the beliefs are really, really bad (“species”).
RE: “Shoot everyone else”. It’s plausible that it’s objectively optimal for these tribes to be hostile as they are. Many educated people might come to that conclusion, based on readings of history.
No one I know in EA believes or talks like this.
“Species” refers to homo sapiens sapiens. Even if you look at history, for example in the Middle Ages in Europe (The Better Angels of Our Nature), you could possibly be less interested in allowing humans to develop further, extrapolating from the trends at that time. It could have been a chance that industry allowed for specialization and currently we are at the position of protecting all ours and others’ wellbeing. It could have been that actually torture instruments undergo significant development, monarchs fight for territory, and overtake each other in threatening people with suffering to yield and work on land.
It would have been optimal for the monarch to also be relatively hostile. However, their benevolence would have been exclusive to a selected few (or themselves). I suggest that the moral circles of the future civilization are expanded. Since there would be no external accountability in the event of a disaster, the protected group should have this principle internalized. It may be that bonobos would also be hostile to others if needed but it can also be likely that if bonobos and humans develop to the same technological level, humans will be more exclusive in advancing wellbeing to other individuals and species. Since natural evolution is not as time constrained, it may be better to protect bonobos than human tribes with little to no contact with other humans to safeguard a positive development of future civilization.
Ok, I saw images and read stories, which may be selected to fit the texts where they are introduced and be captured by an unfamiliar device relatively near the persons, in which these humans aimed arrows at the camera or threw spears at helicopters with emergency aid. It is also possible that these humans hunt and use devices which can be thrown or released by a spring to cover relatively longer distances fast.
Some articles specify that at least some of these groups’ members had negative experiences with some other humans and so the groups chose to discontinue interacting. So, it may be that some ancestors in the human groups have been traumatized and the emotional perception of others is carried forward. In general, when no unfamiliar devices are causing them fear or when they do not need to hunt or otherwise protect themselves, they can be supporting each other and other species in wellbeing.
However, notwithstanding any possible rationale for any hostility in some cases, I guess that the intuition/norm leaders of these groups would not aim for scaling up wellbeing across moral circles as much as possible.
Similarly, leaders of other homo sapiens sapiens groups, who could have gained dominance by the use of force, the threat of such, or limited support when they could have increased others’ wellbeing, may be unlikely to extend wellbeing prioritizing norms across the sentience landscape.
Thus, ‘shoot everyone else’ can be understood as accurate, if one focuses on its normative meaning. It means rather than emotionally focusing on others in order to increase their own wellbeing and support the wellbeing of the other, if that is what the other prefers, or support them otherwise if this is generally good, these people seek to reduce others’ pursuit and development of their objectives, in order to reduce the need of engaging with them, including by the use of force or threat of such. Shooting is one way to achieve this objective.
I do dumber stuff all the time than this, but I want you to know that this reads like a shallow rationalization or even reiteration of the original sentiment.
The comment is using what I call “EA rhetoric” which has sort of evolved on the forum over the years, where posts and comments are padded out with words and other devices. To the degree this is intended to evasive, this is further bad as it harms trust. These devices are perfectly visible to outsiders.
I think you care and I’m not sure you see this and it seems good to know as I think other people will have similar takes.
I agree that this has evolved on the forum over the years and it is driving me insane. Seems like a total race to the bottom to appear as the most thorough thinker. You’re also right to point out that it is completely visible to outsiders.
It is an explanation and an elaboration that seeks to explain the sentiment, so that you and other readers can better understand the intuitive/emotional meaning, which is that protecting abusive and neglectful human societies may be suboptimal.
Notwithstanding that Forum users can use rhetorical devices to attract attention, limit readers’ critical thinking and response and motivate them to an impulsive action, or gain credibility by using specific expressions, readers can always critically think, react, and focus on the content rather than form.
If users point out any of these devices, the authors may reduce or eliminate their usage. Open critique and positive responses should gain trust. Trust would be undermined by ignorance. Even though these devices are visible, they may not always be discerned or concretely pointed out by users.
For example, I can point out an appeal to emotion and possibly a false implication without a concrete request. You are implying that if I do not respond, I do not care about a specific topic, such as protecting the future or the populations of groups called uncontacted peoples.
Further, you are implying your ‘vulnerability’ in expressing that you are uncertain whether I see this and rhetorically empowering me to a free action in this exchange, which can motivate me to a response through my willingness to ‘assure’ the vulnerable.
‘It seems good to know’ can be understood as an (abstract) threat of being considered uninformed (and thus shameful or worthy of exclusion) if I do not acknowledge your comment, while agreeing may seem to be the solution to avert being considered as such.
‘I think other people will have similar takes’ appeals to the thread to exclusion, which can further motivate me to respond, since intuitively, animals could fear exclusion.
So, I ask you to refrain from appealing to emotion in your comments. Before you post a comment, analyze whether it can be interpreted as seeking to gain attention by motivating the reader’s emotions. If so, change it so that the same suggestion is conveyed without an appeal to emotions. These suggestions can be better perceived and (perhaps—although ideally only content would be always considered) met with positive implementation of your suggestions by readers.
Further, I ask you to have concrete/more elaborated complaints and/or suggestions, which can be useful to the Forum users. For example, which wording, specifically is bad, is it just the word “species” or does it relate to another idea that I suggested, or are you referring to the expression “shoot everyone else,” and if so, are you mostly concerned about the generalization ‘everyone’ or the assumption ‘shoot.’
What beliefs are bad and bad from what perspective? Do you think that I am not focusing on understanding the realities of these individuals and instead making assumptions based on objectification, or is it that my moral values are incorrect because I do not prioritize humans over bonobos, or are you commenting on anything else that you are not explicitly stating?
By offering a reasoning behind your specific complaint, you could perhaps point me out to an alternative thinking about the problem, or a resource that I could review. Then, I could alter or change my thinking, present a counterargument, or share another resource. Suggesting an alternative solution can have similar thought/solution development effect.
I don’t think I agree with you on the above. I see myself as trying to help. In my opinion, the consequences of some of the writing here seems pretty serious.
Whether right or wrong, I’m going to disengage now.
It cracks me up that this is the first comment you’ve ever gotten posting here, it really is not the norm.