So from where I’m standing, it seems like the Republican party is straight up a global catastrophic risk. The Republican party opposes any effort to address the climate crisis, and 139 of the elected republicans are actively climate change deniers. On the nuclear risk front, the republican party is also clearly horrific. Donald Trump killed the Iran Nuclear deal and stated support for Saudi Arabia developing nuclear weapons. Additionally, he said that he would threaten nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine(I would go as far as saying Biden winning in 2020, such that trump wasn’t in power when Putin invaded Ukrain constitutes an anthropic coincidence(see my Nuclear Fine-Tuning post). It seems Additionally given the republican party’s anti-democratic tendencies(i.e. election denial and gerrymandering) it seems entirely possible that will cement their power in such a way that they can’t be overturned electorally if they win in 2024(they might also just be able to win by default due to their control of the supreme court; The way Bush was able to beat Gore). As such I don’t see how any EA could possibly perfer them to the democrats. This is to say nothing of their treatment of minority groups.
In this light I don’t see a clear path to working with them when them being in power will result in the destruction of our civilization. It seems like any ground made this way will simply become irrelvant when they start a nuclear war/fail to do anything about climate change.
“On the nuclear risk front, the republican party is also clearly horrific.”
If the GOP was worse on nuclear risk, wouldn’t we expect property values in major cities to crash when a Republican is elected president (because risk of being nuked goes up) and soar when a Democratic is elected? Or wouldn’t we expect other countries to start shifting resources to fallout shelters and nuclear winter prep when a Republican is elected? I’ve never seen that happen.
I’m not aware of any market response or other responses due to swings in nuclear war risk that would coincide with presidential elections according to your model. I don’t think there’s a predictable difference in nuclear war risk between the parties.
No there’s no reason to expect nuclear risk to meaningfully affect property values, or that other country would respond appropriately. A nuclear war has never happened so without a clear understanding of the epistemic problems involved(which both markets and countries are failing to take into account) nuclear risk isn’t really taken as a meaningful factor. I might do a deep dive on this later, as I haven’t read up that much on the subject, but a quick google brought me to this article about how markets fail to capture the increased nuclear risk from the war in Ukraine. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/asset-markets-ignoring-nuclear-risk-by-willem-h-buiter-2022-03
Additionally, lots of these things increase nuclear risk beyond the term of the given political figure. Donald Trump is out of office but the Iran Nuclear Deal is still dead. Do you not think that the Iran Nuclear deal decreased nuclear risk? What about Trump’s statement that he would threaten nuclear war? do you think he’s lying? You have to make a ton of ad hoc assumptions to maintain this position.
Also, do you agree that their position on climate change makes them being in power a global catastrophic risk? It seems like the point is unarguable, but you are welcome to give pushback.
Markets (and policymakers) have to make decisions all the time. They might not be perfect, but I’m not aware of a better gauge of nuclear risk- or a least a gauge I find more trustworthy. Another interpretation of Buiter’s article is that he’s just wrong.
I think climate change is unlikely to rise to the level of aglobal catastrophic risk. But if it were, it would still leave open the question, what party an individual should enter to most improve the situation.
As I wrote:”I would urge them to think on the margin. The more awesome the Democratic Party is on the issue you care about, the less value you bring by joining that party. If you managed to win a high position in Democratic politics, you’ll simply be displacing a person who might have been almost as good as you. The more odious you think the Republican Party is, the more uplifting your presence will be and the greater value you will contribute by rising within that party. Joining the Republican Party is great idea!”
That said if someone really hates a party, it’s a bad idea to join it in practice, and also quite dishonest. But I think the expected value of an EA entering the GOP is much better than one entering the Democratic Party.
The first part isn’t an argument it’s just a dismissal. You haven’t engaged with anything I’ve said on it. You have to discount expert opinion in favor of market trends in order to hold this position in a context where market trends are particularly suspect.
The second part denies the broad scientific consensus on the threat of climate change. Here’s a quote from the UN on climate change “the UN Secretary-General insisted that unless governments everywhere reassess their energy policies, the world will be uninhabitable.” Do you take the UN to be untrustworthy?
The argument of which party is better to join as an individual cannot be had without the recognition that the GOP being in power is a global catastrophic risk. Otherwise, we risk losing track of what the actual risk factors are.
Separately this assumes the democrats are good on their issues when at best they are painfully mediocre.
So from where I’m standing, it seems like the Republican party is straight up a global catastrophic risk. The Republican party opposes any effort to address the climate crisis, and 139 of the elected republicans are actively climate change deniers. On the nuclear risk front, the republican party is also clearly horrific. Donald Trump killed the Iran Nuclear deal and stated support for Saudi Arabia developing nuclear weapons. Additionally, he said that he would threaten nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine(I would go as far as saying Biden winning in 2020, such that trump wasn’t in power when Putin invaded Ukrain constitutes an anthropic coincidence(see my Nuclear Fine-Tuning post). It seems Additionally given the republican party’s anti-democratic tendencies(i.e. election denial and gerrymandering) it seems entirely possible that will cement their power in such a way that they can’t be overturned electorally if they win in 2024(they might also just be able to win by default due to their control of the supreme court; The way Bush was able to beat Gore). As such I don’t see how any EA could possibly perfer them to the democrats. This is to say nothing of their treatment of minority groups.
In this light I don’t see a clear path to working with them when them being in power will result in the destruction of our civilization. It seems like any ground made this way will simply become irrelvant when they start a nuclear war/fail to do anything about climate change.
“On the nuclear risk front, the republican party is also clearly horrific.”
If the GOP was worse on nuclear risk, wouldn’t we expect property values in major cities to crash when a Republican is elected president (because risk of being nuked goes up) and soar when a Democratic is elected? Or wouldn’t we expect other countries to start shifting resources to fallout shelters and nuclear winter prep when a Republican is elected? I’ve never seen that happen.
I’m not aware of any market response or other responses due to swings in nuclear war risk that would coincide with presidential elections according to your model. I don’t think there’s a predictable difference in nuclear war risk between the parties.
No there’s no reason to expect nuclear risk to meaningfully affect property values, or that other country would respond appropriately. A nuclear war has never happened so without a clear understanding of the epistemic problems involved(which both markets and countries are failing to take into account) nuclear risk isn’t really taken as a meaningful factor. I might do a deep dive on this later, as I haven’t read up that much on the subject, but a quick google brought me to this article about how markets fail to capture the increased nuclear risk from the war in Ukraine. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/asset-markets-ignoring-nuclear-risk-by-willem-h-buiter-2022-03
Additionally, lots of these things increase nuclear risk beyond the term of the given political figure. Donald Trump is out of office but the Iran Nuclear Deal is still dead. Do you not think that the Iran Nuclear deal decreased nuclear risk? What about Trump’s statement that he would threaten nuclear war? do you think he’s lying? You have to make a ton of ad hoc assumptions to maintain this position.
Also, do you agree that their position on climate change makes them being in power a global catastrophic risk? It seems like the point is unarguable, but you are welcome to give pushback.
Markets (and policymakers) have to make decisions all the time. They might not be perfect, but I’m not aware of a better gauge of nuclear risk- or a least a gauge I find more trustworthy. Another interpretation of Buiter’s article is that he’s just wrong.
I think climate change is unlikely to rise to the level of a global catastrophic risk. But if it were, it would still leave open the question, what party an individual should enter to most improve the situation.
As I wrote:”I would urge them to think on the margin. The more awesome the Democratic Party is on the issue you care about, the less value you bring by joining that party. If you managed to win a high position in Democratic politics, you’ll simply be displacing a person who might have been almost as good as you. The more odious you think the Republican Party is, the more uplifting your presence will be and the greater value you will contribute by rising within that party. Joining the Republican Party is great idea!”
That said if someone really hates a party, it’s a bad idea to join it in practice, and also quite dishonest. But I think the expected value of an EA entering the GOP is much better than one entering the Democratic Party.
The first part isn’t an argument it’s just a dismissal. You haven’t engaged with anything I’ve said on it. You have to discount expert opinion in favor of market trends in order to hold this position in a context where market trends are particularly suspect.
The second part denies the broad scientific consensus on the threat of climate change. Here’s a quote from the UN on climate change “the UN Secretary-General insisted that unless governments everywhere reassess their energy policies, the world will be uninhabitable.” Do you take the UN to be untrustworthy?
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452#:~:text=A%20new%20flagship%20UN%20report,limit%20global%20warming%20to%201.5
The argument of which party is better to join as an individual cannot be had without the recognition that the GOP being in power is a global catastrophic risk. Otherwise, we risk losing track of what the actual risk factors are.
Separately this assumes the democrats are good on their issues when at best they are painfully mediocre.