I had similar thoughts , too. My scenario was that at a certain point in the future all technologies that are easy to build will have been discovered and that you need multi-generational projects to develop further technologies. Just to name an example, you can think of a Dyson sphere. If the sun was enclosed by a Dyson sphere, each individual would have a lot more energy available or there would be enough room for many additional individuals. Obivously you need a lot of money before you get the first non-zero payoff and the potential payoff could be large.
Does this mean that effective altruists should prioritise building a Dyson sphere? There are at least three objections:
According to some ethical theories (person-affecting views, certain brands of suffering-focused ethics) it may not be desirable to build a Dyson sphere.
It is not clear if it is possible to improve existing technologies piecewisely such that you a obtain a Dyson sphere in the end. Maybe you start with space tourism, then hotels in the orbit, then giant solar plants in space etc. It could even be the case that each intermediate step is profitable such that market forces will lead to a Dyson sphere without the EA movement spending ressources.
If effective altruism becomes too much associated with speculative ideas, it could be negative for the growth of the movement.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am very sympathetic towards your proposal, but the difficulties should not be underestimated and much more research is necessary before you can say with high enough certainty that the EA movement as a whole should prioritise some kind of high-hanging fruit.
I had similar thoughts , too. My scenario was that at a certain point in the future all technologies that are easy to build will have been discovered and that you need multi-generational projects to develop further technologies. Just to name an example, you can think of a Dyson sphere. If the sun was enclosed by a Dyson sphere, each individual would have a lot more energy available or there would be enough room for many additional individuals. Obivously you need a lot of money before you get the first non-zero payoff and the potential payoff could be large.
Does this mean that effective altruists should prioritise building a Dyson sphere? There are at least three objections:
According to some ethical theories (person-affecting views, certain brands of suffering-focused ethics) it may not be desirable to build a Dyson sphere.
It is not clear if it is possible to improve existing technologies piecewisely such that you a obtain a Dyson sphere in the end. Maybe you start with space tourism, then hotels in the orbit, then giant solar plants in space etc. It could even be the case that each intermediate step is profitable such that market forces will lead to a Dyson sphere without the EA movement spending ressources.
If effective altruism becomes too much associated with speculative ideas, it could be negative for the growth of the movement.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am very sympathetic towards your proposal, but the difficulties should not be underestimated and much more research is necessary before you can say with high enough certainty that the EA movement as a whole should prioritise some kind of high-hanging fruit.