So, it seems to me that a 30x estimate seems strongly at odds with the general belief underlying most longtermist effort that societally we are predictably underinvesting in low-probability catastrophic /​ existential risk reduction.
I do not think there is a contradiction. The multiplier of 30 would only suggest that left-of-boom and right-of-boom interventions are similarly neglected, and therefore similarly effective neglecting other considerations. However, it could still be the case that the marginal cost-effectiveness of left-of-boom and right-of-boom interventions is much higher that that of governments.
Thank you, Vasco! I am not sure and I might very well be missing something here this being the end of a long week.
In my head right-of-boom thinking is just applying expected value thinking within a catastrophic scenario whereas the motivation for GCR work generally comes from applying it at the cause level.
So, to me there seems a parallel between the multiplier for preparatory work on GCR in general and the multiplier/​differentiator within a catastrophic risk scenario.
That makes sense to me. The overall neglectedness of post-catastrophe interventions in area A depends on the neglectedness of area A, and the neglectedness of post-catastrophe interventions within area A. The higher each of these 2 neglectednesses, the higher the cost-effectiveness of such interventions.
What I meant with my previous comment was that, even if right-of-boom interventions to decrease nuclear risk were as neglected as left-of-boom ones, it could still be the case that nuclear risk is super neglected in society.
Oh yeah, that is true and I think both Christian and I think that even left-of-boom nuclear security philanthropy is super-neglected (as I like to say, it is more than 2 OOM lower than climate philanthropy, which seems crazy to me).
Thanks for the fair feedback, Johannes!
Just one note on:
I do not think there is a contradiction. The multiplier of 30 would only suggest that left-of-boom and right-of-boom interventions are similarly neglected, and therefore similarly effective neglecting other considerations. However, it could still be the case that the marginal cost-effectiveness of left-of-boom and right-of-boom interventions is much higher that that of governments.
Thank you, Vasco! I am not sure and I might very well be missing something here this being the end of a long week.
In my head right-of-boom thinking is just applying expected value thinking within a catastrophic scenario whereas the motivation for GCR work generally comes from applying it at the cause level.
So, to me there seems a parallel between the multiplier for preparatory work on GCR in general and the multiplier/​differentiator within a catastrophic risk scenario.
That makes sense to me. The overall neglectedness of post-catastrophe interventions in area A depends on the neglectedness of area A, and the neglectedness of post-catastrophe interventions within area A. The higher each of these 2 neglectednesses, the higher the cost-effectiveness of such interventions.
What I meant with my previous comment was that, even if right-of-boom interventions to decrease nuclear risk were as neglected as left-of-boom ones, it could still be the case that nuclear risk is super neglected in society.
Oh yeah, that is true and I think both Christian and I think that even left-of-boom nuclear security philanthropy is super-neglected (as I like to say, it is more than 2 OOM lower than climate philanthropy, which seems crazy to me).