I hope some of the other commenters have answers for you, but tbh, I don’t think the limitation here is donations.
This problem seems wildly intractable, but we could be wrong.
Instead, I suspect the limitation would be more gather a group of intelligent, persistent and creative EA’s to dedicate serious time to rethinking this whole issue from the ground up in case there’s anything that has been missed. I wouldn’t put high odds on this turning up much, but it seems worth a shot.
I don’t think it’s taking it off course! Thanks for your perspective
I disagree that the problem of nuclear war is wildly intractable—people have been dealing with the issue more-or-less successfully for 80 years. And based on the Vox article, we are in a time where nuclear issues are relatively more important and more neglected than they were say 20 years ago.
To think that there’s no organization that can have a meaningful impact on in this time seems unlikely to me. To believe that I think you’d have to believe that no organization in the past 80 years has had much impact on nuclear issues (maybe you do think that and could convince me).
I think that a group of EA’s thinking about the field from the ground up certainly could help—but don’t agree with what I take to be your implication that the only practical way for EAs to have impact on the issue approach the issue afresh. There are so many organizations, academics, and parts of government already focused on nuclear issues. It is a topic that is directly related to national security, which is arguably the most important thing to every government in the world.
I love the EA framework, but I do think there’s a tendency for us to think “well nobody has really thought about this issue sensibly until we came along. Good think we’re here now.” Some amount of arrogance/confidence can be good, but I don’t think nuclear security is an issue where this applies.
I wasn’t claiming that the current organisations haven’t had an impact, but that they haven’t really provided a path to solving this issue. Then again, maybe “solving” is a mistaken frame.
I just wanted to note I do not think downvoting comments like yours is ideal (-7 karma in 2 votes excluding my and your upvotes):
Disagreement can be signalled with disagreement votes.
Downvotes could be used to decrease the visibility of your comment relative to others, but as of now there are no others.
On the other hand, I think your comment would benefit from more context. I only upvoted given it has negative karma, which I think should mostly be reserved for comments made in bad faith, or with bad tone.
I hope some of the other commenters have answers for you, but tbh, I don’t think the limitation here is donations.
This problem seems wildly intractable, but we could be wrong.
Instead, I suspect the limitation would be more gather a group of intelligent, persistent and creative EA’s to dedicate serious time to rethinking this whole issue from the ground up in case there’s anything that has been missed. I wouldn’t put high odds on this turning up much, but it seems worth a shot.
Apologies to Luke if this comment isn’t helpful. If that’s the case, just let me know. Happy to remove if I’m taking the conversation off-course.
I don’t think it’s taking it off course! Thanks for your perspective
I disagree that the problem of nuclear war is wildly intractable—people have been dealing with the issue more-or-less successfully for 80 years. And based on the Vox article, we are in a time where nuclear issues are relatively more important and more neglected than they were say 20 years ago.
To think that there’s no organization that can have a meaningful impact on in this time seems unlikely to me. To believe that I think you’d have to believe that no organization in the past 80 years has had much impact on nuclear issues (maybe you do think that and could convince me).
I think that a group of EA’s thinking about the field from the ground up certainly could help—but don’t agree with what I take to be your implication that the only practical way for EAs to have impact on the issue approach the issue afresh. There are so many organizations, academics, and parts of government already focused on nuclear issues. It is a topic that is directly related to national security, which is arguably the most important thing to every government in the world.
I love the EA framework, but I do think there’s a tendency for us to think “well nobody has really thought about this issue sensibly until we came along. Good think we’re here now.” Some amount of arrogance/confidence can be good, but I don’t think nuclear security is an issue where this applies.
I wasn’t claiming that the current organisations haven’t had an impact, but that they haven’t really provided a path to solving this issue. Then again, maybe “solving” is a mistaken frame.
Hi Chris,
I just wanted to note I do not think downvoting comments like yours is ideal (-7 karma in 2 votes excluding my and your upvotes):
Disagreement can be signalled with disagreement votes.
Downvotes could be used to decrease the visibility of your comment relative to others, but as of now there are no others.
On the other hand, I think your comment would benefit from more context. I only upvoted given it has negative karma, which I think should mostly be reserved for comments made in bad faith, or with bad tone.