JBPDavies

Karma: 91

I am a curious and engaged ECR with experience in both research and project support roles, focused on finding equitable, sustainable and just answers to the global challenges of our time.

I have experience with a range of fields and topics, from Transformation/Socio-technical transitions to the role of technology in warfare and security, from the sustainability and equality challenges of the global food system to the intricacies of space policy.

I currently work for Utrecht University in the Netherlands, however am keen to build something of my own. My ethos is ‘to do interesting work, with good people, that helps humanity and the world’.

JBPDavies 26 Aug 2022 13:08 UTC
18 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Climate Change & Longtermism: new book-length report
Thank you for writing this—looking forward to diving into the full report this weekend. Congratulations on finishing what must have been a major undertaking!

JBPDavies 28 Jul 2022 9:51 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: The most important climate change uncertainty
Thanks for this post, agree with other comments that it’s very well written and clear, and on first reading I agree with the core message even if some of the specific points/evidence offered may be debatable (e.g. discussions in the comments re: Lynas). Upvoted!
I want to draw attention to one major issue with the analysis that also permeates the dicsussion about climate change as an x-risk both elsewhere and in the discussion here in the comments.
‘Following, e.g., Halstead, it is instructive to split the question of climate change damages into three numbered questions’
‘This reduces damages from anthropogenic Earth system change to global warming only, which is far from ideal but sufficient for the purposes of this post.’
The reduction of the climate, environmental and ecological crises to only GHG and warming is a major issue within existing sustainability literature, public discourse and governmental policies. These crises and in particular their risks & risk transmission pathways go far beyond this narrow focus on GHG and warming, and ignoring the other ways in which compound human activity is stressing various life-critical earth systems prevents us from having a clear understanding of how our physical environment relates to x-risk and GCRs.
What are we talking about here?
If we want only to understand whether warming could lead to x-risk, then that is an entirely different question to whether or not current human activity and its sum consequences on the natural world (could) present an x-risk/GCR. I would argue that the former is an interesting question, but it ignores that the crises we’re facing are not only limited to warming, but involve unprecedented changes (in speed) and pressures across a number of life-critical systems.
We’re at risk here of not seeing the whole board, and thats a big problem when we’re talking about how far we should prioritise these crises within EA.
Some of the various other dynamics that are not included in discussions limited to warming include eutrophication & arable land loss, biodiversity loss & ecosystem degredation, fresh water use & scarcity, air pollution.
And that’s not including the various social challenges that are fundamentally linked to these crises.
A second point—you’ve focused on importance here. I would argue that there is a major case to be made for neglectedness too in terms of targeting the most important/potentially impactful ‘solutions’ or interventions we can make to address these crises.
An example: It’s often estimated that around 95% of carbon offsets are avoidance credits, which do nothing to offset scope 1 & 2 emissions. We need that money to flow into removal credits instead, but the initial investment is not there yet to make removal technologies competitive and scalable enough to be sold in the offset market (this is beginning to change, but too slowly).
A second example: Taking some of the IPCC mitigation options as starting points, the shift to bikes and e-bikes & electric light and heavy vehicles have the potential to reduce emissions by 0.2 and 0.8 GtCO2eq/year, compared to 1.1 for energy efficiency improvements and 2.9 for ecosystem restoration, but they recieved 2.9bn and 12bn respectively in VC funding over 24 months compared to just 0.7bn and 0.2bn for energy efficiency and restoration over the same period.
Sustainability is full of misallocated funding and a lack of evidence-driven intervention… it is not guaranteed that socieities at large (governments, publics and markets) will effectively address and solve this challenge, EA could have a role to play here.
A note: I see a lot of interesting discussion about economic modelling in the comments—based on experience in my current role working with investors and transitions experts to create scenarios based on these kinds of models, my impression so far is that they are not comprehensive in accounting for the full scope of expected impacts across socio-ecological-technological systems (something that investors themselves consistently report and are looking to rectify), but I will spend some time reading the originial papers and models before responding to those comments specifically.

JBPDavies 19 May 2022 12:04 UTC
13 points
0 ∶ 0
on: New 80k problem profile—Climate change
Thank you for writing this profile & post. Two queries/thoughts that came to mind:
1. Regarding risk from biodiversity collapse—I have yet to see any in depth or thorough research into this. The cited paper (Kareiva and Carranza) devotes only two paragraphs to biodiversity as a potential existential risk, and while it makes good points, I think it only scratches the surface the topic. Biodiversity is a crude but effective proxy measure for ecosystem health, and human civilisation and indeed life relies unavoidably on ecosystem services. It is not implausable that a large enough disruption to these services would represent either a direct or indirect risk. There is simply too much uncertainty around this issue to draw any real conclusions at this point, especially without in depth research. Given that we can observe biodiversity loss occuring today at unprecedented speeds, we should aim to reduce this uncertainty before claiming that the risk posed is minimal or negligible.
2. Regarding the risk from agricultural collapse—This ties into the previous point and a broader point I would like to spend some time diving into. It is entirely possible (as one comment claims below) that global agriculture will adapt to new conditions and keep pace with growing demand alongside increase environmental pressures, however this will almost certainly rely on hypothetical technological advances that are far from guaranteed to happen. Beyond this, agricultural methods that are more removed from the Earth system (e.g. vertical farming) demand an immense amount of energy and other inputs. And here is the problem, because the question is not whether or not the global agricultural system could potentially absorb stresses it may face, but whether it can do that while almost all other socio-technical systems are in crisis. Systems collapse is a real possibility and an incredibly understudied concept. Couplings between systems (including functional couplings, structural couplings, etc.) introduce cross-system vulnerabilities which mean that as stressors accumulate, the capacity of civilisation to absorb shocks diminishes. Could agriculture cope with projected warming? Possibly, maybe probably. Can it do so while supply chains, global power relations and financial systems are disrupted or in crisis? That’s a much harder prospect.

JBPDavies 19 May 2022 11:46 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: John G. Halstead’s comment on: New 80k problem profile—Climate change
Hi John,
Many thanks to you & the others in the comments for the insightful discussion. Could you clarify a few points:
1. You state that 2.5 degrees warming by 2100 is widely accepted as the likely outcome of ‘business as usual’ - does this correspond to one of the IPCC scenarios?
2. You state that >6 degrees warming by 2100 is highly unlikely (risk seems ‘negligible’). Again, is this conclusion drawn from the IPCC report
If you have any additional resources to back these statements up I would love to read them—thanks!

JBPDavies 24 Mar 2022 12:30 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: JBPDavies’s Shortform
Two neglected X-risks
I’ve been going through various listings of x-risks (and GCR’s, to account for some uncertainty re: climate and nuclear) by prominent organisations, and after a brief scanning have found that the usual list includes:
1. Nuclear War
2. Biotechnology/Man-made Pandemics
3. Artificial Intelligence
4. Climate Change
No list that I came across (explicitly) includes either:
1. SETI/METI
2. Molecular Nanotechnology/Atomically Premise Manufacturing (a.k.a. ‘Grey Goo’).
I would make the case that both of these are potential X-risks, and should be taken seriously as objects of research. There appears to be credible reasons to believe that APM is not currently an urgent risk (see https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/gjEbymta6w8yqNQnE/risks-from-atomically-precise-manufacturing by Michael Aird), but the same cannot be said of SETI/METI. After reading through some longtermist/EA and non-EA community research into SETI/METI risks, it seems to be an open question as to just how probable the risk of finding/being found by hostile ETI might be.
In the face of deep uncertainty around a number of key questions (one of which is the small matter of how likely it is that ETI’s exist and their likely proximity to us, another of which is a question of ETI behaviour which we must investigate and estimate based on a sample size of 0), I suggest that this risk be considered alongside the ‘big four’, both due to its potentially devastating scope and its potentially high likelihood.
We need to spend time fully researching this risk and identifying the most prudent course of action, even if the end result is that we find it can be safely discounted.

JBPDavies’s Quick takes

JBPDavies24 Mar 2022 12:30 UTC

2 points

1 comment1 min readEA link

JBPDavies 22 Mar 2022 16:00 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: abrahamrowe’s comment on: Rethink Priorities’ Operations team is expanding — we’re hiring for several positions on our Core Ops and Special Projects teams
Many thanks for the quick reply & clarifications Abraham! Looking forward to the information sessions.

JBPDavies 22 Mar 2022 8:07 UTC
7 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Rethink Priorities’ Operations team is expanding — we’re hiring for several positions on our Core Ops and Special Projects teams
Fantastic to see Rethink expanding, and I absolutely love the idea of the Special Projects program!
Regarding the Special Projects Associate position:
- Salary: $72,000 to $76,000 USD
- Summary: Coordinator between incubated RP projects (especially in our new Megaprojects program) and RP operations
- A good fit for:
  - Early-career people interested in operations
  - People with a strong understanding of longtermism
  - People interested in working on megaprojects and other high-risk/high-reward charitable projects
I’m curious as to why this is an Associate level position and not titled Coordinator? Would you still be open to candidates that are slightly more experienced yet perhaps not to the extent of the Director position (2-4 years experience or analagous to the Researcher tier per your website)?
Separately, would candidates who apply for the Director position be considered for the Associate opening or other indeed other suitable roles within Rethink?

JBPDavies 14 Mar 2022 12:12 UTC
5 points
0 ∶ 0
on: EA Projects I’d Like to See
Thanks for writing this post Fin!
I want to express my support for the ‘Space governance research centre’ idea. I’ve published a little on Space Policy/Governance and had some very positive feedback from professionals working within the field (e.g. within ESA, Raytheon, companies engaged in EO and so on) supporting the need for proactive policymaking and governance of space activities.
It seems like a natural area for a research centre/think tank/policy lab aimed at policy research and implementation algined with principles of longtermism & EA. I would also argue that the current context (right before space policy/governance is really picked up—if indeed that’s what will happen) is exactly the right moment to start something like this… an org could have an outsized impact by taking advantage of a relatively neglected environment and shaping the field from the ground up.
Would love to talk to you about this—if you’re keen then feel free to reach out to me at j.b.p.davies@uu.nl

JBPDavies 3 Mar 2022 9:44 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: agnode’s comment on: The Future Fund’s Project Ideas Competition
Love the idea—just writing to add that Futures Studies, participatory futures in particular & future scenario methodologies could be really useful for Longtermist research. Methods in these fields can be highly rigorous (I’ve been working with some futures experts as part of a project to design 3 visions of the future—which have just finished going through a lengthly stress-testing and crowd-sourcing process to open them up to public reflection and input), especially if the scenario design is approached in a systematised way using a well-developed framework.
I could imagine various projects that aim to create a variety of different desirable visions of the future through participatory methods, identifying core characteristics, pathways towards them, system dynamics and so on to illustrate the value and importance of longtermist governance to get there. Just one idea, but there are plenty of ways to apply this field to EA/Longtermism!
Would love to talk about your idea more as it also chimes with a paper I’m drafting, ‘Contesting Longtermism’, looking at some of the core tensions within the concept and how these could be opened up to wider input. If you’re interested in talking about it, feel free to reach out to me at j.b.p.davies@uu.nl

JBPDavies 3 Mar 2022 8:01 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: IanDavidMoss’s comment on: The Future Fund’s Project Ideas Competition
Sounds fantastic—drop me an email at j.b.p.davies@uu.nl and I would love to set up a meeting. In the meantime I’ll dive into EIP’s work!

JBPDavies 2 Mar 2022 12:04 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: jh’s comment on: The Future Fund’s Project Ideas Competition
You may be interested in the following project I’m working for: https://deeptransitions.net/news/the-deep-transition-futures-project-investing-in-transformation/ . The project goal is developing a new investment philosophy & strategy (complete with new outcome metrics) aimed at achieving transformational systems change. The project leverages the Deep Transitions theoretical framework as developed within the field of Sustainability Transitions and Science, Technology and Innovation Studies to create a theory of change and subsequently enact it with a group of public and private investors. Would recommend diving into this if you’re interested in the nexus of investment and transformation of current systems/shaping future trajectories.
I can’t say too much about future plans at this stage, except that following the completion of the current phase (developing the philosophy, strategies and metrics), there will be an extended experimentation phase in which these are applied, tested and continuously redeveloped.

JBPDavies 2 Mar 2022 10:21 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Peter Wildeford’s comment on: The Future Fund’s Project Ideas Competition
Hi Peter (if I may!),
I love this and your other Longtermism suggestions, thanks for submitting them! Not sure if you saw my below suggestion of a Longtermism Policy Lab—but maybe this is exactly the kind of activity that could fall under such an organisation/programme (within Rethink even)? Likewise for your suggestion of a Lobbying group—by working directly with societal partners (e.g. National Ministries across the world) you could begin implementation directly through experimentation.
I’ve been involved in a similar (successful) project called the ‘Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC)’, which works with, for example, the Colombian governement to shape innovation policy towards sustainable and just transformation (as opposed to systems optimisation).
Would love to talk to you about these your ideas for this space if you’re interested. I’m working with the Institutions for Longtermism research platform at Utrecht University & we’re still trying to shape our focus, so there may be some scope for piloting ideas.

JBPDavies 1 Mar 2022 13:14 UTC
18 points
0 ∶ 0
on: The Future Fund’s Project Ideas Competition
Longtermism Policy Lab
Epistemic Institutions, Values and Reflective Processes, Great Power Relations, Space Governance, Research That Can Help Us Improve
Despite the growing recognition of the importance of long-term perspectives, governance remains oriented around short-term incentives. More coordination and collaboration between researchers and policymakers, practicioners and industry professionals is needed to translate research into policy. The Longtermism Policy Lab will bridge this gap, working with societal partners and governments at all levels (local to global) to undertake policy experiments. The Lab will also contain a research component, establishing and pursuing an ambitious interdisciplinary Longtermism research agenda, including an emphasis on research that doesn’t fit well within either academia or traditional research institutes. We want to see this organisation serve as a direct link between longtermism as a governance approach and its implementation within all levels of governance across the globe.

JBPDavies 1 Mar 2022 11:14 UTC
10 points
0 ∶ 0
on: The Future Fund’s Project Ideas Competition
Space Policy Lab
Space Governance, Epistemic Institutions
Human activity in space is intensifying with the growing challenge of space debris, the deployment of satellite mega-constellations, and the prospects of asteroid mining and long-term colonisation raising unique challenges to a vital yet neglected domain. Current space governance—the laws, rules, norms and institutions that structure interactions in space—is falls far short of meeting these challenges. A Space Policy Lab would research governance frameworks analyse policy issues shape expert discourse, and engage in advocacy for effective regulatory frameworks. We would like to see a Lab bringing together applied researchers, academia and societal stakeholders within a dynamic collaborative & transdisciplinary environment through undertaking policy experiments to identify levers for improving space governance.

JBPDavies 16 Feb 2022 16:31 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Frank_R’s comment on: Cost Effectiveness of Climate Change Interventions
‘Climate change could also increase other existential risks. For example, there could be a war about ressources that is fought by nuclear weapons, synthetic pathogens or malevolent AIs.’
To add to this—solar geoengineering could be a major risk (and risk factor for inter-state conflict) that becomes increasingly likely under severe AGW scenarios (people accept more drastic measures in desparate circumstances).

JBPDavies 2 Feb 2022 14:02 UTC
8 points
0 ∶ 0
on: AMA: Future of Life Institute’s EU Team
Thank you for hosting this—always love the opportunity to put questions to knowledgeable & interesting people!
I am particularly interested in learning more about your theory of change. Would you be able to elaborate on what activities you focus on, with which actors, and why? How will this lead to your stated goals?
Some questions in my head which may help to clarify what I mean:
1. The future of the EU as a global security actor appears uncertain at best (thinking for example of the EU’s recent exclusion from Ukraine negotiations). If member states choose to pursue security/defence related issues primarily outside of the realm of the EU, would that shift your advocacy focus away from Brussels and (further) onto member states (i.e. the ones who may be directly funding/developing AI for security purposes)? What is the value that FLI sees in the EU here as a pressure point for advocacy?
2. Within the Netherlands (for example) we see a lot of technical work being carried out by coalitions of public agencies, private commercial actors and university working groups. Do you account for these kinds of actor level dynamics in your advocacy (i.e. are you mapping and targeting these non-state actors within EU member states too), or are you more focused on leveraging the regulatory power of the state to achieve an impact?
Hopefully this is not too vague! Many thanks.

JBPDavies 8 Dec 2021 7:42 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: AMA: Joan Rohlfing, President and COO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative
What in your opinion are the largest bottlenecks/barriers to achieving reduction of nuclear risk today? Would more advocacy groups be useful, or greater focus on popular social movements? Is further research needed, or is it simply a case of translating common knowledge into political will to take action (& for example reduce stockpiles or end first use posture)?

To cut to the essence of my question—what should individuals focus their efforts on today to have the greatest impact in terms of reducing nuclear threat?

JBPDavies 16 Nov 2021 14:22 UTC
15 points
0 ∶ 0
on: We’re Rethink Priorities. Ask us anything!
In your yearly review you mention that Rethink may significantly expand its Longtermism research group in the future, including potentially into new focus areas and topics. Do you have any ideas of what these might be (beyond the mentioned AI governance), and how you might choose (i.e. looking for a niche where Rethink can play a major role, following demand of stakeholders, etc.)?
If in 5 and/or 10 years time you look back on RP and feel its been a major success, what would that look like? What kind(s) of impact would you consider important, and by what bar would you measure your attainment/progress towards that?

JBPDavies 13 Nov 2020 9:09 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: OPIS policy paper: Legalising access to psilocybin for the treatment of cluster headaches
Congratulations! Brilliant to see a combined advocacy approach too—if you don’t mind sharing, how did you go about producing the accompanying video? I’m keen to introduce more media into my own advocacy work so I’m keen to learn.