Just when you think you’ve heard it all as far as humans’ depravity when it comes to the maltreatment of their fellow beings on this earth, you read something like this and realise, no, there’s always a new low...
I would be willing to donate to a charity campaigning against this practice.
Learning about something like this makes me seriously revisit the question of whether this planet would be better off without human beings on it.
One possible intervention to reduce suffering from cluster headaches is the ketogenic diet: high fat, medium protein, ultra-low carbohydrate.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2018.00064/full
https://thejournalofheadacheandpain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1129-2377-16-S1-A99
Originally devised around 100 years ago to reduce epileptic fits, especially in children, there is currently a wave of studies showing that it is beneficial for a wide range of neurological disorders, including schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimers.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9890290/
It is also being hailed as beneficial in combatting cancer, which is due to evidence showing that cancer has metabolic origins as well as genetic and environmental causes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667394023000072
Additionally, it can benefit diabetes sufferers:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/3/500
A review study in a related area showed that the ketogenic diet can bring relief for migraine sufferers also:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2023.1204700/full
Funders should therefore consider supporting studies of the application of this dietary regime to combat cluster headaches, especially since it has a wide spectrum of clinical application and can bring additional health benefits.
Due to familial predisposition towards diabetes (among other reasons), I myself have been following a ketogenic lifestyle for several years now and have personally experienced numerous health benefits.
This is great work, thank you very much everyone. It’s given me a lot to think about, especially the surprisingly poor performance of longtermism. I will be reframing somewhat my own arguments and terminology in future based on this information. I’d like to see more research, however, as to why longtermism performed poorly in comparison with global catastrophic risks, because many of the latter play out on a long-term timescale. So there’s a bit of a contradiction.
I’d like to include an illustration in a post—how do I do that. A jpg that I copied and pasted into the text didn’t work.
Fantastic article, I’ve shared it on LinkedIn.
Individual psychopathy becomes increasingly dangerous to societies as we become more technologically advanced. A psychopathic individual thus becomes as great a threat to humanity’s survival as someone infected with a highly infectious disease like Ebola or the Marburg virus. We therefore need to protect ourselves through blanket monitoring of these traits via brain scans (a dysfunctional amygdala is one diagnostic criterion) and monitor them to prevent them from causing harm. They should be required to disclose their status to anyone entering into a relationship with them, due to the singularly destructive effect they can have on people.
I had one female boss in my lifetime who was definitely a sociopath, a true sadist, who had been given a position of power over vulnerable people, despite a conviction for fraud (!). She had a sixth sense of how she could best hurt you. It was horrible to behold and experience. Yet her public persona with journalists, for example, was charming and self-effacing. I shudder whenever I think of her.
Such people should be eliminated from the gene pool by being prevented from having children. (My boss’s son, for example, got a conviction for animal cruelty.) They are not fully human.
The classic John Steinbeck novel, East of Eden, contains a masterful portrait of a female sociopath that still resonates today. Highly recommended read to complement scientific analyses. (The famous film of the book, with James Dean, is not a faithful representation of it, btw.)
Many thanks, have edited headline accordingly.
See also article on mounting evidence for negative effect of microplastics—the material from which most bednets are made - now found everywhere in the human body, including in brain tissue:
“A growing body of scientific evidence shows that microplastics are accumulating in critical human organs, including the brain, leading researchers to call for more urgent actions to rein in plastic pollution.
Studies have detected tiny shards and specks of plastics in human lungs, placentas, reproductive organs, livers, kidneys, knee and elbow joints, blood vessels and bone marrow.
Given the research findings, “it is now imperative to declare a global emergency” to deal with plastic pollution, said Sedat Gündoğdu, who studies microplastics at Cukurova University in Turkey.
Humans are exposed to microplastics – defined as fragments smaller than 5mm in diameter – and the chemicals used to make plastics from widespread plastic pollution in air, water and even food.
There’s much more plastic in our brains than I ever would have imagined or been comfortable with Matthew Campen, University of New Mexico The health hazards of microplastics within the human body are not yet well-known. Recent studies are just beginning to suggest they could increase the risk of various conditions such as oxidative stress, which can lead to cell damage and inflammation, as well as cardiovascular disease.
Animal studies have also linked microplastics to fertility issues, various cancers, a disrupted endocrine and immune system, and impaired learning and memory.
There are currently no governmental standards for plastic particles in food or water in the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency is working on crafting guidelines for measuring them, and has been giving out grants since 2018 to develop new ways to quickly detect and quantify them.”
It is cognitively and philosophically sloppy, and extremely ill-advised to disallow negative votes on a project, as you state:
“If I think a project has negative externalities, can I make a “negative vote” aka pay to redirect money away from it?
TBD. This may be theoretically optimal and has been used by other projects, but leaning no because of bad vibes/potential for drama and additional complexity it introduces.”
See, for example, my previous EA post on the negative externalities, including a contribution to catastrophic and x-risks, of insecticide-treated plastic bednets, ‘There are no people to be effectively altruistic for on a dead planet: EA funding of projects without conducting Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), Health and Safety Assessments (HSAs) and Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) = catastrophe’
Since a ‘negative externality’ could include catastrophic and x-risks, there is no good argument to be made for disallowing negative votes. In my view, it is completely irresponsible. The first rule should always be, ‘do no harm’.
The very first premise of this post, “Things are getting better.” is flawed. Our life-support system, the biosphere, for example, has been gradually deteriorating over the past decades (centuries?) and is in danger of collapse. Currently, humanity has transgressed 6 of the 9 planetary boundaries. See:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/planetary-boundary-health-checks/
Technological ‘progress’, on balance, is accelerating this potential collapse (e.g. the enormous energy resources consumed by AI). Ord should revise his position accordingly.
Please note that I have been a great fan of Ord’s work in the past (particularly The Precipice, which I donated to my school library also), along with his colleagues’ work on long-termism. Nevertheless, his latest work (both the blog post and the chapter in the forthcoming OUP book, Essays in Longtermism) feels like a philosophical version of Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook motto, Move fast and (risk) break(ing) things. It downplays uncertainty to an irresponsible degree, and its quantitative mathematical approach fails to sufficiently take into account advances in complex systems science, where the mathematics of dynamical systems and chaos hold sway.
Title edited on 7 August: more concise, less confrontational. A couple of other superfluous sentences also deleted.
Regarding existential risk of AI and global AI governance: the UN has convened a High-Level Advisory Body on AI which produced an interim report, Governing AI for Humanity, and issued a call for submissions/feedback on it (which I also responded to). It is due to publish the final, revised version based on this feedback in ‘the summer of 2024’, in time to be presented at the UN Summit of the Future, 20-23 September. (The final report has not yet been published at the time of writing this comment, 6 August.)
https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/231025_press-release-aiab.pdf
https://www.un.org/en/ai-advisory-body
https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future
See also report on interim workshop:
Have expanded this comment and turned it into a forum post:
As an environmentalist, even though I acknowledge that much extremely worthwhile research is being done by EA organisations, especially on AI safety, some of the work being done in other areas makes me put my head in my hands and groan in despair. The profound ignorance in effective altruist circles of environmental science, like that of the planetary boundaries [1], for example, which demonstrates the absolute interconnectedness and interdependence of humans and the biosphere—their essential oneness—is depressing, as is the anthropocentrism [2] of the attitudes embedded in some moral philosophical positions.
Let’s consider the example given in the Metanormative Method supplement to the Rethink Priorities’ Charitable Resource Allocation Frameworks and Tools Sequence (the CRAFT Sequence), which is blind to the ecological perspective:
“An example of moral uncertainty
Take the following scenario. A rural village has a growing human population that it is struggling to feed, so it wants to expand its grazing territory into the adjacent countryside. However, the village abuts a forest that is home to an endangered endemic species of monkeys that doesn’t have suitable habitat elsewhere. If the forest is razed, the monkeys will starve. However, a greater number of humans will be fully nourished. If the forest is not razed, then many villagers will face nutritional deficiencies, leading to serious health problems and possible death. You are tasked with deciding what should be done with the forest. You are morally uncertain, assigning some credence to each of the following worldviews, which give very different recommendations about what you ought to do:
Species-neutral justice: The welfare of all individuals matters equally, regardless of species. Justice requires that we secure a minimal amount of welfare for every individual, not that we maximize the overall or average welfare. Recommendation: preserve the monkeys’ habitat because it is necessary for them to live.
Species-neutral utilitarianism: The welfare of all individuals matters equally, regardless of species. The correct action is the one that maximizes overall welfare, even if it requires sacrificing the interests of some individuals. Recommendation: raze the forest because it will result in greater overall welfare.
Humans-only prioritarianism: Human welfare matters much more than monkey welfare. The correct action is the one that has the best overall consequences for welfare, where the welfare of the worst off is given extra weight. Recommendation: raze the forest because that will save humans, and the interests of the monkeys are not morally important in comparison.”
Can you see the problem here?
No solution or moral theory is offered which takes into account the planetary boundaries and which acknowledges that that which is good for the planet is good for all of us. Razing the forest may provide a short term solution for that particular tribe’s needs but since it undermines the global commons—the forests which are necessary to create the very air we breathe and to regulate the hydrological systems, prevent desertification, and preserve the biodiversity, the web of life in which we are all held—it is ultimately unacceptable because it would lead to the death of all humans and all life on earth if pushed to the extreme.
The example given also does not offer the solution of the tribe learning to restrict its population so that it can live in harmony with the monkeys in their forest.
Any moral philosophy which is anthropocentric, i.e. which does not acknowledge the essential oneness of humanity with nature, the fact that we are all in this together, is no better morally than religions that tell humans that they are the pinnacle of creation and should go forth and multiply and rule over the Earth.
Yes, it’s that bad.
Effective altruists who fail to acknowledge environmental science and the need to protect the global commons, who put human needs above all others, are essentially like fundamentalist Christians. Examples like these show that effective altruism is out of touch with the existential risks caused by its anthropocentrism. One might as well call it EAA—Effective Anthropocentric Altruism—except that anthropocentrism is, in the long term, ineffective, rather than effective. It keeps humanity on our current trajectory, hurtling towards the precipice of extinction.
In my view, the EA movement will die unless it acknowledges these shortcomings and fully embraces environmentalism. But there may be hope for a reformed kind of effective altruism to supplant its current anthropocentric phase: Effective Ecocentric Altruism, or EEA.
Yes. I could live with that.
Literally.
So, in a nutshell:
Anthropocentric = Death/Existential Risk-Precipitating = Ineffective
but
Ecocentric = Life-Sustaining = Effective
As I stated in a previous post, there are no altruists on a dead planet. So let this mark the end of the era of Ineffective Anthropocentric Altruism! And let the the era of Effective Ecocentric Altruism begin!
References + Abstracts
[1] Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries
KATHERINE RICHARDSON HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0003-3785-2787 , WILL STEFFEN, [...], AND JOHAN ROCKSTRÖM HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0001-8988-2983+26 authorsAuthors Info & Affiliations
SCIENCE ADVANCES 13 Sep 2023 Vol 9, Issue 37 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
Abstract
This planetary boundaries framework update finds that six of the nine boundaries are transgressed, suggesting that Earth is now well outside of the safe operating space for humanity. Ocean acidification is close to being breached, while aerosol loading regionally exceeds the boundary. Stratospheric ozone levels have slightly recovered. The transgression level has increased for all boundaries earlier identified as overstepped. As primary production drives Earth system biosphere functions, human appropriation of net primary production is proposed as a control variable for functional biosphere integrity. This boundary is also transgressed. Earth system modeling of different levels of the transgression of the climate and land system change boundaries illustrates that these anthropogenic impacts on Earth system must be considered in a systemic context.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
[2] The Anthropocentric Ontology of International Environmental Law and the Sustainable Development Goals: Towards an Ecocentric Rule of Law in the Anthropocene In: Global Journal of Comparative Law Volume 7 Issue 1 (2018) Authors: Louis J. Kotzé and Duncan French
Abstract
In this article we argue that the Anthropocene’s deepening socio-ecological crisis amplifies demands on, and exposes the deficiencies of, our ailing regulatory institutions, including that of international environmental law (iel). Many of the perceived failures of iel have been attributed to the anthropocentric, as opposed to the ecocentric, ontology of this body of law. As a result of its anthropocentric orientation and the resultant deficiencies, iel is unable to halt the type of human behaviour that is causing the Anthropocene, while it exacerbates environmental destruction, gender and class inequalities, growing inter- and intra-species hierarchies, human rights abuses, and socio-economic and ecological injustices. These are the same types of concerns that the recently proclaimed Sustainable Development Goals (sdgs) set out to address. The sdgs are, however, themselves anthropocentric; an unfortunate situation which reinforces the anthropocentrism of iel and vice versa. Considering the anthropocentric genesis of iel and the broader sdgs framework, this article sets out to argue that the anthropocentrism inherent in the ontological orientation of iel and the sdgs risks exacerbating Anthropocene-like events, and a more ecocentric orientation for both is urgently required to enable a more ecocentric rule of law to better mediate the human-environment interface in the Anthropocene. Our point of departure is that respect for ecological limits is the only way in which humankind, acting as principal global agents of care, will be able to ensure a sustainable future for human and non-human constituents of the Earth community. Correspondingly, the rule of law must also come to reflect such imperatives.
https://brill.com/view/journals/gjcl/7/1/article-p5_5.xml
I am not seeing the issues posed by uncertainty implemented fully in your tools. I’d like to see an in-depth treatment (and incorporation into your tools) of the position stated by Andreas Mogensen in his paper ‘Maximal Cluelessness’, Global Priorities Institute Working Paper No. 2/2019:
“We lack a compelling decision theory that is consistent with a long-termist perspective and does not downplay the depth of our uncertainty while supporting orthodox effective altruist conclusions about cause prioritisation.”
In my view, if one accepts 100% the implications of maximal cluelessness (which is ever more strongly supported by dynamical systems and chaos theory, the more longtermist the perspective), then the logical conclusion from that position is to fund projects randomly, with random amounts.
The RP team may wish to consider prioritising the study of complexity and dynamical systems etc. as part of their continuing professional development (CPD). I recommend the courses offered by the Santa Fe Institute. You can register for most courses at any time, but the agent-based modelling course requires registration and starts at the end of August: https://www.complexityexplorer.org/courses/183-introduction-to-agent-based-modeling
Stephen Hawking famously once said that the 21st century would be the century of complexity. I wholeheartedly agree. IMHO, in these non-linear times, it should be a part of every scientist’s (and philosopher’s) basic education.
From a complex systems perspective, the cross-cause cost effectiveness model is inadequate, since it fails to fully take into consideration or model the complex interactions and interdependencies between cause areas. Did you know, for example, that combatting inequality (a global development goal) is also a proven way of reducing carbon emissions, i.e. reducing the existential risk of climate change, which in turn would reduce biodiversity loss (an animal welfare goal)?
I invite the RP team to consider two of many similar examples:
[1] The 2019 paper published in Nature Sustainability by Nerini et al., Connecting climate action with other Sustainable Development Goals:
“Abstract
The international community has committed to combating climate change and achieve 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Here we explore (dis)connections in evidence and governance between these commitments. Our structured evidence review suggests that climate change can undermine 16 SDGs, while combatting climate change can reinforce all 17 SDGs but under- mine efforts to achieve 12. Understanding these relationships requires wider and deeper interdisciplinary collaboration. Climate change and sustainable development governance should be better connected to maximize the effectiveness of action in both domains. The emergence around the world of new coordinating institutions and sustainable development planning represent promising progress.”
[2] Carbon emissions, income inequality and economic development
Abebe Hailemariam, Ratbek Dzhumashev, Muhammad Shahbaz
Empirical Economics 59 (3), 1139-1159, 2020
This paper investigates whether changes in income inequality affect carbon dioxide () emissions in OECD countries. We examine the relationship between economic growth and emissions by considering the role of income inequality in carbon emissions function. To do so, we use a new source of data on top income inequality measured by the share of pretax income earned by the richest 10% of the population in OECD countries. We also use Gini coefficients, as the two measures capture different features of income distribution. Using recently innovated panel data estimation techniques, we find that an increase in top income inequality is positively associated with emissions. Further, our findings reveal a nonlinear relationship between economic growth and emissions, consistent with environmental Kuznets curve. We find that an increase in the Gini index of inequality is associated with a decrease in carbon emissions, consistent with the marginal propensity to emit approach. Our results are robust to various alternative specifications. Importantly, from a policy perspective, our findings suggest that policies designed to reduce top income inequality can reduce carbon emissions and improve environmental quality.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00181-019-01664-x
In my view, Rethink Priorities should take on board the conclusion of these and similar papers by promoting ‘wider and deeper interdisciplinary collaboration’, and incorporating the results of that collaboration in your models.
My god, the lack of any acknowledgement of the racism that led to FHI’s downfall is stunning.
See the GCRI statement: https://gcri.org/about/statements/race-and-intelligence
Extract: “We at GCRI oppose racism, full stop. We previously expressed this in our Statement on Racism published in June 2020 amidst protests over the killings of Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, and Breonna Taylor. As that explains, racism is important in its own right and also has significant implications for global catastrophic risk. Now, a troubling new incident within the field of global catastrophic risk motivates us to comment further.
The incident involves the very harmful and scientifically dubious idea of a genetic basis of racial differences in intelligence. As elaborated below, this idea is harmful because it perpetuates the idea that people of certain races should dominate people of other races. Because the idea is so harmful, it should not in general be entertained, except to push back against it and the problems it causes. Instead, attention should go to the many conversations and actions needed to counteract racism and its harmful effects.
The incident involves a 1995 listserv email by Nick Bostrom and the apology Bostrom published about one week ago (i.e., in January 2023). We consider this matter worth addressing because Bostrom is a senior scholar of global catastrophic risk and related topics and because the broader field of global catastrophic risk also struggles with issues of race. This is an important moment for the field to learn and improve. Indeed, it has already sparked significant discussion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
The 1995 listserv email states Bostrom’s belief that there are racial differences in intelligence, specifically that “Blacks are more stupid than whites”. It then uses a racial slur that will not be repeated here. In the 2023 apology, Bostrom states, “I completely repudiate this disgusting email from 26 years ago”. The apology also laments the “deeply unfair” non-genetic circumstances that lead “to inequality in social outcomes” and notes Bostrom’s own charitable contributions to addressing this unfairness. These are commendable gestures. However, the apology explicitly leaves open the possibility of genetic causes of racial differences in intelligence and fails to acknowledge the ways in which doing so is harmful.
For centuries, people—especially people of White or European ancestry—have proposed that there may be innate differences between people of different races on attributes including intelligence, virtue, and industriousness. Academic theories such as environmental determinism were developed to explain these purported differences. These propositions have, in many cases, been used to justify the political domination of one race over another, such as in colonial subjugation (as in the image above, from the Indonesian War of Independence from the Dutch Empire) and the so-called White man’s burden. In extreme cases, it has even motivated genocide.
In the present era, raising the idea of genetic racial differences in intelligence serves to perpetuate the very harmful idea that people of some races deserve to be in dominant positions of power and to be favored more generally. Suffice to say, that latter idea is one that society is still struggling to overcome. A powerful illustration is research that found that resumes with typical White names received 50% more positive responses than resumes with typical Black names despite the resumes being designed to have identical qualifications. This is not a genetic difference in intelligence or even a societal failure to provide equal education—it is a societal failure to recognize the intelligence and education that Black people do in fact have.
If it was Bostrom’s intent, in the 2023 apology, to perpetuate the political dominance of certain races, then that is an abomination. Alternatively, if that was not Bostrom’s intent, then his words are ignorant in a very worrisome fashion.”
To avoid repeating the mistakes of FHI, it is essential that any other Initiative to found a similar institute incorporates an ethics advisory body which has real teeth. This would enable it to both put structures and processes in place to prevent anything like that happening again, and also to intervene the moment an ethical issue arises in order to nip it in the bud.