Pursuing financial independence first assumes that the world and financial markets remain stable for long enough for you to achieve it. What basis do you have for that assumption though? Or for your assumption that most x-risks are ten years out? It’s possible that climate change, for example, is accelerating and may lead to civilisational breakdown before then. The possibility of nuclear war has also increased recently. These are only two of a whole host of x-risks we face. A better option, therefore, might be to adopt what Taleb calls a barbell strategy: to devote part of your time to achieving financial independence and the rest to working directly on existential risk mitigation. Putting all your eggs into the one basket of ‘achieving financial independence’ does not seem rational to me in view of our current complex and interconnected risk landscape.
Deborah W.A. Foulkes
Linkpost: SBF sentenced to 25 years jail
Have your say on the future of AI regulation: Deadline approaching for your feedback on UN High-Level Advisory Body on AI Interim Report ‘Governing AI for Humanity’
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
Phew! It’s much harder to write an effective (no pun intended) headline than I thought! :-). Have changed it to include an actual quote, which I hope is sufficiently representative of the article’s content.
https://youtu.be/ovhBvQ5-vCY
Link to live hearing, US
Here are some more references for you to further substantiate the problem of infertility and immunosuppression and the thereby associated x-risks. (There is an awful lot of research out there on this topic, this is just a rough selection.) Since the harm of extinction (in this particular case via toxin burden-induced infertility and/or reduced immune response) can generally be considered many orders of magnitude higher than the harm of any other risk, due to the enormous number of future lives lost, anything which can be considered an x-risk must be thoroughly researched and quantified before it can be dismissed out of hand.
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/8020
PFAS Environmental Pollution and Antioxidant Responses: An Overview of the Impact on Human Field
Abstract
Due to their unique properties, perfluorinated substances (PFAS) are widely used in multiple industrial and commercial applications, but they are toxic for animals, humans included. This review presents some available data on the PFAS environmental distribution in the world, and in particular in Europe and in the Veneto region of Italy, where it has become a serious problem for human health. The consumption of contaminated food and drinking water is considered one of the major source of exposure for humans. Worldwide epidemiological studies report the negative effects that PFAS have on human health, due to environmental pollution, including infertility, steroid hormone perturbation, thyroid, liver and kidney disorders, and metabolic disfunctions. In vitro and in vivo researches correlated PFAS exposure to oxidative stress effects (in mammals as well as in other vertebrates of human interest), produced by a PFAS-induced increase of reactive oxygen species formation. The cellular antioxidant defense system is activated by PFAS, but it is only partially able to avoid the oxidative damage to biomolecules.
Distribution of persistent organochlorine contaminants in infertile patients from Tanzania and Germany, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10815-006-9069-6
Abstract
Purpose: To test whether environmental pollutants could affect fertility in humans.
Methods: 31 women and 16 men from Tanzania and 21 couples from Germany were included (n=89). Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls were measured in serum, follicular fluid or seminal plasma by gaschromatography and related to sperm quality and pregnancy rates.
Results: Higher concentrations of DDT+DDE and dieldrin in Tanzania and higher concentrations of PCBs in Germany and in men were detected. All compounds showed higher concentrations in serum and lowest concentrations in seminal plasma. A lower pregnancy rate in German women with high serum concentrations of DDT+DDE was observed. The toxins had no impact on sperm quality.
Conclusions: The distribution of toxins between agricultural and industrial countries is different. Seminal plasma seems to be inert against chemicals. In patients with high serum concentrations of DDT and DDE pregnancy rates were impaired.
https://philpapers.org/rec/TURGCR-2
Global Catastrophic Risks by Chemical Contamination
Abstract: Global chemical contamination is an underexplored source of global catastrophic risks that is estimated to have low a priori probability. However, events such as pollinating insects’ population decline and lowering of the human male sperm count hint at some toxic exposure accumulation and thus could be a global catastrophic risk event if not prevented by future medical advances. We identified several potentially dangerous sources of the global chemical contamination, which may happen now or could happen in the future: autocatalytic reactions, exposure to multiple subthreshold sources, and long-term unintended consequences, arising from both natural and bioengineered sources. We list several especially dangerous chemicals—dioxin, organiс compounds, and toxic heavy metals. We also discuss the features of such dangerous chemicals—molecules that can stay in the biosphere for a long time and affect it over time. We explore several social processes and scenarios where global chemical contamination becomes possible: large natural catastrophe like meteorite impact, supervolcano eruption, new ways of predicting properties of the chemicals via machine learning and their manufacturing via synthetic biology, uncontrolled “capitalistic” economic development with a corresponding large waste production, quick adoption of many chemicals with unknown long-term properties and unintended side-effects. These are all low probability, so work on other global catastrophic risks should be prioritized, but chemical risks could exacerbate other types of catastrophe contributing to social collapse
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-1235-5_6
Environmental Security and Ecoterrorism
Impact of Pesticides as Organic Micro-Pollutants on the Environment and Risks for Mankind
Abstract
Because of health concerns, persistence, and long-term environmental effects, the impact of pesticides on agriculture and public health has been the subject of considerable research. Organophosphorus pesticides exert their acute effects by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase in the nervous system with subsequent accumulation of toxic levels of acetylcholine. Herbicides have widely variable toxicity. In addition to acute toxicity from high exposures, there is concern over possible carcinogenicity as well as other long-term problems. Improper use of herbicides may damage crop plants, especially if too large a dose is used, or if spraying occurs during a time when the crop species is sensitive to the herbicide. There are also apprehensions about the toxicity of some herbicides, which may affect people using these chemicals during the course of their occupation. The use of herbicides and other pesticides carries risks to humans through exposure to these potentially toxic chemicals, and to ecosystems through direct toxicity caused to non-target species, and through changes in habitat. People exposed to pesticides had over a fourfold increased risk to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), neuroblastoma, child brain development defects, Parkinson’s disease, prostate cancer, leukemia in children, male infertility and miscarriage.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/15476911003667470
Journal of Immunotoxicology
Volume 7, 2010 - Issue 3
Immunosuppressive effects of triclosan, nonylphenol, and DDT on human natural killer cells in vitro
Abstract
Human natural killer (NK) cells are a first-line immune defense against tumor cells and virally-infected cells. If their function is impaired, it leaves an individual more susceptible to cancer development or viral infection. The ability of compounds that contaminate the environment to suppress the function of NK cells could contribute to the increased risk of cancer development. There are a wide spectrum of compounds that significantly contaminate water and food that are consumed by humans, leading to accumulation of some of these compounds in human tissues. In the current study, we examined the ability of three such compounds to diminish the function of human NK cells. Triclosan (TC) is an antimicrobial agent used in a large number of antibacterial soaps. Nonylphenol (NP) is a degradation product of compounds used as surfactants and as stabilizers in plastics. 4,4′-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is a pesticide that is mainly used to control mosquitoes. The compounds were examined for their ability to suppress NK function following exposures of 1 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 6 days. Each agent was able to substantially decrease NK lytic function within 24 h. At a concentration of 5 µM, both TC and NP inhibited NK lytic function by 87 and 30%, respectively; DDT decreased function by 55% at 2.5 µM. The negative effects of each of these compounds persisted and/or intensified following a brief (1 h) exposure to the compounds, indicating that the impairment of function cannot be eliminated by removal of the compound under in vitro conditions.
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/8/3939
Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and Infectious Diseases: From Endocrine Disruption to Immunosuppression
Abstract
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are hormonally active compounds in the environment that interfere with the body’s endocrine system and consequently produce adverse health effects. Despite persistent public health concerns, EDCs remain important components of common consumer products, thus representing ubiquitous contaminants to humans. While scientific evidence confirmed their contribution to the severity of Influenza A virus (H1N1) in the animal model, their roles in susceptibility and clinical outcome of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) cannot be underestimated. Since its emergence in late 2019, clinical reports on COVID-19 have confirmed that severe disease and death occur in persons aged ≥65 years and those with underlying comorbidities. Major comorbidities of COVID-19 include diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, and kidney and liver diseases. Meanwhile, long-term exposure to EDCs contributes significantly to the onset and progression of these comorbid diseases. Besides, EDCs play vital roles in the disruption of the body’s immune system. Here, we review the recent literature on the roles of EDCs in comorbidities contributing to COVID-19 mortality, impacts of EDCs on the immune system, and recent articles linking EDCs to COVID-19 risks. We also recommend methodologies that could be adopted to comprehensively study the role of EDCs in COVID-19 risk.
While I agree with you that we owe it to our descendants to make the leap into space, my personal motivation for that is also to ensure that we take as many of the other living creatures of our planet with us (quite apart from the fact that I doubt we would be able to survive in an entirely artificial environment without any other Terran life forms). If the Earth’s inhabitability will only last for about another billion years before the sun expands into a red giant and boils off the oceans, etc., then human beings represent the best chance of survival for our planet’s other life forms, too.
That being said, I find the phrase you used, “It is up to us to subdue the earth” quite disturbing. Being a woman, the word ‘subdue’ has overtones of violence and dominance that, frankly, frighten me. And look at where that mindset has got us: according to Toby Ord, we are at the edge of the precipice of extinction already. In large part, that is the result of people trying to ‘subdue’ the earth. It’s not going to work, though. We as a species need to both recognise the enormous responsibility we bear for making sure life manages to survive beyond the lifespan of our little corner of the galaxy, and exercise humility through recognising the threat that we ourselves pose to the continuance of life on Earth. I hope you would agree with me that that’s quite an intellectual and emotional/psychological feat. Like doing the splits :-).
Regarding the—in my view false—distinction between humans and nature: I would argue that human consciousness in its current state of development is highly problematic in that it is one that engenders separateness on many levels, rather than oneness. I am optimistic that we will overcome this state from several angles: with concepts from quantum physics such as quantum cognition (see e.g. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00554/full ); with concepts from biology showing the breathtaking entanglements and co-evolution of e.g. viruses and bacteria with and within humans and human cells, such as the account given by David Quammen in The Tangled Tree ( https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05827-1 ) - after reading this you will never look at nature or see humans in the same way again, I promise you :-); and experientially, through meditation—during meditation I (and others in increasing numbers) have briefly and occasionally experienced oneness with all other humans and with the rest of the living and non-living world/universe, an experience which appears to take place outside of time and space, which feels utterly real and valid, yet which is impossible to put into words and which carries no scientific ‘weight’. Nevertheless, it is this latter experience which gives me most hope for the future of humanity.
You are right that the reference I gave refers to Zen Buddhism and paganism/shamanism. These are schools of thought which are more able to embrace non-duality and have insights on the false dichotomy between humans and nature. For more information on my own ‘religion’, one which feels that the scientific worldview is not incompatible with a spiritual view of nature, please take a look at the Green Spirit Circle website, which my partner and I created and which contains some of my nature poetry: https://www.green-spirit-circle.org/
Impactful animal welfare charity worthy of your donations: FRAME—Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments
Thanks, done!
In your note, you state you are uncomfortable with these experiments. Me too. I find them abhorrent. I used to have a couple of pet rats and they are the dearest, sweetest, most curious and intelligent creatures imaginable. The thought that they could have been ‘decortified’ makes me feel sick.
I have spent a lot of time reading on the neuroscience of memory, to develop my understanding of the field, especially relating to the hippocampus. Much understanding here has come from experiments on rats. When/if I finally publish my findings, however, I intend to avoid citing those papers using rat experimentation wherever possible. Imaging technology has advanced to the point where animal lesion studies can gradually take a back seat, and I would hope that eventually they are no longer performed. As Effective Altruists we should be also moving in that direction too, don’t you think? Is examination of consciousness via this type of experiment even at all compatible with the moral standpoint of ‘doing the most good’? I think not.
Once I visited a university physiology lab. The scientists there seemed like nice people. But they thought nothing of turning a gas tap on to kill a vibrant and happy bunch of mice that were extraneous to their experimental needs. The conversation and the laughter went on, while I looked at all those suddenly still, dead little bodies. It was grotesque. Grotesque.
Thank you for your kind remarks. It was very hard for me to put this out into the forum, knowing that it would probably attract some serious pushback, but I felt I had to.
The UK’s top political podcasters on Sam Bankman-Fried
Thanks for your feedback, text has been revised.
Please provide arguments for your disagreement if possible James. Thank you :-).
If you register with them you can view a number of articles for free.
Hi Roman, I really like your post, the idea of experimenting with telling each other about random samples of our daily lives. Something that is more likely to bring people together than the slickly curated Instagram posts. It’s a very worthwhile thing to try and achieve, and you seem to be succeeding in it—so well done there!
However, the title of your post doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the actual content. I read your post expecting to find something about cognitive biases, for example, and groupthink, based on that title. Could you maybe consider giving your post a title which better reflects the content? Then you will be more likely to reach the readers you want to have a conversation with about it.
All the best!
I’m so sorry you find my post ‘adversarial’. I do apologise if that is the impression you have received. It was not intended. By way of explanation—I’ve arrived at Effective Altruism via a path that started with existential risks and then expanded to longtermism, so I suppose I automatically start from a more risk-averse perspective. X-risks and longtermism lead to one thinking more in terms of the negative effects an intervention could have on vast numbers of future people (since a human extinction event would prevent huge numbers of future people from leading happy fulfilling lives up to the habitable limit of this planet, around one billion years, and prevent even huger, barely comprehensible numbers of future people expanding to settle inhabitable planets throughout the universe), and this often seems to conflict with considerations of smaller (in comparison) numbers of people here on this one planet in the short-term. It is a quite horrible moral dilemma, to weigh these up against one another, and one which is very uncomfortable indeed to contemplate or to even attempt to quantify. But we should not shrink from this difficult task, I feel.
Thank you for such a comprehensive consideration (and I’m glad you seem to like my newly-coined neologism sapioseparatism enough to use it, even though you disagree with the concept itself :-) ).
I’ll try to address some of your points. Firstly, there is a very good journal article on utilitarianism and biodiversity that I think you might enjoy reading: Why biodiversity matters: A review of the arguments, and counter-arguments, for the conservation of the diversity of life, Abstract
The impact of human activities on the biosphere has accelerated rapidly during the last 200 years, and particularly so since the second half of the 20th century consequent upon an exponential rate of population growth combined with scientific and technological developments. Advances in technology continue to facilitate the exploitation of the world’s organic resources and the manipulation of its physical environment. This has called for increased efforts towards the conservation of the world’s biodiversity so as to reduce the rapid rate of species extinction and decline. This review paper explores the arguments and counter-arguments that have been put forward for the conservation of biological diversity. The ultimate purpose of the review is to broaden the horizon on the value of biodiversity, which will help in diminishing the narrow, humanistic valuation of biodiversity largely responsible for the current biodiversity crisis. Indeed, one of the causes of the accelerated loss of biodiversity has been the utilitarian and human-centred argument that has largely been put forward as justification for the conservation of the world’s biodiversity. The major weakness with a conservation system based on economic motives is that most members of the biological community do not have immediate economic value. Therefore, justifying species preservation for utilitarian purposes predisposes many seemingly useless species to extinction. Only a moral or ethical argument for the conservation of biodiversity in which nature is conserved for its own sake, combined with sustainable use, can ensure a more effective conservation of the world’s organic resources.
This paper also has a fascinating discussion of the utilitarian dilemma with respect to the ‘existence value’ of biodiversity:
Existence value, biodiversity, and the utilitarian dilemma
Abstract
Existence value has been argued to be a significant part of the total economic value of some
ecosystems. However, its compatibility with the welfare economic foundations of economic
valuation is very limited – it is difficult to logically conceive of changes in existence. Moreover,
when applied to biodiversity, the concept of existence value gives rise to an instance of a more
fundamental problem of economic valuation, termed here the utilitarian dilemma: it can be
argued conceptually that biodiversity cannot have existence value; yet the results of empirical
studies suggest that people in stated preference studies can be expected to assign existence value
to it. The utilitarian dilemma arises as the analysing economist must deal somehow with
‘erroneous’ preferences. There seems to be no simple solution to the dilemma, but deliberative
monetary valuation has the potential to alleviate it.https://www.ufz.de/export/data/global/138112_DP_2017_2_Bartkowksi.pdf
I also recommend: Respect for Nature
A Theory of Environmental Ethics − 25th Anniversary Edition
Paul W. Taylor
In the series Studies in Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400838530
About this book
What rational justification is there for conceiving of all living things as possessing inherent worth? In Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor draws on biology, moral philosophy, and environmental science to defend a biocentric environmental ethic in which all life has value. Without making claims for the moral rights of plants and animals, he offers a reasoned alternative to the prevailing anthropocentric view—that the natural environment and its wildlife are valued only as objects for human use or enjoyment. Respect for Nature provides both a full account of the biological conditions for life—human or otherwise—and a comprehensive view of the complex relationship between human beings and the whole of nature.
This classic book remains a valuable resource for philosophers, biologists, and environmentalists alike—along with all those who care about the future of life on Earth. A new foreword by Dale Jamieson looks at how the original 1986 edition of Respect for Nature has shaped the study of environmental ethics, and shows why the work remains relevant to debates today.
Author information
Paul W. Taylor (1923–2015) was professor emeritus of philosophy at Brooklyn College, City University of New York.
Reviews
“When it first appeared, Respect for Nature was at once recognized for the important, groundbreaking work it was. It was deservedly a major influence in the then newly developing field of environmental ethics. Time has only confirmed this first opinion and it is good to have the book back before us.”—Michael Ruse, editor of Philosophy after Darwin
“Paul Taylor notes that just as we would not ask ‘What is a human being good for?,’ so also should we not ask ‘What is nature good for?’ This is surely right. His Respect for Nature is a systematic working out of the consequences of this observation. It is even more relevant today than when it first appeared twenty-five years ago.”—Stephen Darwall, Yale University
Full text of statement SBF planned to give to US House hearing (which the representative who submitted it for the record found completely disrespectful in tone):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2022/12/13/exclusive-transcript-the-full-testimony-sbf-planned-to-give-to-congress/