@Leonie Falk I’m not clear if this is what you’re looking for, but … during Covid, there was obviously a lot of need for oxygen solutions, and one result of this is a lot of great work, mostly open-source in optimal design of oxygen concentrators.
At least one group in the U. of Cambridge set up with the view to optimising the supply and distribution of oxygen concentrators in developing countries, mainly in Africa. I was involved only at the start of the project, so I don’t have the latest status. Part of the team was located in Kenya (?). The vision was to mass-produce these in Kenya. There are regions there with very suitable zeolite rocks, which (in an oxygen concentrator) are used to adsorb Nitrogen from a stream of air, so that the stream coming out is very rich in Oxygen, up to 95% or in some cases even 99%.
The reason this is interesting is that oxygen concentrators are relatively low-tech, and while they need electricity, they do not need to be refilled with oxygen. They also avoid many of the safety issues related to handling oxygen containers, which work great in London hospitals but maybe not in small, rural clinics with no experts present.
You probably know all this, but if not, definitely feel free to ask me more about the technology of oxygen concentrators. The point you might not know is about the project run with Cambridge, which is just a 40-minute train journey from London. I’d be happy to introduce you to Professor David Fairen-Jimenez, who is a global expert on adsorption technologies and was a colleague of mine for several years.
Congratulations on founding this amazing charity! When we worked on this, one thing I recall was all the people saying “Even without Covid, there is a massive need for oxygen!” It’s brilliant that you’re helping to address that!
Denis
I think you may greatly understate your case. I would argue that, especially in the US, the lack of credible “public intellectuals” is one of the greatest problems of our age, and that there is a huge opportunity for the right people to fill this role.
EAs with the right communication skills could be perfect public intellectuals, and if they could move the debate, or even the Overton window, a bit more towards effective positions, that would be a massive contribution to the world.True, there are plenty of opinionated people out there, but it feels like mostly they are trotted out to support the party line rather than to provide genuine insight. They are more like lawyers arguing their “side”—and realistically, people don’t trust lawyers to give honest insight.
If I look at France or Italy, for comparison, there have always been a few figures who tend to be asked for opinions about major topical questions, and their views carry weight. In other countries and in previous times, church leaders play or played a similar role—rarely with positive consequences …
Today there are so many questions where public “debate” consists of people shouting slogans at each other, and whoever shouts loudest wins. I don’t think most people like this. There are a few journalists (e.g. David Brooks in the NY Times) who have the confidence and authority to express opinions that are not necessarily partisan, and are presented with careful arguments, evidence and reference to critical thinking by others, including those who do not support him.
This is the work of the public intellectual, and when it is done well, it can still help people to change their minds or at least to understand both sides of an argument. It feels like philosophy (and maybe history) are the most obvious fields in which this kind of skillset and credibility can be achieved and earned.
I see this as a great opportunity for effective altruists because, unlike so many knee-jerk positions, EA’s tend to have very carefully and analytically investigated every question, and to have done so with a very clear and tangible criterion. We need more EA’s writing and being interviewed in places where the general public can hear them—and we need those people to be trained in the art of communicating to the general public (not just other EAs) without dumbing down (which would defeat the purpose of aiming to be seen as a public intellectual. The best speak in such a way that other people share their ideas, in part, as a sign that they are smart enough to understand them.
I see support for philosophers as very valuable if it can lead not just to new insights, but more importantly, to new voices ready to communicate in the public domain.
Another article on this today, in the New York Times.
Both are shockingly underfunded. But I think future generations will be even more shocked by how we treated (i.e. actively caused great suffering to) farm animals than by how we failed to help humans in dire need.
Good analysis of this from PauseAI:
I don’t want to presume to paraphrase their analysis into one phrase, but if I were forced to, it would seem to be that there was a lot of pressure on Governor Newsom from powerful AI companies and interests, who also threatened to ruin the bill’s sponsor Scott Wiener.
Still a pity that he couldn’t resist the pressure.
It’s kind of pathetic, but this is the reality of politics today. With their money, they really can either make or break a politician, and we voters are not smart enough to avoid being taken in by their negative advertising and dirt-digging.
It’s clear that we need a much stronger movement on this. The other reason he was able to veto this bill is that the vast majority of people do not agree that AI poses a major / existential risk, and so they do not insist on the urgent action we need.
I understand they have fixed this issue, but if not, just contact them directly.
I signed up originally with an abbreviated version of my national ID number, but they preferred to correct the system and have the accurate number.
This is where we need a broad perspective.
Long-term, we solve the problem of meat-eating with artificial protein, which also solves many other problems.
Medium-term, we work to end factory-farming, which needlessly increases the suffering of animals. (I don’t want to get into it because there are many experts here and I’m not one of them, but it may be arguable that an animal which is bred for food but gets to live a decent life in a field is better off than if it hadn’t been born because people didn’t need to eat it. However, in the case of factory-farming, such an argument seems totally untenable).
Short-term, we accept that we live in an imperfect world and that most people value saving human lives, even at the cost of animal lives. So we work to save human lives and improve health and improve quality of life, and instead of losing sleep over the calculation of the net impact on animals, we support the amazing organisations who are working to end factory-farming (like Farmkind) and to develop alternative protein (like GFI).
It’s valuable to discuss questions like this, and I absolutely do not claim to have a definitive answer—all I say is that when I think about this, that’s how I rationalise it.
Hi,
I’m not sure if you’ve had any interactions with the “EU Technical Policy Fellowship” led by Training for Good. You can find a lot of information online, and I could put you in contact with the trainers/organisers if that would be helpful.
They take 12 people (out of about 300 applicants) through an intense 8-week program about how to influence EU policy towards better AI Safety Governance. I was lucky enough to be a fellow earlier this year. Many of the fellows then do a 6-month internship at an AI-focused think-tank or Civil Society organisation.
IMHO this group may be of interest to some of the fellows and/or they may be interested in volunteering to support some of the activities. I’m not sure, as the focus of the fellowship is very much on getting people into the bodies that you do not want to duplicate.
They may also just have a good network of others who may be interested—again, possibly you already have access to the same network (Brussels isn’t so big!)
There may also be potential to work with the new AI Office. I’m sure they are totally understaffed and over-worked at the moment—however, it sounds like you’re planning to do some things that they would support, so maybe they would see enabling this organisation as an effective way to meet some of their needs.
On this subject, it was nice to see Nick Kristof in the New York Times write on a related theme, comparing how we treat and respect dogs and pigs.
Opinion | Dogs Are the Best! But They Highlight Our Hypocrisy. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Great idea! Let me do this when I feel inspired and opinionated!
Wow, great example. Thanks for sharing this. Everytime I see this happening, it frustrates me, but I don’t actually have a clear idea of how to talk about it.
That’s really interesting, and makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing!
Absolutely. Definitely this is still better than a world where people say “it’s OK to whip a horse!”
I agree fully with the sentiment, but IMHO as a logical argument it fails, as so many arguments do, not in the details but in making a flawed assumption at the start.
You write: “Clearly, in such a case, even though it would cost significant money, you’d be obligated to jump into the pond to save the child.”
But this is simply not true.
For two reasons:If we are obligated, it is by social pressure rather than ethics. If we thought people would find out about it, of course we’d feel obligated. But if not, maybe we would walk past. The proof of this is in exactly what you’re trying to discourage—the fact that when faced with a similar situation without the same social pressure, most people do not feel obligated.
The scenario you describe isn’t realistic. None of us wear $5000 suits. For someone who wears a $5000 suit, you’re probably right. But for most of us, our mental picture of “I don’t want to ruin my clothes” does not translate to “I am not willing to give up $5000.” I’m not sure what the equivalent realistic scenario is. But in real cases of people drowning, choking or needing to be resuscitated, many people struggle even to overcome their own timidity to act in public. We see people stabbed and murdered in public places and bystanders not intervening. I do not see compelling evidence that most strangers feel morally compelled to make major personal risks or sacrifices to save a stranger’s life. To give a very tangible example, how many people feel obligated to donate a kidney while they’re alive to save the life of a stranger? It is something that many of us could do, but almost nobody does. I know that is probably worth more than $5000, but it’s closer in order-of-magnitude than ruining our clothes.
Absolutely, it would be a better world for all of us if people did feel obliged to help strangers to the tune of $5000, but we don’t live in that world … yet.
The drowning child analogy is a great way to help people to understand why they should donate to charities like AMF, why they should take the pledge.
But if you present it as a rigorous proof, then it must meet the standards of rigorous proof in order to convince people to change their minds.
Additionally, my sense is that presenting it as an obligation rather than a free, generous act is not helpful. You risk taking the pleasure and satisfaction out of it for many people, and replacing that with guilt. This might convince some people, but might just cause others to resist and become defensive. There is so much evidence of this, where there are immensely compelling reasons to do things that even cost us nothing (e.g. vote against Trump) and still they do not change most people’s behaviour. I think we humans have developed very thick skins and do not get forced into doing things by logical reasoning if we don’t want to be.
Formidable !!
Great work Jen and Romain !
If you’re desperate enough, I’m pretty good at BOTEC, and my French, while not great, isn’t as bad as some other people’s in the cohort, according to Romain …
Let me know if I can help!
This is fantastic!
First, because for too long the “good guys” have been doing “activist” things without the kind of impact that law-makers bring, while the “bad guys” have basically cut to the chase and gone directly to the halls of power, with lobbying, bribes (legal, in the form of support of campaigns, but basically they are bribes), etc. It’s important that the good guys start fighting where it really matters.
Second, because your plan is solid, tangible and achievable.
IMHO, there is a huge range of action where political action would have strong popular support. While the vast majority of people are not “animal activists”, they also would oppose many of the practices of factory farming (witness the success of campaigns against caged hens) - if they knew about them. So there is scope to make changes that will not seem radical (e.g. ruling that animals must be allowed outside and have space to move and be killed humanely and really basic stuff) which would have a huge impact on animal welfare.
You don’t need the politician to say “we need to all become vegans and no more meat-eating”—because, especially in France, that will not work. But a politician could say “We love our farmers. But there is a minority of farmers who are giving others a bad name by mistreating animals, and we will not tolerate that.” Then if the farming-lobby (which anyway doesn’t represent the majority of small farmers) want to come out and argue that it’s not a minority, let them. I think it’s a minority of farmers, but the majority of farm animals who are subject to factory-farming practices.
So I can see CAP having a massive impact. Good luck!
PS did you intentionally choose CAP as a name (which, at least in anglophone countries, brings to mind the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy—which may be one of the key things you’d want to change in the long term)?
I love that you wrote this.
I am so sick of seeing countries praised for having “enlightened” immigration policies when what they actually do is accept the migrants they need for their economy and reject the rest.
They always justify this on the basis of the rights of individual migrants, but the net outcome is that some rich country has avoided the cost of educating and training a person with valuable skills, while some poor country has been deprived of the services of someone whom they paid to educate and train—but also, potentially, of one of the people who would have added a lot of value to their country.
It’s difficult to see this in most typical jobs (doctors, engineers, nurses, …), but anyone who follows football (i.e. soccer) will understand how this works. The best soccer players from Africa and South America play in Europe. If we focus on their individual rights, then it feels unfair to deny them the chance to emigrate. But if we focus on the rights of people in their home countries, this is daylight robbery—countries which produce some of the best players in the world have mediocre leagues, while rich countries have high quality leagues, often mostly with foreign players.
Obviously, in the case of football, it’s not such a big deal. And, with football, at least they can still watch on tv, and the players will still (mostly) be available for the national team.
With other jobs, the person is just lost to the country, and the result will be an inferior quality of life for those who remain.
If we accept that the individual’s rights to emigrate trump those of their country of origin, at minimum we need some form of compensation which is appropriate to the scale of the problem.
I don’t have a solution—but sometimes I worry that we’re very quick to jump to the conclusion that the individual’s freedom is more important than everything else, especially when it’s convenient. The countries who use this argument don’t hesitate to deny the same freedom to immigrate to people who do not have useful skills, and they don’t seem to lose too much sleep over it.
It will be very difficult for cultivated meat to scale in a world where 99% of people and 99.99% of politicians just stick their heads in the sand and pretend the current systems—with massive animal suffering, climate damage, antibiotic use and increasing land-use—is sustainable.
Once we stop thinking of this as “can we make it work?” but as “we have to make this work!” we’ll discover solutions.
For example, regarding contamination (comments below), maybe the right approach is not to look for 0% risk of contamination, but to find the right sweet-spot, even if that means some batches need to be discarded. Remember that the correct comparison for this is not pharma, but rather factory farming, with animals often living in their own excrement and being pumped full of antibiotics to keep them “healthy”, with terrible consequences not just for the animals but also for antibiotic resistance, which is now a major cause of human deaths.
Yet, there are countries in the EU seeking to ban cultivated meat, or to stop it from being labelled “meat,” as politicians bow to the power of the powerful agriculture sector.
I don’t have a solution (I wish!), but with elections coming up in so many countries, I wonder if there’s an opportunity for many of us to ask politicians why they are not aggressively supporting and funding what is possibly the most important technological challenge the world is facing.
I don’t necessarily agree that the community is either complacent or complicit, but I do agree that this is potentially a massive reputational hazard. It’s not about anyone proving that EA’s are racist, it’s just about people starting to subconsciously associate “racism” and “EA”, even a tiny bit. It could really hurt the movement.
Again, as per my comment above, I think there is great value in a firm rebuttal from a credible voice in the UK EA community.
It’s just absurd that one email from nearly 30 years ago, taken out of context, is being used to tar an entire global community.
We also need to remember that back in 1996, when the email was written, the world was not in the state it’s in now where people believe that any phrase, even if uttered provocatively or in jest, can be taken literally and assumed to represent a person’s true beliefs, even if there are 10000 examples of them saying the exact opposite. I remember when I was in college it was quite normal to write or say shocking things just to get a reaction or a laugh, we didn’t yet have the mentality that you shouldn’t write or say anything that you wouldn’t be happy to see on the front page of the Times.
Until I read this article, saw this post and read the comments on it, I kind of imagined that EA’s were very similar to normal people, just a bit more altruistic and a bit more expansive and maybe a bit more thoughtful.
This post scares the hell out of me.
This article is one of the worst articles I’ve ever seen in the NY Times. It is utter bullshit, but coated in meaningless, sweet-sounding words.
This is an attack on everything that we believe in! What the hell will it take to make EA’s angry if this nonsense, in probably the most famous newspaper in the world, does not?
Why do we just sit back and think “that’s not a very fair analysis”?
Does nobody feel an urgent need to defend ourselves, to get on TV and radio and places other than the EA forum and explain to the world that this article totally misses the point of EA, totally mischaracterises what we’re trying to achieve and why?
If someone wrote an article about a minority group and described them with a few nasty racist stereotypes, there would be massive protests, retractions, apologies and a real effort to ensure that people were well informed about the reality.
The word “minority” is important here. If EA were the dominate mode of donating to charity, as it should be, then sure, it would be fine for someone to write that there is also value in donating to small, local charities, to challenge the status quo.
But EA represents only a small minority of donors today, so it is totally inappropriate for a journalist to pick on it.
But what really makes my blood boil are those who were not mentioned or consulted by this sad excuse for a journalist. For example, the people who desperately need food or medicine to survive. The animals who suffer in factory farms. The people who will suffer the most from climate-change.
We need to call this out for the bullshit it is. EA’s believe that, when you donate, you should think a bit more about the people and animals who desperately need your help, and about what they need and how to help them, and maybe think a little bit less about the warm fuzzy feeling you get helping someone who will thank you profusely in person.
I absolutely refuse to accept that there is something wrong with that, and I find it shocking and appalling that the NY Times would publish this article as probably the only significant article they have published about EA since the last negative articles they published during the SBF affair.
At the very minimum, they have a responsibility to get their facts straight. Just read the four paragraphs where she introduces effective altruism. For her it is not a ground-roots movement, it is all about billionaires and ultra-wealthy. This is just not true. But she doesn’t even mention that 99.999% of EA’s are not rich by American standards—it’s just that, unlike most, we’re aware of how rich we are by global standards.
I would really hope to see a strong rebuttal submitted by someone in the EA movement. I would write it myself (and I will), but I don’t think an article by me will get published in the NY Times. But there are people in the EA movement who are not millionaires but who do have the name-recognition and credibility to be listened to. This absolutely needs to happen, and fast. Maybe we could turn this negative into a positive. But giving season is already in full swing, and the people and animals who desperately depend on effective giving cannot afford to lose any of the insufficient donations they already get, even if it does mean that the local dog-shelter gets painted in bright Christmassy colours.
For now I plan to share this on my own social media and use it as an excuse to talk about effective giving and, as a side note, to share an example of shoddy journalism.