Well, this is Robin Hanson’s vision of the future (ems).
That would be very helpful—could you please link to that post?
Financial independence retire early: FIRE: the words are not very descriptive – what about:
Live Economically—A Very Early Retirement or LEAVER?
As in leaving the workforce early. But we are glad you have remained and earned to give.
I understand that they cannot make grants to individuals, but researchers in academia are part of a university which is a charity (501(c)(3) in the US). So legally it would be the same as a focused charity, but still it is a question of whether they would likely make a grant like that.
I’m excited to see this. The application appears geared to focused charities. Is it open to researchers in academia?
I’m not sure if this is the right fit, but the Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED) has a number of GIS data projects you could contribute to.
Yes, ALLFED has talked to the company. It is a far more efficient use of electricity than turning into light and then photosynthesis (vertical farming). But at least at current prices, the natural gas digesting single cell protein would be even lower cost. We are planning on looking into it further, e.g. for diet diversification.
I’m getting site not secure errors on all 4 browsers for the draft. Could you please make it more accessible?
Though you mentioned climate and nuclear, I think resilience to agricultural catastrophes and those catastrophes that could disrupt electricity/industry are separate possible cause X areas. This work is endorsed by ALLFED, BERI (through a grant), and CEA (through a grant). (Disclosure—I’m the director of ALLFED.)
Thanks-I found this quite useful. But I think in order to evaluate the claim that life sciences are not slowing down, it would be good to have some long time series. I think it would be productive to engage with the research that is looking at productivity per researcher. This may be difficult to quantify fairly, because individual papers may have gotten less impactful. For instance, people have claimed that since per capita GDP has grown more slowly in recent decades in developed countries and yet we have many more people doing research, that the productivity per researcher is much lower now. But if you look at specific capabilities, like genomes sequenced, you would say that the productivity per person has gotten much higher because of the strong exponential growth.
I would check out Effective Thesis. At the bottom of the page are a number of scientific disciplines with many possible projects. With funding, the organizations who suggested the thesis may be able to do the project or find someone who could.
Well, there is “eucatastrophe” in existential hope.
I’m very impressed both with how you have built this operation in terms of clients and the positive impact they report. It’s great that you appear to be partially addressing the 80,000 Hours bottleneck for coaching.
Could you give us an idea how many hours a week a typical client of yours works?
For people not familiar with how consulting works, they might naïvely multiply the $125 per hour (because I’m understanding that grants top off the sliding scale) by 40 hours per week, 50 weeks a year and get $250,000 per year “salary.” So it might be useful for them to see roughly how many billable hours a week you get and have a feel for how big expenses are.
Interesting—have you considering age-weighted voting in the context of quadratic voting?
I second weakening the definition. As someone who cares deeply about future generations, I think it is infeasible to value them equally to people today in terms of actual actions. I sketched out an optimal mitigation path for asteroid/comet impact. Just valuing the present generation in one country, we should do alternate foods. Valuing the present world, we should do asteroid detection/deflection. Once you value hundreds of future generations, we should add in food storage and comet detection/deflection, costing many trillions of dollars. But if you value even further in the future, we should take even more extreme measures, like many redundancies. And this is for a very small risk compared to things like nuclear winter and AGI. Furthermore, even if one does discount future generations, if you think we could have many computer consciousnesses in only a century or so, again we should be donating huge amount of resources for reducing even small risks. I guess one way of valuing future generations equally to the present generation is to value each generation an infinitesimal amount, but that doesn’t seem right.
I have not read it, but that is an interesting conclusion from “Why Civil Defense Failed.” Some of the interventions for preventing firestorming were natural gas shut off, electrical shutoff, enhanced sprinklers, and automatically closing shades. One proposed in 1967 was intentionally exploding nuclear weapons beneath the city to create a fire break to stop the spread of a mass fire-talk about fighting fire with fire! That is interesting that the political incentive might actually be greater now to prevent fire storming. Still, preparing for alternate foods would be lower cost than preventing fire storming given nuclear winter or storing more food. So that’s why I think alternate foods have a better chance of actually getting implemented. Yes, the industry that could be used for alternate foods may be targeted, but some alternate foods do not depend on industry still functioning. Furthermore, if the world were prepared for alternate foods, it could potentially provide these foods to the target countries.
I looked into a dozen or so interventions for preventing firestorm given nuclear war. I estimated that some of them could be cost effective only looking at saving lives of US citizens. However, I abandoned the project once I realized that some of the ideas were around in the Cold War, and they were still not implemented, so it was very unlikely we would implement them now.
If one side believes they are being attacked and launches weapons, there would not be a period of tension before the attack. Even if there is a period of tension like the Cuban missile crisis, I don’t believe that caused people to evacuate cities, though of course the attack could not have occurred as quickly as it could now.
I’m not sure if your proposed diet has the required essential oils. These tend to go rancid, though they might still be safe to eat.
Those videos were helpful. You mentioned that secondary fires can start because of natural gas supply-there is a book I’ve read discussing this in detail called Fire After Earthquake. I think secondary fires remain a large risk even with building codes because the valves to shut off the supply could be damaged by the blast.
Sprinklers only have the capacity to put out a fire in one limited location of the building-since the thermal radiation from the fireball would set multiple fires, sprinklers would be overwhelmed.
A big problem with food storage is that it would be trillions of dollars for the whole world to do it – very unlikely to get funded and it would exacerbate current malnutrition.