TLDR: more practical applications of existing research.
I think that these days everything competes for attention (“attention economy”).
I think that popularising existing research and funding new—can go side by side.
But I wonder if the EA movement is allocating nearly enough money to new RCTs and program evaluations, or to R&D more broadly, so as to build out new evidence in a strategic way.
I’m more on the practical side, implementing what we know so far.
Just like a brilliant product—will it go to market organically or will require a marketing push? Same analogy is applicable to research—more mainstream attention, popularisation, impact, getting on Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman, that in turn can provide more funds and interest to fund new research.
Overall it seems it is a balance—more new research will naturally trigger more new high quality research and more new real-life implications.
Another benefit I can think of—INDEPENDENCE—whenever something is sponsored by someone I wonder about incentives and spheres of influence.
TLDR: not just economic development and lifting out of poverty but a broader perspective of CLIMATE EMERGENCY and forced migration.
**********
I need to compliment the level of detail 👍
Apologies if my reply is not as detailed, I just want to cover a few points that stood out to me.
CTRL+F “climate change”
I support the thesis of the Deep Adaptation movement—inevitable near-term social collapse.
I collect links to various extreme weather events, most recently in Iran:
50C (120F)
no water
people on the streets
police firing shots
casualties
#InternetShutdown trending on Twitter
Check this video by Amnesty International: https://twitter.com/greeneniigma/status/1420383736730947586
CTRL+F “refugee”
Related: https://refugeecities.org/
Key takeaways:
Executive summary:
Improving well-being and lifting out of poverty—maybe not.
(malaria, mosquito nets, experimentation with price point that won the Nobel Prize in Economics recently to Esther Duflo)
Climate change and environmental migrants—maybe yes.
Why do I think charter cities are cool?
Global cooperation and governance at scale.
CO2 efficient building technology (during construction and lifespan for heating and cooling)
Check XPRIZE “Future of Housing”:
Currently, there are around 200 sovereign states with a United Nations mandate.
I suggest Kazakhstan:
loads of land
religious balance (mostly Islam and 20% Christianity)
open to Bitcoin mining (forward-thinking government)
precedent of cosmodrome Baikonur leased to Russian Space Agency
Russians are building a new cosmodrome—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostochny_Cosmodrome—Baikonur might be available for sale?
Overall, I believe that Charter Cities is a political problem, not a technical problem.
Technology is there. Capital is there. Critical mass is there. Entrepreneurs are there. Now need to find a country that would like to invite entrepreneurs and capital.
😎
PS. Really great piece. Comprehensive. I will read it again and connect with various organizations mentioned here.