I’m a stock market speculator who has been involved in transhumanist and related communities for a long time. See my website at http://bayesianinvestor.com.
PeterMcCluskey
Eggs from pasture-raised chickens are not very hard to find in Berkeley. Their nutritional advantage over grain-fed eggs was enough for me to switch to them. Yes, they cost $8 to $10 per dozen.
An average of seven years is consistent with the hypothesis that the problem is vitamin B12 deficiency. Our bodies store enough B12 that it takes anywhere from months to decades for symptoms of a severely deficient diet to become clear.
One difference in cost comes from institutions such as Oxford requiring their employees to get prestigious wages. That makes the $75k average misleading. More obscure charities can hire employees much more cheaply.
The goal of avoiding groupthink has the potential to be a very important reason for preferring direct funding. If the direct funding ends up substituting for donations to large, entrenched institutions, then I expect it to be valuable. But I expect that any groupthink associated with young charities that have a handful of employees comes from a broader community, not the specific institution.
Your use of the phrase “fair market value” is a large red flag.
I’ve been speculating in stocks for 35 years. One of the hardest lessons I needed to learn was to not believe that last year’s prices were fairer than today’s prices.
Betting on mean reversion occasionally makes sense, but I’ve learned to only do it after careful analysis of the fundamentals (earnings, book value, etc).
On the Nymex, they currently go out to Dec 2024. That contract appears to trade less than once a week.
There might be occasional contracts for more distant years traded between institutional investors that don’t get publicly reported, but the low volume on publicly traded contracts suggests people just aren’t interested in trading such contracts.
I’ll guess that the most important effects of this would be to influence which species get uploaded when, reducing the chances that the world will be ruled by uploaded bonobos, and increasing the chance of nonprimates ruling.
The obvious objection is that voters who would otherwise not vote are likely to be less informed than the average voter, so your effort causes election results to be less well informed.
You sound more concerned with whether your actions are socially approved than you are with evaluating the results.
Measurability doesn’t sound quite adequate to describe what this proposal is missing.
FHI and MIRI have major problems with measurability, yet have somewhat plausible claims to fit EA principles.
Voter registration has similar problems with estimating how it affects goals such as lives saved, but seems to be missing an analysis of why the expected number of lives saved is positive or negative.
You claim this is non-partisan, yet you make highly partisan claims, such as “conservatives have relied much more on lies” (you cite Trump’s lies, but treating Trump as a conservative is objectionable to many conservatives).
Can you explain your expected far future population size? It looks like your upper bound is something like 10 orders of magnitude lower than Bostrom’s most conservative estimates.
That disagreement makes all the other uncertainty look extremely trivial in comparison.
Ambronite sounds healthier than any other vegan diet, although it’s unclear whether the B12 in it is bioavailable.
I don’t trust nutrition science enough to trust a fully vegan diet, but oysters and/or insects would add enough to make the diet seem safe enough for me.