Suffering should not exist.
Question Mark
Karma: 330
There’s also the psychedelics in problem-solving experiment. The experiment involved having groups engineers solve engineering problems while on psychedelics in order to see if the psychedelics would enhance their performance.
I already posted this in the post about EAG sessions about AI, but I’m reposting it since I think it’s extremely important.
What is the topic of the session?
Suffering risks, also known as S-risks
Who would you like to give the session?
Possible speakers could be Brian Tomasik, Tobias Baumann, Magnus Vinding, Daniel Kokotajlo, or Jesse Cliton, among others.
What is the format of the talk?
The speaker would discuss some of the different scenarios in which astronomical suffering on a cosmic scale could emerge, such as risks from malevolent actors, a near-miss in AI alignment, and suffering-spreading space colonization. They would then discuss possible strategies for reducing S-risks, and some of the open questions related to S-risks and how to prevent them.
Why is it important?
So that worse that death scenarios can be avoided if possible.
What is the topic of the talk?
Suffering risks, also known as S-risks
Who would you like to give the talk?
Possible speakers could be Brian Tomasik, Tobias Baumann, Magnus Vinding, Daniel Kokotajlo, or Jesse Cliton, among others.
What is the format of the talk?
The speaker would discuss some of the different scenarios in which astronomical suffering on a cosmic scale could emerge, such as risks from malevolent actors, a near-miss in AI alignment, and suffering-spreading space colonization. They would then discuss possible strategies for reducing S-risks, and some of the open questions related to S-risks and how to prevent them.
Why is it important?
So that worse that death scenarios can be avoided if possible.
Brian Tomasik wrote something similar about the risks of slightly misaligned artificial intelligence, although it is focused on suffering risks specifically rather than on existential risks in general.
Two Russians I know of who are affiliated with Effective Altruism are Alexey Turchin and Anatoly Karlin. You may want to try to contact them to see if you can convince them to emigrate. Alexey Turchin’s email is available on his website and can be messaged on Reddit, and Anatoly Karlin can be contacted via email, Reddit, Twitter, Discord, and Substack.
Your epistemic maps seem like a useful idea, since it would make it easier to visualize the most important cause areas for where we should push. Alexey Turchin created a number of roadmaps related to existential risks and AI safety, which seem similar to what you’re talking about creating. You should consider making an epistemic map of S-risks, or risks of astronomical suffering. Tobias Baumann and Brian Tomasik have written a number of articles on S-risks, which might help you get started. I also found this LessWrong article on worse than death scenarios, which breaks down some of the possible sources of worse than death scenarios and possible ways to prevent them. S-risks are a highly neglected cause area, since longtermist/AI safety research is generally about reducing extinction risks and preserving human values rather than averting worse than death scenarios. The Center on Long-Term Risk and the Center for Reducing Suffering have done significant research on S-risk prevention, which might be useful to you if you want to know the most promising research areas for reducing S-risks.
This article series on the Age of Malthusian Industrialism may provide some insight on what the next dark age might realistically look like. One possible way an upcoming dark age could be averted is through radical IQ augmentation via gene editing/embryo selection.
One animal welfare strategy EAs should consider promoting in the short term is getting meat eaters to eat meat from larger animals instead of smaller ones, i.e. beef instead of chicken and fish. With larger animals, it takes fewer animals to produce a unit of meat compared to smaller animals. Vitalik Buterin has argued that doing this may be 99% as good as veganism. Brian Tomasik compiled this chart of the amount of direct suffering that is caused by consuming various animal products, and beef and dairy are at the bottom. For lacto-ovo vegetarians, they should also be encouraged to consume more dairy and fewer eggs, since battery-cage eggs involve significant suffering.
Some may argue that convincing people to substitute other animal products for beef will contribute to climate change, but I’m skeptical that the additional suffering caused by the marginal increase in climate change will outweigh the suffering prevented by the drastic decrease in the number of animals subjected to factory farming. In the long term, cultured meat and/or genetically engineering farm animals to not have nociceptors are better solutions.
I did a reverse image search on it, and I found a map that seems to have the same data for France and Germany that was posted in early 2014.
On the topic of the Amish, I found this article “Assortative Mating, Class, and Caste”. In the article, Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran argue that the Amish are undergoing selection pressure for increased “Amishness” which is essentially truncation selection. The Amish have a practice known as “Rumspringa” in which Amish young adults get to experience the outside world, and some fraction of Amish youths choose to leave the Amish community and join the outside world every generation. The defection rate among the Amish has been decreasing over time. The defection rate in recent years has been around 10-15%, but was around 18-24% in the past. Because of this, your assertion that decreasing religiosity will outpace high fundamentalist population growth seems questionable.
From the article:
The Amish marry within their faith. Although they accept converts, there are very few, so there is almost no inward gene flow. They descend almost entirely from about 200 18th century founders. On the other hand, there is considerable outward gene flow, since a significant fraction of Amish youth do not choose to adopt the Amish way of life. In recent years, something like 10-15% of young Amish leave the community In the past, the defection rate seems to have been higher, more like 18-24%. Defection is up to the individual – there are no exterior barriers against Amish who want to participate in modern society.
Since the Amish have very high birth rates ( > 6 children per family), their numbers have increased very rapidly, even though there is a substantial defection rate. There were about 5,000 descendants of the original 200 by 1920, and today [2013] there are about 280,000 Amish.Regarding the implications of future demographics for Effective Altruism/Longtermism, Robin Hanson wrote this article “The Insular Fertile Future”. Robin Hanson talks about ways modern values could be preserved in light of these demographic shifts. One possible strategy to preserve modern values could be to encourage the creation of new subcultures that inherit most of their cultural elements from the dominant culture, but also have high fertility and the adaptive characteristics that insular, religious subcultures with high fertility have.
Also worth reading is Anatoly Karlin’s article series on the Age of Malthusian Industrialism, particularly the article “Breeders’ Revenge”. Karlin argues that a reverse of the demographic transition and a “breeder transition” where there is a resurgence of high fertility due to selection for “breeders” is a mathematical inevitability. Karlin also talks about how France has a fertility rate that is roughly 1.5x that of Germany, which Karlin argues may be the result of France having an earlier demographic transition than other countries, and therefore has had more time for selection for “breeders” to take place.
I found this Facebook group “Effective Altruism Memes with Post-Darwinian Themes”.
These aren’t entirely EA-related, but I also found this subreddit with memes related to transhumanism.
Here are two comics about utilitarianism.
Happy by SMBC Fate of Humanity by Merryweather Comics
Getting people to eat more beef/dairy and less chicken/fish is one animal welfare strategy that EAs should consider promoting. Since cows are large, it takes fewer animals to produce a single unit of food. Brian Tomasik compiled this list of the amount of suffering generated by different animal foods, and beef/dairy are ranked the lowest. Vitalik Buterin has argued that eating only cow products may be 99% as good as veganism. In addition to this, getting people to eat only beef/dairy may have more mass appeal. Few people are willing to become vegan, but far more people may be willing to give up animal products with the exception of beef/dairy.
Do you plan on holding any other S-Risk Intro Fellowships anytime soon? If so, when might they take place? It looks like you’re holding one throughout this month, but the deadline for this upcoming fellowship has passed. If you plan on holding intro fellowships in the future, what would you say are the most important articles/videos/books to read/watch in order to prepare for it?
How much would this apply to running for office in general? Even though most elected officials are less influential and powerful than the US president, running for mayor, congress, senate, etc., could still draw attention and funding to EA causes, and the odds of winning the election are probably higher.
You could try MDMA.
Here’s a chart I found of existential risks that includes S-risks.
A fourteenth theory you should consider adding to your list is the possibility of AGI leading to S-risks. This could be considered similar to #3, but astronomical suffering has the potential to be far worse than extinction. One possible way this could come about is through a “near miss” in AI alignment.
This is extremely useful information for deciding what AI charities to donate to.
What’s the point of extending an infant’s life by a single day? If the infant in question has some sort of terminal illness that will inevitably cause them to die in infancy, prolonging their life by a single day seems extremely cruel. It would do nothing but prolong the infant’s suffering.