Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by JuanGarcia, Preppikoma
1 min read 1

47

BiosecurityExistential riskOpportunities to take actionPolicyAnnouncements and updatesClimate changeGeomagnetic stormsGlobal catastrophic riskNuclear winterPandemic preparednessResearchResilient food
Frontpage
Link to Database

 

In short

The Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED) is a nonprofit food security organization that aims to help build resilience to global catastrophic food system failures. ALLFED has a mature volunteering system for those contributors who want to invest their time in reducing global catastrophic risk. We have prepared a new database of research projects for volunteers interested in food security for global catastrophic scenarios, which you can find here. You can send your expression of interest for these projects in this form.

Screenshot of ALLFED research project database - for prospective volunteers

Screenshot of the database

 

Context

The Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED) is a nonprofit food security organization that aims to help build resilience to global catastrophic food shocks. We work on research, policy, and technology development: research to find the most promising interventions against these catastrophes, policy to transfer our recommendations to decision makers, and technology development to ensure that our recommendations are tested and the necessary technologies are available to respond.

At Alliance To Feed The Earth In Disasters (ALLFED), we see feeding all and preserving biodiversity in a catastrophe as something achievable – through advance planning, collaboration, communication, and research.

Volunteers play a key role in these goals, and this spreadsheet provides an overview of research – and, in some cases, other – endeavors for which candidates can apply. Successful volunteers would e.g. participate in collaborative meetings, utilize creative and strategic thinking and rigorous methods, get experience in publishing peer-reviewed papers, as well as conduct other project-specific tasks.

All of this and more can be done from anywhere in the world, on any timezone, and largely on a schedule that works for you – the program is characterized by exceptional flexibility and support, and we have significant experience integrating and managing volunteers. Some of our core, long-standing team members got involved through volunteering!

Note that this database contains only research projects, whereas we also accept expressions of interest for people who want to volunteer in topics such as operations or communications. You can read more here.

47

0
0
2

Reactions

0
0
2
Mentioned in
Comments1


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
JuanGarcia10
0
0

Appendix: list of project titles

  1. Recovering infrastructure as quickly as possible after a catastrophe
  2. Retrofitting ships to be wind-powered
  3. Emergency CubeSat
  4. Developing plants resilient to low sunlight, temperature, or water
  5. Foods from thin air: Towards CO2-based diets for deep space missions, Earth's environment, and existential food resilience
  6. Potential of combined production of lignocellulosic sugar and leaf protein concentrate for preventing mass starvation in an ASRS
  7. Potential of microbial fats for preventing mass starvation in an ASRS
  8. Potential of single cell protein from wood and agricultural residues for preventing mass starvation in an ASRS
  9. Potential of single cell protein via solid fermentation of peat/lignite for preventing mass starvation in an ASRS
  10. Rapid repurposing of industrial infrastructure for microbial food production in global catastrophic food shocks
  11. Retrofitting single cell protein animal feed factories to single cell protein human food factories
  12. Agricultural residues: Potential for feeding ruminants
  13. Integrated model with addition of crop relocation, expanded planted area, and (maybe) leaf protein concentrate
  14. Quick cost estimates of potential resilient foods
  15. Systematic review of health outcomes of nutritional issues in an ASRS
  16. Integrated model with infrastructure and population loss
  17. Expanded planted area scale-up analysis
  18. In-depth analysis of labor and equipment for industrial food production
  19. Food production during an x-pandemic
  20. Analysis of international cooperation in an ASRS like nuclear winter
  21. Cost and scaling of energy/electricity production in a catastrophe
  22. GIS analysis of water supply and demand if the sun is obscured
  23. Integrated model with varying number of Tg and duration of aerosols
  24. Literature review and mapping of regions resilient to global catastrophes
  25. Estimating worst drop in food production globally so far for every country
  26. GCFF mental health
  27. Literature assessment on whether people inexperienced in growing food could be trained quickly to do so
  28. Supply-chain modelling under severe disruption scenarios
  29. Mortality from losing infrastructure if basic needs are met
  30. Trade economics without money in loss of industry
  31. Produce a governmental ASRS response plan for a particular country
  32. Produce ASRS or GCIL response plans at various governance levels
  33. Piloting agriculture in ASRS conditions
  34. Water treatment in an x-pandemic
  35. Plant-based meat to displace inefficient animal agriculture in an ASRS
Reply
More from JuanGarcia
173
ALLFED emergency appeal: Help us raise $800,000 to avoid cutting half of programs
3 authors
· · 4m read
8
8
48
Don't Let Other Global Catastrophic Risks Fall Behind: Support ORCG in 2024
3 authors
· · 4m read
1
1
44
ALLFED's 2024 Highlights
4 authors
· · 26m read
0
0
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Recent opportunities in Existential risk
9
An International Collaborative Hub for Advancing AI Safety Research
Cody Albert
· · 6m read
0
0
28
Apply to the Cambridge ERA:AI Fellowship 2025
Harrison 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
20
Applications Open: Pivotal 2025 Q3 Research Fellowship
2 authors
· · 2m read
0
0
View more