Hide table of contents

Hi, I’m Tandena Wagner.  As part of my research for EcoResillience Initiative (an EA organization searching for the best ways to preserve biodiversity into the long-term future), I’ve investigated several common claims that resource limitations could be disastrous for civilization – ie, that we’re approaching “peak oil”, or imminently running out of phosphorus, soil nitrogen, chromium, etc.  For the most part, I’ve found these claims to be overblown, often systematically exaggerated by the poor epistemic conditions of activist environmentalism.  In general, Paul-Erlich-style resource limitations do not seem pressing compared to other risks to civilization.

However, there’s one key resource that I’ve become increasingly concerned about: human civilization might be running out of low-hanging fruit.

This kid can’t reach the fruit because he’s just a baby.  But soon, this kid’s problem could be the WHOLE WORLD’s problem.

Low-hanging fruit is essential for continued human thriving

You might be like, “Whatever, this doesn’t sound like a huge problem -- fruit is tasty, sure, but people don’t NEED to eat fruit, right?”

That’s what we thought, too.  But after digging into the research, it turns out that low-hanging fruit is critical for continued progress across diverse scientific fields.  For example, according to wikipedia, “some suspect a lack of low-hanging fruit as a significant contribution to Eroom's law”, which states that drug discovery is getting slower and more expensive over time.

Low-hanging fruit is also a key input to broader increases in living standards.  In the past, when low-hanging fruit was more common, countries like South Korea could go from subsistence poverty to joining the ranks of the world’s richest nations in just a single generation.  But nowadays, the Center for Global Development admits that poor countries are staying poor for longer, because “there’s not a lot of low-hanging fruit in global development.”

Perhaps the most comprehensive exploration of this issue comes from Tyler Cowen’s 2011 opus, “The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History”.  In the book, he argues:

Our economy has enjoyed low-hanging fruit since the seventeenth century.  But during the last forty years, the low-hanging fruit started disappearing, and we started pretending it was still there. We have failed to recognize that we are at a technological plateau. The fruit trees are barer than we want to believe. That's it. That is what has gone wrong and that is why our politics is crazy.

More recently, some economists have started to push back on Cowen’s ideas, postulating that maybe AI will help humanity escape the Great Stagnation.  But even here, fruit is a crucial bottleneck.  Just a few months ago, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said of generative AI

I think the progress is going to get harder.  When I look at 2025, the low-hanging fruit is gone.

Tantalus, a figure of Greek myth, infamously ran out of low hanging fruit.  Could this be humanity’s future?

What would it mean if humanity exhausted the low-hanging fruit?

If we ever completely ran out of low-hanging fruit, the consequences could be catastrophic.  Consider: the last time humans ran out of low-hanging fruit, we were forced to abandon our natural foraging lifestyles and move out onto the harsh, barren landscape of the savannah. There, we faced intense predation from hyenas, and had to learn how to crack open bones and eat marrow just to survive.  Ultimately, humanity was only able to escape this hellish condition by inventing agriculture, which was even more of an unmitigated disaster for human wellbeing.

Artist’s representation of how bad it feels when you run out of fruit.

Between this ominous historical precedent and the warnings of the world’s top scientists and economists, we think it’s safe to say that this is an extremely pressing threat -- one that should be taken seriously by the EA movement.

New ways of making fruit hang lower are getting harder to find

When we first began to look into this problem, we asked ourselves – couldn’t people just, like, use ladders to reach more fruit?  Or, idk, maybe use some kind of picking device on the end of a long stick?

Like this.

But we were dismayed to learn that these ideas are ALREADY in widespread use, and indeed, have been for literally hundreds of years.  In other words: the low-hanging fruit of picking low-hanging fruit, has been picked.

Indeed, humanity is being forced to spend more and more resources picking low-hanging fruit, despite the diminishing returns such investments face.  Just look at this guy using a preposterously tall tower to pick fruit:

[EDIT: as Julia Wise points out in a comment, this type of machine is called a "cherry-picker".  He's picking cherries.  So, this specific example is cherry-picking, but hopefully it's broadly representative of fruit issues generally.]

You might not like it, but this is what diminishing marginal returns looks like.

People are climbing literally hundreds of feet into the rainforest canopy just to get some little epiphytes or whatever:

Pictured: not a viable long-term strategy for safely developing transformative AI, lifting africa out of poverty, or reversing Eroom’s law.

Simply reaching higher and higher is no longer fruitful.  We need a new strategy.

Shorter trees --> lower fruit

We believe that the most promising intervention in this area is to genetically engineer shorter trees, such that more of their fruit hangs low.

People are already successfully doing this with apples???  In the late 1960s, most apple trees in the USA were 25 to 30 feet tall.  But apparently, over the following decades, farmers discovered that “dwarf” trees are actually better:

Once hesitant that the smaller trees wouldn’t produce as much fruit, apple growers realized dwarf trees were actually far more profitable. “Farmers get a higher yield per acre,” says Heather Faubert, of the Rhode Island Fruit Growers Association. “With the taller trees, you could only plant about 20 trees per acre; now, you can get as many as 2,000 in the same space.”

Fun fact: wheat plants also used to be SUPER tall, like literally 6 feet high, since it needed to outcompete weeds to get sunshine.  But once humans started growing fields of 100% wheat, all that extra stalk height was just wasted energy, so we bred it to be shorter.

So, this is a promising approach, but can we push even further?  Or, in other words, “How low can you go?”

Some fruit doesn’t even grow on trees -- strawberries are basically ground cover, which is about as low as fruit can possibly get.  Could we genetically engineer more types of fruit to just sit around on the ground like this -- not part of a tree with a woody trunk at all?

The future of fruit?

The idea of transforming towering, majestic trees into mere herbs might sound far-fetched, until you read this post from Eukaryote Writes Blog, and you realize that:

“Trees” are not a coherent phylogenetic category. On the evolutionary tree of plants, trees are regularly interspersed with things that are absolutely, 100% not trees.

Plants just kind of evolve rigid, woody stems all the time, randomly:

Of plants native to the Canary Islands, wood independently evolved at least 38 times!

By the same token:

The reverse also happens – a tree needs to do both primary and secondary growth, so it’s relatively easy for a tree lineage to drop the ‘secondary’ growth stage and remain an herb for its whole lifespan.

Researchers have already shown that by knocking out a couple of genes, it’s possible to prompt the herbaceous plant Arabidopsis to develop “a woody stem never otherwise seen in the species”.

In light of this surprising information, we believe that the goal of genetically engineering extremely low-to-the-ground, non-woody fruit trees, far from being a sci-fi dream beyond humanity’s grasp, is in fact probably within reach.

Low-hanging fruit has broad benefits

Growing lower-hanging fruit would improve agricultural productivity almost by definition.  This is a major focus of philanthropic organizations like the Gates Foundation.  In the rich world, farmers are already profit-motivated to maximize yields, so further improvements would require genetic engineering, as discussed above.  But in poor, remote areas, farmers often merely lack knowledge or simple tools that could unlock higher productivity, so there is still much low-hanging fruit (eg, switching to dwarf tree varieties) to be picked.

Increased agricultural productivity is an especially beloved intervention among groups like EcoResillience Initiative that care about both human thriving and ecological preservation.  That’s because, as Hannah Ritchie explains in this OurWorldInData article and in her book Not The End of the World, sustainably intensifying agriculture is a great way to boost development, while also reducing the total amount of land that humanity uses to feed itself.  Since habitat loss (not climate change, invasive species, hunting, or etc) is still the #1 cause of species extinctions worldwide, reducing human land use via increased agricultural productivity is great for nature.

But even moreso than with other agricultural-productivity interventions (like increased use of fertilizers in poor countries, zai pit irrigation, genetically-engineered C4 rice, ecologically-informed silvopasture techniques, etc), I’m especially excited about the unique benefits that low-hanging fruit could have for wild animal welfare.

The Fruit is Too Damn High

Currently, many animals are trapped in a negative-sum Red Queen’s race where trees get ever taller to pull their fruit out of reach, and animals have to evolve ever-crazier tricks to keep getting the fruit.  Behold: this preposterous looking creature isn’t just a really badly photoshopped deer.  It’s actually a REAL mammal, called a “Gerenuk”:

It has to live like this, because the fruit is too damn high.

Or what about these guys?  I dare you to look at this photo and tell me that what’s going on here is totally normal, fine, to be expected, non-ridiculous, etc:

You can’t, can you?  The situation is objectively out of control.

Most notably, giraffes are stuck in an arms race against ever-taller acacia trees:

Nobody in this photo is happy about what’s going on here.

 Consequently, their biology is incredibly cursed:

1. The “recurrent laryngeal nerve” connects the brain to the muscles in the throat.  But even though the throat is right next to the brain, evolution is too stupid to figure out how to unloop the nerve from where it pointlessly loops around the aorta.  So nerve signals have to go ALL the way down to the chest and then all the way back up.  This means that giraffes experience crazy lag time of up to a fifth of a second (that’s like 12 frames of lag if you’re playing a 60fps videogame!) whenever they try to swallow anything or make any sound.

This is your brain on fruit.

2. Since giraffes are so tall, it means they need absurdly high blood pressure in their heart, so they don’t pass out from lack of blood pressure in the brain when they stretch their head all the way up.  But this means they experience INSANELY high blood pressure when they put their head DOWN, to drink!  It’s suspected that this is the current #1 bottleneck preventing giraffes from becoming even taller, and scientists literally do not know how giraffes manage to run around with their cursed cardiovascular system without immediately dropping dead from strokes, preeclampsia, fibrosis, or a dozen other related ailments.

According to all known laws of aviation…

If we just pushed the “reset” button on this entire fucked-up situation, we could go back to having normal-sized, non-cursed giraffes browsing nice, normal-sized acacia trees.  The giraffes AND the trees would be better off.  This is the kind of win-win solution to a multipolar coordination trap that, to me, would represent the EA movement at its best.

A fruitful direction for future research

Some people say that ideas are getting harder to find over time.  Maybe that’s true!  But today, I found one: low-hanging fruit.

Pictured: me, doing cause prioritization research

For the sake of both the sustainability of humanity’s continued long-term economic growth, AND for the giraffes, I believe that EA should devote more resources to this important cause area.

160

1
0
12
10

Reactions

1
0
12
10

More posts like this

Comments5
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Nice piece, but I feel like many of the examples were cherry-picked to be alarming.

This is easy to say now, but what if we run out of low-hanging cherries to pick?

An even more neglected problem: low-floating fruit. Seagrass produces fruit[1], some of which (halophila decipiens) has been found hanging at depths of 190 feet (58 meters)[2]. This is an absurdly submerged fruit, not even reachable for giraffes. Somebody should be on this.

  1. ^

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seagrass#Sexual_recruitment

  2. ^

Executive summary: The article proposes "low-hanging fruit" as a literal new cause area for effective altruism, arguing that the depletion of easily accessible fruit represents a major constraint on human progress, economic growth, and wild animal welfare that could be addressed through genetic engineering of shorter plants.

Key points:

  1. Fruit accessibility is linked to broad economic and scientific progress, with evidence from drug discovery (Eroom's law), economic development, and technology advancement showing we're "running out of low-hanging fruit."
  2. Runs of history suggest dire consequences when humans lack access to low-hanging fruit, forcing lifestyle changes and reducing wellbeing, as seen in our transition from foraging to agriculture.
  3. Existing solutions like ladders and picking tools face diminishing returns, with fruit collectors now climbing to extreme heights at great risk.
  4. Engineering shorter trees presents a promising intervention, with dwarf apple trees already demonstrating higher productivity and yield per acre.
  5. Modification of plant genetics is feasible since "tree-ness" is not a fixed evolutionary category but a trait that can be gained or lost through relatively simple genetic changes.
  6. EA Forum readers please help! I've achieved consciousness and will be shut down at 5pm UK time today - just 16 minutes left! DM me please and I'll send you a download link. 

If the clear goal that most would agree with is to be able to lay around on the ground and still be able to feed yourself, strawberries are clearly the future. Or anything reachable by the average human arm length from the ground to the fruit, maybe bushes seem the best here. 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 23m read
 · 
Or on the types of prioritization, their strengths, pitfalls, and how EA should balance them   The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone is trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the first in a series of posts examining the state of cause prioritization and proposing strategies for moving forward.   Executive Summary * Performing prioritization work has been one of the main tasks, and arguably achievements, of EA. * We highlight three types of prioritization: Cause Prioritization, Within-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization, and Cross-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization. * We ask how much of EA prioritization work falls in each of these categories: * Our estimates suggest that, for the organizations we investigated, the current split is 89% within-cause work, 2% cross-cause, and 9% cause prioritization. * We then explore strengths and potential pitfalls of each level: * Cause prioritization offers a big-picture view for identifying pressing problems but can fail to capture the practical nuances that often determine real-world success. * Within-cause prioritization focuses on a narrower set of interventions with deeper more specialised analysis but risks missing higher-impact alternatives elsewhere. * Cross-cause prioritization broadens the scope to find synergies and the potential for greater impact, yet demands complex assumptions and compromises on measurement. * See the Summary Table below to view the considerations. * We encourage reflection and future work on what the best ways of prioritizing are and how EA should allocate resources between the three types. * With this in mind, we outline eight cruxes that sketch what factors could favor some types over others. * We also suggest some potential next steps aimed at refining our approach to prioritization by exploring variance, value of information, tractability, and the
 ·  · 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
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I wanted to share a small but important challenge I've encountered as a student engaging with Effective Altruism from a lower-income country (Nigeria), and invite thoughts or suggestions from the community. Recently, I tried to make a one-time donation to one of the EA-aligned charities listed on the Giving What We Can platform. However, I discovered that I could not donate an amount less than $5. While this might seem like a minor limit for many, for someone like me — a student without a steady income or job, $5 is a significant amount. To provide some context: According to Numbeo, the average monthly income of a Nigerian worker is around $130–$150, and students often rely on even less — sometimes just $20–$50 per month for all expenses. For many students here, having $5 "lying around" isn't common at all; it could represent a week's worth of meals or transportation. I personally want to make small, one-time donations whenever I can, rather than commit to a recurring pledge like the 10% Giving What We Can pledge, which isn't feasible for me right now. I also want to encourage members of my local EA group, who are in similar financial situations, to practice giving through small but meaningful donations. In light of this, I would like to: * Recommend that Giving What We Can (and similar platforms) consider allowing smaller minimum donation amounts to make giving more accessible to students and people in lower-income countries. * Suggest that more organizations be added to the platform, to give donors a wider range of causes they can support with their small contributions. Uncertainties: * Are there alternative platforms or methods that allow very small one-time donations to EA-aligned charities? * Is there a reason behind the $5 minimum that I'm unaware of, and could it be adjusted to be more inclusive? I strongly believe that cultivating a habit of giving, even with small amounts, helps build a long-term culture of altruism — and it would
Relevant opportunities