The host has requested RSVPs for this event

Join us for an evening of guided discussion. Together, in small groups of 4-6, we will learn about and discuss population ethics, or the “study of the ethical problems arising when our actions affect who is born and how many people are born in the future.”

No background knowledge is needed, just an interest in learning. We’ll provide relevant context, definitions, and suggested discussion questions.

If you’re interested in joining, please RSVP so I can plan for enough drinks & snacks.


Date: Thursday, April 6

Time: 7:00 – 9:30 pm

  • 7:00pm - Arrive, mingle
  • 7:20pm - Announcements, then break into groups for guided discussions
  • 9:00pm - Return to whole group
  • 9:30pm - Closing remarks. Everyone can continue hanging out

Address: 1048 Polk Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94086

  • 27 minute (1.3) mile walk from the Sunnyvale Caltrain station
  • Street parking is available


Covid protocol: This is an indoor, unmasked event. We ask all attendees to be vaccinated or have a negative test within the past two days.

2

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Shame I missed it. I would have liked to bring up the point that while "Lucy" the oldest fossilized hominid was discovered to be around 3.2m-years–old, only barely 130,000 years ago the amount of homo-sapiens left standing after that ice age is estimated to have been roughly 600 - yes that's six-hundred individuals of whom we are all descended from, leaving us so genetically bankrupt and endangered that at the time our species had "less genetic diversity than a single troupe of West Africa chimpanzees."  [https://www.cbc.ca/greathumanodyssey/content/iceage/135k/index.html?platform=hootsuite],

with a huge loss of genetic evolutionary data to the species we regressed into inbreeding for far too many generations than should have us at-all comfortable with the foolishness that the "fear of overpopulation", 

propagated by the same wealthiest business owners of the World Economic Forum who benefited most out of everyone from industrial waste through planned obsolescence of product and the stonewalling of all efficient and green technology which doesn't generate constant customer return and dependence on their companies.

Hearing the members of the World Economic Forum like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab talk about their concerns for "overpopulation" is like hearing a crack-addict mother who only has $20 to survive the weekend go and tell her children that she needs to sell them off to human trafficking because she can't afford their "eating habits."

We have enough empty homes to provide every homeless person in the world with 8 and that number of empty homes is only growing, not due to disease - but suicide - which likely is due to a certain ideology advertised - the belief that there's "too much people in the world"...

...which is a concern that tends to occur historically stemming from the very same tier of society which of course inevitably projects their denied emotions of shame and guilt over their ridiculously inhumane practices of structural violence every time the witnessing of their irresponsibility becomes tipped to being more undeniable to their guilt than their waking consciousness can quarry excuse of in order to deny.

Hi Villafana. Sorry I missed this comment earlier! Hope to see you at one of our other upcoming discussion groups if you're local :) 

The goal of this discussion wasn't necessarily to determine if population growth is or isn't an issue (though lately I've seen more concern about declining replacement rates than overpopulation), but to better understanding why people in the EA community have considered population ethics and the different population-related tradeoffs that we might come across. 

You mention housing for homeless people -- that's a great example of a situation that would be helpful to consider from different viewpoints within population ethics. How does it affect the wellbeing of communities who receive this new population? Is it ethical to incentivize people to move into housing or is it undermining individual choice? Is this the best way to increase wellbeing for homeless people who might have different values and desires? (no need to answer these questions, its just an example of how one might try to develop a deeper understanding)

We have enough empty homes to provide every homeless person in the world with 8 and that number of empty homes is only growing, not due to disease - but suicide

Personally I haven't seen any data that shows an increase in available housing due to suicide deaths. I often fall back to Our World in Data, which shows the magnitude of deaths attributed to disease. These issues, such as mental and physical health, are often incredibly complex. 

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
 ·  · 19m read
 · 
I am no prophet, and here’s no great matter. — T.S. Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”   This post is a personal account of a California legislative campaign I worked on March-June 2024, in my capacity as the indoor air quality program lead at 1Day Sooner. It’s very long—I included as many details as possible to illustrate a playbook of everything we tried, what the surprises and challenges were, and how someone might spend their time during a policy advocacy project.   History of SB 1308 Advocacy Effort SB 1308 was introduced in the California Senate by Senator Lena Gonzalez, the Senate (Floor) Majority Leader, and was sponsored by Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP). The bill was based on a report written by researchers at UC Davis and commissioned by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The bill sought to ban the sale of ozone-emitting air cleaners in California, which would have included far-UV, an extremely promising tool for fighting pathogen transmission and reducing pandemic risk. Because California is such a large market and so influential for policy, and the far-UV industry is struggling, we were seriously concerned that the bill would crush the industry. A partner organization first notified us on March 21 about SB 1308 entering its comment period before it would be heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, but said that their organization would not be able to be publicly involved. Very shortly after that, a researcher from Ushio America, a leading far-UV manufacturer, sent out a mass email to professors whose support he anticipated, requesting comments from them. I checked with my boss, Josh Morrison,[1] as to whether it was acceptable for 1Day Sooner to get involved if the partner organization was reluctant, and Josh gave me the go-ahead to submit a public comment to the committee. Aware that the letters alone might not do much, Josh reached out to a friend of his to ask about lobbyists with expertise in Cal
Rasool
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
In 2023[1] GiveWell raised $355 million - $100 million from Open Philanthropy, and $255 million from other donors. In their post on 10th April 2023, GiveWell forecast the amount they expected to raise in 2023, albeit with wide confidence intervals, and stated that their 10th percentile estimate for total funds raised was $416 million, and 10th percentile estimate for funds raised outside of Open Philanthropy was $260 million.  10th percentile estimateMedian estimateAmount raisedTotal$416 million$581 million$355 millionExcluding Open Philanthropy$260 million$330 million$255 million Regarding Open Philanthropy, the April 2023 post states that they "tentatively plans to give $250 million in 2023", however Open Philanthropy gave a grant of $300 million to cover 2023-2025, to be split however GiveWell saw fit, and it used $100 million of that grant in 2023. However for other donors I'm not sure what caused the missed estimate Credit to 'Arnold' on GiveWell's December 2024 Open Thread for bringing this to my attention   1. ^ 1st February 2023 - 31st January 2024
Relevant opportunities
26
CEEALAR
· · 1m read