Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Ben
8 min read 2

29

Existential riskClimate changeNuclear securitySteven Pinker
Frontpage

Word count: ~1900

Reading time: ~9 mins

Keywords: Human progress, existential risk, geopolitics, climate change, nuclear war, artificial intelligence, cognition, democracy, surveillance, fake news, technological disruption, politicisation of academia.

Summary

Harari and Pinker are well-known authors of macro-history and I think the discussion has interesting implications for how we think about the long-run future. I found this conversation interesting and wanted to share the key points in an accessible format, quicker to absorb than a 43 minute video.

I wanted to produce this article in as short a time as possible. I ordered a transcription from Rev.com's algorithmic speech recognition (which ended up being free), and spent 5 hours writing this summary and formatting the post.

Context

Steven Pinker is a cognitive psychologist, linguist, and popular science author. He is best known for The Better Angels of Our Nature, which argues that violence in the world has declined suggests explanations as to why this has occurred. The book has been a bestseller, with endorsements from people including Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.

Yuval Noah Harari, is a lecturer at the Department of History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His books Sapiens, Homo Deus, and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century have sold over 23 million copies worldwide. His writings examine global history, technology, free will, consciousness, suffering, intelligence and happiness.

Both Pinker and Harari have written macro-histories with significant thematic breadth that have influenced popular culture. Better Angels is Nick Beckstead’s top recommended audiobook. Sapiens is in Robert Wiblin’s Top 9 books.

Key points

Both writers share concerns about climate change, nuclear war, and technological disruption. Pinker tends to take optimistic stances, arguing that past improvements suggest humanity could continue to make progress in the future. He is sceptical of the potential speed of technological development, and sees human society as robust and progressive.

Harari raises long-term questions, and frets that we are approaching potential tipping points of technological disruption. He voices concerns about the loss of individual autonomy and the potential rise of digital dictatorships.

Pinker and Harari find agreement on several topics, chiefly that they share long-run uncertainty over the future. Harari’s website recommends Enlightenment Now as part of his list, A Haphazard Guided Tour of Humanity on the Brink:

“Pinker extols the amazing achievements of modernity, and demonstrates that humankind has never been so peaceful, healthy and prosperous. There is of course much to argue about, but that’s what makes this book so interesting”.

Part of this is resolved by Harari allowing for flexibility over timescales, arguing that the 50-100 year timescales are short relative to human history. My view is that what distinguishes them is tone and emphasis. Should we be optimists, pessimists, or realists?

Potential implications for the effective altruism community

If we see the future of humanity as positive, then Nick Bostrom suggests that we want to act to reduce existential risk. Nick Beckstead’s PhD (p. 85) makes a similar claim:

'The key claims are that humanity could survive for a very long time, with an expected duration on the order of billions of years or more; that the future is overwhelmingly important if my normative assumptions are true; that we could potentially shape the future for the better by speeding up progress, reducing existential risk, or producing other positive trajectory changes; and that what matters most for shaping the far future is creating positive trajectory changes. The best ways of shaping the far future could be very broad or very targeted, and knowing which would be very valuable.'

If we assume that a Pinker trajectory continues, and stuff gets better, then reducing big, sexy risks like AI, nuclear, and biosecurity seem important. But, if we take a Harari view that ‘things might get much, much worse’, then perhaps some EAs might also prioritise shaping the trajectories of topics like democracy and surveillance, while others focus on AI, bio, and nuclear.

See my further reading list below!

Selected quotes

Optimism vs pessimism

Pinker

“We have the ability to think up solutions to problems to share them via language”
“Our lifespans have more than doubled… a race of death and war has come down, [and declining] rates of death and homicide, violence against women, disease [all point] out that we have made progress in the past.”
“Whether [there’s] cause for optimism in the future is impossible to say. No one is a prophet that we're doomed… Maybe things will get worse, but it won't necessarily get worse given that we know that we've solved problems in the past.”

Harari

“[I would] summarize the current human condition in three brief sentences: things for humans are better than ever; things are still quite bad; and things can get much, much worse.”

Outlook on the future

Pinker

“Climate change is the most obvious [threat to humanity]. We're not on track to solving it, and there's every reason to believe that the consequences could be terrible.”
“And the threat of nuclear war… it's not negligibly unlikely. It's a high enough probability that we should worry about it. As with climate change, the direction that we moved in in the last five years has not been positive.”

Harari

“The risk of disruptive technologies, especially artificial intelligence and which of course hold also enormous promises to humankind, but also some very serious threats, whether it's a complete, a social upheaval as a result of changing the job market very, very quickly, whether it's the rise of new digital dictatorships and totalitarian regimes worse than anything we've seen before in history.”
“And maybe the biggest problem with all that is that for all three threats, whether we talk about nuclear war or climate change or the rise of disruptive technologies to do something effective against the threat, you need global cooperation”
“And I sometimes have a suspicion that we are like running on the last gas in the gas tank in our philosophical gap… climate change and nuclear war in a way are kind of easy problems because, we know want to do about it. We need to prevent them. It's very easy. Maybe we, not everybody agrees that it's a real threat. Maybe not everybody agrees how to stop it. But in principle nobody says, Hey, climate change. That's great. Let's have more of that nuclear war. Yes, I'm in favour. Nobody says that. But with technological disruption, what to do is AI and bio-engineering, there is absolutely no agreed goal.”

Surveillance states, fake news

Pinker

“I'm a bit more skeptical of how rapidly there'll be advances in artificial intelligence, genetic engineering of humans, and, psychological manipulation”
“Humans have a lot of squeamishness and taboos that often will retard technological process”
“The issue is, are the ordinary expectations of people in it who are not subject to occupation, who are living in a democracy going to be robust enough… to rise to the occasion of resisting that kind of constant surveillance?”
“Even the simple [AI] problems turn out to be harder than within than we think. When it comes to hacking human behaviour, it's all the more complex”
“The studies of the effects of fake news on social media showing that the effects are very small and probably did not influence the election. That most of the fake news went to people who are already highly partisan and whose minds weren't going to change. It's not as easy to manipulate human behaviour as we might fear in our dystopian nightmares.”

Algorithmic discrimination

Pinker

“Clinical decision making.. Five predictors [can] make a decision much better than a typical human judge, or diagnosing disease.. we've known this for a 70 years almost… subjective impressions are subject to bias and error, including racist bias.. But we don't hand it over to algorithms.”

Harai

“I do think that there is a chance we'll see some version of digital dictatorships in totalitarian regimes based on this massive surveillance and analysis of humans”
“You just have machines going over all the data. And again, this is not science fiction. This is happening in various parts of the world. It's happening now in China. It's happening now in my home country, in Israel… you just have these very sophisticated algorithms going over enormous amounts of data over millions of people. And that's a complete game changer.”
“But what will happen if and when efficiency and ethics go in different directions, that totalitarianism becomes very effective, but it's still extremely unethical. Would our ethical kind of constraints and ideas hold in that situation?”
“So I'm not thinking about this science fiction scenario that an AI, that micromanages every movement of your day, it starts with far simpler things of just shifting more and more authority to the AI to decide who to accept the university, who to hire for the job and whom to date.”

Politicisation of academia

Pinker

“There certainly is cause for concern about intellectual openness in the, uh, uh, institutions that are supposed to promote it, namely universities. There has been an ideological narrowing that is, universities are becoming more mono-cultures of left-wing thought.”
“On the other hand, there's some optimism in those of us who are worried about authoritarian populism in that it is kind of an old person's ideology and the support for populism falls off with generational cohort”

Harari

“We shouldn't generalize from the cultural war cultural Wars in the US to the world as a whole… far worse things are happening in places like Hungary, like Russia, where the suppression is definitely the other way around, that entire departments are being closed”
“The suppression of several departments at present in Hungary or Russia. So gender studies is being blamed for being, it's not science, it’s politics, it's ideology. But this will happen to more and more departments. We shouldn’t abandon the gender studies department in its fight because it will come to more and more departments. Now climate science is also politicized and soon computer science will be politicized.”

Responsibility of scientists

Harari

“First of all, scientists need to educate… you do need a better understanding of what's happening and what's coming, because it's very relevant to political decisions.”
“Secondly, scientists have to take greater responsibility for what they are doing. For example, if you're an engineer and you're developing some new tool in any field, so I would say take a few minutes or a few hours, think about the politician you most fear in the world and now think what will he or she do with my invention? The general tendency of engineers and entrepreneurs is to think about the best case scenarios."

Further reading

Of the recommendations above, these seem most relevant:

I recently enjoyed this, and it picks up many similar themes:

A talk on EAs and surveillance by Ben Garfinkel

Risk typology and cognitive biases

29

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments2


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Stefan_Schubert3
0
0

Thanks for this. Minor: should be Steven Pinker, not Stephen.

Reply
Ben3
0
0

Thanks, updated.

Reply
More from Ben
126
[New org] Canning What We Give
Ben
· · 2m read
5
5
152
Does climate change deserve more attention within EA?
Ben
· · 18m read
65
65
30
Some longtermist fiction
Ben
· · 2m read
15
15
View more
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Existential risk
25
Out of This Box: The Last Musical (Written by Humans) - Crowdfunding!
GuyP
· · 7m read
0
0
43
AIS Netherlands is looking for a Founding Executive Director (EOI form)
7 authors
· · 5m read
4
4
166
Forethought: A new AI macrostrategy group
5 authors
· · 4m read
6
6
View more