RAPHAEL LEKKES DIMAS
Recently, I finished reading a book The Precipice by Toby Ord as part of an Effective Altruism reading group. The book challenged the way I think about global priorities, particularly the idea that humanity now faces greater existential risks from the technologies we built and are still building than from natural disasters like floods, earthquakes etc.
One claim that stood out to me was Ord's estimate that there is approximately a 1 in 6 chance of an existential catastrophe in this century. What struck me most wasn't the number itself, but the implication to future generations. If Ord's estimates are even approximately correct, reducing existential risk could be one of the most important priorities of our time.
Another idea I found compelling is the EA principle of prioritization. If advanced AI and engineered pandemics could have catastrophic consequences, should more funding, research, and policy attention be directed toward reducing these risks? Or are current investments already appropriate?
In other to safe guard the future, the decisions we make in this century could shape the lives of countless future generations. That raises difficult questions about how we allocate our attention, talent, and funding.
Coming from a health economics background in Nigeria, this also made me reflect on the relationship between existential risk reduction and global health. My research focuses on the economic burden of malaria on households in Plateau State. Malaria causes enormous suffering today, while AI safety and biosecurity focus on protecting humanity's long-term future. Effective Altruism encourages us to compare these priorities using evidence, scale, neglectedness, and tractability rather than using our instincts alone.
One question I am still thinking about is whether low- and middle-income countries should play a larger role in discussions about existential risk. Much of the conversation is centered on high-income countries, yet global catastrophic events can affect every nation. How can researchers and policymakers in countries like Nigeria contribute meaningfully to reducing these risks?
I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Do you think we are investing enough in AI safety and biosecurity relative to the scale of the risks? If not, what should change? If yes, why?
PLATEAUSTATEUNIVERSITYBOKKOS
DIRECTORATEOFRESEARCH
#EAFELLOWSHIP
