Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Linch
2 min read 12

120

Opportunities to take actionCareer choiceRefugesJob listing (closed)Rethink Priorities
Frontpage

There are a number of overlapping reasons for why we might want really good refuges: 

  1. Countermeasures refuges: In a global catastrophic biological event, we ought to have a secure facility where scientific personnel can develop medical countermeasures in a position of relative safety.
  2. Foundation-style refuges: In the case of an extreme global catastrophe, a civilizational refuge can protect a nucleus of people, information, and materials to increase the probability of rebuilding and recovery after civilization collapse.
  3. Values refuges: We would have a means to safeguard important cosmopolitan values and empirical or conceptual worldviews[1] to survive and flourish after a civilizational collapse, assuming it is good to do so.

Currently, we think all three reasons are plausible, with a focus on #1 and #3. In particular, we believe that building refuges can be an unusually effective broad-spectrum intervention for reducing existential risk from a wide range of non-agentic sources.

We (a working group composed of Linch and two other people) have worked part-time to deliver a temporary plan for refuges. We’ve made considerable progress, but we will greatly benefit from having a technically competent volunteer or short-term contractor help us refine our plans and make them much more detailed/precise/concrete. If you are interested, please message us or chat with us at EA Global London!

Funders are potentially interested, assuming a good initial team and operational plan. 

Our two biggest bottlenecks: 

  1. We have not yet identified great candidates for a sufficiently competent (interim) CEO who is both capable and willing to take ownership of the refuge project.
  2. Our technical requirements write-up is not yet detailed enough to a) attract top non-EA talent or b) discuss a feasibility study with an architecture firm in sufficient depth to be useful. This would require expanding out technical requirements from a ~10-pager to a ~40-pager in the next 4-6 weeks.

Here are ways you can advance the refuge project:

  1. Reach out to us at EAGlobal if you’re interested in volunteering to help us build better plans or talent scout for a CEO to champion this.
    1. If you think you might make for a good CEO, definitely talk to us.
  2. Apply to Rethink Priority’s new temporary roles in General Longtermism or Special Projects, to potentially work full-time on this under Linch’s guidance.
    1. Note that the jobs won’t start until June/July, and we’d ideally want to make progress faster. Also it is not guaranteed that RP would work on this.
  3. Independently come up with your own plans/schema[2] for civilizational refuges, and pitch it to funders. More competition in the EA ecosystem can be very valuable!
  1. ^

     E.g., impartial concern, the importance of existential risk reduction

  2. ^

     We can potentially help with funding small-scale experiments and preliminary research.

120

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Load more (5/15)
Comments12


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
lennart18
0
0

We got plenty of bunkers, oh I mean refuges, in Switzerland - as Luisa Rodriguez pointed out. Happy to help if this moves forward.

We also got a small one in my basement, happy to co-host a trial run. :)

Reply
DC14
0
0

I volunteer my amateur enthusiasm to whoever works on this.

One thing I'm curious is what percentage of worlds would require the bunker to be well-hidden in order to be useful, e.g. due to an all-out WW3 where there are automated weapons seeking out targets that would include bunkers. I am less sure the size of the risk of Local Warlords In Your Area, though will note that if it's near a local population the bunker should be cooperative with nearby inhabitants rather than engage in the false individualist bias that is rampant in survivalist thought.

I think it would make sense to have multiple bunkers distributed in different geographies and suited for different GCRs, where some fraction of these bunkers are kept very very secret. But I strongly don't think a v1 (Version 1 / Vault 1) should have that feature.

Reply
Yitz11
0
0

Quick note that I misread "refuges" as "refugees," and got really confused. In case anyone else made the same mistake, this post is talking about bunkers, not immigrants ;)

Reply
Lauren Reid10
0
0

I suspect this is down the road, but when it comes down to site selection, I follow the Eastern Ontario/Western Quebec (Canada) real estate market. This region has the benefits of political stability, fresh water, and relatively easy access, however getting permits to build geothermal and massive scale projects would be difficult as building, especially close to water, is quite regulated. There are 100+ acre properties like this one on a deep lake: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/24040099/950-ch-assad-lange-gardien which are coming up for sale as people realize their bush land/farm is valuable. You could buy up land like this for future use.

Reply
Linch6
0
0

Appreciate the tip!

Reply
Matt Boyd6
0
0

Bunker on island is probably a robust set-up, at least two given volcanic nature of eg Iceland, New Zealand: https://adaptresearchwriting.com/island-refuges/ Synergies/complementarities in island and bunker work should be explored. We're currently exploring the islands/nuclear winter strand (EA LTFF), and have put in for FTX too. 

Reply
Linch2
0
0

Thanks for the tip!

Reply
Jackson Wagner5
0
0

Many have observed that Elon Musk's Boring Company (which ostensibly is about improving the tunnel-digging state-of-the-art so that we can have lots of nice subway / tunnel infrastructure and alleviate traffic) seems like it would be quite helpful for digging airtight underground habitats on Mars, thus tying into Elon's SpaceX ambitions of settling the red planet.

Similarly, I feel that the project of constructing  really-high-quality civilizational refuges could benefit from the technology required to build space habitats like the ISS.  As excerpted from a longer Forum comment of mine about the overlaps between EA & space exploration:

I think the bunker project has a lot of overlap with existing knowledge about how to build life-support systems for space stations, and with near-future projects to create large underground moonbases and mars cities.  It would certainly be worth trying to hire some human-spaceflight engineers to consult on a future EA bunker project.  I even have a crazy vision that you might be able to turn a profit on a properly-designed bunker-digging business — attracting ambitious employees with the long-term SpaceX-style hype that you’re working on technology to eventually build underground Martian cities, and earning near-term money by selling high-quality bunkers to governments and eccentric billionaires.

Reply
Dem0sthenes1
0
0

Is not the greatest refuge what Elon is planning for Mars? That's a separate track though we should be working to expedite and ensure that that civilizational plan b is operational ASAP. 

Reply
Linch15
0
0

Mars colony is just an incredibly inefficient way to do civilizational refuges. Many times more expensive, not much safer, and far harder to rebuild from for most global catastrophic scenarios. ("No matter how inhospitable you make Earth, it is likely still more hospitable than Mars.")

However, lessons/talent from space colonization might be very useful for terrestial refuges, and vice versa.

Reply
Franziska Fischer1
0
0

Does the CEO have to be based in the UK or is willingness to travel a lot sufficient?

Reply
Linch2
0
0

Hi. The position is entirely remote, at least to start with. The CEO will probably play a role in deciding things like where they should be based.

Reply
More from Linch
89
A Qualitative Case for LTFF: Filling Critical Ecosystem Gaps
Linch
· · 11m read
26
26
352
Some unfun lessons I learned as a junior grantmaker
Linch
· · 16m read
58
58
201
Select examples of adverse selection in longtermist grantmaking
Linch
· · 5m read
32
32
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
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
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in Career choice
27
Apply to the Cambridge ERA:AI Fellowship 2025
Harrison 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
23
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
145
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
View more