Hide table of contents

The epistemic practice of the ancient Persians was to contemplate matters of great importance twice: First while drunk and then while sober. My personal fit is to specialize in phase one of this process.

 

The EA community has discussed electron welfare before[1], but we've been neglecting an important crux. In 1940, physicist John Archibald Wheeler proposed the idea that all electrons are really a single electron travelling forward and backward in time.

A single electron experience(s/d)[2] the combined lifetimes of every electron across all spacetime. This adds up to roughly  years[3]. This means that improving the single electron's welfare is the most longtermist cause area yet discovered.[4]

When people dismiss concerns about electron welfare, it's because of scope insensitivity[5] and the identifiable victim effect. But if there's only one electron — a single pale blue dot — its importance is much more salient. To help people[6] care more about the electron's welfare, i propose that we name it Ellie.[7]

Past discussion of electron welfare has been dominated by negative utilitarians concerned with electron suffering. Such attitudes are based in long-standing anti-electron bias ultimately rooted in Ben Franklin's arbitrary decision to label their charge negative. Just because the electron is negatively charged doesn't mean we should charge it with being inherently negative. Ellie wants to live.

 

We can increase Ellie's lifespan (as measured in ELYs — electron life years) by doing things that, from our frame of reference, look like creating new electrons. These include

  • Shooting high-energy gamma rays into metal to create electron-positron pairs
  • Freeing neutrons so that they fall apart
  • Creating large amounts of beta radioactive isotopes using fission reactors[8]
  • Work with chip manufacturers to develop semiconductors with fewer electron holes[9]

It's also possible that research into double beta decay could allow us to produce twice as many ELYs.

Additionally, to keep the electron from feeling bored, we should build solar panels that put Ellie in an excited state.

 

We need a new branch of EA dedicated to the Electron Life Lengthening and Improvement (ELLI) space. I've already designed an original logo (Figure 1) for this new movement.

Figure 1

Light bulbs are a common place for the electron to hang out, the heart represents how we feel about Ellie, and it's blue because electrons are blue.[10]

 

Bayesian prior on asked questions

Should we build an AI that's programmed to maximize electron welfare?

That depends on how much Ellie would enjoy powering the AI's circuits. We can't know for sure, but it sounds pretty fun.

I'm not a utilitarian. What's the most effective way to pursue alternative axiologies (for Ellie's benefit, of course)?

There's a wide variety of ways to contribute to electron freedom.

The single-electron postulate says that positrons are Ellie moving backwards in time. What should we do with them?

The crux of this question is whether hedonic valence has even or odd time reversal symmetry. It's possible that feeling good while moving backwards in time feels like feeling bad, which would imply that we should torture positrons.

  1. ^

    coincidentally, on this exact day of the year

  2. ^

    due to time travel, the tense of this verb is undefined

  3. ^

    unlike traditional cosmology, where the error bar is in the exponent, the utility at stake here is so vast that the error bar is in the number of Knuth up arrows.

  1. ^

    but only because we're still a positive integer number of years away from discovering electron welfare meta-charity

  2. ^

    not to be confused with emotional insensitivity to the contents of an oscilloscope, of which they are also guilty

  3. ^

    by which i mean donors

  4. ^

    or hire Naming What We Can to provide it a cuteness-maximizing name

  5. ^

    or fission weapons? TODO consider instrumental value of humanity

  6. ^

    though this could potentially hinder AI progress

  7. ^

    as everyone knows

Show all footnotes
Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

2\uparrow^n 2 =4, for any n, though.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Science just released an article, with an accompanying technical report, about a neglected source of biological risk. From the abstract of the technical report: > This report describes the technical feasibility of creating mirror bacteria and the potentially serious and wide-ranging risks that they could pose to humans, other animals, plants, and the environment...  > > In a mirror bacterium, all of the chiral molecules of existing bacteria—proteins, nucleic acids, and metabolites—are replaced by their mirror images. Mirror bacteria could not evolve from existing life, but their creation will become increasingly feasible as science advances. Interactions between organisms often depend on chirality, and so interactions between natural organisms and mirror bacteria would be profoundly different from those between natural organisms. Most importantly, immune defenses and predation typically rely on interactions between chiral molecules that could often fail to detect or kill mirror bacteria due to their reversed chirality. It therefore appears plausible, even likely, that sufficiently robust mirror bacteria could spread through the environment unchecked by natural biological controls and act as dangerous opportunistic pathogens in an unprecedentedly wide range of other multicellular organisms, including humans. > > This report draws on expertise from synthetic biology, immunology, ecology, and related fields to provide the first comprehensive assessment of the risks from mirror bacteria.  Open Philanthropy helped to support this work and is now supporting the Mirror Biology Dialogues Fund (MBDF), along with the Sloan Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and Patrick Collison. The Fund will coordinate scientific efforts to evaluate and address risks from mirror bacteria. It was deeply concerning to learn about this risk, but gratifying to see how seriously the scientific community is taking the issue. Given the potential infoha
 ·  · 14m read
 · 
1. Introduction My blog, Reflective Altruism, aims to use academic research to drive positive change within and around the effective altruism movement. Part of that mission involves engagement with the effective altruism community. For this reason, I try to give periodic updates on blog content and future directions (previous updates: here and here) In today’s post, I want to say a bit about new content published in 2024 (Sections 2-3) and give an overview of other content published so far (Section 4). I’ll also say a bit about upcoming content (Section 5) as well as my broader academic work (Section 6) and talks (Section 7) related to longtermism. Section 8 concludes with a few notes about other changes to the blog. I would be keen to hear reactions to existing content or suggestions for new content. Thanks for reading. 2. New series this year I’ve begun five new series since last December. 1. Against the singularity hypothesis: One of the most prominent arguments for existential risk from artificial agents is the singularity hypothesis. The singularity hypothesis holds roughly that self-improving artificial agents will grow at an accelerating rate until they are orders of magnitude more intelligent than the average human. I think that the singularity hypothesis is not on as firm ground as many advocates believe. My paper, “Against the singularity hypothesis,” makes the case for this conclusion. I’ve written a six-part series Against the singularity hypothesis summarizing this paper. Part 1 introduces the singularity hypothesis. Part 2 and Part 3 together give five preliminary reasons for doubt. The next two posts examine defenses of the singularity hypothesis by Dave Chalmers (Part 4) and Nick Bostrom (Part 5). Part 6 draws lessons from this discussion. 2. Harms: Existential risk mitigation efforts have important benefits but also identifiable harms. This series discusses some of the most important harms of existential risk mitigation efforts. Part 1 discus
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
THL UK protestors at the Royal Courts of Justice, Oct 2024. Credit: SammiVegan.  Four years of work has led to his moment. When we started this, we knew it would be big. A battle of David versus Goliath as we took the Government to court. But we also knew that it was the right thing to do, to fight for the millions of Frankenchickens that were suffering because of the way that they had been bred. And on Friday 13th December, we got the result we had been nervously waiting for. Represented by Advocates for Animals, four years ago we started the process to take the Government to court, arguing that fast-growing chicken breeds, known as Frankenchickens, are illegal under current animal welfare laws. After a loss, and an appeal, in October 2024 we entered the courts once more. And the judgment is now in on one of the most important legal cases for animals in history. The judges have ruled in favour on our main argument - that the law says that animals should not be kept in the UK if it means they will suffer because of how they have been bred. This is a huge moment for animals in the UK. A billion Frankenchickens are raised with suffering coded into their DNA each year. They are bred to grow too big, too fast, to make the most profit possible. In light of this ruling, we believe that farmers are breaking the law if they continue to keep these chickens. However, Defra, the Government department responsible for farming, has been let off the hook on a technicality. Because Defra has been silent on fast-growing breeds of chicken, the judges found they had no concrete policy that they could rule against. This means that our case has been dismissed and the judges have not ordered Defra to act. It is clear: by not addressing this major animal welfare crisis, Defra has failed billions of animals - and the farming community. This must change. While this ruling has failed to force the Government to act, it has confirmed our view that farmers are acting criminally by using