This is a special post for quick takes by Sharmake. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Curated and popular this week
·
Summary
Immediate skin-to-skin contact (SSC) between mothers and newborns and early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) may play a significant and underappreciated role in reducing neonatal mortality. These practices are distinct in important ways from more broadly recognized (and clearly impactful) interventions like kangaroo care and exclusive breastfeeding, and they are recommended for both preterm and full-term infants.
A large evidence base indicates that immediate SSC and EIBF substantially reduce neonatal mortality. Many randomized trials show that immediate SSC promotes EIBF, reduces episodes of low blood sugar, improves temperature regulation, and promotes cardiac and respiratory stability. All of these effects are linked to lower mortality, and the biological pathways between immediate SSC, EIBF, and reduced mortality are compelling. A meta-analysis of large observational studies found a 25% lower risk of mortality in infants who began breastfeeding within one hour of birth compared to initiation after one hour.
These practices are attractive targets for intervention, and promoting them is effective. Immediate SSC and EIBF require no commodities, are under the direct influence of birth attendants, are time-bound to the first hour after birth, are consistent with international guidelines, and are appropriate for universal promotion. Their adoption is often low, but ceilings are demonstrably high: many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have rates of EIBF less than 30%, yet several have rates over 70%. Multiple studies find that health worker training and quality improvement activities dramatically increase rates of immediate SSC and EIBF.
There do not appear to be any major actors focused specifically on promotion of universal immediate SSC and EIBF. By contrast, general breastfeeding promotion and essential newborn care training programs are relatively common.
More research on cost-effectiveness is needed, but it appears promising. Limited existing
·
Our Mission: To build a multidisciplinary field around using technology—especially AI—to improve the lives of nonhumans now and in the future.
Overview
Background
This hybrid conference had nearly 550 participants and took place March 1-2, 2025 at UC Berkeley. It was organized by AI for Animals for $74k by volunteer core organizers Constance Li, Sankalpa Ghose, and Santeri Tani.
This conference has evolved since 2023:
* The 1st conference mainly consisted of philosophers and was a single track lecture/panel.
* The 2nd conference put all lectures on one day and followed it with 2 days of interactive unconference sessions happening in parallel and a week of in-person co-working.
* This 3rd conference had a week of related satellite events, free shared accommodations for 50+ attendees, 2 days of parallel lectures/panels/unconferences, 80 unique sessions, of which 32 are available on Youtube, Swapcard to enable 1:1 connections, and a Slack community to continue conversations year round.
We have been quickly expanding this conference in order to prepare those that are working toward the reduction of nonhuman suffering to adapt to the drastic and rapid changes that AI will bring.
Luckily, it seems like it has been working!
This year, many animal advocacy organizations attended (mostly smaller and younger ones) as well as newly formed groups focused on digital minds and funders who spanned both of these spaces. We also had more diversity of speakers and attendees which included economists, AI researchers, investors, tech companies, journalists, animal welfare researchers, and more. This was done through strategic targeted outreach and a bigger team of volunteers.
Outcomes
On our feedback survey, which had 85 total responses (mainly from in-person attendees), people reported an average of 7 new connections (defined as someone they would feel comfortable reaching out to for a favor like reviewing a blog post) and of those new connections, an average of 3
·
Recent cuts to US government foreign assistance have destabilized global health programs, impacting some of the most cost-effective interventions we’ve found for saving and improving lives, such as malaria nets, malaria chemoprevention, and community-based management of acute malnutrition. This situation is a major focus of our research team at the moment, and we’re working to balance a targeted, near-term response to urgent needs with a broad, long-term perspective of needs that may emerge.
The US has historically provided roughly 20% to 25% ($12 billion to $15 billion) of the total global aid to support health programs, which combat malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, maternal and child health issues, and much more.[1] While the long-term effects remain uncertain and exact numbers remain difficult to ascertain, cuts of 35% to 90% of US foreign aid dollars are being publicly discussed by the administration.[2]
We’ve created a webpage to provide an overview of how we’re responding, and we’ve started to record a series of conversations with our research team that shares timely snapshots of this rapidly evolving situation. Our first episode shared a broad overview of the impacts of US government aid cuts and GiveWell’s initial response.
In our newly released second episode, GiveWell Program Officer Natalie Crispin joins CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld to zoom in on a specific case, focusing on grants we’ve made to support urgent funding gaps for seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC). They discuss how SMC campaigns work, the impact of USAID funding pauses on SMC campaigns, and GiveWell’s response to keep SMC campaigns on track.
Listen to Episode 2: Addressing Urgent Needs in Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention
This situation is changing daily, and we’re constantly learning more. You can listen or subscribe to our podcast for the latest updates and read a summary of key takeaways from each podcast conversation on our blog.
GiveWell has so far directed approximately
The War in Ukraine that started on February 24th has some important consequences for EA. Specifically, nuclear war within 2 years likelihood is still very low, despite Russian threats of nukes. On the other hand, long term the nuclear warfare existential risk has increased. This is because Russia invaded Ukraine and used it's nuclear warheads as a shield. This deals a significant blow to arms control creates a more unstable international order. It also will incentivize more states to take up nukes. What this means could be expanded though.
It puts the world in a tough spot when a nation like Russia brandishes nukes and we either have to call their bluff and risk nuclear warfare or back off which, among other undesirable consequences, incentivizes other nations to develop and brandish nukes themselves.
Improvements in technology will almost certainly make developing these weapons gradually easier over time (eg continued development of laser isotope enrichment techniques for uranium) and there is always some possibility of a major breakthrough. The goal of a world with zero nukes either acknowledged or hidden away as well as nations no longer possessing the means to quickly generate them is, I feel, extremely naive and I doubt diplomats who earn a living lying and being lied to on a daily basis would disagree (if they were being honest, that is). The allure of possessing nukes has perhaps recently been increased with the recognition of Ukraine as a country that disposed of its nuclear stockpile which likely permitted it to become the victim of a genocidal empire building campaign by its neighbour.
I think nations should take a more radical approach and heavily fund technologies conducive to countering nukes (eg anti-missile DEW defences on the ground and possibly in LEO) and detecting where they might be (eg sensor arrays for real time scanning of coastal waters where submarines might be).
~Ty
My guess is I don't think the tech for nukes is dual use or easily hidden, unlike other existential risks because they require enrichment levels so high it's easy to distinguish them from peaceful uses and it's probably not going to be so easy that every state can make a nuke. That said, agree with the other parts of your comment.
Pascal's mugging, and why in the real world you should usually pay the mugger in real life, contrary to your intuition. (Not always.)
The biggest reason is that you need to survive, as a first priority, and then call your bank to stop paying. It is usually not worth it to fight over your money, especially if you can bound your losses by calling your bank and freeze your cards.
Link to the sources here:
https://www.wisegeek.com/what-should-i-do-in-a-mugging.htm
Pascal's mugging has very little resemblance to someone holding you at knifepoint and demanding your wallet.