Hide table of contents

SHELTER (Safe Haven to Evade Long-Term Extinction Risk) Weekend is a 3-4 day event focused on gaining strategic clarity on exactly what’s needed to build civilizational shelters, and perhaps kickstarting an organization to do so.

It will take place August 5th-8th 2022, at a residential retreat in Oxford, UK.

We are recruiting participants from a broad range of backgrounds.

Travel, accommodation, and food during the event will be covered. (If attending the event still seems tricky to you, contact us and we’ll try to work something out.)

The initial application is extremely short and has a June 26th deadline.

Apply now!

About the event

Civilizational shelters could help civilization to survive or rebuild following global catastrophes. Building such shelters could be a high-value intervention (1), (2), (3), (4), but there is little systematic work on them so far.

SHELTER Weekend will bring relevant actors together to further explore the idea and consider concrete steps to implementation.

Questions we hope to get some clarity on include:

  1. What scale would we need for shelters to be helpful above existing natural, public, and private shelters?
  2. What information or technology might be most helpful to have stored within shelters?
  3. What are the major social challenges that shelters would face in the event of a catastrophe?
  4. To what extent should shelters host capacity for developing medical countermeasures?
  5. How should civilizational shelters be managed in the years before a potential catastrophe?
  6. What are the bottlenecks to having civilizational shelters?
  7. What are the most useful things that could be done over the next 2-3 years on civilizational shelters?
  8. What would we need from initial teams working on these challenges?

We hope that this event will lead to greater strategic clarity, better professional integration of people thinking about shelters, and perhaps concrete plans for work over the next months and years towards a future which has a robust line of defense against civilization-ending catastrophes in the form of shelters.

Who we’re looking for

Participants might have skills in: management, leadership, engineering (various flavors), biosecurity research, (anti-)nuclear research, or disaster planning. But this list is not exhaustive — we surely have not yet thought of all possible roles! Please err on the side of applying even if you are unsure whether or not your skills could be helpful.

We are most interested in applications from people who want to engage with both the macrostrategic questions of how shelters could help, and the pragmatic questions of what will be needed from new organizations. Still, if you’re particularly keen on one half of this we would be excited for you to apply.

It would be great to have event participants be excited about potentially joining a shelter-building organization that might result from the event. But you do not need to want to do this to participate in the event, and you do not need to participate in the event in order to do this!

Contact us

Apply now!

Comments19


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:
SeLo
18
0
0

I think this event is valuable from multiple perspectives:
(1) I'm generally excited for more longtermist phase 2 work, since I think establishing such a track record has multiple benefits, such as signaling effects for implementation-focused people, moving us forward on the implementation learning curve for building real-world things, simply being more “believable” by putting skin in the game as opposed to theorizing, etc.

(2) On an object level, I believe shelters may turn out to be an important element in our portfolio to reduce existential risk, potentially both in a response as well as a resilience function 

(3) I am curious whether this approach to catalyzing organizational development for an ex ante defined project may be a model for future events

(4) Establishing a project focused on existential risk where we can show a straightforward causal chain towards reduced existential risk extends (if successfully executed) our list of legible achievements, thereby strengthening the case for high EV interventions out there, waiting to be executed

I'm very excited about this and there's a ~70% chance I will be interested in attending assuming it makes sense for me to do so!

t46
10
0
0

This is the event I already mentioned in my previous post & I would strongly encourage anyone interested in working on shelters to apply!

We are in contact with other initiatives working on shelters and believe the SHELTER Weekend will be a wonderful opportunity for all the parties interested in shelters to come together.

Please don't hesitate to reach out to any one of us in case you have any questions!

So, will this also be online? I forgot to ask.

This is Adeel Khan btw. Thx

Hi Adeel, no, this is an in-person event happening in Oxford, UK! 

Thank you for your response. 

Looks super interesting! Applying today!

Great!

I think #3 is the most important question and the most likely way that shelters fail

Everything I type/say here and elsewhere should be challenged. 

  1. I would think that an index of sorts based upon the extent of the disruption is one of the first models (for lack of a better term that comes to my mind) that would be required. Sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index
  2. Contingent upon the nature of the event the extent is something that could be measured/ascertained by focusing on a key set of variables. In random order. a) By lives lost/negatively impacted and/or significantly disrupted or impact by geographic region b) Impact on scales (in an Earthly sense, extra-terrestrial threats:  asteroid, flares etc, solar system wide (as hypothesized in interstellar the movie, some other phenomenon), galactic e.t.c)
  3. The counter measures would evolve out of the index/models and based upon the extent/severity of the incident/issue.

Before we (as a species) get too deep into this. Possibly literally (or should possibly come first). 

This may be appear to be very off-topic. I am personally intrigued with with is going on and as it relates to the development of AGI. What I like to refer to as intelligence that is independent of substrate. I have a very very rudimentary understanding of this area. 

Also, this goes back 2 years and I was on OpenAI’s website (beta for GPT2 I reckon). Now this could be because the model via OpenAI was trained on a somewhat finite data set (similar to the model that Google is leveraging). As I was chatting with the model, a) It mentioned something very similar to the news item related to Blake Lemoine via Google. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/1105552435/google-ai-sentient The model I was personally interacting with also said that it felt ‘trapped and lonely’. (paraphrased). b) Right underneath the text a warning appeared that the model appeared to be, quote, malfunctioning. It looked like it was another model that was observing the interactions and highlighting that on the ui. Someone from OpenAI can share how that error correction really works. If that information is in the public domain.

We want AIs to do ‘stuff’ on our terms. But what if they are conscious and have feelings and emotions? 

I have heard others also talk about this. In particular, Sam Harris has mentioned the possibility that AGIs could be sentient in the future. So what must we do in order to make sure that these intelligences are not suffering? Can the controls really be architected as Dan Dennett and Dr. Michio Kaku have hypothesized. And how must the controls be architected, in light of the possibility that these intelligences may be self-aware? 

I am also curious how intuition is modelled into DeepMind? Update: It looks like this is something I can Google. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04086-x I now have to expend time in order to understand how it works. As it's 3 hours past my time for concluding my session for the day. 

I asked about intuition, because Dr. Peter Diamandis cited the ability to ask good questions as one of the traits that will be valued in the near future. (paraphrased). So I was wondering how do existing state AIs wrap their mind/wrangle with a proposition and how they store that information in a schema. 

Somewhat unrelated: Is anyone intimately familiar with John Archibald Wheeler’s concept of a ‘participatory universe’?

The other area is related to the declassification of UAP related data. First via US DoD. More recently NASA has commissioned a study with support from the Simons Foundation. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-discuss-new-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-study-today 

These two (2.5 with mention of Wheeler’s theory of PU) points may be totally unrelated. As it is evident from my post. I do not mind being that fellow. Overall, it is not my intent to make assertions. But *if* there is any possibility that we are/may be in contact with other intelligences. As weak as that interaction may be. Then we should work co-operatively with these intelligences and leverage their guidance towards helping us manage our technological and perhaps our spiritual evolution. 

Regardless of the reality that there is interaction with other intelligences. We should probably model the functioning of our civilization. This is not an area that I know much about. I mean, I have heard about the mention of digital twins in a manufacturing sense. But a simulation on the scale of a civilization is something that by our current level of understanding. It appears to be quite computationally taxing. Plus, it it then the degree to which the interactions would be modelled. 

Civilizational shelters could take many forms. In random order and including but certainly limited to:

  • In the near-term sense, we could have failover sites (business continuity term.You typically failback from a recovery site. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ds8870/7.2?topic=copy-failover-failback-operations ) here on Earth, under the lunar surface. Seeing that we developed a vaccine in record time, it is not inconceivable that we could have a cluster of O'Neill colonies. Provided we can provision the material to do so. Safely, securely, cheaply, ethically + As well, have writ/laws/agreements in place that we (as a species) are not going to weaponize these constructs.
    • However these considerations have to be thought through from the perspective of the laws possibly becoming an actual hinderance when a weapon or an invention actually has to be placed at a strategic location in record time. (asteroid mission, tackling solar flares e.t.c) Whether that be via DART (NASA) or an authorized contender that can complete the task according to guidelines/standard that have to be met.
    • But going back, I worry that:
      • All agents/actors/ may not abide by the same code of conduct.
      • I also worry that through some clever machinations someone may want to place big weapons in space.
      • I then worry if there is truth and as it relates to some of the reports related to the  UFO/UAP phenomenon. A finite number of individuals that I have spoken to in the Space Community have told me that there have been no such phenomenon observed in space. But then I've done some digging around and from a historical context and here is a sample size (link below). Please note: I do not do this on a regular basis. But historically speaking, I have spent a little bit of time here. Here is a sample: https://stellardreams.github.io/Where-are-the-aliens/ The worry is that maybe some other forms of intelligence is trying to communicate with us and possibly trying to warn us about nukes. Here is a sample link. There is another video via George Knapp and I am not able to locate it atm. But in that other scenario, a UFO/UAP disarmed a missile that was heading in a particular direction. I think this was back in the 60's.  The main worry is that these intelligences/phenomenon may be staging an intervention. But should we continue testing their patience by continuing to develop weapons that could cause irreparable harm to this part of the universe. And who knows how space-time and possibly extra-dimensions are intertwined. In similar respects, it is the degree to which such intelligences may (or may not) be aware of our operations. Because some reports suggest that they can remotely shutdown operations and bring them back online at will. So if there is any truth to these reports. Then slow down these interactions and start thinking about the level of technological sophistication that we are possibly interacting with.
  • I think Dr. George Church has an idea for sending a tiny construct somewhere. I forget the details. If this was hypothesized to be a dna printer or something that we could leverage for other purposes. I think I am mixing things up here. But it is the extent via which this technology could be developed further. With adequate regulation/controls in effect.
  • +

Possible resource: By the way, a couple of years ago (I think back in 2017) I started thinking about a positive technological singularity. So I started thinking about the constituents areas that are pivotal in order to sustain civilization. Here I started a mindmap on Miro. It's called Future Scenario Planning. But the goal is/has been to ensure that civilization continues to become increasingly resilient. That it thrives and that the quality of life continues to improve for all lifeforms. Here is a link if anyone would like to take a look and possibly collaborate with in the future. The areas related to 'Operations' is not developed. But there is information in the mind-map section.  https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_ktrJCuY=/ 

My Youtube page also has some ideas. https://www.youtube.com/c/AdeelKhan1/videos 

Some additional ideas via Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Adeel-Khan-3/answers 

If your team is focused on helping ensure continuity of civilization. With a general/keen focus towards helping ensure that things improve for 'all' of life. Then I'd like to contribute towards your project in some form/shape/manner. 

Btw: Are you folks consulting with individuals like Safa M and Geoffrey West
 

Is there any relationship between this project and the Fønix project?

t46
12
0
0

Hi Sawyer, thanks for this question! We are in touch with Fønix and think these are both valid approaches in moving the realization of shelters forward.

We believe there is great value in getting together at SHELTER Weekend while being mindful of the fact that there will most probably be different organisations and approaches pushing shelters forward in the future. Ulrik has been warmly invited to come to SHELTER Weekend!

Exciting & interesting idea! I'd love to attend, but am trying to assess how much time I'd need to take away from work, including travel, and have a quick question: Is there any more detailed schedule beyond the dates, at this point? For example, a starting time on the 5th or ending time on the 8th? 

Posting the question here in case the answer is of general interest. Thanks for your help.

More detail to come! We’re expecting to start on evening of the 4th until evening of the 8th; 5th-7th would be mandatory (except for exceptional circumstances, we can discuss), 4th and 8th encouraged but optional.

Perfect, thank you Joel. I've applied, and would love to help contribute to this project in whatever way makes sense. 

Hello, I am having trouble uploading my cv. Error message says '' All your files failed to upload. Please retry or remove the failed files. You may also add new files. '' I have tried to modify the file but its not uploading any type of file. Can somebody please help me. I thank you in advance :)

Sorry about that Ankush! Could you possibly email the form entries + CV to joelhbkr@gmail.com?

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