Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

by RobertDaoust
4 min read 2

-12

Animal welfareBuilding effective altruismCareer choiceCause prioritizationExistential riskGlobal health & developmentOpportunities to take actionPhilosophyPolicyOpinionResearch
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kkax8DaQA2g5spiup/proposal-create-a-world-center-endowed-with-millions-of

I asked Claude to improve the text I posted on the EA forum on January 12, 2025. Here is its rendition.

# Proposal: World Center for the Study and Control of Suffering 

*A systematic approach to understanding and alleviating global suffering*

## Executive Summary

The global community lacks a coordinated, scientific approach to understanding and addressing suffering. This proposal outlines the creation of a World Center for the Study and Control of Suffering (WCSCS), supported by both a research endowment and an implementation fund. The Center would establish suffering studies as a formal academic discipline while developing and deploying evidence-based interventions to reduce suffering worldwide.

## The Challenge

Despite numerous organizations working to alleviate specific forms of suffering, our efforts remain fragmented and often inefficient. We lack:

- A unified framework for understanding suffering across different domains

- Standardized metrics for measuring and comparing different types of suffering

- Systematic coordination between researchers and practitioners

- Evidence-based prioritization of interventions

- Large-scale implementation of proven solutions

## The Solution: A Two-Pillar Approach

### Pillar 1: Research Institute ($100M Endowment)

The Research Institute would establish suffering studies as a formal academic discipline, integrating insights from:

- Neuroscience and psychology

- Medicine and healthcare

- Social sciences

- Philosophy and ethics

- Data science and AI

- Economics and policy studies

Key Research Programs:

1. **Fundamental Research**

   - Developing a taxonomy of suffering types

   - Creating standardized measurement tools

   - Studying causal mechanisms and interactions

   - Identifying intervention leverage points

2. **Applied Research**

   - Evaluating existing interventions

   - Designing new intervention strategies

   - Creating prediction models

   - Developing monitoring systems

3. **Policy Research**

   - Analyzing regulatory frameworks

   - Studying institutional design

   - Evaluating cost-effectiveness

   - Developing implementation strategies

### Pillar 2: Implementation Fund ($2B Initial Capital)

The Implementation Fund would:

- Scale proven interventions

- Fund pilot programs

- Support coordination between organizations

- Enable rapid response to crises

Priority Areas:

1. **Healthcare Interventions**

   - Pain management systems

   - Mental health support

   - Preventive care programs

   - Access to treatment

2. **Social Interventions**

   - Poverty alleviation

   - Conflict resolution

   - Disaster response

   - Community support systems

3. **Structural Changes**

   - Policy reform

   - Institutional capacity building

   - Educational programs

   - Technology deployment

## Analysis Using the ITN Framework

### Importance

- Scale: Affects billions of sentient beings

- Intensity: Includes severe forms of suffering

- Neglectedness: No existing institution specifically focused on suffering as a phenomenon

- Ripple effects: Reducing suffering enables progress in other areas

### Tractability

Evidence for tractability:

1. **Historical Precedent**

   - Success of WHO in coordinating global health efforts

   - Impact of systematic research in reducing specific forms of suffering (e.g., pain management, poverty reduction)

   - Demonstrated effectiveness of coordinated responses to global challenges

2. **Available Tools**

   - Advanced research methodologies

   - Data analysis capabilities

   - Intervention technologies

   - Communication systems

   - Implementation frameworks

3. **Clear Progress Metrics**

   - Quantifiable reduction in specific forms of suffering

   - Improved response times to crises

   - Development of new interventions

   - Adoption of best practices

   - Policy changes implemented

### Neglectedness

Current gaps:

- No unified academic discipline

- Limited cross-domain coordination

- Insufficient funding for systematic approaches

- Lack of standardized measurements

- Absence of global coordination mechanism

## Implementation Strategy

### Phase 1: Foundation (Years 1-2)

- Establish governance structure

- Recruit core team

- Develop research agenda

- Create initial partnerships

- Set up basic infrastructure

### Phase 2: Development (Years 3-5)

- Launch key research programs

- Build intervention capabilities

- Develop measurement systems

- Create pilot programs

- Establish regional networks

### Phase 3: Scaling (Years 6-10)

- Expand research programs

- Scale successful interventions

- Strengthen global networks

- Influence policy changes

- Measure and iterate

## Expected Outcomes

### Short-term (1-3 years)

- Established research framework

- Initial measurement tools

- Pilot interventions launched

- Partnership network created

### Medium-term (4-7 years)

- Evidence-based intervention portfolio

- Demonstrated impact in priority areas

- Policy influence

- Scaled solutions

### Long-term (8+ years)

- Systematic reduction in global suffering

- Established academic discipline

- Global coordination system

- Self-sustaining programs

## Budget Overview

Research Institute ($100M Endowment):

- Annual operating budget: ~$5M

- Core research programs: 60%

- Infrastructure and support: 25%

- Partnerships and outreach: 15%

Implementation Fund ($2B Initial Capital):

- Direct interventions: 70%

- Capacity building: 15%

- Monitoring and evaluation: 10%

- Emergency response: 5%

## Risk Management

Identified risks and mitigation strategies:

1. **Measurement Challenges**

   - Develop multiple complementary metrics

   - Use both quantitative and qualitative measures

   - Regular methodology review

2. **Coordination Difficulties**

   - Clear governance structure

   - Strong partnership agreements

   - Regular stakeholder engagement

3. **Implementation Barriers**

   - Pilot testing

   - Local partnerships

   - Adaptive management

4. **Resource Sustainability**

   - Diversified funding sources

   - Endowment management

   - Cost-sharing arrangements

## Call to Action

The creation of the World Center for the Study and Control of Suffering represents a unique opportunity to transform how we understand and address suffering globally. We invite:

1. **Researchers** to help develop the academic foundation

2. **Practitioners** to contribute expertise and implementation capacity

3. **Funders** to support this systematic approach

4. **Organizations** to participate in coordinated efforts

5. **Policymakers** to enable structural changes

Together, we can build an institution capable of significantly reducing suffering worldwide through systematic, evidence-based approaches.

## Next Steps

1. Form advisory board

2. Secure initial funding commitments

3. Establish legal framework

4. Recruit core team

5. Begin pilot programs

For more information or to get involved, please contact me.


 

-12

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments2


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
JDLC1
0
0

This is the most downvoted post I’ve seen on the forum so far. Why?

Reply
RobertDaoust-2
0
0

How interesting! Some may deplore the use of AI to re-present a recently published text. I suspect, however, that there is a deeper reason: the very idea of a World Center on suffering is so path-breaking that it cannot avoid attracting unjustified negative reactions. 

Reply
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
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
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
2
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
3
Apply to become a Futurekind AI Facilitator or Mentor (deadline: April 10)
Jay Luong
· · 2m read
0
0
37
AIS Netherlands is looking for a Founding Executive Director (EOI form)
7 authors
· · 5m read
4
4
View more