Welcome back! If you missed it, part 1 details some background on this post series, which in essence is a collection of my reflections after taking the CEA Intro to EA Virtual Program course this past summer. You can find additional previous parts here: part 2 & part 3. This post is for Chapter 4: Our Final Century? in the EA Handbook.

My awesome facilitator during the EA virtual program course  (and the first person I've ever exchanged EA thoughts with) was kind enough to edit and help me further enrich this post. Thank you @NBjork!

Let’s get to it:

  • As mentioned in the last chapter about radical empathy, helping the world can look like saving lives, extending lives, and/or reducing suffering. That help should be the most effective, regardless of geographical, species, or time constraints. In this chapter the conversation takes a turn to focus more on existential risks, thereby the focus is on saving and extending lives. One might understand existential risks as being the potential to continue to improve the world, for if we don’t exist anymore, our options for helping have already been extinguished. For this reason, reducing existential risk is a primary moral imperative for many individuals and organizations. Our first priority is to survive and so long as that’s the case there should be some margin of hope to continue to save lives, extend lives, and reduce suffering. Other things we care about (justice, equality, art, culture, environment, etc) are all things that would have a greater than zero chance to flourish to unprecedented levels in the future, but the first requirement is that an existential risk does not transpire first.
  • Naturally we should try to avoid tragedies in the world because often they end/shorten many lives and cause great suffering. However, the benchmark for something to be considered a tragedy is very subjective and can have an extraordinary range of impact. A mass shooting is a tragedy, but an earthquake is as well. So is war, genocide, a pandemic, starvation and even suicide. That means that even though a tragedy is certainly a negative, the magnitude of that negativity varies. Existential risk supersedes tragedy. The appropriate way to think of extinction is not by identifying it as a tragedy, but by thinking of it as the equivalent of the "final tragedy". 
  • One way to categorize existential risks is by those that are natural vs human caused. As it stands, human caused risks are significantly higher than natural extinction risks. Furthermore, just a very small number of human decision-makers have the power to destroy the entire world. This has been true since the 1950’s and the advent of nuclear weapons.
  • Within the "scale, neglectedness and solvability" framework, many EA organizations agree that safeguarding the future is the highest goal. However, that is not always easy to show using quantitative results. Longtermist interventions "may" save lives if future events take place in the way we expect, but if things transpire differently, it's possible it was wasted effort. For example, say if we never experience a dangerous AI, because 10% of the AI safety work that was done worldwide was responsible for eliminating such a risk, in hindsight, the other 90% of our effort was a waste and we should have expended that energy elsewhere. Unfortunately we can't really say today what part of our x-risk efforts are not going to be impactful, so we are stuck in this dilemma. In contrast, most interventions helping today can correlate quite closely to how many lives they actually help with clear and straightforward evidence. For such interventions 100% of the effort put into them is impactful, the question is of the degree to which they're impactful.
  • Marginal impact speaks to your own personal return created in your work. An organization may be making impact X, and when you join it, you add to it your own marginal impact (Y), and the outcome of X + Y = Z. Now X may be huge, or it may be little, but it’s not the only thing that should be considered. Z should be considered to a greater degree. So let’s say for another organization their impact is A. Your impact is still Y, but when combined A + Y = B. Don’t simply compare the X and A values of two separate organizations, also compare (and with a larger weight) the end result of your impact as well. What is best, the final output of Z, or B?
  • Those who may be new to EA, as I am, may note that they have heard about climate change for most of the recent decades. From an individual to a national to a global level countless efforts related to improving climate change have been inserted into our daily lives and conversations. The future impacts of climate change can be without a doubt devastating, and (to use a word highlighted earlier in this post) tragic. Many climate change after-effects are already resulting in tragedies around the planet. However, as an EA the conversation isn’t just about tragedies and catastrophes, but their potential, ie about extinction. Those analysis for the most part reveal that the risks of climate change will be devastating and catastrophic, but not at the extinction threshold. For this reason in the EA community, climate change receives a lower risk designation compared to some other cause areas. It is acknowledged however that climate change will increase the other existential risks in our world.

 

Thank you all for taking the time to read through these reflections and feel free to leave any feedback you think relevant. I am especially open to resources that expand on these thoughts further! 

Look out for the chapter 5 reflection post soon!

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
TL;DR * Screwworm Free Future is a new group seeking support to advance work on eradicating the New World Screwworm in South America. * The New World Screwworm (C. hominivorax - literally "man-eater") causes extreme suffering to hundreds of millions of wild and domestic animals every year. * To date we’ve held private meetings with government officials, experts from the private sector, academics, and animal advocates. We believe that work on the NWS is valuable and we want to continue our research and begin lobbying. * Our analysis suggests we could prevent about 100 animals from experiencing an excruciating death per dollar donated, though this estimate has extreme uncertainty. * The screwworm “wall” in Panama has recently been breached, creating both an urgent need and an opportunity to address this problem. * We are seeking $15,000 to fund a part-time lead and could absorb up to $100,000 to build a full-time team, which would include a team lead and another full-time equivalent (FTE) role * We're also excited to speak to people who have a background in veterinary science/medicine, entomology, gene drives, as well as policy experts in Latin America. - please reach out if you know someone who fits this description!   Cochliomyia hominivorax delenda est Screwworm Free Future is a new group of volunteers who connected through Hive investigating the political and scientific barriers stopping South American governments from eradicating the New World Screwworm. In our shallow investigation, we have identified key bottlenecks, but we now need funding and people to take this investigation further, and begin lobbying. In this post, we will cover the following: * The current status of screwworms * Things that we have learnt in our research * What we want to do next * How you can help by funding or supporting or project   What’s the deal with the New World Screwworm? The New World Screwworm[1] is the leading cause of myiasis in Latin America. Myiasis “
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Does a food carbon tax increase animal deaths and/or the total time of suffering of cows, pigs, chickens, and fish? Theoretically, this is possible, as a carbon tax could lead consumers to substitute, for example, beef with chicken. However, this is not per se the case, as animal products are not perfect substitutes.  I'm presenting the results of my master's thesis in Environmental Economics, which I re-worked and published on SSRN as a pre-print. My thesis develops a model of animal product substitution after a carbon tax, slaughter tax, and a meat tax. When I calibrate[1] this model for the U.S., there is a decrease in animal deaths and duration of suffering following a carbon tax. This suggests that a carbon tax can reduce animal suffering. Key points * Some animal products are carbon-intensive, like beef, but causes relatively few animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are large. Other animal products, like chicken, causes relatively many animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are small, but cause relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. * A carbon tax will make some animal products, like beef, much more expensive. As a result, people may buy more chicken. This would increase animal suffering, assuming that farm animals suffer. However, this is not per se the case. It is also possible that the direct negative effect of a carbon tax on chicken consumption is stronger than the indirect (positive) substitution effect from carbon-intensive products to chicken. * I developed a non-linear market model to predict the consumption of different animal products after a tax, based on own-price and cross-price elasticities. * When calibrated for the United States, this model predicts a decrease in the consumption of all animal products considered (beef, chicken, pork, and farmed fish). Therefore, the modelled carbon tax is actually good for animal welfare, assuming that animals live net-negative lives. * A slaughter tax (a
MarieF🔸
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Summary * After >2 years at Hi-Med, I have decided to step down from my role. * This allows me to complete my medical residency for long-term career resilience, whilst still allowing part-time flexibility for direct charity work. It also allows me to donate more again. * Hi-Med is now looking to appoint its next Executive Director; the application deadline is 26 January 2025. * I will join Hi-Med’s governing board once we have appointed the next Executive Director. Before the role When I graduated from medical school in 2017, I had already started to give 10% of my income to effective charities, but I was unsure as to how I could best use my medical degree to make this world a better place. After dipping my toe into nonprofit fundraising (with Doctors Without Borders) and working in a medical career-related start-up to upskill, a talk given by Dixon Chibanda at EAG London 2018 deeply inspired me. I formed a rough plan to later found an organisation that would teach Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-specific psychotherapeutic techniques to lay people to make evidence-based treatment of PTSD scalable. I started my medical residency in psychosomatic medicine in 2019, working for a specialised clinic for PTSD treatment until 2021, then rotated to child and adolescent psychiatry for a year and was half a year into the continuation of my specialisation training at a third hospital, when Akhil Bansal, whom I met at a recent EAG in London, reached out and encouraged me to apply for the ED position at Hi-Med - an organisation that I knew through my participation in their introductory fellowship (an academic paper about the outcomes of this first cohort can be found here). I seized the opportunity, applied, was offered the position, and started working full-time in November 2022.  During the role I feel truly privileged to have had the opportunity to lead High Impact Medicine for the past two years. My learning curve was steep - there were so many new things to