Since nobody else in this forum seems to be mentioning it, it seems worth pointing out that today Americans are choosing between two candidates, one of whom

(a) Supports at least some regulation of AI, whereas the other wants to let it rip;

(b) Has at least done no harm where nuclear arms control is concerned, whereas the other tore up the nuclear deal with Iran and withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty;

(c) Supports a reasonably sane approach to pandemic disease, whereas the other is talking of banning vaccinations (as well as fluoridation of water);

(d) Has been part of the US administration that has done far more to promote low-carbon energy than any of its predecessors, whereas the other candidate calls global heating a 'hoax' and is actively trying to bring back fossil fuels;

(e) Shows some sense of responsibility to the rest of the world, whereas the other openly preaches an ideology of 'America first' (and everybody else can go hang).

Perhaps all this goes without saying. But if you're a US citizen and you haven't yet voted--or if you can still persuade anybody who hasn't--please do bear it in mind. 

29

15
2

Reactions

15
2
Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I agree, it's too hard to disentangle these from any political discussion. I guess we could separate discussion of the issues (which we can reasonably link to politicians and parties) but not discuss the elections themselves. I (weak to moderate confidence) think EA and this forum could play a valuable role in bringing good epistemics, reasoning, and expertise to the discussions of the issues. And I think we should not trip over ourselves to refrain from tying these to the politics, where this is obvious. 

In line with your list, I think it's plausible that

1. HEALTH/PANDEMIC RISK: Putting RFK in charge of health, or giving him influence over it will strongly escalate the risk of pandemics and large-scale disease outbreaks in the US and internationally. As I understand it, RFK rejects vaccines and the integrity of the current scientific institutions. He will spread this as a matter of policy as well as through his social influence; both will boost vaccine hesitancy. He will likely drastically reduce US support for vaccine development and promotion, with global implications. 

(Representative evidence: He proposed allocating  half of the NIH's research budget to "preventive, alternative, and holistic" medicine.) 

2. NUCLEAR RISK: The US will fully or substantially abandon NATO and other institutions. This will be destabilizing and raise the risk of adventurism from Russia, China, and others, in turn raising the risk of nuclear war.

Fwiw these claims were broadly backed up by a query on Perplexity.  Full disclosure, Perplexity was less convinced than I am that that Trump will undermine foreign development aid budgets. They had a mixed response on animal welfare issues, but they agreed it is "likely that a future Trump administration would attempt to undermine or preempt state legislation on animal welfare standards, particularly those related to farm animals." 

Sadly, my instincts on foreign aid seem to have been correct, at least if the 90-day suspension is a sign of things.

Also sadly, Perplexity seems to have been accurate in predicting the attempt to undermine state legislation on welfare standards.

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