All of JBPDavies's Comments + Replies

Thank you for writing this - looking forward to diving into the full report this weekend. Congratulations on finishing what must have been a major undertaking! 

Thanks for this post, agree with other comments that it's very well written and clear, and on first reading I agree with the core message even if some of the specific points/evidence offered may be debatable (e.g. discussions in the comments re: Lynas). Upvoted!

 

I want to draw attention to one major issue with the analysis that also permeates the dicsussion about climate change as an x-risk both elsewhere and in the discussion here in the comments.

'Following, e.g., Halstead, it is instructive to split the question of climate change damages into three ... (read more)

1
cwa
2y
Thanks for these great points! I agree that these are both things that should be looked at further.

Thank you for writing this profile & post. Two queries/thoughts that came to mind:

  1. Regarding risk from biodiversity collapse - I have yet to see any in depth or thorough research into this. The cited paper (Kareiva and Carranza) devotes only two paragraphs to biodiversity as a potential existential risk, and while it makes good points, I think it only scratches the surface the topic. Biodiversity is a crude but effective proxy measure for ecosystem health, and human civilisation and indeed life relies unavoidably on ecosystem services. It is not implaus
... (read more)

I think this comment demonstrates the importance of quantifying probabilities. e.g. you write:

Could agriculture cope with projected warming? Possibly, maybe probably. Can it do so while supply chains, global power relations and financial systems are disrupted or in crisis? That's a much harder prospect.

I can imagine either kinda agreeing with this comment, or completely disagreeing, depending on how we're each defining "possibly", "probably", and "much harder".

For what it's worth, I also think it's probably that agriculture will cope with projected warming... (read more)

7
samuel
2y
+1 - Ecosystem services (and more generally, Earth systems) are infamously hard to pin down, which is why I often taken any bottom line analyses of climate change with gigantic grains of salt (in both directions). For example, there's currently a gold rush on technology to quantify the value of soil sequestration, forest sequestration, etc, and as far as I can tell, experts are still bickering over the basics on how to calculate these data with any accuracy. Those are just a few small pieces of a very very large pie that is difficult to value. Perhaps the modeling takes these massive uncertainties into consideration, but I'm skeptical (and will have to do some research of my own).

Hi John,

Many thanks to you & the others in the comments for the insightful discussion. Could you clarify a few points:

  1. You state that 2.5 degrees warming by 2100 is widely accepted as the likely outcome of 'business as usual' - does this correspond to one of the IPCC scenarios?
  2. You state that >6 degrees warming by 2100 is  highly unlikely (risk seems 'negligible'). Again, is this conclusion drawn from the IPCC report

If you have any additional resources to back these statements up I would love to read them - thanks!

2
Stephen Clare
2y
I think you'll find answers to those questions in section 1 of John and Johannes's recent post on climate projections. IIRC the answers are yes, and those numbers correspond to RCP4.5.

Two neglected X-risks

I've been going through various listings of x-risks (and GCR's, to account for some uncertainty re: climate and nuclear) by prominent organisations, and after a brief scanning have found that the usual list includes:

  1. Nuclear War
  2. Biotechnology/Man-made Pandemics
  3. Artificial Intelligence
  4. Climate Change

 

No list that I came across (explicitly) includes either:

  1. SETI/METI
  2. Molecular Nanotechnology/Atomically Premise Manufacturing (a.k.a. 'Grey Goo').

 

I would make the case that both of these are potential X-risks, and should be taken seriou... (read more)

Many thanks for the quick reply & clarifications Abraham! Looking forward to the information sessions.

Fantastic to see Rethink expanding, and I absolutely love the idea of the Special Projects program!

Regarding the Special Projects Associate position:

  • Salary: $72,000 to $76,000 USD
  • Summary: Coordinator between incubated RP projects (especially in our new Megaprojects program) and RP operations
  • A good fit for:
    • Early-career people interested in operations
    • People with a strong understanding of longtermism
    • People interested in working on megaprojects and other high-risk/high-reward charitable projects

I'm curious as to why this is an Associate level position and not ... (read more)

6
abrahamrowe
2y
Hey! We set the title level for the Special Projects Associate roles for a few reasons:  * We think that this could be a valuable way for people new to operations for EA organizations to gain skills. * We think that generally these roles would be good learning opportunities for early career EAs to explore ops careers. * These roles are fairly generalist I think it is likely that if someone came in who had a fairly deep background in operations relevant to these roles, we'd basically evaluate them for a different title level on an individual basis. I think we'd also likely consider really strong candidates for the Director-level for other roles on the Special Projects team, so only one application is needed to that team, but for other positions at RP, we have different evaluation committees, so multiple applications would need to be submitted. We are happy to consider candidates for any number of roles they'd like to apply for across programs though!

Thanks for writing this post Fin! 

I want to express my support for the 'Space governance research centre' idea. I've published a little on Space Policy/Governance and had some very positive feedback from professionals working within the field (e.g. within ESA, Raytheon, companies engaged in EO and so on) supporting the need for proactive policymaking and governance of space activities.

It seems like a natural area for a research centre/think tank/policy lab aimed at policy research and implementation algined with principles of longtermism & EA. I w... (read more)

Love the idea - just writing to add that Futures Studies, participatory futures in particular & future scenario methodologies could be really useful for Longtermist research. Methods in these fields can be highly rigorous (I've been working with some futures experts as part of a project to design 3 visions of the future - which have just finished going through a lengthly stress-testing and crowd-sourcing process to open them up to public reflection and input), especially if the scenario design is approached in a systematised way using a well-developed ... (read more)

1
agnode
2y
Thanks for the point about rigor - I'm not that familiar with participatory futures but had encountered it through an organisation that tends to be a bit hypey. But good to know there is rigorous work in that field.  I agree that there are lots of opportunities to apply to EA/Longtermism and your paper sounds interesting. I'll send an email. 

Sounds fantastic - drop me an email at j.b.p.davies@uu.nl and I would love to set up a meeting. In the meantime I'll dive into EIP's work!

You may be interested in the following project I'm working for: https://deeptransitions.net/news/the-deep-transition-futures-project-investing-in-transformation/ . The project goal is developing a new investment philosophy & strategy (complete with new outcome metrics) aimed at achieving transformational systems change. The project leverages the Deep Transitions theoretical framework as developed within the field of Sustainability Transitions and Science, Technology and Innovation Studies to create a theory of change and subsequently enact it with a gr... (read more)

Hi Peter (if I may!),

I love this and your other Longtermism suggestions, thanks for submitting them! Not sure if you saw my below suggestion of a Longtermism Policy Lab - but maybe this is exactly the kind of activity that could fall under such an organisation/programme (within Rethink even)? Likewise for your suggestion of a Lobbying group - by working directly with societal partners (e.g. National Ministries across the world) you could begin implementation directly through experimentation. 

I've been involved in a similar (successful) project called ... (read more)

2
IanDavidMoss
2y
JBPDavies, it sounds like you and I should connect as well -- I run the Effective Institutions Project and I'd love to learn more about your Institutions for Longtermism research and provide input/ideas as appropriate.
2
Peter Wildeford
2y
Sure! Email me at peter@rethinkpriorities.org and I will set up a meeting.

Longtermism Policy Lab

Epistemic Institutions, Values and Reflective Processes, Great Power Relations, Space Governance, Research That Can Help Us Improve

Despite the growing recognition of the importance of long-term perspectives, governance remains oriented around short-term incentives. More coordination and collaboration between researchers and policymakers, practicioners and industry professionals is needed to translate research into policy. The Longtermism Policy Lab will bridge this gap, working with societal partners and governments at all levels (loc... (read more)

Space Policy Lab

Space Governance, Epistemic Institutions

Human activity in space is intensifying with the growing challenge of space debris, the deployment of satellite mega-constellations, and the prospects of asteroid mining and long-term colonisation raising unique challenges to a vital yet neglected domain. Current space governance - the laws, rules, norms and institutions that structure interactions in space - is falls far short of meeting these challenges. A Space Policy Lab would research governance frameworks analyse policy issues shape expert disco... (read more)

'Climate change could also increase other existential risks. For example, there could be a war about ressources that is fought by nuclear weapons, synthetic pathogens or malevolent AIs.'

To add to this - solar geoengineering could be a major risk (and risk factor for inter-state conflict) that becomes increasingly likely under severe AGW scenarios (people accept more drastic measures in desparate circumstances).

Thank you for hosting this - always love the opportunity to put questions to knowledgeable & interesting people!

I am particularly interested in learning more about your theory of change. Would you be able to elaborate on what activities you focus on, with which actors, and why? How will this lead to your stated goals?

Some questions in my head which may help to clarify what I mean:

  1. The future of the EU as a global security actor appears uncertain at best (thinking for example of the EU's recent exclusion from Ukraine negotiations). If member states choos
... (read more)
[anonymous]2y11
0
0

Hi @JBPDavies, thank you for your questions and happy to comment on examples from my home country.

Our current focus in Europe is on two priorities:  i) strengthened the AI Act, and ii) building support among European countries for a treaty on autonomous weapons systems. For the first priority, we work mainly with the EU institutions. For the second, our focus is with Member State capitals (due to the limited EU influence over security issues, as you rightly point out). 

We regularly evaluate our choice of projects, and are currently conduct an eva... (read more)

What in your opinion are the largest bottlenecks/barriers to achieving reduction of nuclear risk today? Would more advocacy groups be useful, or greater focus on popular social movements? Is further research needed, or is it simply a case of translating common knowledge into political will to take action (& for example reduce stockpiles or end first use posture)?

To cut to the essence of my question - what should individuals focus their efforts on today to have the greatest impact in terms of reducing nuclear threat?

2
Joan Rohlfing
2y
We have to pursue multiple strategies for reducing nuclear risks – no one strategy alone is sufficient. Because governments possess nuclear weapons and have the resources necessary for implementing risk reduction measures at the scale that’s needed, it’s imperative to continue to leverage policy change by governments as a core focus of nuclear risk reduction efforts. This includes generating creative ideas for policy solutions that governments could adopt. But a strategy that focuses only on persuading government leaders to adopt policy changes has proven to be insufficient on its own.  The adoption of nuclear risk reduction measures has recently been outpaced by growing risks, and policy makers’ attention to nuclear issues has been declining as the awareness and attention of global publics has also declined. So we must also aim to drive a strategy of culture change by working to raise awareness of nuclear risks among broader segments of the public.  We have work to do to communicate more effectively about the risks of nuclear weapons to global publics.  The more awareness we can create, the more likely it is that governments will feel they have the political support (the Overton window) for reducing the threat of nuclear weapons.    Individuals can educate themselves on the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. There are many places to learn about nuclear risks and nuclear policy (including on NTI’s website!).  A few specific reading suggestions include: *  2034: A Novel of the Next World War by Admiral James Stavridis; * My Journey at the Nuclear Brink by former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry, and * Command and Control by Eric Schlosser.  These could be discussed in book groups or informal dinners with friends and neighbors. Individuals can then make their views known by communicating to political leaders their concerns about the danger of nuclear weapons and the need for governments to do more to reduce them. Even small actions, such as hosting a book

In your yearly review you mention that Rethink may significantly expand its Longtermism research group in the future, including potentially into new focus areas and topics. Do you have any ideas of what these might be (beyond the mentioned AI governance), and how you might choose (i.e. looking for a niche where Rethink can play a major role, following demand of stakeholders, etc.)?

If in 5 and/or 10 years time you look back on RP and feel its been a major success, what would that look like? What kind(s) of impact would you consider important, and by what bar would you measure your attainment/progress towards that?

5
Peter Wildeford
2y
The first part I answered here. I think a major success for us would look like having achieved a large and sustainably productive research organization tackling research in a variety of disciplines and cause areas. I think we will have made a major contribution to unlocking funding in effective altruism by figuring out to fund with more confidence as well as increasing our influence across a larger variety of stakeholders, including important stakeholders outside of the effective altruism movement..

Congratulations! Brilliant to see a combined advocacy approach too - if you don't mind sharing, how did you go about producing the accompanying video? I'm keen to introduce more media into my own advocacy work so I'm keen to learn.

3
jonleighton
3y
Thanks! I wrote a description of the storyboard, used my network to find an illustrator who does animation, worked closely with her to get the images right, found the right music and then edited the video myself, mainly using Final Cut.