Jackson Wagner
Bio
Scriptwriter for RationalAnimations! Interested in lots of EA topics, but especially ideas for new institutions like prediction markets, charter cities, georgism, etc. Also a big fan of EA / rationalist fiction!
Posts 21
Comments384
The Christians in this story who lived relatively normal lives ended up looking wiser than the ones who went all-in on the imminent-return-of-Christ idea. But of course, if christianity had been true and Christ had in fact returned, maybe the crazy-seeming, all-in Christians would have had huge amounts of impact.
Here is my attempt at thinking up other historical examples of transformative change that went the other way:
-
Muhammad's early followers must have been a bit uncertain whether this guy was really the Final Prophet. Do you quit your day job in Mecca so that you can flee to Medina with a bunch of your fellow cultists? In this case, it probably would've been a good idea: seven years later you'd be helping lead an army of 100,000 holy warriors to capture the city of Mecca. And over the next thirty years, you'll help convert/conquer all the civilizations of the middle east and North Africa.
-
Less dramatic versions of the above story could probably be told about joining many fast-growing charismatic social movements (like joining a political movement or revolution). Or, more relevantly to AI, about joining a fast-growing bay-area startup whose technology might change the world (like early Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc).
-
You're a physics professor in 1940s America. One day, a team of G-men knock on your door and ask you to join a top-secret project to design an impossible superweapon capable of ending the Nazi regime and stopping the war. Do you quit your day job and move to New Mexico?...
-
You're a "cypherpunk" hanging out on online forums in the mid-2000s. Despite the demoralizing collapse of the dot-com boom and the failure of many of the most promising projects, some of your forum buddies are still excited about the possibilities of creating an "anonymous, distributed electronic cash system", such as the proposal called B-money. Do you quit your day job to work on weird libertarian math problems?...
People who bet everything on transformative change will always look silly in retrospect if the change never comes. But the thing about transformative change is that it does sometimes occur.
(Also, fortunately our world today is quite wealthy -- AI safety researchers are pretty smart folks and will probably be able to earn a living for themselves to pay for retirement, even if all their predictions come up empty.)
There are definitely some people out there (and these people are overrepresented among hardcore environmentalist types, of course) who seem to indeed have adopted "nature" as a kind of hippie religion that seems to have originated (or intensified) sometime in the 1970s. But this doesn't strike me as explaining all or most of how ordinary people value nature:
- even many people who believe ACTUAL religions, or who have other sorts of very strong ideologies that provide structure and meaning to their lives, nevertheless often seem to value nature highly in the ways Tandena outlined (spending time visiting national parks, sometimes voting for and donating to conservation programs, sometimes watching documentaties about the natural world, etc). So it can't be that valuing nature is purely a religion-substitute filling a psychological hole, otherwise we'd see a much stronger anti-correlation between religious/ideological/etc people vs nature-enjoyers?
- Many people certainly seem to treat respect for nature as a "sacred value", and treat the idea of sacrificing nature for other goals as a "taboo tradeoff". I sympathize with you that this is annoying and economically inefficient. But many things are considered "sacred values" or "taboo tradeoffs" in human culture, and this doesn't make them 100% religious \ fake. For instance, people often treat "saving lives" or "protecting children" as sacred values and act as if any related tradeoffs are taboo (even though we are constantly trading off lives vs other things in many parts of society). But that doesn't mean that "saving lives" is like a secular religion. In general, many things can be compared to a religion, but IMO this is often less informative than it appears. ("EA is like a religion! It has priests: 80k career advisers, temples: EAG conference venues, commandments: blog posts,...")
- I am forgetting the exact Yudkowsky essay(s) where he lambasts people for simply worshipping the mysterious (aka their own state of ignorance) and acting like additional knowledge inevitably ruins the supposedly sublime experience of ineffability that makes life worth living, or whatever. I agree with yudkowsky that it's dumb when people are like that, and I agree with you that many people take that attitude to nature. But many others seem eager to learn more about the natural world and appreciate it in a deeper, more rationalist-approved way. For instance: scientists studying creatures, birders (and other hobby groups like people who like to fish, or scuba dive, or etc), little kids learning about zoo animals, anybody who watches nature documentaries or reads books about nature-related stuff or reads the posted informational signs at national parks, people who like to learn a lot of detailed skills for backpacking in wilderness areas, etc...
- I also think it's probably possible to steelman some version of the common nature vibe of "we should respect nature for its own sake, and not seek to control everything", such that it might come off sounding less dumb than it usually seems. (Even though I expect, after reading such a steelman, I would still be pretty strongly in favor of controlling most things most of the time, to better achieve various goals.) Joe Carlsmith's essay series "Otherness and Control in the Age of AGI", particularly the essay "On Green" is partly about this.
One big point where I do think "nature as religion" matters a lot, though, is in shaping the *environmentalist movement* itself, since the movement is disproportionately steered by people who are really into nature-as-religion. Therefore our laws/norms about the environment, the way most academics/intellectuals discuss the value of nature, the sorts of things that are considered taboo within environmentalism (eg geoengineering, gene drives, etc), all end up significantly warped by the perspective you described, even though IMO it isn't the main way most ordinary people relate to nature.
Fooming Shoggoths! (And, more generally, much of the secular-solstice music -- there's already a database full of this somewhere.)
EcoResilience Initiative (https://ecoresilienceinitiative.com) works on this, in particular on non-climate-related stuff. They agree with Giving Green that, counterintuitively, Good Food Institute (usually talked about by animal-welfare fans) might actually be one of the most promising charities in terms of protecting biodiversity and the environment, because if plant-based meat ever took off in a big way it would have massive effects on agricultural land use (ie much less deforestation & habitat destruction would happen).
They can keep their old branding if they just put an asterisk after "hours" and explain that 80,000 Hours* now refers to human-worker-hour-equivalent efforts spent on highly-effective cause areas (aka "effective compute"), not necessarily literal human labor hours.
Interesting and thoughtful post. However, I believe your Google Ngram result is potentially confounded by the imminent rise of the Antichrist and ensuing Tribulation of convulsive war and death that will rip like wildfire across all the nations of Earth. This event is projected to occur sometime in the early 2040s, c.f. Angela Cotra's "Forecasting Transformative AC with Eschatological Anchors" (though more recent estimates like "AC 2027" have argued for shorter timelines), which is spuriously boosting mentions of the "apocalypse".
Once you correct for this confounding variable (ie, that each and every one of us is about to be plunged into a world of ceaseless conflict and violence, mercilessly hunted down by the Four Horsemen, moon turned to blood, etc), you'll see that eschatologically-adjusted mentions of "apocalypse" are actually no higher than the historical base rate, proving that there's nothing to worry about and everything will be fine.
Talk to sperm whales --> the US military figures out how to pay them to covertly tail russian subs --> eventually more people find out about this and pretty soon thanks to whales everybody knows where everyone's subs are at all times --> the assuredness of nations' second-strike nuclear capability is eroded --> destabilized game-theoretic dynamics once again favor first-strike --> nuclear armageddon.
(This is 95% a joke, but if somebody would please research "do whales offer any notable advantages vs naval drones, satellite-based wake detection, or other techniques for tracking nuclear submarines" I would feel a bit more assured...)
"Articulate a stronger defense of why they're good?"
I'm no expert on animal-welfare stuff, but just thinking out loud, here are some benefits that I could imagine coming from this technology (not trying to weigh them up versus potential harms or prioritize which seem largest or anything like that):
- You imagine negative PR consequences once we realize that animals might mostly be thinking about basic stuff like food and sex, but I picture that being only a small second-order consequence -- the primary effect, I suspect, is that people's empathy for animals might be greatly increased by realizing they think about stuff and communicate at all. The idea that animals (especially, like, whales) have sophisticated thoughts and communicate, and the intuition that they probably have valuable internal subjective experience, might both seem "obvious" to animal-welfare activists, but I think for most normal people globally, they either sorta believe that animals have feelings (but don't think about this very much) or else explicitly believe that animals lack consciousness / can't think like humans because they don't have language / don't have full human souls (if the person is religious) / etc. Hearing animals talk would, I expect, wake people up a little bit more to the idea that intelligence & consciousness exist on a spectrum and animals have some valuable experience (even if less so than humans).
- In particular, I'm definitely picturing that the journalists covering such experiments are likely to be some combination of 1. environmentalists who like animals, 2. animal rights activists who like animals, 3. just think animals are cute and figure that a feel-good story portraying animals as sweet and cute will obviously do better numbers than a boring story complaining about how dumb animals are. So, with friendly media coverage, I expect the biggest news stories will be about the cutest / sweetest / most striking / saddest things that animals say, not the boring fact that they spend most of their time complaining about bodily needs just like humans do.
- Compare for instance "news coverage" (and other cultural perceptions of) human children. To the extent that toddlers can talk, they are mostly just demanding things, crying, failing to understand stuff, etc. Yet, we find this really cute and endearing (eg, i am a father of a toddler myself, and it's often very fun). I bet animal communication would similarly be perceived positively, even if (like babies) they're really dumb compared to adult humans.
- Talk-to-animals tech also seems potentially philosophically important in some longtermist, "sentient-futures" style ways:
- What's good versus bad for an animal? Right now we literally just have to guess, based on eyeballing whether the creature seems happy. And if you are less of a total-hedonic-utilitarian, more of a preference utilitarian, the situation gets even worse. It would be nice if we could just ask animals what their problems are, what kind of things they want, etc! Even a very small amount of communication would really increase what we are able to learn about animals' preferences, and thus how well we are able to treat them in a best-case scenario.
- Maybe we could use this tech to do scientific studies and learn valuable things about consciousness, language, subjective experience, etc, in a way that clarifies humanity's thinking about these slippery issues and helps us better avoid moral catastrophes (perhaps becoming more sympathetic to animals as a result, or getting a better understanding of when AI systems might or might not be capable of suffering).
- Perhaps humanity has some sort of moral obligation to (someday, after we solve more pressing problems like not destroying the world or creating misaligned AI) eventually uplift creatures like whales, monkeys, octopi, etc, so they too can explore and comprehend the universe together with us. Talk-to-animals tech might be an early first step toward such future goals, might set early precedents, might help us learn about some of the philosophical / moral choices we would need to make if we embarked on a path of uplifting other species, idk.
it also advocates for the government of California to in-house the engineering of its high-speed rail project rather than try to outsource it to private contractors
Hence my initial mention of "high state capacity"? But I think it's fair to call abundance a deregulatory movement overall, in terms of, like... some abstract notion of what proportion of economic activity would become more vs less heavily involved with government, under an idealized abundance regime.
Sorry to be confusing by "unified" -- I didn't mean to imply that individual people like klein or mamdani were "unified" in toeing an enforced party line!
Rather I was speculating that maybe the reason the "deciding to win" people (moderates such as matt yglesias) and the "abundance" people, tend to overlap moreso than abundance + left-wingers, is because the abundance + moderates tend to share (this is what I meant by "are unified by") opposition to policies like rent control and other price controls, tend to be less enthusiastic about "cost-disease-socialism" style demand subsidies since they often prefer to emphasize supply-side reforms, tend to want to deemphasize culture-war battles in favor of an emphasis on boosting material progress / prosperity, etc. Obviously this is just a tendency, not universal in all people, as people like mamdani show.
FYI, I'm totally 100% on board with your idea that abundance is fully compatible with many progressive goals and, in fact, is itself a deeply progressive ideology! (cf me being a huge georgist.) But, uh, this is the EA Forum, which is in part about describing the world truthfully, not just spinning PR for movements that I happen to admire. And I think it's an appropriate summary of a complex movement to say that abundance stuff is mostly a center-left, deregulatory, etc movement.
Imagine someone complaining -- it's so unfair to describe abundance as a "democrat" movement!! That's so off-putting for conservatives -- instead of ostracising them, we should be trying to entice them to adopt these ideas that will be good for the american people! Like Montana and Texas passing great YIMBY laws, Idaho deploying modular nuclear reactors, etc. In lots of ways abundance is totally coherent with conservative goals of efficient government services, human liberty, a focus on economic growth, et cetera!!
That would all be very true. But it would still be fair to summarize abundance as primarily a center-left democrat movement.
To answer with a sequence of increasingly "systemic" ideas (naturally the following will be tinged by by own political beliefs about what's tractable or desirable):
There are lots of object-level lobbying groups that have strong EA endorsement. This includes organizations advocating for better pandemic preparedness (Guarding Against Pandemics), better climate policy (like CATF and others recommended by Giving Green), or beneficial policies in third-world countries like salt iodization or lead paint elimination.
Some EAs are also sympathetic to the "progress studies" movement and to the modern neoliberal movement connected to the Progressive Policy Institute and the Niskasen Center (which are both tax-deductible nonprofit think-tanks). This often includes enthusiasm for denser ("yimby") housing construction, reforming how science funding and academia work in order to speed up scientific progress (such as advocated by New Science), increasing high-skill immigration, and having good monetary policy. All of those cause areas appear on Open Philanthropy's list of "U.S. Policy Focus Areas".
Naturally, there are many ways to advocate for the above causes -- some are more object-level (like fighting to get an individual city to improve its zoning policy), while others are more systemic (like exploring the feasibility of "Georgism", a totally different way of valuing and taxing land which might do a lot to promote efficient land use and encourage fairer, faster economic development).
One big point of hesitancy is that, while some EAs have a general affinity for these cause areas, in many areas I've never heard any particular standout charities being recommended as super-effective in the EA sense... for example, some EAs might feel that we should do monetary policy via "nominal GDP targeting" rather than inflation-rate targeting, but I've never heard anyone recommend that I donate to some specific NGDP-targeting advocacy organization.
I wish there were more places like Center for Election Science, living purely on the meta level and trying to experiment with different ways of organizing people and designing democratic institutions to produce better outcomes. Personally, I'm excited about Charter Cities Institute and the potential for new cities to experiment with new policies and institutions, ideally putting competitive pressure on existing countries to better serve their citizens. As far as I know, there aren't any big organizations devoted to advocating for adopting prediction markets in more places, or adopting quadratic public goods funding, but I think those are some of the most promising areas for really big systemic change.