All of nongiga's Comments + Replies

Answer by nongigaJan 09, 20241
1
1

I would advise against. It is too likely to be used for terror purposes and be directly counterproductive. There is plenty of evidence as Hamas is not shy about it. Hamas has historically taxed anything coming into Gaza (especially through the tunnels). It also repurposed aid for military use many times (it has a propaganda video where it digs up pipes installed by the EU and used them as rockets). Today, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas, called for a “money Jihad” where people donate to Gaza so that Hamas can keep waging war. Generally the exact number i... (read more)

I have a million arguments against this post and maybe in the past I'd have engaged with each of your points and arguments more thoroughly but I lost my patience for these things. I'll just say this: know that this post (as well as the comments), how they are completely ignorant of the emotional and economic ramifications of unplanned pregnancies, how they completely ignore self-autonomy, are the last straw. I've been in this movement for seven years, modeled my career after it, but especially in light of recent events it made me realize I just can't keep ... (read more)

1
GreenByrdhouse
1y
I think your comment is important, and I think your frustration is valid.  I'm very sensitive to how EA is/can be received by non-EA folks since I've spent time in a lot of non-EA circles. Especially now that EA is in more of the public eye than it ever has been, I think there should be a real question if posts like this are worth alienating possible allies and, more broadly, contributing to an internal culture that could alienate people who can become pregnant. For probably pretty low benefit--I mean, what really are the chances that effective altruism, a largely liberal, left-of-center (i.e., pro-choice) community would broadly endorse the view that terminating a pregnancy is morally wrong? And yes, sometimes arguments should be made even if they have a low chance of being persuasive/successful, but I highly doubt this is one of those cases.  I think the movement for reproductive health, freedom, and autonomy has been one of the most important social movements of the last half-century. I don't think that work should be undermined because of a shiny new utilitarian argument (OK, that comment was a little snarky, but it's legitimately how I feel). EA (I think) can and should be an ally to other justice movements. 

Okay I'll address the rest of the argument. You're also not giving a lot of context. It's hard to understand but based on your whole comment I can also see it being possible that you bumped into situations where people were trying to sort out interpersonal issues privately, and you got wind of it and tried to make it public. 

There is a world of difference between those situations and situations where people are not intellectually honest, which is most of the situations OP describes and discusses.

And it makes the last part of your comment even more uncalled for.

1
Anthony Repetto
1y
"I can also see it being possible that you bumped into situations where people were trying to sort out interpersonal issues privately, and you got wind of it and tried to make it public." Thank you for responding! And, no, that is not accurate. The leader of EA Berkeley was ousted; that's not an 'interpersonal issue, privately'. That's the organization wanting to protect a brand by leaving their problems unmentioned, which is exactly the dishonesty part. I believe I've rebutted your argument - unless you have more to add? Additionally, I understand if you took offense that I said 'nerd' - I'm happy to apologize to anyone in the Berkeley group who was offended or hurt, in person, with anyone else present they wish. Unfortunately, with Bankman's incestuous corporate structure updating my assumptions, I do believe it is right to ask: are they dating their PAs? That's a question for internal review, privacy, yet the statistical results should be public. Thank you again for engaging with a rebuttal!

I'm sorry I just disagree. We are an applied ethics movement. Maybe the only one in the world. We should hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards. And yet we benefitted from a scheme that, legal or not, ruined a lot of people's lives. Utilitarianism or not, we need to do everything we can to atone. If we don't, it could ruin our psyches, our ethical standards, our perception and our trajectory.  

-4
Brad West
1y
We estimate that several thousands of dollars saves a life with Global Health and Development charities... Many of these grantees are exploring potentially transformative areas that EAs consider higher EV than these GH&D charities... To unnecessarily defund them is what is immoral. These grantees did not participate in fraud. They do not need to atone. Perhaps SBF and some other actors engaged in criminal or fraudulent activity and they should be dealt with accordingly. The movement is not compromised by innocent grantees retaining benefits for important work. We are an applied ethics movement... And the right thing to do here is not to disempower what we have identified as extremely promising efforts to make a better today and tomorrow. I think what jeopardizes us is if we do not value the work we do. Reflexively neutering our projects without good reason is the path to a worse world.
Answer by nongigaAug 29, 20222
0
0

(1) Effects of cybersecurity on geopolitics, or individual privacy. These are two different areas and they seem to me like one bad actor can cause a lot of suffering or lead to suboptimal futures, but I don't know of any EAs who looked deeply into it.

(2) Reproductive health and the costs of childbearing, possibly from a policy angle. I think as a community we decided to bite the bullet and become total utilitarians, and I see some discussions on how it should play out in terms of contraception and choosing to have more children but all of these come across... (read more)

Tae so I guess now you can tell your friend that you've Called off the EAs :P

2
tae
2y
Yes, I am pretty amused about this

I don't think this post made the strong assumptions about population ethics you assume. 

More unplanned pregnancies does not necessarily equal larger population. In fact, at the very beginning the post highlights that there are twice as many abortions as unplanned births and more unsafe abortions than unplanned births. Including the still births, that is a lot of preventable human suffering. Is it worth those unplanned births?

I also think it's a bit ignorant to deny sub-Saharan Africa a technology we enjoy -  would you also be against birth contro... (read more)

I actually have given artificial wombs a little thought. I do think they'd be great: they could eliminate a very common suffering, give more options to LGBTQ people, aid in civilizational resilience, and definitely increase the number of wanted children people have in practice. They make sense within many different ethical frameworks.

I also think we're very, very far from them. I'm a systems biologist in a lab that also ventures into reproductive health, and we ostensibly know very little about the process of pregnancy. My lab is using the most cutting-edge methods to prove very specific and fundamental things. So at the same time, I am skeptical we will see it in our lifetimes, if ever.

(1) I never purported that communicating that monkeypox is transmitted mostly among MSM is tone-deaf in itself. Like I wrote at the end of my comment, I think this information is important. I think it is the way in which you communicated that made it come across as tone-deaf.

(2) the definition of an STI is:

infections that are passed from one person to another through sexual contact. The contact is usually vaginal, oral, or anal sex. But sometimes they can spread through other intimate physical contact. This is because some STDs, like herpes and HPV, are sp

... (read more)

I think your post comes across as a little tone-deaf in a way that can be counter-productive.  

"Is it worth worrying about?" "Basically no. The disease remains highly confined to the gay community."

Comes across as a disregard to the LGBTQ community. Mostly because of the historical context in which we live.

This sentence echoes many things that were said during the AIDS pandemic, which prior to COVID was the closest we got to GCBR in the past 100 years and in many metrics is closer to a GBCR than COVID.  Historically there was a very intentional d... (read more)

1
MarcusAbramovitch
2y
I tried to strike a bit of a balance. Current reporting on monkeypox, particularly from government agencies/public health officials have been pretty terrible, trying to downplay that MPXV is predominantly spreading through sexual activity between men. It has improved a bit but the CDC website, right now, says absolutely nothing about it spreading through MSM. This is so egregiously misleading it amounts to misinformation. I made this post because Linch asked me to research a bit and then write up what I found. We had a brief call about what he was thinking and wanted covered and among them was if it was worth it to try and stop the spread by paying people to refrain temporarily. This isn't a crazy idea. If we were very early on, I might even recommend this course of action. It's a simple solution insofar as it is pretty simple to describe and if funded, could be put together quickly. Identify those most likely to spread the disease and pay them $25/day to not have sex (or just have sex with a single partner). I suggest this is no longer possible. Nonetheless, this shouldn't be thought of as an STI. Using protection (condoms, etc.) would do approximately nothing in my estimation and monkeypox is not an STI, it is simply spreading primarily at this point through gay sex and wouldn't come up on a test for STIs.
1
Sharmake
2y
I actually agree here that the solution proposed is not going to work (At the very least, STI testing and condoms work far better than abstinence-only sex-ed.) I however want to point out that HIV/AIDS was probably not going to be a GCBR, let alone Monkeypox as it indeed happened historically for that pandemic. The biggest reason is that viruses/bacteria/protozoa/fungi that are severe, spread widely and can't be stopped by the immune system is very hard (naturally speaking.) Thus there's a problem for GCBRs to actually happen, and the only one that vaguely meets the criteria is the Black Death in Europe.

I have an undergraduate degree in Neuroscience and I am very skeptical that such a drug can be found. Can't talk to these specific genes in particular but genes are often turned on in different ways and in different parts of the brain, and lead to different effects based on which genes are turned on or off with them. Now because of the gene interaction in the background, the same receptor can cause a reverse effect when activated in one part of the brain or another. Additionally, each neurotransmitter has upwards of 20 different receptors in the brain. Als... (read more)

Only if you're strictly total utilitarian. But won't all these things drop us into a situation like in the repugnant conclusion, where we would just get more people (especially women) living in worse conditions, with fewer choices?

Women in fact already are having fewer children than they want. Me and a lot of women around me would want to have children earlier than we are planning on, but we couldn't do it without dropping three levels down the socioeconomic ladder and having to give up on goals we've been investing in since elementary school. We won't onl... (read more)

5
Rebecca
2y
This probably isn't the sort of thing you're thinking of, but I'm really hoping we can figure out artificial wombs for this reason

So I took a class on sleep and I read some papers about it. Here are some thoughts:

I do think it's a cause area with a very clear solution: train more imagery rehearsal therapists, and disperse them/make them available through telehealth. I read the papers and it does seem highly effective. I think a lot of people would have enrolled even at high cost if they knew it existed/they had access to it. And then after there were more therapists we could probably talk about raising awareness/providing these servies for free and at places where they are more neede... (read more)

Hi, I'm an EA working in a prominent antibiotics resistance lab. From my point of view, antibiotics resistance is a big issue, resistance is growing, HOWEVER, there are actually a lot of medications in the pipeline that are effective but weren't brought to market because it's not financially viable right now (that I heard in a talk by Floyd Romesberg). There are also other interesting therapies like antimicrobial peptides (explanation here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15761415 ). My lab developed an ML model that will help doctors in... (read more)

1
P
2y
Do you have a link to the talk? That goes against what I have read elsewhere.
2
Will Bradshaw
4y
This fits with my general impression that biosecurity experts in EA (at OpenPhil, FHI, and elsewhere) don't generally consider antibiotic resistance to be a top-priority threat. Reading this question made me realise that I don't have a very detailed understanding of why that is. What you describe sounds like an important part of it.

This is a very creative idea. A few of my thoughts:


1) Like you pointed out, many diseases that can be very virulent in humans (Ebola, Nipah, Coronavirus) are not so virulent in bats, so there would be many instances where a vaccination program will be very valuable for humans but have very little (and maybe even negative, due to side effects) effect on the wild animal population.

2) Diseases tend to be harmful in dense, homogeneous populations. Like people, or livestock. I don't know how much disease really impacts wild animal suffering - there could b... (read more)

2
Animal_Ethics
4y
Thank you! Your points are very good ones. Yes, this is true to some extent, although it's likely that even if viruses that are virulent in other animals are less so in bats, they are nevertheless, if to a minor extent, harmful for them. Maybe to them the viruses would be like a cold would be to us. So in these cases it is likely to be beneficial. It will just be much less so than in the case of other diseases we considered here, like rabies or white nose disease. In addition to these cases, these programs would benefit nonhuman animals other than bats who may be infected by them, and would also be beneficial in the other ways pointed out in the last section of the piece. Available evidence suggests is pretty widespread unfortunately. See this piece. Yes! This is a reason why we think that promoting more research at the intersection of animal welfare science and the science of ecology is necessary. We've been funding work about this that examines different causes of death in wild animals in different countries, see here and here. Monitoring is also needed after the vaccination programs are implemented. You're right, and this is a very significant concern. It is true that right now, because of the urgency to come up with a vaccine for COVID-19, testing is being directly carried out in human subjects (see for instance here, here and here for some news pieces about this). There are also some research methods not involving animals (here and here are pieces with examples). But regardless of this, we agree this is a very serious issue. We would advocate for vaccination programs in cases where a vaccine is available already. Yeah! In addition to the references in the notes, these are other relatively recent papers about this method: Hoyt, J.R., Langwig, K.E., White, J.P., Kaarakka, H.M., Redell, J.A., Parise, K.L., Frick, W.F., Foster, J.T. and Kilpatrick, A.M. (2019) “Field trial of a probiotic bacteria to protect bats from white-nose syndrome”, Scientific Reports

I was terrified of pursuing an EA career

For 3 years after joining EA I was still set on going to medical school. I knew I could do more but I was just terrified of switching. Even when I got an opportunity presented to me I was very torn between pursuing it or staying in my comfort zone. Now I'm having the best summer of my life in a biosecurity internship. I'm more motivated, I'm more productive, I'm going on more adventures, and I have a lot more and better connections than before.

EA was amazing in that having this network made it easier to go into an e... (read more)