20

155

One thing that he didn't use in his EV calculations is meta-level impact of failure on the popularity of EA and utilitarianism. Even relatively small failure in money could have almost infinite negative utility if topics like x-risks prevention become very unpopular.

I am interested to see how wood gasification s an energy source for cars could be bootstrapped in the case of industry collapse.

Another topic: how some cold tolerant crops from nothern regions ( fodder beet, rutabaga) could be planted in South in the case of nuclear war winter. I already tried some experiment remotely (asked friend) but it failed.

Also creating self-sustaing community on an island would be an interesting experiment.

The relation between warming and CO2 is exponential, s we need to count the number of doublings of CO2. Every doubling gives a constant increase of the temperature. Assuming that each doubling gives 2C and 22= 2exp4.5, we get around 9C above preindustrial level before we reach tipping point.

In the article the tipping point is above 4C (in the chart) plus 6C from warmer world = 10C, which gives us approximately the same result as I calculated above.

"Transition to a Moist Greenhouse with CO_{2} and solar forcing” https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10627

I think that the difference between tipping point and existential temperature should be clarified. Tipping point is the temperature after which self-sustaining loop of positive feedback starts. In the moisture greenhouse paper it is estimated to be at +4C, after which the temperature jumps to +40C in a few years. If we take +4 C above preindustrial level, it will be 1-3 above current level.

I didn't try to make any metaphysical claims. I just pointed on conditional probability: if someone is writing comments on LW, (s)he is (with very high probability) not an animal. Therefore LW-commentators are special non-random subset from all animals.

I think that here are presented two different conjectures:

"I am animal" - therefore liquid water on the planets etc.

"I am randomly selected from all animals".

The first is true and the second is false.

From climate point of view, we need to estimate not only the warming, but also the speed of warming, as higher speed gives high concentration of methane (and this differential equation has exponential solution). Anthropogenic global warming is special as it has very high speed of CO2 emission never happened before. We also have highest ever accumulation of methane hydrates. We could be past tipping point but do not know it yet, as exponential growth is slow in the beginning.

From SIA counteragrument follows that anthropic shadow can't be very strong: we are unlikely to observe the world with a very strong anthropic shadow. However, some anthropic effects on climate likely to exist as we observe the preservation of habitability of the Earth despite changes а Sun luminosity. This gives us some range of values there anthropic shadow can be, and 0.1 per cent seems to be a reasonable estimate inside it. Though exact number or range is difficult to estimate. May be Sandberg's work on near-misses in nuclear war would help - when we will have a chance to see it.

I feel that I didn't answer the whole your question, so can you point what exactly is your point of disagreement.

I use exponential prior to illustrate the example with a car. For other catastrophes, I take the tail of normal distribution, there the probability declines very quickly, even hyperexponentially. The math there is more complicated. But it does not affect the main result: if we have anthropic shadow, the expected survival time is around 0.1 of the past time in the wide range of initial parameters.

And in the situation of anthropic shadow we have very limited information about the type of distribution. Exponential and normal seems to be two most plausible types for catastrophes. There is also semi-periodic ones, but they could be described as a sum of periodic plus normal.

But obviously there is more to dig here.

I think it is more interesting to think about other people as of rational agents. If bitcoin grew to 100K as it was widely expected in 2021, SBF bets will pay off and he will become the first trillioner. He will also be able to return all money he took from creditors.

He may understood that there was only like 10 per cent chance to become trillioner, but if he thought that trillion dollars for preventing x-risks is the only chance to save humanity, then he knew that he should bet on this opportunity.

Now we live in a timeline where he lost and it is more tempting to say that he was irrational or mistaken. But maybe he was not.