Leaders of countries and elites (military leaders, political leaders, ...) decide whether to go to war or not. The claimed reasons may or may not have anything to do with the actual reasons: that is just a tool to get to some desired outcome.Most wars suck for both parties, but groups of people can easily all end up believing the same thing because of excessive deference, resulting in poor decision making and e.g, a war.
Imagine two groups of teenagers quarrelling on the high school playground: if they do decide to fight, was it for strategic / ideological reasons? Usually it's the result of escalating rhetoric or one of the parties being unusually aggressive. This is I think a good model for war as well.
US and Chinese elites today look like a bunch of teenagers quarrelling. It has little to do with reality (ideology/strategy), and much more to do with the social dynamics of the situation, I think.
Hmm, I don't think I agree.
I think the most powerful form of compounding in the EA movement context is of people and reputation, which are upstream of money and influence. Great people + great reputation -> more great people + more great reputation.
Most endeavours over long periods of time have some geometric/compounding aspects, and some arithmetic aspects.
But usually, I think compounding is more important: that's how you avoid ruin (which isn't a big deal outside of compounding unless you use log utility which is equivalent to caring about compounding), and that's how you get really big returns.
Successful countries weren't built in a day. Successful charities weren't built in a day. Many things have to go right, and some things must not happen, for a movement to succeed. That's essentially just compounding.
The Founders Pledge climate fund's stated objective is to "sustainably reach net-zero emissions globally".
A great example of an insidious correlation of this fund: what about funding work which helps people adapt to climate change, instead of mitigating it? For example, can we invent cheap air conditioning units which anyone in the world can afford to buy, to keep humans and crops cool as they migrate away from current coastal areas?
EDIT: let me try to be more clear, since this answer was downvoted twice -- upon seeing the fund, I asked myself, "what belief seems to be shared by all of these investments"? That then lead me to the above thought. This is a much better intuition pump than "what should this fund be uncertain about"? I think that's the difference between uncertainty and insidious correlation, and I think you're interpreting insidious correlation as another name for uncertainty.
Very interesting - what has FEM's cost effectiveness looked like so far, and how does FEM see that evolving over time?