EA Forum Reader

Very interested in the right answer here. Wikipedia says "90% alcohol rubs are more effective against viruses than most other forms of hand washing." (And I'm hoping it will generalize to the 70% concentration I typically use.) But here's a 2019 article that seems to show weak effectiveness against flu.

I'd really like to see effectiveness differences between the gold standard and "regular person use".

I wrote above that 80,000 Hours should perhaps have given "Health in poor countries" a negative rating for Neglectedness. No other examples come to mind.

I'm more worried about cause area analyses written by individuals (mostly) on their own than the work of EA orgs, which typically goes through more review and is done more formally.

I actually think that a true measure of the climate impact of having a child should not just factor in the extra carbon they will be responsible for over their lives, but also the very small probability that they will be responsible for doing something awesome (e.g. "solving climate change"), which may be enough to offset the expected carbon footprint.

(Of course, this only makes sense if you think that the tail positive risk of them doing something amazingly positive outweighs the tiny probability that they will do something stunningly negative!)

Happy to be corrected here, but I think hand sanitizer is recommended by the WHO for healthcare workers because of its strong antibacterial properties, and if you're concerned specifically about viruses you will usually be better off with hand washing.

Yeah, most people (including me) don't apply multiple mL of hand sanitizer over every surface of their hands, then rub the hands together until it dries completely (which takes around 20 seconds).

Well, it's complicated. Hallmarks is missing crosslinks, intracellular junk like lipofuscin and lipids like 7KC, and damaged elastin. SENS is partly missing genomic instability at least in SENS 1.0 (as you've mentioned), but it does include mitochondrial mutations which Hallmarks considers to be one aspect of genomic instability and mentions cancer as a consequence of nuclear mutations which are another aspect of genomic instability. SENS is also missing epigenetic alterations but might consider them for SENS 2.0. SENS doesn't consider telomere attrition as a significant type of damage, and in fact, SENS advocates removing the ability of all cells to extend their telomeres as a strategy to prevent cancer. Besides the differences regarding aging damage, the most crucial difference between SENS and Hallmarks is that most of the interventions that Hallmarks mentions won't help out that much in reaching LEV.

Now, it should be even easier to figure out how to correct those miscategorizations.

Thank you for giving this some thought. The impression I have from this is that the concerns you raise relate to either spurious levels of accuracy or edge cases.

But maybe my impression is wrong. If you could provide some specific examples where either 80k or another org has made a wrong decision because of these considerations, I would find this piece much more interesting.

Thanks for adding links!

Is the school-based work you're doing something you hope will become California policy at some point? If so, is it based on similar policy that was successful elsewhere?

Here's a half-baked argument for natalism vis-à-vis climate change:

Carbon emissions in the highly developed countries most EAs live in are generally trending in the right direction (i.e. there seems to be at least relative decoupling between emissions and consumption). The bulk of emissions growth over the next several decades will be in other large, rapidly developing countries like India and China. Green technology transfer is a way that highly developed countries can positively influence emissions in the critical rapidly developing countries (see e.g. this). Economic models generally propose that a larger population generates more ideas and a higher rate of technological change (e.g. Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990). Therefore, the (smallish?) direct impact of increased emissions from greater population in highly developed countries might be outweighed by more green technology and technology transfer to the crucial rapidly developing countries like China and India.