Posts

Possible way of reducing great power war probability? 2019-11-28T04:27:19.768Z
Americans give ~4%, not 2% 2019-11-03T19:10:13.012Z
Remote local group leaders? 2019-10-13T21:43:20.814Z
David Denkenberger: Loss of Industrial Civilization and Recovery (Workshop) 2019-02-19T15:58:01.214Z
Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED) Progress Report & Giving Tuesday Appeal 2018-11-21T05:20:37.922Z
Cost-Effectiveness of Foods for Global Catastrophes: Even Better than Before? 2018-11-19T21:57:05.518Z
[Paper] Interventions that May Prevent or Mollify Supervolcanic Eruptions 2018-01-15T21:46:27.407Z
How you can save expected lives for $0.20-$400 each and reduce X risk 2017-11-27T02:23:44.742Z
Should we be spending no less on alternate foods than AI now? 2017-10-29T23:28:39.440Z
Futures of altruism special issue? 2016-12-18T19:16:02.114Z
Saving expected lives at $10 apiece? 2016-12-14T15:38:38.561Z
Advice Wanted on Expanding an EA Project 2016-04-23T23:20:02.455Z
Essay Competition on Preparation for Global Food Catastrophes 2016-03-17T01:49:12.131Z
Investment opportunity for the risk neutral 2016-01-25T15:29:48.579Z
My Cause Selection: Dave Denkenberger 2015-08-16T15:06:25.456Z

Comments

Comment by Denkenberger on Longterm cost-effectiveness of Founders Pledge's Climate Change Fund · 2022-09-18T16:32:37.944Z · EA · GW

In that EA forum post in a comment, Linch says:

I'm asking to get a sense of what the current margin of funding looks like, as a way to help researchers and others prioritize our efforts. 

So I don't think they were answering for last dollar. I believe Open Phil said that it is willing to fund anything that meets its last dollar bar now, but their current bar could be higher now. I guess you could argue that there is uncertainty in what the last dollar bar will be, so we should stay at the current bar for the foreseeable future. However, if something is urgent, that is we could miss out on the X-risk reduction if we don't do it in the next few years, I think that we should be using the last bar for current decisions. The case of climate change is complicated because the impacts are mostly a century or so in the future, but you could argue that there are opportunities to decarbonize now that will be gone in the future because that carbon will already be emitted. I think the case is clearer for resilience to catastrophes that could happen in the next few years, such as nuclear war, that they are urgent. Another way to think about it is if you would eventually fund these things because they are above the last dollar bar, you get a better benefit to cost ratio by doing it now because you have more overall X-risk reduction (assuming the interventions are long lived).

Comment by Denkenberger on Longterm cost-effectiveness of Founders Pledge's Climate Change Fund · 2022-09-18T03:27:51.884Z · EA · GW

This is fantastic to finally have a cost-effectiveness model for the long-term future for climate change!

This conclusion would hardly change due to including effects of removing GHG emissions which do not lead to trajectory changes.

I do think that trajectory changes such as making it more likely that worse values end up in AI, perhaps caused by an abrupt climate change catastrophe triggering a cascade, could be a significant multiplier for cost-effectiveness. I don't think you clarified whether when you say tonnes of carbon whether you actually mean carbon (which academia typically uses), or CO2 (which industry/popular typically uses). I think it makes sense that you do cost-effectiveness, e.g. of CCF as (2 kt/$), because of issues dealing with uncertainty. But I think it's worth pointing out that this cost-effectiveness is around five orders of magnitude higher than typical climate actions, such as subsidizing renewable energy or electric vehicles (~$100/tC). For the cost-effectiveness bar (bp/G$) estimates, it seems to me that the people were answering a different question than Open Phil, where the former were referring to the bar now, and the latter was referring to the last dollar. I think the last dollar of Open Phil is more appropriate (especially because the last dollar of EA would be significantly lower cost effectiveness than this), and would allow climate change to be about two orders of magnitude less cost-effective and still meet the bar.

In addition, it should be noted there seem to be opportunities whose cost-effectiveness is above the bar of 2 bp/G$. Denkenberger 2021 and Denkerberger 2022 estimate the following 5th and 95th percentiles[14] (in bp/G$):

To be clear, these resilience cost-effectiveness estimates include not just the amelioration of climate catastrophes, but also nuclear and others (and they include trajectory changes).

Comment by Denkenberger on We’re still (extremely) funding constrained (but don’t let fear of getting funding stop you trying). · 2022-09-17T06:51:02.214Z · EA · GW

I agree we are still funding constrained. Minor point:

Our spendthrift community dug into the data. We made money go further, we made things go better.

Spendthrift: a person who spends money in an extravagant, irresponsible way. But do you mean the opposite? I've always thought the definition was confusing.

Comment by Denkenberger on How have nuclear winter models evolved? · 2022-09-14T05:18:25.037Z · EA · GW

There is a lot of uncertainty of how much smoke would be produced and make it to the stratosphere (the post you refer to and my paper). But what I think the OP is referring to is the time that the smoke remains in the stratosphere. This was only about one year in the 1980s models, but now it's around 10 years. My understanding is that this is because the modern models take into account the fact that the sun hitting the smoke would warm it and therefore loft it higher in the stratosphere, meaning it would take longer to settle out.

Comment by Denkenberger on The great energy descent (short version) - An important thing EA might have missed · 2022-09-11T18:28:07.390Z · EA · GW

I looked at the reference and I don't see evidence for the 80% number. The majority of the mineral budget (total ~1% of GDP) is cement, iron, and aluminum. It looks like China mines little iron and aluminum, though it does refine a lot of them. Eyeballing it looks like China is ~half production and consumption minerals, which is a lot. But the idea that China would control 100% of the world's mining, refining, smelting, manufacture and recycling is hyperbole.

Comment by Denkenberger on The great energy descent (short version) - An important thing EA might have missed · 2022-09-10T17:32:49.469Z · EA · GW

I'd argue it is quite abrupt, at least when it comes to impact on prices. Like oil price going from $20 in 2002 to $140 in 2008 (when overall  oil supply didn't really decline, it just didn't grow fast enough). See this graph

Link didn't go to specific part of document. But even if it were a shortfall from business as usual demand of 2%/year for oil, that is ~0.8%/year for all energy, which is a different order of magnitude from 10%/year for energy.

Geopolitical factors like Russia exporting less are expected to increase in the future, not decrease.

Renewable energy is better distributed across countries than fossil fuels, so I would expect geopolitical disruptions to decrease in impact.

Comment by Denkenberger on The great energy descent (short version) - An important thing EA might have missed · 2022-09-09T22:09:51.974Z · EA · GW

You're referring to liquid biofuels, which I agree is more challenging (and required for aircraft, or hydrogen). But in that case, even if cellulosic ethanol isn't economical, we can turn solid residues into Fischer Tropsch liquids, as was done in World War II with coal.

To solve the seasonal mismatch of renewable energy and electrical demand, we can just burn agricultural residues or logging residues in repurposed coal power plants.

Since the solar resource is orders of magnitude greater than what we need, we don't need absolute decoupling (and we do have examples of absolute decoupling for some countries).

We are talking about different timescales. I agree that if energy increases from 8% to 10% of GDP in one year, then that would overwhelm the 2% economic growth. However, for it to overwhelm economic growth over decades, the price of energy would have to increase an order of magnitude or more, which I don't think is plausible. I don't think there is a multiplier effect in equilibrium - it would be great for an economist to weigh in here. For instance, people have modeled the impact of a carbon tax-sometimes it is paid directly in fuel, and other times it is paid indirectly such as in buying other products. But the overall drag on the economy I don't think is any larger than the total carbon tax.

Again, in the German case, it's all about speed. If you have an abrupt reduction in energy supply, that is very disruptive to the economy. But resource exhaustion is not nearly that abrupt.

Comment by Denkenberger on The great energy descent (short version) - An important thing EA might have missed · 2022-09-08T23:28:19.729Z · EA · GW

It is true that hydrogen is inefficient and expensive. But biofuels, especially from agricultural and logging residues, can be quite land and energy efficient. I believe energy makes up about 8% of the global economy. We will need to produce more energy as the EROI falls and as minerals become less concentrated, and I think energy prices will increase. However, the economy is expected to get much larger (expansion of services, etc), so the percentage of GDP that is energy may not increase. Even if it doubles over the next 30 years, the drag on economic growth is ~0.3%/yr, much smaller than the current 2% growth. So I don't see energy limitations as preventing the world from achieving developed country wealth and expanding into space in the next centuries.

Comment by Denkenberger on The great energy descent (short version) - An important thing EA might have missed · 2022-09-08T01:14:25.275Z · EA · GW

Since wind power peaks in the winter and solar power peaks in the summer, we can generally handle seasonal variation by appropriate fractions of these energy sources. Backup plans include overbuilding, hydrogen, and biofuels. As you know, I don't think EROI, transport, financial and energetic cost, or locations would be limiting factors.

Comment by Denkenberger on Climate Change & Longtermism: new book-length report · 2022-09-07T23:49:44.398Z · EA · GW

Seaweed can be grown in tanks, and so can microalgae. But from what I've seen, the cost is significantly higher in tanks. Radioactive contamination is a concern, especially in target countries. But it is likely not the most important concern, as Hiroshima was continuously inhabited. Radioactive contamination would be diluted in the oceans, so I think seaweed would be better than land crops in this regard.

Comment by Denkenberger on The great energy descent (short version) - An important thing EA might have missed · 2022-09-05T17:21:29.740Z · EA · GW

A smart phone may be more difficult, but basic computing is not a challenge because silicon is abundant and the dopants are used in minuscule quantities. But the more important issue is that wind turbines, solar cells, and even energy storage in the form of thermal energy storage can all be done with common minerals (limestone for cement is about 10% of the Earth's surface). So if that means we don't have an energy descent, that means we have energy in order to continue mining the rarer minerals from common rock. You link to your report, but I assume you are referring to your reproduced figure 4. Of course if you assume a Hubbert curve, it's going to go to zero in a century or two. But if we do have sufficient energy, I'm arguing that curve is fundamentally not appropriate for minerals.

Comment by Denkenberger on The great energy descent (short version) - An important thing EA might have missed · 2022-09-05T01:48:24.586Z · EA · GW

I think the Hubbert curve makes sense for something that is meaningfully finite, like fossil fuels. However, minerals are not meaningfully finite. For instance, aluminum, iron, and silicon are very common in the Earth's crust, so it would not be that difficult to mine from "common rock." Even for something like phosphorus, if you had to mine from common rock, it would not increase the price of food very much. Some rare minerals may very well peak this century (and platinum and palladium may have already), but I don't think that low concentration ores are a significant impediment to energy increase at least over this century.

Comment by Denkenberger on Climate Change & Longtermism: new book-length report · 2022-09-03T19:37:49.127Z · EA · GW

Seaweed can be dried and transported long distances. It can also be used for reducing climate change, including sequestering CO2 and reducing methane emissions of cattle.

Comment by Denkenberger on Climate Change & Longtermism: new book-length report · 2022-09-03T18:01:16.077Z · EA · GW

We have not modeled seaweed growth in a warming world, but I believe others have. I expect that species would need to move to higher latitudes, as they would need to move to lower latitudes in the case of nuclear winter.

Comment by Denkenberger on Climate Change & Longtermism: new book-length report · 2022-09-03T01:02:35.252Z · EA · GW

Thanks for mentioning ALLFED. We do tend to focus on nuclear winter, including with NASA tech like hydrogen single cell protein. However, a lot of the foods we research are relevant to climate catastrophes such as multiple breadbasket failure, including seaweed.

Comment by Denkenberger on EA for dumb people? · 2022-09-02T21:56:27.844Z · EA · GW

I'm sorry you feel this way. Have you tried volunteering to skill up? I think a physics major could be a good quantitative generalist researcher. Also, it is a common perception that longtermism is not funding constrained with the entry of FTX, but they only funded about 4% of the applications in their open round. And there are still longtermist organizations that are funding constrained, e.g. ALLFED (disclosure: which I direct).

Comment by Denkenberger on How to find *reliable* ways to improve the future? · 2022-08-28T22:27:54.114Z · EA · GW

I think resilience to global catastrophes is often a reliable way of improving the long-term future. This is touched on the paper Defence in Depth. Pandemic resilience could include preparation to scale up vaccines and PPE quickly. And I think resilience to climate tail risks and nuclear war makes sense as well.

Comment by Denkenberger on Making Effective Altruism Enormous · 2022-08-28T22:16:04.955Z · EA · GW

I agree EA could have much more impact if it expanded. Relevant is Peter McClusky’s "Future of Earning to Give" argument for thinking big.

Comment by Denkenberger on EA Giving Tuesday will likely hibernate in 2022, unless handed off to another EA-aligned organization · 2022-08-28T05:01:09.576Z · EA · GW

Is there funding available for the org/individuals if they take it on?

Comment by Denkenberger on Prioritizing x-risks may require caring about future people · 2022-08-19T01:56:59.456Z · EA · GW

I think log returns is reasonable - that's what we generally assumed in the cost effectiveness analyses that estimated that AGI safety, resilient foods, and interventions for loss of electricity/industry catastrophes would generally be lower cost per life saved in the present generation than GiveWell. But that was only for the first ~$3 billion for AGI safety and the first few hundred million dollars for the other interventions.

Comment by Denkenberger on Most Ivy-smart students aren't at Ivy-tier schools · 2022-08-09T13:54:47.145Z · EA · GW

A convenient way to sift is focusing on honors colleges within universities - there is some discussion on that here.

Comment by Denkenberger on Changing the world through slack & hobbies · 2022-07-28T06:15:25.674Z · EA · GW

Cross commented on Less Wrong:

Great post! I've been mentioning for years that volunteering can be an effective way of making a contribution. Though many people think of volunteering as for a specific organization, I don't think it has to be, so a hobby could be an example. I think there are not enough volunteer opportunities in EA, and we've worked hard at ALLFED on our volunteer program. Not only have we had dozens of volunteers skill up, but they have also made significant contributions, often co-authoring journal articles and becoming full time staff. Thanks for the shout out! I'm actually still volunteering for ALLFED (and donating).

Comment by Denkenberger on When Utilitarianism is Actually ✨Fun✨ · 2022-07-19T06:42:50.999Z · EA · GW

Relevant.

Comment by Denkenberger on Preventing a US-China war as a policy priority · 2022-07-01T03:41:56.529Z · EA · GW

Yet they still have substantial room to grow, and some models predict that they will attain their apex power by the mid-2030s, after which demographic trends will decrease their competitiveness relative to the United States and the West more generally.

Interesting - I had not seen such a pessimistic estimate of future Chinese growth. I think it is unlikely, and I would guess that people in China would also think it unlikely that they won't continue to have catch-up growth in the 2030s and 2040s.

Comment by Denkenberger on EA Dedicates · 2022-07-01T03:33:22.029Z · EA · GW

There is some discussion here about 10% and 50% EAs, which I think is analogous. I'm a little uncomfortable with your characterization of Julia Wise as a non-dedicate as she and Jeff donate 50% and now both have EA jobs.

Comment by Denkenberger on What are EA's biggest legible achievements in x-risk? · 2022-06-18T07:11:54.666Z · EA · GW

I'm not sure how legible they are, but there are indications that work so far on resilience to global catastrophic agricultural risks and resilience to loss of electricity/infrastructure catastrophes has reduced X risk.

Comment by Denkenberger on Is Mineral Resource Scarcity a Risk Anyone is Researching? Worth Researching? · 2022-06-14T01:01:32.683Z · EA · GW

I've done some work on this and I made some comments on this 80k podcast. I don't think running out of mineral resources is a significant threat.

Comment by Denkenberger on Who's hiring? (May-September 2022) · 2022-05-27T19:57:06.788Z · EA · GW

The Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED) is hiring for multiple roles, including a 501(c)(3) Project Coordinator.

Comment by Denkenberger on Focus on Civilizational Resilience over Cause Areas · 2022-05-27T19:46:15.771Z · EA · GW

I agree that resilience is overall relatively neglected in the GCR community. Another organization working on this is the Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED). Also, you would probably be interested in this paper: Defence in Depth Against Human Extinction: Prevention, Response, Resilience, and Why They All Matter.

Comment by Denkenberger on Animal Welfare & Alternative Proteins in the United Arab Emirates · 2022-05-27T19:36:30.210Z · EA · GW

With all the natural gas (methane) flaring in the UAE, this could be a good opportunity to do methane single cell protein as a meat substitute. ALLFED may be interested in collaborating.

Comment by Denkenberger on The future of nuclear war · 2022-05-26T22:03:51.284Z · EA · GW

This is interesting-and scary. One small point is to make sure to include units, e.g.:

Gsponer calls 4th generation nuclear such weapons that will be pure fusion weapons with yields between 1-100 TNT:

I think I got from context that you mean tons of TNT equivalent, but most of the time when talking nuclear weapons it would be kilotons.

Comment by Denkenberger on My thoughts on nanotechnology strategy research as an EA cause area · 2022-05-21T21:55:34.337Z · EA · GW

Very helpful post!

Cheap energy. Cheap, powerful manufacturing might enable the fabrication of cheap solar cells and cheap batteries that help to overcome intermittency in solar power, leading to very cheap solar power (although, naively, I’m unsure how large an effect this would be given that advanced nanotechnology wouldn’t on the face of it reduce land and labour costs).

If the typical solar cell thickness is 400 µm and a density of 2.3 kg/L and efficiency of 20%, with 1000 W/m2 and $1000/kg, this would be ~$5/W, which is significantly more expensive than current solar cells. However, some solar cells have much thinner active layers, so it could be lower cost. The cost of land is much less than the cost of the solar cells. Labor still could be significant. Batteries are already less than $1000 per kilogram, so the main question is how much better performance they would have.

General wealth / economic growth. On the face of it, if we can make high-performance materials and devices very cheaply, people will on average be very wealthy compared to today (whether this is a deviation from trend GDP growth will, of course, depend on when and how the technology is developed).

Drexler claims that (something similar to) complex APM would be able to manufacture products for $1/kg or less and with a throughput of 1kg every 3 hours or less per kg of machinery (for “$1/kg or less”, see, for example, Radical Abundance, 2013, p. 172; for “a throughput of 1kg every 3 hours or less per kg of machinery”, see Nanosystems, 1992, p. 1, 3rd bullet). I set a lower bar for my definition of consequential APM here [$1000/kg] because I think this lower bar is more than sufficient to imply an extremely impactful technology, while perhaps capturing a larger fraction of potential scenarios over the next few decades.

Some have noted that even at the one dollar per kilogram cost, manufacturing is a relatively small fraction of the economy, so if this were to go much smaller, it would not help that much. However, if you could get truly self replicating equipment that could just draw minerals from the ground and get energy from the sun, an individual with a plot of land could produce a big house, lots of cars, lots of consumer goods, etc., so then they would be very wealthy. If we just get $1000 per kilogram, I don't think it would save very much of the economy, so the main question is how much higher the performance would be.

Comment by Denkenberger on Has anyone actually talked to conservatives* about EA? · 2022-05-13T06:11:38.302Z · EA · GW

Strong upvote. I would guess that another commonality between EAs and conservatives is not tending to resent the rich and their philanthropy, as many on the left do.

Comment by Denkenberger on Should longtermists focus more on climate resilience? · 2022-05-07T19:15:20.014Z · EA · GW

I agree that there should be more focus on resilience (thanks for mentioning ALLFED), and I also agree that we need to consider scenarios where leaders do not respond rationally. You may be aware of Toby Ord's discussion of existential risk factors in the Precipice, where he roughly estimates a great power war might increase the total existential risk by 10% (page 176). You say:

What is the multiplying impact factor of climate change on x-risks – compared to a world without climate change?

If forced to guess, considering the effects of climate change, I believe a multiplying factor of at least an order of magnitude is conservative. However, further calculations and estimates are absolutely required to verify this.

So you're saying the impact of climate change is ~90 times as much as his estimate of the impact of great power war (900% increase versus 10% increase in X risk). I think part of the issue is that you believe the world with climate change is significantly worse than the world is now.  We agree that the world with climate change is worse than the business as usual, but to claim it is worse than now means that climate change would overwhelm all the economic growth that would have occurred in the next century or so. I think this is hard to defend for expected climate change. But this could be the case for the versions of climate change that ALLFED focuses on, such as the abrupt regional climate change, extreme weather including floods and droughts on multiple continents at the same time causing around a 10% abrupt food production shortfall, or the extreme global climate change of around 6°C or more. Still, I don't think it is plausible to multiply existential risks such as unaligned AGI or engineered pandemic by 10 because of these climate catastrophes.

Comment by Denkenberger on Is it still hard to get a job in EA? Insights from CEA’s recruitment data · 2022-05-02T06:45:01.073Z · EA · GW

This is helpful, but there is a key difference between the EA job market and the general one: there are a limited number of positions in EA. I think a valuable metric that perhaps could be explored on the next EA survey is the level of EA “unemployment.” This could mean the number of EAs who would prefer to have a job at an EA aligned organization, but have not gotten one. I suspect this will be far higher than the general level of unemployment. As an example, say there are 50 EAs with a particular skill, and five EA jobs requiring that skill. Then if they all apply to those five jobs, 2% of the applicants will get a job in each case, but that is only 10% of the EAs getting a job, so there would be 90% “unemployment.” Whereas outside of EA, they could all apply to 50 jobs and all get jobs. This could be analogous to underemployment, such as PhDs who want a job such as academia that requires a PhD, but have not gotten one.

Comment by Denkenberger on My bargain with the EA machine · 2022-05-01T22:57:27.516Z · EA · GW

I would be interested in what people think qualifies as "great personal sacrifice." Some would say it would mean things like becoming a priest, volunteering for the military during a war, going to prison for something you believe in, etc. The things that many EAs do, such as giving 10% or 50%, being vegetarian or vegan, choosing a lower pay career, relocating to a less preferred city or country, choosing a somewhat less satisfying/prestigious career, or working or volunteering a total of 60 or 70 hours a week (while maintaining good sleep, nutrition, exercise and stress levels), might be described as "significant sacrifice." But maybe if an EA were doing extreme versions of many of these things, it could be considered great personal sacrifice?

Comment by Denkenberger on What “pivotal” and useful research ... would you like to see assessed? (Bounty for suggestions) · 2022-05-01T01:09:07.131Z · EA · GW

Added: temperature change: FHI cited paper, general impact: A Model for the Impacts of Nuclear War (also cited by FHI) (GCR Institute authors) (also cites Robock) - does not quantify

It looks like you mean FLI, not FHI.

Comment by Denkenberger on Free-spending EA might be a big problem for optics and epistemics · 2022-04-15T20:26:20.593Z · EA · GW

Many people prominent in EA still donate very large percentages, Julia Wise (featured in Strangers Drowning)/Jeff Kaufman 50%, Will MacAskill at least 50%, probably the same for Peter Singer and Toby Ord.

Comment by Denkenberger on Free-spending EA might be a big problem for optics and epistemics · 2022-04-15T19:49:43.135Z · EA · GW

I realize the discussion here is broader than this specific case, but for this specific case, couldn't people have just taken the extra food home so it would not go to waste?

Comment by Denkenberger on Crucial considerations in the field of Wild Animal Welfare (WAW) · 2022-04-13T03:26:38.830Z · EA · GW

Thanks - good pun!

Comment by Denkenberger on Crucial considerations in the field of Wild Animal Welfare (WAW) · 2022-04-12T00:54:41.330Z · EA · GW

Each year, there are 30 trillion wild-caught shrimp alone! (Rethink Priorities,^)

I'm not seeing the 30 trillion number in that reference - is there a direct link to the analysis? 4000 shrimp caught per person per year seems high.

Comment by Denkenberger on "Long-Termism" vs. "Existential Risk" · 2022-04-08T23:48:17.417Z · EA · GW

To the extent that a short-termist framing views going from 80% to 81% population loss as equally as bad as 99% to 100%, it seems plausible to care less about e.g. refuges to evade pandemics. Other approaches like ALLFED and civilisational resilience work might look less effective on the short-termist framing also. Even if you also place some intrinsic weight on preventing extinction, this might not be enough to make these approaches look cost-effective.

ALLFED-type work is likely highly cost effective from the short-term perspective; see global and country (US) specific analyses.

Comment by Denkenberger on Save the Date: EAGxMars · 2022-04-02T15:35:43.645Z · EA · GW

Yes, ALLFED will be there. We have the hydrogen single cell protein, glycerin, and vinegar worked out. This should give us enough time to make a balanced, palatable, vegan diet.

Comment by Denkenberger on 8 possible high-level goals for work on nuclear risk · 2022-03-30T06:06:55.541Z · EA · GW

The more weight we place on this goal, probably the less we’d focus on very unlikely but very extreme scenarios (since badness scales roughly linearly in fatality numbers for neartermists, whereas for longtermists I think there’s a larger gap in badness between smaller- and medium-scale and extremely-large-scale nuclear scenarios).

This seems right. Here are my attempts at neartermist analysis for nuclear risks (global and US focused).

Comment by Denkenberger on Zvi's Thoughts on the Survival and Flourishing Fund (SFF) · 2022-03-28T04:15:00.575Z · EA · GW

Zvi has now put a postscript in the ALLFED section above. We have updated the inadvertent nuclear war fault tree model result based on no nuclear war since the data stopped coming in, and also reduced the annual probability of nuclear war further going forward. And then, so as to not over claim on cost effectiveness, we did not include a correction for non-inadvertent US/Russia nuclear war nor conflict with China. Resilient foods are still highly competitive with AGI safety according to the revised model.

Comment by Denkenberger on The Future Fund’s Project Ideas Competition · 2022-03-12T08:28:48.088Z · EA · GW

You may be interested in this. I considered some pretty speculative things to prevent or mollify a supervolcanic eruption, but the volume of the stratosphere is so enormous that I think cleaning it would be very challenging.

Comment by Denkenberger on Shortening & enlightening dark ages as a sub-area of catastrophic risk reduction · 2022-03-05T22:15:37.710Z · EA · GW

Thanks for the post.

It seems like it could be a good idea to move part of Allfed to a location more suitable for restarting modern civilisation than Alaska.

Only two members of ALLFED are in Alaska-the rest are other places in the US, UK, Canada, Spain, Germany, Australia, India, and more countries if you count board members and volunteers. But it is still NATO city majority, so we are looking at methods of reducing risk to the team.

Comment by Denkenberger on The Future Fund’s Regranting Program · 2022-03-01T07:13:34.333Z · EA · GW

Is there compensation for the regrantors?

Comment by Denkenberger on Risks from Asteroids · 2022-02-19T08:36:35.198Z · EA · GW

This paper on the concern of nuclear explosives for asteroid deflection increasing the risk of nuclear war is relevant.

Comment by Denkenberger on Apply to Negotiating for Good [Feb 26 - Mar 12] · 2022-01-22T04:59:41.995Z · EA · GW

Is it mainly for the for-profit case? For instance, in academia, there is not very much room for salary negotiation, but instead the focus is on the startup package (reduced teaching, lab budget, funding for students, etc).