Why space travel is suddenly getting a lot cheaper and re-igniting enthusiasm around space settlement.
What Zach thinks are the best and worst arguments for settling space.
Zach’s journey from optimistic about space settlement to a self-proclaimed “space bastard” (pessimist).
How little we know about how microgravity and radiation affects even adults, much less the children potentially born in a space settlement.
A rundown of where we could settle in the solar system, and the major drawbacks of even the most promising candidates.
Why digging bunkers or underwater cities on Earth would beat fleeing to Mars in a catastrophe.
How new space settlements could look a lot like old company towns — and whether or not that’s a bad thing.
The current state of space law and how it might set us up for international conflict.
How space cannibalism legal loopholes might work on the International Space Station.
And much more.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio engineering lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Simon Monsour, Milo McGuire, and Dominic Armstrong Additional content editing: Katy Moore and Luisa Rodriguez Transcriptions: Katy Moore
If we’d been trying to do that in 1950, one thing would have been at the top of everyone’s minds: the terrifying threat of nuclear annihilation. Indeed, many of the world’s greatest thinkers, politicians, and communicators devoted their careers to understanding and reducing the threat — people like Thomas Schelling, Carl Sagan and even, in his later years, Albert Einstein.
Cooling relations between the US and Russia mean that existing arms reduction treaties (like New START) are looking very likely to lapse.
Rising tensions in the Middle East, alongside the collapse of the Iran deal, mean we could very possibly see a new nuclear weapons state in the near future.
In today’s episode, host Luisa Rodriguez speaks to Dean Spears — associate professor of economics at the University of Texas at Austin and founding director of r.i.c.e. — about his experience implementing a surprisingly low-tech but highly cost-effective kangaroo mother care programme in Uttar Pradesh, India to save the lives of vulnerable newborn infants.
They cover:
The shockingly high neonatal mortality rates in Uttar Pradesh, India, and how social inequality and gender dynamics contribute to poor health outcomes for both mothers and babies.
The remarkable benefits for vulnerable newborns that come from skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding support.
The challenges and opportunities that come with working with a government hospital to implement new, evidence-based programmes.
How the currently small programme might be scaled up to save more newborns’ lives in other regions of Uttar Pradesh and beyond.
How targeted health interventions stack up against direct cash transfers.
Plus, a sneak peak into Dean’s new book, which explores the looming global population peak that’s expected around 2080, and the consequences of global depopulation.
And much more.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio engineering lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Simon Monsour, Milo McGuire, and Dominic Armstrong Additional content editing: Katy Moore and Luisa Rodriguez Transcriptions: Katy Moore
Readers naturally focus most on the top of the list. But while we want readers to consider our top-ranked paths (and we think it’s good to be transparent about what we think are the best opportunities to do good), you shouldn’t underrate the personal factors that will make one path or another a better fit for you — both in terms of social impact and personal satisfaction.
So this week we wanted to highlight a few paths and career steps (in no particular order) that we think people should consider if they want to have a lot of impact:
Public discourse shapes the way societies understand and react to key problems in the world, and journalists have a significant role in shaping it. So if you can become an influential journalist, you might be able to have a big impact by drawing attention to pressing world problems, how to solve them, and how to generally think well about these issues.
The staggering scale of animal suffering in factory farms, and how it will only get worse without intervention.
Work to improve farmed animal welfare that Open Philanthropy is excited about funding.
The amazing recent progress made in farm animal welfare — including regulatory attention in the EU and a big win at the US Supreme Court — and the work that still needs to be done.
The occasional tension between ending factory farming and curbing climate change.
How AI could transform factory farming for better or worse — and Lewis’s fears that the technology will just help us maximise cruelty in the name of profit.
Lewis’s personal journey working on farm animal welfare, and how he copes with the emotional toll of confronting the scale of animal suffering.
How listeners can get involved in the growing movement to end factory farming — from career and volunteer opportunities to impactful donations.
And much more.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio engineering lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Simon Monsour, Milo McGuire, and Dominic Armstrong Additional content editing: Katy Moore and Luisa Rodriguez Transcriptions: Katy Moore
Many of you will have heard of Zvi Mowshowitz as a superhuman information-absorbing-and-processing machine — which he definitely is.
As the author of the Substack Don’t Worry About the Vase, Zvi has spent as much time as literally anyone in the world over the last two years tracking in detail how the explosion of AI has been playing out — and he has strong opinions about almost every aspect of it. So in today’s episode, host Rob Wiblin asks Zvi for his takes on:
US-China negotiations
Whether AI progress has stalled
The biggest wins and losses for alignment in 2023
EU and White House AI regulations
Which major AI lab has the best safety strategy
The pros and cons of the Pause AI movement
Recent breakthroughs in capabilities
In what situations it’s morally acceptable to work at AI labs
Whether you agree or disagree with his views, Zvi is super informed and brimming with concrete details.
Zvi and Rob also talk about:
The risk of AI labs fooling themselves into believing their alignment plans are working when they may not be.
The “sleeper agent” issue uncovered in a recent Anthropic paper, and how it shows us how hard alignment actually is.
Why Zvi disagrees with 80,000 Hours’ advice about gaining career capital to have a positive impact.
Zvi’s project to identify the most strikingly horrible and neglected policy failures in the US, and how Zvi founded a new think tank (Balsa Research) to identify innovative solutions to overthrow the horrible status quo in areas like domestic shipping, environmental reviews, and housing supply.
Why Zvi thinks that improving people’s prosperity and housing can make them care more about existential risks like AI.
An idea from the online rationality community that Zvi thinks is really underrated and more people should have heard of: simulacra levels.
And plenty more.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio engineering lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Simon Monsour, Milo McGuire, and Dominic Armstrong Transcriptions: Katy Moore
In this episode of 80k After Hours, Luisa Rodriguez and Christian Ruhl discuss underrated best bets to avert civilisational collapse from global catastrophic risks — things like great power war, frontier military technologies, and nuclear winter.
They cover:
How the geopolitical situation has changed in recent years into a “three-body problem” between the US, Russia, and China.
How adding AI-enabled technologies into the mix makes things even more unstable and unpredictable.
Why Christian recommends many philanthropists focus on “right-of-boom” interventions — those that mitigate the damage after a catastrophe — over traditional preventative measures.
Concrete things policymakers should be considering to reduce the devastating effects of unthinkable tragedies.
And on a more personal note, Christian’s experience of having a stutter.
Who this episode is for:
People interested in the most cost-effective ways to prevent nuclear war, such as:
Deescalating after accidental nuclear use.
Civil defence and war termination.
Mitigating nuclear winter.
Who this episode isn’t for:
People interested in the least cost-effective ways to prevent nuclear war, such as:
Coating every nuclear weapon on Earth in solid gold so they’re no longer functional.
Creating a TV show called The Real Housewives of Nuclear Winter about the personal and professional lives of women in Beverly Hills after a nuclear holocaust.
A multibillion dollar programme to invent a laser beam that could write permanent messages on the Moon, and using it just once to spell out #nonukesnovember.
Producer: Keiran Harris Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Ben Cordell and Milo McGuire Content editing: Katy Moore, Luisa Rodriguez, and Keiran Harris Transcriptions: Katy Moore
Blog post by Arden Koehler · Published March 15th, 2024
The idea this week: working on a highly neglected or pre-paradigmatic issue could be a way to make a big positive difference.
We usually focus on how people can help tackle what we think are the biggest global catastrophic risks. But there are lots of other pressing problems we think also deserve more attention — some of which are especially highly neglected.
Compared to our top-ranked issues, these problems generally don’t have well-developed fields dedicated to them. So we don’t have as much concrete advice about how to tackle them, and they might be full of dead ends.
But if you can find ways to meaningfully contribute (and have the kind of self-directed mindset necessary, doing so could well be your top option.
If we put aside risks of extinction, one of the biggest dangers to the long-term future of humanity might be the potential for an ultra-long-lasting and terrible political regime. As technology advances and globalisation and homogenisation increase, a stable form of totalitarianism potentially could take hold, enabled by improved surveillance, advanced lie detection, or an obedient AI workforce. We’re not sure how big or tractable these risks are, but more research into the area could be highly valuable. Read more.
In today’s episode, host Rob Wiblin speaks for a fourth time with listener favourite Spencer Greenberg — serial entrepreneur and host of the Clearer Thinking podcast — about a grab-bag of topics that Spencer has explored since his last appearance on the show a year ago.
They cover:
How much money makes you happy — and the tricky methodological issues that come up trying to answer that question.
The importance of hype in making valuable things happen.
How to recognise warning signs that someone is untrustworthy or likely to hurt you.
Whether Registered Reports are successfully solving reproducibility issues in science.
The personal principles Spencer lives by, and whether or not we should all establish our own list of life principles.
The biggest and most harmful systemic mistakes we commit when making decisions, both individually and as groups.
The potential harms of lightgassing, which is the opposite of gaslighting.
How Spencer’s team used non-statistical methods to test whether astrology works.
Whether there’s any social value in retaliation.
And much more.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Simon Monsour, Milo McGuire, and Dominic Armstrong Transcriptions: Katy Moore
Blog post by Arden Koehler · Published March 10th, 2025
About 80,000 Hours
80,000 Hours’ mission is to get talented people working on the world’s most pressing problems.
In 2025, we are planning to focus especially on helping explain why and how our audience can help society safely navigate a transition to a world with transformative AI.
Over a million people visit our website each year, and thousands of people have told us that they’ve significantly changed their career plans due to our work. Surveys conducted by our primary funder, Open Philanthropy, show that 80,000 Hours is one of the single biggest drivers of talent moving into work related to reducing global catastrophic risks.
Our most popular pieces get over 10,000 unique visitors each month, and are among the most important ways we help people shift their careers towards higher-impact options.
The role
As a senior product manager, you would:
Research, propose, and implement product innovations to make the 80,000 Hours website more useful and delightful for talented people interested in having a high impact career
For example, you could lead on refreshing the site’s visual identity to make it more appealing, or creating and integrating a custom LLM to help users navigate the content.
Lead on strategies for gathering and using user feedback and industry research to inform product decisions and assess their success
Work with our developers and content team to implement product changes, eventually aiming to manage and hire full-time staff
Decide on the metrics we should use to track success and implement systems for doing so
Blog post by Arden Koehler · Published March 15th, 2024
About 80,000 Hours
80,000 Hours’ mission is to get talented people working on the world’s most pressing problems. Since being founded in 2011, we have helped:
Popularise using your career to ambitiously pursue impact while thinking seriously about cause and intervention prioritisation
Grow the fields of AI safety, AI governance, global catastrophic biological risk reduction, and global catastrophic risk reduction capacity building (among others)
Fill hundreds of roles at many of the most impactful organisations tackling the worlds’ most pressing problems
Over a million people visit our website each year, and thousands of people have told us that they’ve significantly changed their career plans due to our work. Surveys conducted by our primary funder, Open Philanthropy, show that 80,000 Hours is one of the single biggest drivers of talent moving into work related to reducing global catastrophic risks.
Our most popular pieces are read by over 1,000 people each month, and they are among the most important ways we help people shift their careers towards higher-impact options.
The roles
We’re listing these roles together because there’s a lot of overlap in what they’ll focus on, and we suspect some of the same candidates could be strong fits for both.
The main difference is that the writer role focuses more on the craft of writing compelling and informative pieces for the audience, and the writer-researcher role focuses more on supporting the knowledge base that informs the pieces.
The methods used to assess the welfare ranges and capacities for pleasure and pain of chickens, pigs, octopuses, bees, and other animals — and the limitations of that approach.
Concrete examples of how someone might use the estimated moral weights to compare the benefits of animal vs human interventions.
The results that most surprised Bob.
Why the team used a hedonic theory of welfare to inform the project, and what non-hedonic theories of welfare might bring to the table.
Thought experiments like Tortured Tim that test different philosophical assumptions about welfare.
Confronting our own biases when estimating animal mental capacities and moral worth.
The limitations of using neuron counts as a proxy for moral weights.
How different types of risk aversion, like avoiding worst-case scenarios, could impact cause prioritisation.
And plenty more.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Simon Monsour and Milo McGuire Additional content editing: Katy Moore and Luisa Rodriguez Transcriptions: Katy Moore
In today’s episode, host Luisa Rodriguez speaks to Laura Deming — founder of The Longevity Fund — about the challenge of ending ageing.
They cover:
How lifespan is surprisingly easy to manipulate in animals, which suggests human longevity could be increased too.
Why we irrationally accept age-related health decline as inevitable.
The engineering mindset Laura takes to solving the problem of ageing.
Laura’s thoughts on how ending ageing is primarily a social challenge, not a scientific one.
The recent exciting regulatory breakthrough for an anti-ageing drug for dogs.
Laura’s vision for how increased longevity could positively transform society by giving humans agency over when and how they age.
Why this decade may be the most important decade ever for making progress on anti-ageing research.
The beauty and fascination of biology, which makes it such a compelling field to work in.
And plenty more.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Simon Monsour and Milo McGuire Additional content editing: Katy Moore and Luisa Rodriguez Transcriptions: Katy Moore
Blog post by Cody Fenwick · Published March 1st, 2024
The idea this week: technical expertise is needed in AI governance and policy.
How do you prevent a new and rapidly evolving technology from spiralling out of control? How can governments, policymakers, and civil society ensure that we’re making the best decisions about how to integrate artificial intelligence into our society?
To answer these kinds of questions, we need people with technical expertise — in machine learning, information security, computing hardware, or other relevant technical domains — to work in AI governance and policy making.
But we think people with technical backgrounds may underrate their ability to contribute to AI policy. We’ve long regarded AI technical safety research as an extremely high-impact career option, and we still do. But this sometimes gives readers the impression that if they’ve got a technical background or aptitude, it’s the main path for them to consider if they want to help prevent an AI-related catastrophe.
But this isn’t necessarily true.
Technical knowledge is crucial in AI governance for understanding the current landscape and likely trajectories of the technology, as well as for designing and implementing policies that can reduce the biggest risks.
Blog post by Sashika Coxhead · Published February 27th, 2024
About 80,000 Hours
80,000 Hours’ goal is to get talented people working on the world’s most pressing problems — we aim to be the world’s best source of support and advice for them on how to do so. That means helping people shift their careers to work on solving problems that are more important, neglected, and solvable — and to pick more promising methods for solving those problems.
We’ve had over 10 million readers on our website, have ~450,000 subscribers to our newsletter and have given 1on1 advice to over 4,000 people. We’re also one of the top ways people who get involved in EA first hear about it, and we’re the most commonly cited factor for ‘getting involved’ in the EA community.
The operations team oversees 80,000 Hours’ HR, recruiting, finances, org-wide metrics, and office management, as well as much of our fundraising, tech systems, and team coordination. We’re also currently overseeing our spinout from Effective Ventures and setup as an independent organisation.
Currently, the operations team has four full-time staff, some part-time staff, and we receive operations support from Effective Ventures. We’re planning to (at least!) double the size of our operations team over the next year.
The roles
These roles would be great for building career capital in operations, especially if you could one day see yourself in a more senior operations role (e.g. specialising in a particular area, taking on management, or eventually being a Head of Operations or COO).
But biosecurity is a complex field, and while the threat is undoubtedly large, there’s a lot of disagreement about how best to conceptualise and mitigate the risks. We wanted to get a better sense of how the people thinking about these threats every day perceive the risks.
So we decided to talk to more than a dozen biosecurity experts to better understand their views.
To make them feel comfortable speaking candidly, we granted the experts we spoke to anonymity. Sometimes disagreements in this space can get contentious, and certainly many of the experts we spoke to disagree with one another. We don’t endorse every position they’ve articulated below.
We think, though, that it’s helpful to lay out the range of expert opinions from people who we think are trustworthy and established in the field. We hope this will inform our readers about ongoing debates and issues that are important to understand — and perhaps highlight areas of disagreement that need more attention.
Blog post by Conor Barnes · Published February 22nd, 2024
In 1955, ten years after Robert Oppenheimer, Leslie Groves, and the 130,000 workers of the Manhattan Project built the first atomic bomb, the United States had 2,400 and Russia had 200. At present, the USA has over 3,000, Russia has over 4,000, and China is building an arsenal of hundreds. Most of these are hydrogen bombs many times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These modern arsenals no longer require a bomber plane to deliver them — ICBMs can throw bombs around the earth in half an hour. When we sleep, we sleep as targets of nuclear weapons.
A global thermonuclear war would be the most horrifying event to happen in humanity’s history. If cities were targeted, at the very least, tens of millions would instantly die just like the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Survivors described the scenes of those explosions as “just like Hell” and “burning as if scorching Heaven.”
And the discussion around misinformation and disinformation has shifted to focus on how generative AI or a future super-persuasive AI might change the game and make it extremely hard to figure out what was going on in the world — or alternatively, extremely easy to mislead people into believing convenient lies.
But this week’s guest, cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier, has a very different view on how people form beliefs and figure out who to trust — one in which misinformation really is barely a problem today, and is unlikely to be a problem anytime soon. As he explains in his book Not Born Yesterday, Hugo believes we seriously underrate the perceptiveness and judgement of ordinary people.
In this interview, host Rob Wiblin and Hugo discuss:
How our reasoning mechanisms evolved to facilitate beneficial communication, not blind gullibility.
How Hugo makes sense of our apparent gullibility in many cases — like falling for financial scams, astrology, or bogus medical treatments, and voting for policies that aren’t actually beneficial for us.
Rob and Hugo’s ideas about whether AI might make misinformation radically worse, and which mass persuasion approaches we should be most worried about.
Why Hugo thinks our intuitions about who to trust are generally quite sound, even in today’s complex information environment.
The distinction between intuitive beliefs that guide our actions versus reflective beliefs that don’t.
Why fake news and conspiracy theories actually have less impact than most people assume.
False beliefs that have persisted across cultures and generations — like bloodletting and vaccine hesitancy — and theories about why.
And plenty more.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Simon Monsour and Milo McGuire Transcriptions: Katy Moore
Blog post by Benjamin Hilton · Published February 14th, 2024
If we were going to summarise all our advice on how to get career capital in three words, we’d say: build useful skills.
In other words, gain abilities that are valued in the job market — which makes your work more useful and makes it easier to bargain for the ingredients of a fulfilling job — as well as those that are specifically needed in tackling the world’s most pressing problems.
So today, we’re launching our series on the most useful skills for making a difference — which you can find here. It covers why we recommend each skill, how to get started learning them, and how to work out which is the best fit for you.
Each article looks at one of eight skill sets we think are most useful for solving the problems we think are most pressing:
Mental health problems like depression and anxiety affect enormous numbers of people and severely interfere with their lives. By contrast, we don’t see similar levels of physical ill health in young people. At any point in time, something like 20% of young people are working through anxiety or depression that’s seriously interfering with their lives — but nowhere near 20% of people in their 20s have severe heart disease or cancer or a similar failure in a key organ of the body other than the brain.
From an evolutionary perspective, that’s to be expected, right? If your heart or lungs or legs or skin stop working properly while you’re a teenager, you’re less likely to reproduce, and the genes that cause that malfunction get weeded out of the gene pool.
So why is it that these evolutionary selective pressures seemingly fixed our bodies so that they work pretty smoothly for young people most of the time, but it feels like evolution fell asleep on the job when it comes to the brain? Why did evolution never get around to patching the most basic problems, like social anxiety, panic attacks, debilitating pessimism, or inappropriate mood swings? For that matter, why did evolution go out of its way to give us the capacity for low mood or chronic anxiety or extreme mood swings at all?
Today’s guest, Randy Nesse — a leader in the field of evolutionary psychiatry — wrote the book Good Reasons for Bad Feelings, in which he sets out to try to resolve this paradox.
In the interview, host Rob Wiblin and Randy discuss the key points of the book, as well as:
How the evolutionary psychiatry perspective can help people appreciate that their mental health problems are often the result of a useful and important system.
How evolutionary pressures and dynamics lead to a wide range of different personalities, behaviours, strategies, and tradeoffs.
The missing intellectual foundations of psychiatry, and how an evolutionary lens could revolutionise the field.
How working as both an academic and a practicing psychiatrist shaped Randy’s understanding of treating mental health problems.
The “smoke detector principle” of why we experience so many false alarms along with true threats.
The origins of morality and capacity for genuine love, and why Randy thinks it’s a mistake to try to explain these from a selfish gene perspective.
Evolutionary theories on why we age and die.
And much more.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Dominic Armstrong Transcriptions: Katy Moore
