All episodes of the 80,000 Hours Podcast

#131 – Lewis Dartnell on getting humanity to bounce back faster in a post-apocalyptic world

By Robert Wiblin, Luisa Rodriguez and Keiran Harris · Published June 3rd, 2022

“We’re leaving these 16 contestants on an island with nothing but what they can scavenge from an abandoned factory and apartment block. Over the next 365 days, they’ll try to rebuild as much of civilisation as they can — from glass, to lenses, to microscopes. This is: The Knowledge!”

If you were a contestant on such a TV show, you’d love to have a guide to how basic things you currently take for granted are done — how to grow potatoes, fire bricks, turn wood to charcoal, find acids and alkalis, and so on.

Today’s guest Lewis Dartnell has gone as far compiling this information as anyone has with his bestselling book The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Civilization in the Aftermath of a Cataclysm.

But in the aftermath of a nuclear war or incredibly deadly pandemic that kills most people, many of the ways we do things today will be impossible — and even some of the things people did in the past, like collect coal from the surface of the Earth, will be impossible the second time around.

As Lewis points out, there’s “no point telling this band of survivors how to make something ultra-efficient or ultra-useful or ultra-capable if it’s just too damned complicated to build in the first place. You have to start small and then level up, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.”

So it might sound good to tell people to build solar panels — they’re a wonderful way of generating electricity. But the photovoltaic cells we use today need pure silicon, and nanoscale manufacturing — essentially the same technology as microchips used in a computer — so actually making solar panels would be incredibly difficult.

Instead, you’d want to tell our group of budding engineers to use more appropriate technologies like solar concentrators that use nothing more than mirrors — which turn out to be relatively easy to make.

A disaster that unravels the complex way we produce goods in the modern world is all too possible. Which raises the question: why not set dozens of people to plan out exactly what any survivors really ought to do if they need to support themselves and rebuild civilisation? Such a guide could then be translated and distributed all around the world.

The goal would be to provide the best information to speed up each of the many steps that would take survivors from rubbing sticks together in the wilderness to adjusting a thermostat in their comfy apartments.

This is clearly not a trivial task. Lewis’s own book (at 300 pages) only scratched the surface of the most important knowledge humanity has accumulated, relegating all of mathematics to a single footnote.

And the ideal guide would offer pretty different advice depending on the scenario. Are survivors dealing with a radioactive ice age following a nuclear war? Or is it an eerily intact but near-empty post-pandemic world with mountains of goods to scavenge from the husks of cities?

If we take catastrophic risks seriously and want humanity to recover from a devastating shock as far and fast as possible, producing such a guide before it’s too late might be one of the higher-impact projects someone could take on.

As a brand-new parent, Lewis couldn’t do one of our classic three- or four-hour episodes — so this is an unusually snappy one-hour interview, where Rob and Lewis are joined by Luisa Rodriguez to continue the conversation from her episode of the show last year.

They cover:

The biggest impediments to bouncing back
The reality of humans trying to actually do this
The most valuable pro-resilience adjustments we can make today
How to recover without much coal or oil
How to feed the Earth in disasters
And the most exciting recent findings in astrobiology

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type ‘80,000 Hours’ into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#130 – Will MacAskill on balancing frugality with ambition, whether you need longtermism, & mental health under pressure

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published May 23rd, 2022

Imagine you lead a nonprofit that operates on a shoestring budget. Staff are paid minimum wage, lunch is bread and hummus, and you’re all bunched up on a few tables in a basement office.

But over a few years, your cause attracts some major new donors. Your funding jumps a thousandfold, from $100,000 a year to $100,000,000 a year. You’re the same group of people committed to making sacrifices for the cause — but these days, rather than cutting costs, the right thing to do seems to be to spend serious money and get things done ASAP.

You suddenly have the opportunity to make more progress than ever before, but as well as excitement about this, you have worries about the impacts that large amounts of funding can have.

This is roughly the situation faced by today’s guest Will MacAskill — University of Oxford philosopher, author of the forthcoming book What We Owe The Future, and founding figure in the effective altruism movement.

Years ago, Will pledged to give away more than 50% of his income over his life, and was already donating 10% back when he was a student with next to no income. Since then, the coalition he founded has been super successful at attracting the interest of donors who collectively want to give away billions in the way Will and his colleagues were proposing.

While surely a huge success, it brings with it risks that he’s never had to consider before:

Will and his colleagues might try to spend a lot of money trying to get more things done more quickly — but actually just waste it.
Being seen as profligate could strike onlookers as selfish and disreputable.
Folks might start pretending to agree with their agenda just to get grants.
People working on nearby issues that are less flush with funding may end up resentful.
People might lose their focus on helping others as they get seduced by the prospect of earning a nice living.
Mediocre projects might find it too easy to get funding, even when the people involved would be better off radically changing their strategy, or shutting down and launching something else entirely.

But all these ‘risks of commission’ have to be weighed against ‘risk of omission’: the failure to achieve all you could have if you’d been truly ambitious.

People looking askance at you for paying high salaries to attract the staff you want is unpleasant.

But failing to prevent the next pandemic because you didn’t have the necessary medical experts on your grantmaking team is worse than unpleasant — it’s a true disaster. Yet few will complain, because they’ll never know what might have been if you’d only set frugality aside.

Will aims to strike a sensible balance between these competing errors, which he has taken to calling judicious ambition. In today’s episode, Rob and Will discuss the above as well as:

Will humanity likely converge on good values as we get more educated and invest more in moral philosophy — or are the things we care about actually quite arbitrary and contingent?
Why are so many nonfiction books full of factual errors?
How does Will avoid anxiety and depression with more responsibility on his shoulders than ever?
What does Will disagree with his colleagues on?
Should we focus on existential risks more or less the same way, whether we care about future generations or not?
Are potatoes one of the most important technologies ever developed?
And plenty more.

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type ‘80,000 Hours’ into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#129 – Dr James Tibenderana on the state of the art in malaria control and elimination

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published May 9th, 2022

The good news is deaths from malaria have been cut by a third since 2005. The bad news is it still causes 250 million cases and 600,000 deaths a year, mostly among young children in sub-Saharan Africa.

We already have dirt-cheap ways to prevent and treat malaria, and the fraction of the Earth’s surface where the disease exists at all has been halved since 1900. So why is it such a persistent problem in some places, even rebounding 15% since 2019?

That’s one of many questions I put to today’s guest, James Tibenderana — doctor, medical researcher, and technical director at a major global health nonprofit known as Malaria Consortium. James studies the cutting edge of malaria control and treatment in order to optimise how Malaria Consortium spends £100 million a year across countries like Uganda, Nigeria, and Chad.

In sub-Saharan Africa, where 90% of malaria deaths occur, the infection is spread by a few dozen species of mosquito that are ideally suited to the local climatic conditions and have thus been impossible to eliminate so far.

And as James explains, while COVID-19 may have an ‘R’ (reproduction number) of 5, in some situations malaria has a reproduction number in the 1,000s. A single person with malaria can pass the parasite to hundreds of mosquitoes, which themselves each go on to bite dozens of people each, allowing cases to quickly explode.

The nets and antimalarial drugs Malaria Consortium distributes have been highly effective where distributed, but there are tens of millions of young children who are yet to be covered simply due to a lack of funding.

Despite the success of these approaches, given how challenging it will be to create a malaria-free world, there’s enthusiasm to find new approaches to throw at the problem. Two new interventions have recently generated buzz: vaccines and genetic approaches to control the mosquito species that carry malaria.

The RTS,S vaccine is the first-ever vaccine that attacks a protozoa as opposed to a virus or bacteria. Under development for decades, it’s a great scientific achievement. But James points out that even after three doses, it’s still only about 30% effective. Unless future vaccines are substantially more effective, they will remain just a complement to nets and antimalarial drugs, which are cheaper and each cut mortality by more than half.

On the other hand, the latest mosquito-control technologies are almost too effective. It is possible to insert genes into specific mosquito populations that reduce their ability to reproduce. Of course these genes would normally be eliminated by natural selection, but by using a ‘gene drive,’ you can ensure mosquitoes hand these detrimental genes down to 100% of their offspring. If deployed, these genes would spread and ultimately eliminate the mosquitoes that carry malaria at low cost, thereby largely ridding the world of the disease.

Because a single country embracing this method would have global effects, James cautions that it’s important to get buy-in from all the countries involved, and to have a way of reversing the intervention if we realise we’ve made a mistake. Groups like Target Malaria are working on exactly these two issues.

James also emphasises that with thousands of similar mosquito species out there, most of which don’t carry malaria, for better or worse gene drives may not make any difference to the number of mosquitoes out there.

In this comprehensive conversation, Rob and James discuss all of the above, as well as most of what you could reasonably want to know about the state of the art in malaria control today, including:

How malaria spreads and the symptoms it causes
The use of insecticides and poison baits
How big a problem insecticide resistance is
How malaria was eliminated in North America and Europe
Whether funding is a key bottleneck right now
The key strategic choices faced by Malaria Consortium in its efforts to create a malaria-free world
And much more

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type ‘80,000 Hours’ into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ryan Kessler
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#128 – Chris Blattman on the five reasons wars happen

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published April 28th, 2022

In nature, animals roar and bare their teeth to intimidate adversaries — but one side usually backs down, and real fights are rare. The wisdom of evolution is that the risk of violence is just too great.

Which might make one wonder: if war is so destructive, why does it happen? The question may sound naïve, but in fact it represents a deep puzzle. If a war will cost trillions and kill tens of thousands, it should be easy for either side to make a peace offer that both they and their opponents prefer to actually fighting it out.

The conundrum of how humans can engage in incredibly costly and protracted conflicts has occupied academics across the social sciences for years. In today’s episode, we speak with economist Chris Blattman about his new book, Why We Fight: The Roots of War and the Paths to Peace, which summarises what they think they’ve learned.

Chris’s first point is that while organised violence may feel like it’s all around us, it’s actually very rare in humans, just as it is with other animals. Across the world, hundreds of groups dislike one another — but knowing the cost of war, they prefer to simply loathe one another in peace.

In order to understand what’s wrong with a sick patient, a doctor needs to know what a healthy person looks like. And to understand war, social scientists need to study all the wars that could have happened but didn’t — so they can see what a healthy society looks like and what’s missing in the places where war does take hold.

Chris argues that social scientists have generated five cogent models of when war can be ‘rational’ for both sides of a conflict:

Unchecked interests — such as national leaders who bear few of the costs of launching a war.
Intangible incentives — such as an intrinsic desire for revenge.
Uncertainty — such as both sides underestimating each other’s resolve to fight.
Commitment problems — such as the inability to credibly promise not to use your growing military might to attack others in future.
Misperceptions — such as our inability to see the world through other people’s eyes.

In today’s interview, we walk through how each of the five explanations work and what specific wars or actions they might explain.

In the process, Chris outlines how many of the most popular explanations for interstate war are wildly overused (e.g. leaders who are unhinged or male) or misguided from the outset (e.g. resource scarcity).

The interview also covers:

What Chris and Rob got wrong about the war in Ukraine
What causes might not fit into these five categories
The role of people’s choice to escalate or deescalate a conflict
How great power wars or nuclear wars are different, and what can be done to prevent them
How much representative government helps to prevent war
And much more

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type ‘80,000 Hours’ into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#127 – Sam Bankman-Fried on taking a high-risk approach to crypto and doing good

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published April 14th, 2022

This podcast highlighted Sam Bankman-Fried as a positive example of someone ambitiously pursuing a high-impact career. To say the least, we no longer endorse that. See our statement for why.

The show’s host, Rob Wiblin, has also released some personal comments on this episode and the FTX bankruptcy on The 80,000 Hours Podcast feed, which you can listen to here.

If you were offered a 100% chance of $1 million to keep yourself, or a 10% chance of $15 million — it makes total sense to play it safe. You’d be devastated if you lost, and barely happier if you won.

But if you were offered a 100% chance of donating $1 billion, or a 10% chance of donating $15 billion, you should just go with whatever has the highest expected value — that is, probability multiplied by the goodness of the outcome — and so swing for the fences.

This is the totally rational but rarely seen high-risk approach to philanthropy championed by today’s guest, Sam Bankman-Fried. Sam founded the cryptocurrency trading platform FTX, which has grown his wealth from around $1 million to $20,000 million.

Added 30 November 2022: What I meant to refer to as totally rational in the above paragraph is thinking about the ‘expected value’ of one’s actions, not maximizing expected dollar returns as if you were entirely ‘risk-neutral’. See clarifications on what I (Rob Wiblin) think about risk-aversion here.

Despite that, Sam still drives a Corolla and sleeps on a beanbag, because the only reason he started FTX was to make money to give it away. In 2020, when he was 5% as rich as he is now, he was nonetheless the second biggest individual donor to Joe Biden’s general election campaign.

In today’s conversation, Sam outlines how at every stage in FTX’s development, he and his team were able to choose the high-risk path to maximise expected value — precisely because they weren’t out to earn money for themselves.

This year his philanthropy has kicked into high gear with the launch of the FTX Future Fund, which has the initial ambition of giving away hundreds of millions a year and hopes to soon escalate to over a billion a year.

The Fund is run by previous guest of the show Nick Beckstead, and embodies the same risk-loving attitude Sam has learned from entrepreneurship and trading on financial markets. Unlike most foundations, the Future Fund:

Is open to supporting young people trying to get their first big break
Makes applying for a grant surprisingly straightforward
Is willing to make bets on projects it completely expects to fail, just because they have positive expected value.

Their website lists both areas of interest and more concrete project ideas they are looking to support. The hope is these will inspire entrepreneurs to come forward, seize the mantle, and be the champions who actually make these things happen. Some of the project proposals are pretty natural, such as:

Detecting pandemics early in order to stop them before they get out of control
Producing documentaries about pressing neglected problems
Increasing skilled migration to the US to help more talented people achieve their full potential

Some might raise an eyebrow:

Regularly polling domain experts on all sorts of questions where it’s currently hard to know what they really think
Building shelters specifically designed to protect people against the worst biological weapons attacks
Inventing alternative foods that could feed the world through a nuclear winter

And others are quirkier still:

Hiring professional forecasters to predict how important graphs on Our World In Data will look in future years
Create a ‘epistemic appeals system’ — a sort of for-hire fact checking organisation that builds credibility through a longstanding reputation for impartiality, transparency, and reliability
Writing a mock ‘constitution for the future’ to, among other things, think through how we might govern outer space

While these ideas may seem pretty random, they all stem from a particular underlying moral and empirical vision that the Future Fund has laid out.

In this conversation, we speak with Sam about the hopes he and the Fund have for how the long-term future of humanity might go incredibly well, the fears they hold about how it could go incredibly badly, and what levers they might be able to pull to slightly nudge us towards the former.

Listeners who want to launch an ambitious project to improve humanity’s future should not only listen to the episode, but also look at the full list of the kind of things Sam and his colleagues are hoping to fund, see if they’re inspired, and if so, apply to get the ball rolling.

On top of that we also cover:

How Sam feels now about giving $5 million to Biden’s general election campaign
His fears and hopes for artificial intelligence
Whether or not blockchain technology actually has useful real-world applications
What lessons Sam learned from some serious early setbacks
Why he fears the effective altruism community is too conservative
Why Sam is as authentic now as he was before he was a celebrity
And much more.

Note: Sam has donated to 80,000 Hours in the past

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type ‘80,000 Hours’ into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

November 17 2022, 1pm GMT: This podcast highlighted Sam Bankman-Fried as a positive example of someone ambitiously pursuing a high-impact career. To say the least, we no longer endorse that. See our statement for why.

Continue reading →

#126 – Bryan Caplan on whether lazy parenting is OK, what really helps workers, and betting on beliefs

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published April 5th, 2022

Everybody knows that good parenting has a big impact on how kids turn out. Except that maybe they don’t, because it doesn’t.

Incredible though it might seem, according to today’s guest — economist Bryan Caplan, the author of Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids, The Myth of the Rational Voter, and The Case Against Education — the best evidence we have on the question suggests that, within reason, what parents do has little impact on how their children’s lives play out once they’re adults.

Of course, kids do resemble their parents. But just as we probably can’t say it was attentive parenting that gave me my mother’s nose, perhaps we can’t say it was attentive parenting that made me succeed at school. Both the social environment we grow up in and the genes we receive from our parents influence the person we become, and looking at a typical family we can’t really distinguish the impact of one from the other.

But nature does offer us up a random experiment that can let us tell the difference: identical twins share all their genes, while fraternal twins only share half their genes. If you look at how much more similar outcomes are for identical twins than fraternal twins, you see the effect of sharing 100% of your genetic material, rather than the usual 50%. Double that amount, and you’ve got the full effect of genetic inheritance. Whatever unexplained variation remains is still up for grabs — and might be down to different experiences in the home, outside the home, or just random noise.

The crazy thing about this research is that it says for a range of adult outcomes (e.g. years of education, income, health, personality, and happiness), it’s differences in the genes children inherit rather than differences in parental behaviour that are doing most of the work. Other research suggests that differences in “out-of-home environment,” such as the friends one makes at school, take second place. Parenting style does matter for something, but it comes in a clear third.

You might think that these studies are accidentally recruiting parents who are all unusually competent, by including only the kind of people who respond to letters asking them to participate in a university study of twin behaviour. But in fact that effect is small, because many countries and hospitals have enrolled twins in this research almost by default, and academics can check on some kinds of outcomes using tax, death, and court records, which include almost everyone.

Bryan lays out all the above in his book Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent Is Less Work And More Fun Than You Think.

He is quick to point out that there are several factors that help reconcile these findings with conventional wisdom about the importance of parenting.

First, for some adult outcomes, parenting was a big deal (i.e. the quality of the parent/child relationship) or at least a moderate deal (i.e. drug use, criminality, and religious/political identity).

Second, these are adult outcomes — parents can and do influence you quite a lot, so long as you’re young and still living with them. But as soon as you move out, the influence of their behaviour begins to wane and eventually becomes hard to spot.

Third, this research only studies variation in parenting behaviour that was common among the families studied. The studies are just mute on anything that wasn’t actually done by many parents in their sample.

And fourth, research on international adoptions shows they can cause massive improvements in health, income and other outcomes. So a large enough change in one’s entire environment, say from Haiti to the United States, does matter, even if moving between families within the United States has modest effects.

Despite all that, the findings are still remarkable, and imply many hyper-diligent parents could live much less stressful lives without doing their kids any harm at all. In this extensive interview host Rob Wiblin interrogates whether Bryan can really be right, or whether the research he’s drawing on has taken a wrong turn somewhere.

And that’s just one topic we cover, some of the others being:

People’s biggest misconceptions about the labour market
Arguments against high levels of immigration
Whether most people actually vote based on self-interest
Whether philosophy should stick to common sense or depart from it radically
How to weigh personal autonomy against the possible benefits of government regulation
Bryan’s track record of winning 23 out of 23 bets about how the future would play out
And much more

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type ‘80,000 Hours’ into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#125 – Joan Rohlfing on how to avoid catastrophic nuclear blunders

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published March 29th, 2022

Since the Soviet Union split into different countries in 1991, the pervasive fear of catastrophe that people lived with for decades has gradually faded from memory, and nuclear warhead stockpiles have declined by 83%. Nuclear brinksmanship, proxy wars, and the game theory of mutually assured destruction (MAD) have come to feel like relics of another era.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has changed all that.

According to Joan Rohlfing — President of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit focused on reducing threats from nuclear and biological weapons — the annual risk of a ‘global catastrophic nuclear event’‘ never fell as low as people like to think, and for some time has been on its way back up.

At the same time, civil society funding for research and advocacy around nuclear risks is being cut in half over a period of years — despite the fact that at $60 million a year, it was already just a thousandth as much as the US spends maintaining its nuclear deterrent.

If new funding sources are not identified to replace donors that are withdrawing (like the MacArthur Foundation), the existing pool of talent will have to leave for greener pastures, and most of the next generation will see a career in the field as unviable.

While global poverty is on the decline and life expectancy increasing, the chance of a catastrophic nuclear event is probably trending in the wrong direction.

Joan points out that the New START treaty, which dramatically limits the number of warheads the US and Russia can deploy at one time, narrowly survived in 2021 due to the election of Joe Biden. But it will again require renewal in 2026, which may or may not happen, depending on whether the relationship between the two great powers can be repaired over the next four years.

Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for security guarantees that turned out not to be worth the paper they were written on. States that have nuclear weapons (such as North Korea), states that are pursuing them (such as Iran), and states that have pursued nuclear weapons but since abandoned them (such as Libya, Syria, and South Africa) may take this as a valuable lesson in the importance of military power over promises.

China has been expanding its arsenal and testing hypersonic glide missiles that can evade missile defences. Japan now toys with the idea of nuclear weapons as a way to ensure its security against its much larger neighbour. India and Pakistan both acquired nuclear weapons in the late 1980s and their relationship continues to oscillate from hostile to civil and back.

At the same time, the risk that nuclear weapons could be interfered with due to weaknesses in computer security is far higher than during the Cold War, when systems were simpler and less networked.

In the interview, Joan discusses several steps that can be taken in the immediate term, such as renewed efforts to extend and expand arms control treaties, changes to nuclear use policy, and the retirement of what they see as vulnerable delivery systems, such as land-based silos.

In the bigger picture, NTI seeks to keep hope alive that a better system than deterrence through mutually assured destruction remains possible. The threat of retaliation does indeed make nuclear wars unlikely, but it necessarily means the system fails in an incredibly destructive way: with the death of hundreds of millions if not billions.

In the long run, even a tiny 1 in 500 risk of a nuclear war each year adds up to around an 18% chance of catastrophe over the century.

Joan concedes that MAD was probably the best available system for preventing the use of nuclear weapons in 1950. But we’ve had 70 years of advances in technology since then that have opened up new possibilities, such as far more reliable surveillance than could have been dreamed up by Truman and Stalin. But MAD has been the conventional wisdom for so long that almost nobody is working on alternative paradigms.

In this conversation we cover all that, as well as:

How arms control treaties have evolved over the last few decades
Whether lobbying by arms manufacturers is an important factor shaping nuclear strategy
Places listeners could work at or donate to
The Biden Nuclear Posture Review
How easily humanity might recover from a nuclear exchange
Implications for the use of nuclear energy

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type ‘80,000 Hours’ into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#124 – Karen Levy on fads and misaligned incentives in global development, and scaling deworming to reach hundreds of millions

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published March 21st, 2022

If someone said a global health and development programme was sustainable, participatory, and holistic, you’d have to guess that they were saying something positive. But according to today’s guest Karen Levy — deworming pioneer and veteran of Innovations for Poverty Action, Evidence Action, and Y Combinator — each of those three concepts has become so fashionable that they’re at risk of being seriously overrated and applied where they don’t belong.

Such concepts might even cause harm — trying to make a project embody all three is as likely to ruin it as help it flourish.

First, what do people mean by ‘sustainability’? Usually they mean something like the programme will eventually be able to continue without needing further financial support from the donor. But how is that possible? Governments, nonprofits, and aid agencies aim to provide health services, education, infrastructure, financial services, and so on — and all of these require ongoing funding to pay for materials and staff to keep them running.

I buy my groceries from a supermarket, and I’m not under the illusion that one day I’ll be able to stop paying and still get everything I need for free. And there’s nothing wrong with this way of getting life’s necessities being ‘unsustainable’ — so long as I want groceries, I’ll keep paying for them.

Given that someone needs to keep paying, Karen tells us that in practice, ‘sustainability’ is usually a euphemism for the programme at some point being passed on to someone else to fund — usually the national government. And while that can be fine, the national government of Kenya only spends $400 per person to provide each and every government service — just 2% of what the US spends on each resident. Incredibly tight budgets like that are typical of low-income countries. While the concept of ‘sustainability’ sounds great, to say “We’re going to pass the cost of this programme on to a government funded by very poor people’s taxes” sounds at best ambiguous.

‘Participatory’ also sounds nice, and inasmuch as it means leaders are accountable to the people they’re trying to help, it probably is. But Karen tells us that in the field, ‘participatory’ usually means that recipients are expected to be involved in planning and delivering services themselves.

While that might be suitable in some situations, it’s hardly something people in rich countries always want for themselves. Ideally we want government healthcare and education to be high quality without us having to attend meetings to keep it on track — and people in poor countries have as many or more pressures on their time. While accountability is desirable, an expectation of participation can be as much a burden as a blessing.

Finally, making a programme ‘holistic’ could be smart, but as Karen lays out, it also has some major downsides. For one, it means you’re doing lots of things at once, which makes it hard to tell which parts of the project are making the biggest difference relative to their cost. For another, when you have a lot of goals at once, it’s hard to tell whether you’re making progress, or really put your mind to focusing on making one thing go extremely well. And finally, holistic programmes can be impractically expensive — Karen tells the story of a wonderful ‘holistic school health’ programme that, if continued, was going to cost 3.5 times the entire school’s budget.

Smallpox elimination was one of humanity’s greatest health achievements and its focus on one thing to the exclusion of all else made it the complete opposite of a holistic program.

In today’s in-depth conversation, Karen Levy and I chat about the above, as well as:

Why it pays to figure out how you’ll interpret the results of an experiment ahead of time
The trouble with misaligned incentives within the development industry
Projects that don’t deliver value for money and should be scaled down
Whether governments typically pay for a project once outside funding is withdrawn
How Karen accidentally became a leading figure in the push to deworm tens of millions of schoolchildren
Logistical challenges in reaching huge numbers of people with essential services
How Karen has enjoyed living in Kenya for several decades
Lessons from Karen’s many-decades career
The goals of Karen’s new project: Fit for Purpose

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type “80,000 Hours” into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell and Ryan Kessler
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#123 – Samuel Charap on why Putin invaded Ukraine, the risk of escalation, and how to prevent disaster

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published March 14th, 2022

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is devastating the lives of Ukrainians, and so long as it continues there’s a risk that the conflict could escalate to include other countries or the use of nuclear weapons. It’s essential that NATO, the US, and the EU play their cards right to ideally end the violence, maintain Ukrainian sovereignty, and discourage any similar invasions in the future.

But how? To pull together the most valuable information on how to react to this crisis, we spoke with Samuel Charap — a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, one of the US’s foremost experts on Russia’s relationship with former Soviet states, and co-author of Everyone Loses: The Ukraine Crisis and the Ruinous Contest for Post-Soviet Eurasia.

Samuel believes that Putin views the alignment of Ukraine with NATO as an existential threat to Russia — a perhaps unreasonable view, but a sincere one nevertheless. Ukraine has been drifting further into Western Europe’s orbit and improving its defensive military capabilities, so Putin has concluded that if Russia wants to put a stop to that, there will never be a better time to act in the future.

Despite early successes holding off the Russian military, Samuel is sceptical that time is on the Ukrainian side. Though it won’t be able to create a puppet government Ukrainians view as legitimate, if committed to the task, Russia will likely gradually grind down Ukrainian resistance and take formal control of the country. If the war is to end before much of Ukraine is reduced to rubble, it will likely have to be through negotiation, rather than Russian defeat.

Many hope for Putin to be ousted from office, but Samuel cautions that he has enormous control of the Russian government and the media Russians consume, making that very unlikely in the near term. Furthermore, someone who successfully booted Putin from office is just as likely to be even more of an intransigent hardliner as they are to be a dove. In the meantime, loose talk of assassinating Putin could drive him to further reckless aggression.

The US policy response has so far been largely good, successfully balancing the need to punish Russia to dissuade large nations from bullying small ones in the future, while preventing NATO from being drawn into the war directly — which would pose a horrifying risk of escalation to a full nuclear exchange. The pressure from the general public to ‘do something’ might eventually cause national leaders to confront Russia more directly, but so far they are sensibly showing no interest in doing so.

However, use of nuclear weapons remains a low but worrying possibility. That could happen in various ways, such as:

NATO shoots down Russian planes to enforce a no-fly zone — a problematic idea in Samuel’s opinion.
An unintentional cycle of mutual escalation between Russia and NATO, perhaps starting with cyber attacks, or Russian bombs accidentally landing in NATO countries that neighbour Ukraine.
Putin ends up with his back against the wall and believes he can no longer win the war or defend Russia without using tactical nuclear weapons.
Putin decides to invade a country other than Ukraine.

Samuel is also worried that Russia may deploy chemical and biological weapons and blame it on the Ukrainians.

In Samuel’s opinion, the recent focus on the delivery of fighter jets to Ukraine is risky and not the key defence priority in any case. Instead, Ukraine could use more ground-to-air missiles to shoot Russian planes out of the sky.

Before war broke out, it’s possible Russia could have been satisfied if Ukraine followed through on the Minsk agreements and committed not to join NATO. Or it might not have, if Putin was committed to war, come what may. In any case, most Ukrainians found those terms intolerable.

At this point, the situation is even worse, and it’s hard to see how an enduring ceasefire could be agreed upon. On top of the above, Russia is also demanding recognition that Crimea is part of Russia, and acceptance of the independence of the so-calked Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. These conditions — especially the second — are entirely unacceptable to the Ukrainians. Hence the war continues, and could grind on for months until one side is sufficiently beaten down to compromise on their core demands.

Rob and Samuel discuss all of the above and also:

What are the implications if Sweden and/or Finland decide to join NATO?
What should NATO do now, and did it make any mistakes in the past?
What’s the most likely situation for us to be looking at in three months’ time?
Can Ukraine effectively win the war?

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type ‘80,000 Hours’ into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#122 – Michelle Hutchinson & Habiba Islam on balancing competing priorities and other themes from our 1-on-1 careers advising

By Michelle Hutchinson, Habiba Islam, Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published March 9th, 2022

One of 80,000 Hours’ main services is our free one-on-one careers advising, which we provide to around 1,000 people a year. Today we speak to two of our advisors, who have each spoken to hundreds of people — including many regular listeners to this show — about how they might be able to do more good while also having a highly motivating career.

Before joining 80,000 Hours, Michelle Hutchinson completed a PhD in Philosophy at Oxford University and helped launch Oxford’s Global Priorities Institute, while Habiba Islam studied politics, philosophy, and economics at Oxford University and qualified as a barrister.

Want to get free one-on-one advice from our team? We’re here to help.

We’ve helped thousands of people formulate their plans and put them in touch with mentors.

We’ve expanded our ability to deliver one-on-one meetings so are keen to help more people than ever before.

If you’re a regular listener to the show we’re particularly likely to want to speak with you, either now or in the future.

Learn about and apply for advising

In this conversation, they cover many topics that recur in their advising calls, and what they’ve learned from watching advisees’ careers play out:

What they say when advisees want to help solve overpopulation
How to balance doing good against other priorities that people have for their lives
Why it’s challenging to motivate yourself to focus on the long-term future of humanity, and how Michelle and Habiba do so nonetheless
How they use our latest guide to planning your career
Why you can specialise and take more risk if you’re in a group
Gaps in the effective altruism community it would be really useful for people to fill
Stories of people who have spoken to 80,000 Hours and changed their career — and whether it went well or not
Why trying to have impact in multiple different ways can be a mistake

The episode is split into two parts: the first section on The 80,000 Hours Podcast, and the second on our new 80k After Hours. This is a shameless attempt to encourage listeners to our first show to subscribe to our second feed.

That second part covers:

Whether just encouraging someone young to aspire to more than they currently are is one of the most impactful ways to spend half an hour
How much impact the one-on-one team has, the biggest challenges they face as a group, and different paths they could have gone down
Whether giving general advice is a doomed enterprise

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type ‘80,000 Hours’ into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#121 – Matthew Yglesias on avoiding the pundit's fallacy and how much military intervention can be used for good

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published February 16th, 2022

If you read polls saying that the public supports a carbon tax, should you believe them? According to today’s guest — journalist and blogger Matthew Yglesias — it’s complicated, but probably not.

Interpreting opinion polls about specific policies can be a challenge, and it’s easy to trick yourself into believing what you want to believe. Matthew invented a term for a particular type of self-delusion called the ‘pundit’s fallacy’: “the belief that what a politician needs to do to improve his or her political standing is do what the pundit wants substantively.”

If we want to advocate not just for ideas that would be good if implemented, but ideas that have a real shot at getting implemented, we should do our best to understand public opinion as it really is.

The least trustworthy polls are published by think tanks and advocacy campaigns that would love to make their preferred policy seem popular. These surveys can be designed to nudge respondents toward the desired result — for example, by tinkering with question wording and order or shifting how participants are sampled. And if a poll produces the ‘wrong answer’, there’s no need to publish it at all, so the ‘publication bias’ with these sorts of surveys is large.

Matthew says polling run by firms or researchers without any particular desired outcome can be taken more seriously. But the results that we ought to give by far the most weight are those from professional political campaigns trying to win votes and get their candidate elected because they have both the expertise to do polling properly, and a very strong incentive to understand what the public really thinks.

First and foremost, that means representing issues as they would be in a hotly contested campaign. If someone says that they sure like the idea of taxing carbon, how much do they still like it when they find out it means their electricity bills would be $100 higher, and gas will cost 20 cents more a gallon? And do they still like it when they know one of the candidates is against it and says it will cost local jobs? This sort of progressive ‘stress testing’ is more work, but can lead researchers to very different conclusions than just asking people favour ‘policy X’.

The problem is, campaigns run these expensive surveys because they think that having exclusive access to reliable information will give them a competitive advantage. As a result, they often don’t publish the findings, and instead use them to shape what their candidate says and does.

Journalists like Matthew can call up their contacts within campaigns and get a summary from people they trust. But being unable to publish the polling itself, they’re unlikely to be able to persuade sceptics.

That’s a pain and a legitimately hard problem to get around. But when assessing what ideas are winners, one thing Matthew would like everyone to keep in mind is that politics is competitive, and politicians aren’t (all) stupid. If advocating for your pet idea were a great way to win elections, someone would try it and win, and others would copy. If none of the pros are talking about your hobby horse, it might be because they know something you don’t.

One other thing to check that’s more reliable than polling is real-world experience. For example, voters may say they like a carbon tax on the phone — but the very liberal Washington State roundly rejected one in ballot initiatives in 2016 and 2018.

Of course you may want to advocate for what you think is best, even if it wouldn’t pass a popular vote in the face of organised opposition. The public’s ideas can shift, sometimes dramatically and unexpectedly. But at least you’ll be going into the debate with your eyes wide open.

In this extensive conversation, host Rob Wiblin and Matthew also cover:

How should a humanitarian think about US military interventions overseas?
From an ‘effective altruist’ perspective, was the US wrong to withdraw from Afghanistan?
Has NATO ultimately screwed over Ukrainians by misrepresenting the extent of its commitment to their independence?
What philosopher does Matthew think is underrated?
How big a risk is ubiquitous surveillance?
What does Matthew think about wild animal suffering, anti-ageing research, and autonomous weapons?
And much more

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#120 – Audrey Tang on what we can learn from Taiwan's experiments with how to do democracy

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published February 2nd, 2022

In 2014 Taiwan was rocked by mass protests against a proposed trade agreement with China that was about to be agreed to without the usual Parliamentary hearings. Students invaded and took over the Parliament. But rather than chant slogans, instead they livestreamed their own parliamentary debate over the trade deal, allowing volunteers to speak both in favour and against.

Instead of polarising the country more, this so-called Sunflower Student Movement ultimately led to a bipartisan consensus that Taiwan should open up its government. That process has gradually made it one of the most communicative and interactive administrations anywhere in the world.

Today’s guest — programming prodigy Audrey Tang — initially joined the student protests to help get their streaming infrastructure online. After the students got the official hearings they wanted and went home, she was invited to consult for the government. And when the government later changed hands, she was invited to work in the ministry herself.

During six years as the country’s ‘Digital Minister’ she has been helping Taiwan increase the flow of information between institutions and civil society and launched original experiments trying to make democracy itself work better.

That includes developing new tools to identify points of consensus between groups that mostly disagree, building social media platforms optimised for discussing policy issues, helping volunteers fight disinformation by making their own memes, and allowing the public to build their own alternatives to government websites whenever they don’t like how they currently work.

As part of her ministerial role, Audrey also sets aside time each week to help online volunteers working on government-related tech projects get the help they need. How does she decide who to help? She doesn’t — that decision is made by members of an online community who upvote the projects they think are best.

According to Audrey, a more collaborative mentality among the country’s leaders has helped increase public trust in government, and taught bureaucrats that they can (usually) trust the public in return.

Innovations in Taiwan may offer useful lessons to people who want to improve humanity’s ability to make decisions and get along in large groups anywhere in the world. We cover:

Why it makes sense to treat Facebook as a nightclub
The value of having no reply button, and of getting more specific when you disagree
Quadratic voting and funding
Audrey’s experiences with the Sunflower Student Movement
Technologies Audrey is most excited about
Conservative anarchism
What Audrey’s day-to-day work looks like
Whether it’s ethical to eat oysters
And much more

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#119 – Andrew Yang on our very long-term future, and other topics most politicians won't touch

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published December 20th, 2021

Andrew Yang — past presidential candidate, founder of the Forward Party, and leader of the ‘Yang Gang’ — is kind of a big deal, but is particularly popular among listeners to The 80,000 Hours Podcast.

Maybe that’s because he’s willing to embrace topics most politicians stay away from, like universal basic income, term limits for members of Congress, or what might happen when AI replaces whole industries.

But even those topics are pretty vanilla compared to our usual fare on The 80,000 Hours Podcast. So we thought it’d be fun to throw Andrew some stranger or more niche questions we hadn’t heard him comment on before, including:

What would your ideal utopia in 500 years look like?
Do we need more public optimism today?
Is positively influencing the long-term future a key moral priority of our time?
Should we invest far more to prevent low-probability risks?
Should we think of future generations as an interest group that’s disenfranchised by their inability to vote?
The folks who worry that advanced AI is going to go off the rails and destroy us all… are they crazy, or a valuable insurance policy?
Will people struggle to live fulfilling lives once AI systems remove the economic need to ‘work’?
Andrew is a huge proponent of ranked-choice voting. But what about ‘approval voting’ — where basically you just get to say “yea” or “nay” to every candidate that’s running — which some experts prefer?
What would Andrew do with a billion dollars to keep the US a democracy?
What does Andrew think about the effective altruism community?
What’s one thing we should do to reduce the risk of nuclear war?
Will Andrew’s new political party get Trump elected by splitting the vote, the same way Nader got Bush elected back in 2000?

As it turns out, Rob and Andrew agree on a lot, so the episode is less a debate than a chat about ideas that aren’t mainstream yet… but might be one day. They also talk about:

Andrew’s views on alternative meat
Whether seniors have too much power in American society
Andrew’s DC lobbying firm on behalf of humanity
How the rest of the world could support the US
The merits of 18-year term limits
What technologies Andrew is most excited about
How much the US should spend on foreign aid
Persistence and prevalence of inflation in the US economy
And plenty more

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#118 – Jaime Yassif on safeguarding bioscience to prevent catastrophic lab accidents and bioweapons development

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published December 13th, 2021

If a rich country were really committed to pursuing an active biological weapons program, there’s not much we could do to stop them. With enough money and persistence, they’d be able to buy equipment, and hire people to carry out the work.

But what we can do is intervene before they make that decision.

Today’s guest, Jaime Yassif — Senior Fellow for global biological policy and programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) — thinks that stopping states from wanting to pursue dangerous bioscience in the first place is one of our key lines of defence against global catastrophic biological risks (GCBRs).

It helps to understand why countries might consider developing biological weapons. Jaime says there are three main possible reasons:

Fear of what their adversary might be up to
Belief that they could gain a tactical or strategic advantage, with limited risk of getting caught
Belief that even if they are caught, they are unlikely to be held accountable

In response, Jaime has developed a three-part recipe to create systems robust enough to meaningfully change the cost-benefit calculation.

The first is to substantially increase transparency. If countries aren’t confident about what their neighbours or adversaries are actually up to, misperceptions could lead to arms races that neither side desires. But if you know with confidence that no one around you is pursuing a biological weapons programme, you won’t feel motivated to pursue one yourself.

The second is to strengthen the capabilities of the United Nations’ system to
investigate the origins of high-consequence biological events — whether naturally emerging, accidental or deliberate — and to make sure that the responsibility to figure out the source of bio-events of unknown origin doesn’t fall between the cracks of different existing mechanisms. The ability to quickly discover the source of emerging pandemics is important both for responding to them in real time and for deterring future bioweapons development or use.

And the third is meaningful accountability. States need to know that the consequences for getting caught in a deliberate attack are severe enough to make it a net negative in expectation to go down this road in the first place.

On top of this, Jaime also thinks it’s vitally important to get better at anticipating threats. She thinks governments around the world should be investing more in biosecurity intelligence — to find out early if other states or non-state actors are developing a fledgling interest in developing biological weapons.

But having a good plan and actually implementing it are two very different things, and today’s episode focuses heavily on the practical steps we should be taking to influence both governments and international organisations, like the WHO and UN — and to help them maximise their effectiveness in guarding against catastrophic biological risks.

Jaime and Rob explore NTI’s current proposed plan for reducing global catastrophic biological risks, and discuss:

The importance of reducing emerging biological risks associated with rapid technology advances
How we can make it a lot harder for anyone to deliberately or accidentally produce or release a really dangerous pathogen
The importance of having multiples theories of risk reduction
Why Jaime’s more focused on prevention than response
Multiple intervention points for reducing risks throughout the bioscience R&D lifecycle: funders, research oversight committees, suppliers of goods and services, and publishers
The history of the Biological Weapons Convention
How much we can rely on traditional law enforcement to detect terrorists
Jaime’s disagreements with the effective altruism community
And much more

And if you think you might be interested in dedicating your career to reducing GCBRs, stick around to the end of the episode to get Jaime’s advice — including on how people outside of the US can best contribute, and how to compare career opportunities in academia vs think tanks, and nonprofits vs national governments vs international orgs.

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ryan Kessler
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#117 – David Denkenberger on using paper mills and seaweed to feed everyone in a catastrophe, ft Sahil Shah

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published November 29th, 2021

If there’s a nuclear war followed by nuclear winter, and the sun is blocked out for years, most of us are going to starve, right? Well, currently, probably we would, because humanity hasn’t done much to prevent it. But it turns out that an ounce of forethought might be enough for most people to get the calories they need to survive, even in a future as grim as that one.

Today’s guest is engineering professor Dave Denkenberger, who co-founded the Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED), which has the goal of finding ways humanity might be able to feed itself for years without relying on the sun. Over the last seven years, Dave and his team have turned up options from the mundane, like mushrooms grown on rotting wood, to the bizarre, like bacteria that can eat natural gas or electricity itself.

One option stands out as potentially able to feed billions: finding a way to eat wood ourselves. Even after a disaster, a huge amount of calories will be lying around, stored in wood and other plant cellulose. The trouble is that, even though cellulose is basically a lot of sugar molecules stuck together, humans can’t eat wood.

But we do know how to turn wood into something people can eat. We can grind wood up in already existing paper mills, then mix the pulp with enzymes that break the cellulose into sugar and the hemicellulose into other sugars.

Dave estimates that “…if hypothetically you were to feed one person all of their calories this way, it’s only about a dollar a day from cellulosic sugar. … It’s particularly cheap because we have these factories that have most of the components already. … Because we’re trying to feed everyone no matter what, we want to look at those resilient foods that are inexpensive.”

Another option that shows a lot of promise is seaweed. Buffered by the water around them, ocean life wouldn’t be as affected by the lower temperatures resulting from the sun being obscured. Sea plants are also already used to growing in low light, because the water above them already shades them to some extent.

Dave points out that “there are several species of seaweed that can still grow 10% per day, even with the lower light levels in nuclear winter and lower temperatures. … Not surprisingly, with that 10% growth per day, assuming we can scale up, we could actually get up to 160% of human calories in less than a year.”

But to get that sort of growth, humanity would need vast numbers of places for seaweed to attach, and to hang the strands close to the surface of the sea, where they can get the greatest amount of light. The solution is to attach it to ropes and suspend them from buoys that are anchored to the ocean floor but float on the top.

Dave’s team has estimated that “the main constraint here is twisting fibers into ropes that we’re going to attach the seaweed to. We found that right now, we don’t produce that much rope — we would actually have to increase our rope-twisting capability by 300 times, which sounds kind of crazy. But it’s actually a really simple process, and people have done it in their garage with a drill, basically twisting these fibers.”

Of course it will be easier to scale up seaweed production if it’s already a reasonably sized industry. At the end of the interview, we’re joined by Sahil Shah, who is trying to expand seaweed production in the UK with his business Sustainable Seaweed.

While a diet of seaweed and trees turned into sugar might not seem that appealing, the team at ALLFED also thinks several perfectly normal crops could also make a big contribution to feeding the world, even in a truly catastrophic scenario. Those crops include potatoes, canola, and sugar beets, which are currently grown in cool low-light environments.

ALLFED even thinks humanity could throw together huge numbers of low-tech greenhouses, which would stay 5–10°C warmer than the surrounding area and allow agriculture to continue similar to before. Cost is always the issue, but Dave expects the price of basic greenhouses wouldn’t be prohibitive: “…if we look at the cost of rice, we might add another dollar a day, so you might be up to $2 a day or something like that.”

Many of these ideas could turn out to be misguided or impractical in real-world conditions, which is why Dave and ALLFED are raising money to test them out on the ground. They think it’s essential to show these techniques can work so that should the worst happen, people turn their attention to producing more food rather than fighting one another over the small amount of food humanity has stockpiled.

In this conversation, Rob, Dave, and Sahil discuss the above, as well as:

How much one can trust the sort of economic modelling ALLFED does
Bacteria that turn natural gas or electricity into protein
How to feed astronauts in space with nuclear power
Jobs at ALLFED and what they’d do with more money
What, if anything, individuals can do to prepare themselves for global catastrophes
Whether we should worry about humanity running out of natural resources
How David helped save $10 billion worth of electricity through energy efficiency standards
And much more

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#116 – Luisa Rodriguez on why global catastrophes seem unlikely to kill us all

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published November 19th, 2021

If modern human civilisation collapsed — as a result of nuclear war, severe climate change, or a much worse pandemic than COVID-19 — billions of people might die.

That’s terrible enough to contemplate. But what’s the probability that rather than recover, the survivors would falter and humanity would actually disappear for good?

It’s an obvious enough question, but very few people have spent serious time looking into it — possibly because it cuts across history, economics, and biology, among many other fields. There’s no Disaster Apocalypse Studies department at any university, and governments have little incentive to plan for a future in which almost everyone is dead and their country probably no longer even exists.

The person who may have spent the most time looking at this specific question is Luisa Rodriguez — who has conducted research at Rethink Priorities, Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute, the Forethought Foundation, and now here, at 80,000 Hours.

She wrote a series of articles earnestly trying to foresee how likely humanity would be to recover and build back after a full-on civilisational collapse.

In addition to being a fascinating topic in itself, if you buy philosopher Derek Parfit’s argument that the loss of all future generations entailed by human extinction would be a much greater moral tragedy than the deaths of even as many as 99% of humans alive, it’s also a question of great practical importance.

Luisa considered two distinct paths by which a global catastrophe and collapse could lead to extinction.

The first is direct extinction, where, say, 99.99% of people die, and then everyone else dies relatively quickly after that.

There are a couple of main stories people put forward for how a catastrophe like this would kill every single human on Earth — but as we’ll explain below, Luisa doesn’t buy them.

Story One:

Nuclear war has led to nuclear winter. There’s a 10-year period during which a lot of the world is really inhospitable to agriculture, and it takes a lot of ingenuity to find or grow any alternative foods. The survivors just aren’t able to figure out how to feed themselves in the time period, so everyone dies of starvation or cold.

Why Luisa doesn’t buy it:

Catastrophes will almost inevitably be non-uniform in their effects. If 80,000 people survive, they’re not all going to be in the same city — it would look more like groups of 5,000 in a bunch of different places.

People in some places will starve, but those in other places, such as New Zealand, will be able to fish, eat seaweed, grow potatoes, and find other sources of calories. Likewise, people in some places might face local disease outbreaks or be hit by natural disasters — but people will be scattered far apart enough that other groups won’t be affected by regional disasters.

It’d be an incredibly unlucky coincidence if the survivors of a nuclear war — likely spread out all over the world — happened to all be affected by natural disasters or were all prohibitively far away from areas suitable for agriculture (which aren’t the same areas you’d expect to be attacked in a nuclear war).

Story Two:

The catastrophe leads to hoarding and violence, and in addition to people being directly killed by the conflict, it distracts everyone so much from the key challenge of reestablishing agriculture that they simply fail. By the time they come to their senses, it’s too late — they’ve used up too much of the resources they’d need to get agriculture going again.

Why Luisa doesn’t buy it:

We’ve had lots of resource scarcity throughout history, and while we’ve seen examples of conflict petering out because basic needs aren’t being met, we’ve never seen the reverse.

And again, even if this happens in some places — even if some groups fought each other until they literally ended up starving to death — it would be completely bizarre for it to happen to every group in the world. You just need one group of around 300 people to survive for them to be able to rebuild the species.

———

The other pathway Luisa studied is indirect extinction: where humanity stabilises things and persists for hundreds or thousands of years, but for some reason gets stuck and never recovers to the level of technology we have today — leaving us vulnerable to something like an asteroid or a supervolcano.

But Luisa isn’t too worried about that scenario either.

Luisa’s best guess for how long it might take to recover — given that we’d already have the knowledge that agriculture and even more advanced technologies are possible, as well as artifacts to reverse engineer — is a couple thousand years at the longest.

And because it seems like the natural rate of extinction for humanity as a hunter-gatherer species has to be pretty low — otherwise we probably wouldn’t have been around in one form or another for 100,000 to a million years — it just seems like humanity would probably have plenty of time to rebuild.

When Luisa started this project, she thought, “I don’t know how to do any of the stuff we’d need to survive — I couldn’t grow a potato if my life depended on it, let alone reestablish more complex technologies. We’d be doomed.” But some wild examples of human ingenuity from the past made her realise that maybe other people are a bit more practical than she is, such as:

During the Serbian bombing of Bosnia, people generated electricity by pulling engines out of cars and putting them into rivers in a way that generated hydropower.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba realised they were going to lose their access to trucks — so they spent years breeding oxen to manually plough fields, which allowed them to keep generating food.
In World War II, people in POW camps built radios out of things like gum wrappers and pennies — allowing them to listen to music and the news.

Even just the fact that two billion people alive today practise subsistence farming — and therefore already know much more than she does about producing food — made Luisa realise that while she might be especially poorly equipped to survive a catastrophe, that doesn’t mean everyone else would be.

And having collected all this knowledge, Luisa admits that she too will now be a valuable member of a post-apocalyptic world!

In this wide-ranging and free-flowing conversation, Luisa and Rob also cover:

What the world might actually look like after one of these catastrophes
The most valuable knowledge for survivors
What we can learn from fallen ancient civilisations and smaller-scale disasters in modern times
The risk of culture shifting against science and tech
How fast populations could rebound
Implications for what we ought to do right now
‘Boom and bust’ climate change scenarios
And much more.

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#115 – David Wallace on the many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics and its implications

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published November 12th, 2021

Quantum mechanics — our best theory of atoms, molecules, and the subatomic particles that make them up — underpins most of modern physics. But there are varying interpretations of what it means, all of them controversial in their own way.

Famously, quantum theory predicts that with the right setup, a cat can be made to be alive and dead at the same time. On the face of it, that sounds either meaningless or ridiculous.

According to today’s guest, David Wallace — professor at the University of Pittsburgh and one of the world’s leading philosophers of physics — there are three broad ways experts react to this apparent dilemma:

The theory must be wrong, and we need to change our philosophy to fix it.
The theory must be wrong, and we need to change our physics to fix it.
The theory is OK, and cats really can in some way be alive and dead simultaneously.

Physicists tend to want to change the philosophy, and philosophers want to change the physics.

In 1955, physicist Hugh Everett bit the bullet on Option 3 and proposed Wallace’s preferred solution to the puzzle: each time it’s faced with a ‘quantum choice,’ the universe ‘splits’ into different worlds. Anything that has a probability greater than zero (from the perspective of quantum theory) happens in some branch — though more probable things happen in far more branches.

This explanation of quantum physics, called the ‘Everettian interpretation’ or ‘many-worlds theory,’ does seem a little crazy. But quantum physics already seems crazy, and that doesn’t make it wrong. While not a consensus position, the many-worlds approach is one of the top three most popular ways to make sense of what’s going on, according to surveys of relevant experts.

Setting aside whether it’s correct for a moment, one thing that’s not often spelled out is what this many-worlds approach would concretely imply if it were right.

Is there a world where Rob (the show’s host) can roll a die a million times, and it comes up 6 every time?

As David explains in this episode: absolutely, that’s completely possible — and if Rob rolled a die a million times, there would be a world like that.

Is there a world where Rob can fly like Superman?

No, that’s physically impossible and quantum randomness doesn’t change that.

Is there a world where Rob becomes president of the US?

David thinks probably not. The things stopping Rob from becoming US president don’t seem down to random chance at the quantum level.

Is there a world where Rob deliberately murdered someone this morning?

Only if he’s already predisposed to murder — becoming a different person in that way probably isn’t a matter of random fluctuations in our brains.

Is there a world where a horse-version of Rob hosts the 80,000 Horses Podcast?

Well, due to the chance involved in evolution, it’s plausible that there are worlds where humans didn’t evolve, and intelligent horses have in some sense taken their place. And somewhere, fantastically distantly across the vast multiverse, there might even be a horse named Rob Wiblin who hosts a podcast, and who sounds remarkably like Rob. Though even then — it wouldn’t actually be Rob in the way we normally think of personal identity.

OK. So if the many-worlds interpretation is right, should that change how we live our lives?

Despite it revolutionising our understanding of what the universe is, David’s view is that it mostly shouldn’t change our actions.

Maybe you now think of a time you drove home drunk without incident as being worse — because there are branches where you actually killed someone. But David thinks that if you’d thought clearly enough about low-probability/high-consequence events, you should already have been very worried about them.

In addition to the above, Rob asks a bunch of burning questions he had about what all this might mean for ethics, including:

Are our actions getting more (or less) important as the universe splits into finer and finer threads?
If the branching of the universe creates more goodness by there being more stuff, then should we want to do the unpleasant things earlier and pleasant things later on?
Is there any way that we could conceivably influence other branches of the multiverse?

David and Rob do their best to introduce quantum mechanics in the first 35 minutes of the episode, but it isn’t the easiest thing to explain via audio alone. So if you need a refresher before jumping in, we recommend this YouTube video.

While exploring what David calls our “best theory of pretty much everything,” they also cover:

Why quantum mechanics needs an interpretation at all
Alternatives to the many-worlds interpretation and what they have going for them
Whether we can count the number of ‘worlds’ that would exist
The debate around what quantum mechanics is, and why a consensus answer hasn’t emerged
Progress in physics over the last 50 years, and the practical value of physics today
The peculiar philosophy of time
And much more

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ryan Kessler
Transcriptions: Sofia Davis-Fogel and Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#114 – Maha Rehman on working with governments to rapidly deliver masks to millions of people

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published October 22nd, 2021

It’s hard to believe, but until recently there had never been a large field trial that addressed these simple and obvious questions:

When ordinary people wear face masks, does it actually reduce the spread of respiratory diseases?
And if so, how do you get people to wear masks more often?

It turns out the first question is remarkably challenging to answer, but it’s well worth doing nonetheless. Among other reasons, the first good trial of this prompted Maha Rehman — Policy Director at the Mahbub Ul Haq Research Centre — as well as a range of others to immediately use the findings to help tens of millions of people across South Asia, even before the results were public.

The groundbreaking Bangladesh RCT that inspired her to take action found that:

A 30% increase in mask wearing reduced total infections by 10%.
The effect was more pronounced for surgical masks compared to cloth masks (plus ~50% effectiveness).
Mask wearing also led to an increase in social distancing.
Of all the incentives tested, the only thing that impacted mask wearing was their colour (people preferred blue over green, and red over purple!).

The research was done by social scientists at Yale, Berkeley, and Stanford, among others. It applied a program they called ‘NORM’ in half of 600 villages in which about 350,000 people lived. NORM has four components, which the researchers expected would work well for the general public:

N: no-cost distribution
O: offering information
R: reinforcing the message and the information in the field
M: modeling

Basically you make sure a community has enough masks and you tell them why it’s important to wear them. You also reinforce the message periodically in markets and mosques, and via role models and promoters in the community itself.

Tipped off that these positive findings were on the way, Maha took this program and rushed to put it into action in Lahore, Pakistan, a city with a population of about 13 million, before the Delta variant could sweep through the region.

Maha had already been doing a lot of data work on COVID policy over the past year, and that allowed her to quickly reach out to the relevant stakeholders — getting them interested and excited.

Governments aren’t exactly known for being super innovative, but in March and April Lahore was going through a very deadly third wave of COVID — so the commissioner quickly jumped on this approach, providing an endorsement as well as resources.

When working closely with governments, Maha says that you need to first find champions within the bureaucracy who have both the political capital as well as the required resources to pull this off. She also says it’s vital that you’re proactively following up to ensure that nothing gets dropped at any stage before it is actually launched.

Together with the original researchers, Maha and her team at LUMS collected baseline data that allowed them to map the mask-wearing rate in every part of Lahore, in both markets and mosques. And then based on that data, they adapted the original rural-focused model to a very different urban setting.

Lahore is a big, dynamic city, so the intervention needed to be designed to reach as many households as possible. And information is consumed and processed in a very different way in urban environments; for example, it’s unrealistic to think you can go door-to-door in a big city, and you don’t need to worry about cable TV and social media so much in a small village.

The scale of this project was daunting, and in today’s episode Maha tells Rob all about the day-to-day experiences and stresses required to actually make it happen.

They also discuss:

The results and experimental design of the Bangladesh RCT
The challenges of data collection in this context
Disasters and emergencies she had to respond to in the middle of the project
What she learned from working closely with the Lahore Commissioner’s Office
How to get governments to provide you with large amounts of data for your research
How she adapted from a more academic role to a ‘getting stuff done’ role
How to reduce waste in government procurement
And much more

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#113 – Varsha Venugopal on using gossip to help vaccinate every child in India

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published October 18th, 2021

Our failure to get every kid in the world all of their basic vaccinations on time leads to 1.5 million deaths every year.

According to today’s guest, Varsha Venugopal, for the great majority this has nothing to do with weird conspiracy theories or medical worries — in India 80% of undervaccinated children are already getting some shots. They just aren’t getting all of them, for the tragically mundane reason that life can get in the way.

As Varsha says, we’re all sometimes guilty of “valuing our present very differently from the way we value the future,” leading to short-term thinking, whether about going to the gym or getting vaccines.

So who should we call on to help fix this universal problem? The government, extended family, or maybe village elders?

Varsha says that research shows the most influential figures might actually be local gossips.

In 2018, Varsha heard about the ideas around effective altruism for the first time. By the end of 2019, she’d gone through Charity Entrepreneurship’s strategy incubation program, and quit her normal, stable job to co-found Suvita, a nonprofit dedicated to improving the uptake of immunisation in India, which focuses on two models:

Sending SMS reminders directly to parents and carers
Gossip

The first one is intuitive. You collect birth registers, digitise the paper records, process the data, and send out personalised SMS messages to hundreds of thousands of families. The effect size varies depending on the context, but these messages usually increase vaccination rates by 8–18%.

The second approach is less intuitive and isn’t yet entirely understood either.

Here’s what happens: Suvita calls up random households and asks, “If there were an event in town, who would be most likely to tell you about it?”

In over 90% of the cases, the households gave both the name and the phone number of a local ‘influencer.’

And when tracked down, more than 95% of the most frequently named ‘influencers’ agreed to become vaccination ambassadors. Those ambassadors then go on to share information about when and where to get vaccinations, in whatever way seems best to them.

When tested by a team of top academics, it raised vaccination rates by 10 percentage points, or about 27%.

The advantage of SMS reminders is that they’re easier to scale up. But Varsha says the ambassador program isn’t actually that far from being a scalable model as well.

A phone call to get a name, another call to ask the influencer to join, and boom — you might have just covered a whole village rather than just a single family.

Suvita got this idea from original Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) studies, which found that community gossips were much more effective at communicating a simple piece of information than other possible options — including village elders.

In Karnataka, India, villagers were told about a phone-based raffle. Villages with at least one gossip saw an average of 65% more calls to the raffle phone number compared to villages with no gossips.

In a related large-scale randomised trial run in the state of Haryana, J-PAL specifically compared different combinations of interventions to see which mix would have the most impact for a given budget.

They looked at various combinations of three policy tools: mobile credit directly to parents and carers, text reminders directly to parents and carers, and this gossip idea.

They found that adding local ambassadors and text messages to the government’s routine immunisation programme produced the most vaccinations per dollar spent, and was about 10% more cost effective than the government’s existing vaccine promotion efforts.

Varsha says that Suvita has two major challenges on the horizon:

Maintaining the same degree of oversight of their surveyors as they attempt to scale up the programme, in order to ensure the programme continues to work just as well
Deciding between focusing on reaching a few more additional districts now vs. making longer-term investments that could build up to a future exponential increase

In this episode, Varsha and Rob talk about making these kinds of high-stakes, high-stress decisions, as well as:

How Suvita got started, and their experience with Charity Entrepreneurship
Weaknesses of the J-PAL studies
The importance of co-founders
Deciding how broad a programme should be
Varsha’s day-to-day experience
And much more

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

#112 – Carl Shulman on the common-sense case for existential risk work and its practical implications

By Robert Wiblin and Keiran Harris · Published October 5th, 2021

Preventing the apocalypse may sound like an idiosyncratic activity, and it sometimes is justified on exotic grounds, such as the potential for humanity to become a galaxy-spanning civilisation.

But the policy of US government agencies is already to spend up to $4 million to save the life of a citizen, making the death of all Americans a $1,300,000,000,000,000 disaster.

According to Carl Shulman, research associate at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute, that means you don’t need any fancy philosophical arguments about the value or size of the future to justify working to reduce existential risk — it passes a mundane cost-benefit analysis whether or not you place any value on the long-term future.

The key reason to make it a top priority is factual, not philosophical. That is, the risk of a disaster that kills billions of people alive today is alarmingly high, and it can be reduced at a reasonable cost. A back-of-the-envelope version of the argument runs:

The US government is willing to pay up to $4 million (depending on the agency) to save the life of an American.
So saving all US citizens at any given point in time would be worth $1,300 trillion.
If you believe that the risk of human extinction over the next century is something like one in six (as Toby Ord suggests is a reasonable figure in his book The Precipice), then it would be worth the US government spending up to $2.2 trillion to reduce that risk by just 1%, in terms of American lives saved alone.
Carl thinks it would cost a lot less than that to achieve a 1% risk reduction if the money were spent intelligently. So it easily passes a government cost-benefit test, with a very big benefit-to-cost ratio — likely over 1000:1 today.

This argument helped NASA get funding to scan the sky for any asteroids that might be on a collision course with Earth, and it was directly promoted by famous economists like Richard Posner, Larry Summers, and Cass Sunstein.

If the case is clear enough, why hasn’t it already motivated a lot more spending or regulations to limit existential risks — enough to drive down what any additional efforts would achieve?

Carl thinks that one key barrier is that infrequent disasters are rarely politically salient. Research indicates that extra money is spent on flood defences in the years immediately following a massive flood — but as memories fade, that spending quickly dries up. Of course the annual probability of a disaster was the same the whole time; all that changed is what voters had on their minds.

Carl suspects another reason is that it’s difficult for the average voter to estimate and understand how large these respective risks are, and what responses would be appropriate rather than self-serving. If the public doesn’t know what good performance looks like, politicians can’t be given incentives to do the right thing.

It’s reasonable to assume that if we found out a giant asteroid were going to crash into the Earth one year from now, most of our resources would be quickly diverted into figuring out how to avert catastrophe.

But even in the case of COVID-19, an event that massively disrupted the lives of everyone on Earth, we’ve still seen a substantial lack of investment in vaccine manufacturing capacity and other ways of controlling the spread of the virus, relative to what economists recommended.

Carl expects that all the reasons we didn’t adequately prepare for or respond to COVID-19 — with excess mortality over 15 million and costs well over $10 trillion — bite even harder when it comes to threats we’ve never faced before, such as engineered pandemics, risks from advanced artificial intelligence, and so on.

Today’s episode is in part our way of trying to improve this situation. In today’s wide-ranging conversation, Carl and Rob also cover:

A few reasons Carl isn’t excited by ‘strong longtermism’
How x-risk reduction compares to GiveWell recommendations
Solutions for asteroids, comets, supervolcanoes, nuclear war, pandemics, and climate change
The history of bioweapons
Whether gain-of-function research is justifiable
Successes and failures around COVID-19
The history of existential risk
And much more

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript below.

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Continue reading →

Explore our archive by topic...

Podcast

#131 – Lewis Dartnell on getting humanity to bounce back faster in a post-apocalyptic world

#130 – Will MacAskill on balancing frugality with ambition, whether you need longtermism, & mental health under pressure

#129 – Dr James Tibenderana on the state of the art in malaria control and elimination

#128 – Chris Blattman on the five reasons wars happen

#127 – Sam Bankman-Fried on taking a high-risk approach to crypto and doing good

#126 – Bryan Caplan on whether lazy parenting is OK, what really helps workers, and betting on beliefs

#125 – Joan Rohlfing on how to avoid catastrophic nuclear blunders

#124 – Karen Levy on fads and misaligned incentives in global development, and scaling deworming to reach hundreds of millions

#123 – Samuel Charap on why Putin invaded Ukraine, the risk of escalation, and how to prevent disaster

#122 – Michelle Hutchinson & Habiba Islam on balancing competing priorities and other themes from our 1-on-1 careers advising

Want to get free one-on-one advice from our team? We’re here to help.

#121 – Matthew Yglesias on avoiding the pundit's fallacy and how much military intervention can be used for good

#120 – Audrey Tang on what we can learn from Taiwan's experiments with how to do democracy

#119 – Andrew Yang on our very long-term future, and other topics most politicians won't touch

#118 – Jaime Yassif on safeguarding bioscience to prevent catastrophic lab accidents and bioweapons development

#117 – David Denkenberger on using paper mills and seaweed to feed everyone in a catastrophe, ft Sahil Shah

#116 – Luisa Rodriguez on why global catastrophes seem unlikely to kill us all

#115 – David Wallace on the many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics and its implications

#114 – Maha Rehman on working with governments to rapidly deliver masks to millions of people

#113 – Varsha Venugopal on using gossip to help vaccinate every child in India

#112 – Carl Shulman on the common-sense case for existential risk work and its practical implications

Our research

Follow us

Take action

About us