#10 - Nick Beckstead on how to spend billions of dollars preventing human extinction

12 snips

Oct 11, 2017

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Rejecting Time Discounting in Ethics

Time discounting to reduce future value is widely rejected among moral philosophers.
Economists’ discounting often misapplies to moral value, confusing capital returns with ethical worth.

INSIGHT

Critique of Person-Affecting View

The person-affecting view prioritizes current people over future ones but struggles to explain why creating happy future people is valuable.
Beckstead finds this view less compelling due to counterintuitive implications and lack of strong philosophical rationale.

INSIGHT

We Can Affect Global Catastrophic Risks

It's plausible to reduce existential risks through coordinated efforts and rational interventions.
Collective action by effective altruists on risks like nuclear war or pandemics can meaningfully improve the future.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

What if you were in a position to give away billions of dollars to improve the world? What would you do with it? This is the problem facing Program Officers at the Open Philanthropy Project - people like Dr Nick Beckstead.

Following a PhD in philosophy, Nick works to figure out where money can do the most good. He’s been involved in major grants in a wide range of areas, including ending factory farming through technological innovation, safeguarding the world from advances in biotechnology and artificial intelligence, and spreading rational compassion.

Full transcript, coaching application form, overview of the conversation, and links to resources discussed in the episode:

This episode is a tour through some of the toughest questions ‘effective altruists’ face when figuring out how to best improve the world, including:

* * Should we mostly try to help people currently alive, or future generations? Nick studied this question for years in his PhD thesis, On the Overwhelming Importance of Shaping the Far Future. (The first 31 minutes is a snappier version of my conversation with Toby Ord.)
* Is clean meat (aka *in vitro* meat) technologically feasible any time soon, or should we be looking for plant-based alternatives?
* What are the greatest risks to human civilisation?
* To stop malaria is it more cost-effective to use technology to eliminate mosquitos than to distribute bed nets?
* Should people who want to improve the future work for changes that will be very useful in a specific scenario, or just generally try to improve how well humanity makes decisions?
* What specific jobs should our listeners take in order for Nick to be able to spend more money in useful ways to improve the world?
* Should we expect the future to be better if the economy grows more quickly - or more slowly?

Get free, one-on-one career advice

We’ve helped dozens of people compare between their options, get introductions, and jobs important for the the long-run future. If you want to work on any of the problems discussed in this episode, find out if our coaching can help you.