Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
MathiasKB🔸3
0
0

Copenhagen Consensus Center has a good paper on the cost-effectiveness of agricultural R&D investment, that might answer some of your questions.

Reply
See in context
by freedomandutility
1 min read 3

30

Global health & developmentExistential riskCivilizational collapseFood securityNuclear winterResilient foodScientific progress
Frontpage

The Green Revolution may have saved over a billion people from starvation, driven by active efforts by the Rockefeller Foundation, Mexico, the USA and the UN. 

Food security remains poor in conflict-affected areas, and is threatened by risks such as plant disease pandemics and nuclear war.

Since the Green Revolution, we've made immense scientific progress, particularly in synthetic biology and AI.

How can we make another large jump in agricultural efficiency, to tackle poor food security in conflict-stricken states now and in the future, and improve global resilience to wide-scale disasters?

In development, a lot of work on agriculture focuses on adoption of existing technologies.

I want to read more about the kind of frontier technologies we should be prioritising R&D investment in.

In addition, do we need to develop new institutions to conduct RCTs (like a J-PAL spin-off focused on agriculture) to generate better evidence for evaluating new farming technologies? Do we need to engage farmers in large-scale RCTs, similar to the way we engage doctors and patients in medical RCTs?

I'd like to see more EA work on this, but if there already is some work in this area, please point me towards it!

30

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments3


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Thomaaas4
0
0

The green revolution was largely the result of leveraging genetic improvement; using traditional breeding technology to improve yields[1]. This came from exploiting naturally occurring variation in crops, identifying and testing outlier varieties to find new ones that perform better, and repeating this process to deliver continuous improvements in yield[2].

The testing bit is key, and there is a pretty advanced network of breeding organisations led by CGIAR [3] who carry out trials of new crops across a range. While not exactly RCTs, crop trials are probably more advanced than RCTs as they involve many more repetitions, more environments, and more advanced quantitate methods to identify the crop varieties that work, and where. 

In short, the ag sector is very well set up to test and identify new crops that can deliver the next green revolution. so why hasn't it happened? Since the green revolution yields tend to increase year-on-year, so the next one will require a sustained increase in the rate of improvement.

What can we do to increase the rate of improvement in yields? It comes back to identifying and exploiting more variation in crops, and doing it faster (speeding up the cycle):

  1. Better implementation of traditional breeding: although CGIAR etc. are pretty good at this, collecting environment-specific data for decision making in developing countries can be hard, and there are plenty of underrepresented species and regions.
  2. Gene editing can be used to target specific genes. This eliminates the time and search effort in finding naturally occurring variation, and difficulty isolating that single trait through crossbreeding.
  3. Speed breeding[4]: combines intensive greenhouse farming with genomics (predicting performance based on DNA) to generate newer, better varieties, faster.

The second green revolution will not come from one breakthrough, but the cumulative impacts of many breakthroughs and steady improvements. 

Finally, to reiterate why breeding is particularly important for development and helping smallholder farmers: 

  1. genetic gains compound: 1% better yield each year adds up quickly
  2. new crops[5] are extremely easy to implement compared to other tools or technologies (no new training, farmers just continue to do the same thing with new seeds)
  3. new crops are cheap
  1. ^

    this was the beginning of year-on-year yield improvement, not a one-off change. . 

  2. ^

    but also other traits, for example ones that affect yield, like heat tolerance, or disease resistance - breeding goals can be extremely multipolar.

  3. ^

    some nice background: https://www.gatesnotes.com/How-CGIAR-is-feeding-our-future 

  1. ^

    speed breeding is not widespread, however, this type of approach is common in the earlier stages of modern breeding pipelines (before trials of promising candidates are scaled up)

  2. ^

    I've focused on crops but same is also true for animals - more resilient and higher yielding dairy cattle can be extremely beneficial for smallholder farmers. 

Show all footnotes
Reply
MathiasKB🔸3
0
0

Copenhagen Consensus Center has a good paper on the cost-effectiveness of agricultural R&D investment, that might answer some of your questions.

Reply
ChristianKleineidam2
0
0

One way might be to replace monoculture fields with more complex farming while everything gets managed by AI. 

Reply
More from freedomandutility
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
Relevant opportunities
158
Forethought: A new AI macrostrategy group
5 authors
· · 4m read
5
5
62
New Focus Area: Abundance and Growth
Open Philanthropy
· · 1m read
23
23
10
Google AI Accelerator Open Call
Rochelle Harris
· · 2m read
1
1
View more