By disclosing the risks of mirror bacteria, there is finally a concrete example to discuss, which could be helpful even for people who are actually even more worried about, say, infohazardous-bioengineering-technique-#5, than they are about mirror life.  Just being able to use mirror life as an example seems like it's much healthier than having zero concrete examples and everything shrouded in secrecy.

 

I think it's true that a lot of topics are not discussed because of concerns about info hazard. But I do think we already had some concrete examples, such as some hotly debated gain of function cases, considering the possibility of something as infectious as measles but as fatal as rabies, or Myxomatosis killing 99% of rabbits.

Thanks for all you two do! If you don't mind me asking, how does the return on your investments factor in? E.g., is the negative savings offset by return such that your net worth is not falling?

Not a full post, but I have quantified the internal rate of return of some interventions here and here. Also, I discussed urgency in my 2018 80k podcast.

I like how comprehensive this is.

Note that a one in a millennium eruption together with a once in a century plague, like the Plague of Justinian still wasn’t enough to cause existential risk (humans aren’t extinct yet), though the ensuing little ice age could arguably be categorized as a catastrophic risk.

 

Minor, but existential risk includes more than extinction. So it could be "humans haven't undergone an unrecoverable collapse yet (or some other way of losing future potential)."

I guess as long as there is another category (like "other"), it's ok. But I believe one EAG exit survey didn't have another category, so one person I heard from felt excluded.

I don’t know of any good data source on how many people are currently earning to give, but our internal data at GWWC suggests it could be at least 100s (also depending on which definition you use)

According to the 2022 EA survey, out of 3270 people who answered, 335 people were earning to give. Since there are a lot more EAs than 3270, I think it would be more like a thousand people who are earning to give. But it’s true they might not be using the 80k definition:

Current definition 80k: “We say someone is earning to give when they:

• Work a job that’s higher earning than they would have otherwise but that they believe is morally neutral or positive
• Donate a large fraction of the extra earnings, typically 20-50% of their total salary
• Donate to organisations they think are highly effective (i.e. funding-constrained organisations working on big, neglected global problems)”

I agree with you that it should not have to be a different job, but I disagree that 20% is too low. There are many (most?) EAs who do not have a direct high-impact career or do a lot of high-impact volunteering. So roughly the other way of having impact is earning to give, and if people can give 10%, I think that should qualify.

That's interesting to think about the transition from early agriculture/pastoralism to pre-industrial society. The analyses I've seen focus on just recovering agriculture and/or industry. Do you think in between could be a significant bottleneck or it would just take time? Not a peer-reviewed study, but there were some estimates of future recovery times here.

That's very helpful. Do you have a rough idea proportions within creating a better future, e.g. climate, nuclear, bio, and AI?

33% of participants have transitioned into high-impact careers, including joining Charity Entrepreneurship and roles in AI Safety;

That is amazingly high!

These are very exciting! Could you say more about the foci of these orgs within EA cause areas?