Geoffrey MillerVerified account

Is any party or even any political figure well-focused on existential risks or EA concerns whatsoever? @benshapiro sure isn't. @AOC acknowledging even catastrophic risks seems like an improvement over typical political concerns...

Also, I think @AOC has unique potential to adopt Effective Altruist concerns. She's young, not really beholden to anyone, and amplifies movements. If I had to choose a sitting congressperson who could take Effective Altruism seriously AND successfully publicize it, I'd guess her?

The current chances of the first happening are significantly higher than the chances of the second happening right?

Yes, the chances are higher. Now do the expected utility calculation...

An effective altruist would be concerned with both. And if a few million people die because an issue like climate change, that represents billions of unborn lives over a relatively short time span. So it is absolutely a concern worth spending time on right now, today

EA is about prioritizing costs & benefits. I would love to see more comparative analyses on net expected long-term utility from managing global warming (e.g. with geoengineering) vs. reducing nuke risk, bioweapon risk, AI risk, etc.

Nuclear war won't kill 7bn instantly. It could _start_ at any time, killing a couple of billion within days, and then the nuclear winter would kill everyone else within a few years.

"Kill a few million people in a few decades"? That's so wildly arbitrary. Example: Worldwide crop failures due to extreme weather patterns might also be a big deal. Lots of unknowns. Stop downplaying the risks. Your arrogance is frustrating

More CO2 in the atmosphere means more plantlife. Remember high school biology and how plants need CO2? So it isn’t at all obvious that failure in one region isn’t offset by better yield elsewhere. We should still halt it, but stop with the world will end business.