MatthewBaker comments on Optimal Philanthropy for Human Beings - Less Wrong

36 Post author: lukeprog 25 July 2011 07:27AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (86)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: taw 26 July 2011 01:48:40AM 6 points [-]

If, as people here like to believe (and may or may not be true), the LWers are very rational and good at picking things that have very high expected value as things to start or donate to [...]

I didn't downvote you, but what you're saying is essentially "if you accept our tribe is the most awesome and smartest, then it makes sense to donate to our tribal charity". Which is something every single group would say, in slight variation.

I was under the impression that those already had sufficient resources? Could you link to some more information on this subject, please? I agree that asteroids are a more obviously important issue than the Singularity.

Here's results chart for various asteroid tracking efforts. Catalina Sky Survey seems to be doing most of the work these days, and you can probably donate to University of Arizona and have that money go to CSS somehow. I'm not really following this too closely, I'm mostly glad that some people are doing something here.

Comment author: MatthewBaker 26 July 2011 02:33:39AM 3 points [-]

I honestly believe that the Singularity is a greater threat then asteroids to the human race. Either an asteroid will be small enough that we can destroy it or its too big to stop. Once you make an asteroid big enough to cause risk to humanity its also a lot easier to find and destroy. However, a positive singularity isn't valued enough and a negative singularity isn't feared enough among humanity unlike asteroid deflection efforts and that's why i focus on SIAI.

Comment author: taw 26 July 2011 05:40:29AM 4 points [-]

You actually need to detect these asteroids decades in advance for our current technology to stand any chance, and we currently don't do that. More detection efforts mean tracking smaller asteroids than otherwise, but more importantly tracking big asteroids faster.

Arbitrarily massive asteroid can be moved off course very easily given enough time to do so. That's the plan, not "destroying" them.

Comment author: MatthewBaker 26 July 2011 05:50:56AM 2 points [-]

Still, considering there's a very low chance of a large asteroid strike and most the most quoted figure Ive heard is that we have more than 75% of NEO objects that are of dangerous size being tracked. I think a negative singularity is more likely to happen in the next 200 years then an asteroid strike. However, it is a good point that donating money to NEO tracking could be a good charitable donation as well i just don't think its on the same order of magnitude as the danger of a uFAI.

Comment author: taw 27 July 2011 05:15:54AM 6 points [-]

With asteroid strike everybody agrees on risk within order of magnitude or two. We have a lot of historical data about asteroid strikes of various sizes, can use power level distribution to smooth it a bit etc.

With UFAI people's estimate are about as divergent as with Second Coming of Jesus Christ, ranging from impossible even in theory through essentially impossible all the way to almost certain.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil 28 July 2011 09:25:06PM -1 points [-]

Money spent on mind uploading is a better defense against asteroids than asteroid detection. At least for me.