Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

[Link] Should we be spending no less on alternate foods than AI now?

2 denkenberger 30 October 2017 12:13AM
Comment author: ChristianKl 20 September 2017 04:09:43PM 0 points [-]

At our LessWrong community camp the keynote was given by Josh Hall and he talked about why we don't have flying cars. He made a convincing case that the problem is that while in the 50's where people predicted flying cars energy costs had been getting cheaper every year. Since the 70's they didn't and thus the energy that's required for flying cars is too expensive.

He then went to say that the same goes for underwater cities.

If we would have cheap energy we would have no problem growing food indoors with LEDs. Currently that only makes economic sense for marijuana and some algea that produces high quality nutrients. Indoors growing has the advantage that you need less pesticides when you can control the environment better.

It seems to me like next generation nuclear that has the potential to produce more energy for a cheaper price would help with making us independent of the sun.

It meshes well with Peter Thiel, Bill Gates and Sam Altman all having invested money into nuclear solutions.

Comment author: denkenberger 20 September 2017 09:39:25PM 0 points [-]

This could potentially help many decades in the future. But it would need to be an order of magnitude or more reduction in energy costs for this to produce a lot of food. And I am particularly concerned about one of these catastrophes happening in the next decade.

Comment author: ChristianKl 20 September 2017 03:47:18PM 0 points [-]

Why should there be a permanent loss of grains? It seems to me like reserve seeds are stored in many different places with some of those places getting forgotten in the time of a catastrophe and people rediscovering the contents later.

Comment author: denkenberger 20 September 2017 09:29:35PM 0 points [-]

Grains are all from the same family-grass. It is conceivable that a malicious actor could design a pathogen(s) that kills all grains. Or maybe it would become an endemic disease that would decrease the vigor of the plants permanently. I'm not arguing that any of these non-recovery scenarios are too likely. However, if together they represent 10% probability, and if there is a 10% probability of the sun being blocked this century, and a 10% probability of civilization collapsing if the sun is blocked, this would be a one in 1000 chance of an existential catastrophe from agricultural catastrophes this century. This is worth some effort to reduce.

Comment author: ChristianKl 20 September 2017 04:17:41PM 0 points [-]

I'm also uncertain about the gathering-leaves plan.

On the other hand I could imagine solutions that are easily scalable. If you would for example have an eatable fungi that you could feed with lumber that might be very valuable and you don't need to spend billions ,

Comment author: denkenberger 20 September 2017 09:19:12PM 1 point [-]

Sorry for my voice recognition software error-I now have fixed it. It turns out that if you want to store enough food to feed 7 billion people for five years, it would cost tens of trillions of dollars. What I am proposing is spending tens of millions of dollars for targeted research and development and planning. The idea is that we would not have to spend a lot of money on emergency use only machinery. I use the example of the United States before World War II-it hardly produced any airplanes. But once it entered World War II, it retrofitted the car manufacturing plants to produce airplanes very quickly. I am targeting food sources that could be ramped up very quickly with not very much preparation (in months, see graph here. The easiest killed leaves (for human food) to collect would be agricultural residues with existing farm equipment. For leaves shed naturally (leaf litter), we could release cows into forests. I also analyze logistics in the book, and it would be technically feasible. Note that these catastrophes would only destroy regional infrastructure. However, the big assumption is that there would still be international cooperation. Without these alternative food sources, most people would die, so it would likely be in the best interest of many countries to initiate conflicts. However, if countries knew that they could actually benefit by cooperating and trading and ideally feed everyone, cooperation is more likely (though of course not guaranteed). So you could think of this as a peace project.

Comment author: Lumifer 20 September 2017 12:22:26AM 0 points [-]

What's the advantage of alternative foods? In the context of an agricultural catastrophe, presumably you'd want to maximize the calories per whatever resource is the bottleneck (might be arable land, might be energy, might be something else). I can see mushrooms being useful, but leaves are not likely to be particularly efficient in this respect, would they?

Comment author: denkenberger 20 September 2017 01:07:59PM *  2 points [-]

In the case of the sun being blocked by comet impact, super volcanic eruption, or full-scale nuclear war with the burning of cities, there would be local devastation, but the majority of global industry would function. Most of our energy is not dependent on the sun. So it turns out the biggest problem is food, and arable land would not be valuable. Extracting human edible calories from leaves would only work for those leaves that were green when the catastrophe happened. They could provide about half a year of food for everyone, or more realistically 10% of food for five years.

I also work on the catastrophes that could disrupt electricity globally, such as an extreme solar storm, multiple high-altitude detonations of nuclear weapons around the world creating electromagnetic pulses (EMPs), and a super computer virus. Since nearly everything is dependent on electricity, this means we lose fossil fuel production and industry. In this case, energy is critical, but there are ways of dealing with it. So the food problem still turns out to be quite important (the sun is still shining, but we don't have fossil fuel based tractors, fertilizers and pesticides), though there are solutions for that.

Comment author: dogiv 19 September 2017 06:28:51PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for posting!

I haven't read your book yet but I find your work pretty interesting. I hope you won't mind a naive question... you've mentioned non-sunlight-dependent foods like mushrooms and leaf tea. Is it actually possible for a human to survive on foods like this? Has anybody self-experimented with it?

By my calculation, a person who needs 1800 kcals/day would have to eat about 5 kg of mushrooms. Tea (the normal kind, anyway) doesn't look any better.

Bacteria fed by natural gas seems like a very promising food source--and one that might even be viable outside of catastrophe scenarios. Apparently it's being used for fish feed already.

Comment author: denkenberger 19 September 2017 11:34:22PM 2 points [-]

Here is an analysis of nutrition of a variety of alternate foods. Leaf protein concentrate is actually more promising than leaf tea. No one has tried a diet of only alternate foods - that would be a good experiment to run. With a variety, the weight is not too high. Yes, we are hoping that some of these ideas will be viable present day, because then we can get early investment.

Comment author: denkenberger 19 September 2017 04:15:16PM *  6 points [-]

Thank you, Jennifer, for the introduction. Some more background on me: I have read the sequences and the foom debate. In 2011, I tried to do cost-effectiveness scoping for all causes inspired by Yudkowsky's scope and neglectedness framework (the scope, neglectedness, and tractability framework had not yet been invented). I am concerned about AI risk, and have been working with Alexey Turchin. I am primarily motivated by existential risk reduction. If we lose anthropological civilization (defined by cooperation outside the clan), we may not recover for the following reasons:

• Easily accessible fossil fuels and minerals exhausted

• Don’t have the stable climate of last 10,000 years

• Lose trust or IQ permanently

• Endemic disease prevents high population density

• Permanent loss of grains precludes high population density

Not recovering is a form of existential risk (not realizing our potential), and we might actually go extinct because of a supervolcano or asteroid after losing civilization. Because getting prepared (research and development of non-sunlight dependent foods such as mushrooms and natural gas digesting bacteria, and planning) is so cost-effective for the present generation, I think it will be a very cost effective way of reducing existential risk.

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 September 2017 12:56:57AM 0 points [-]

Correct. Once you're to the point of planning for these kinds of contingencies you're mostly talking about the preservation of the spark of human sentience at all in what might otherwise turn out to be a cold and insentient galaxy.

Comment author: denkenberger 19 September 2017 03:57:40PM *  0 points [-]

I have done some work on refuges. However, I am most interested in saving nearly everyone and preventing the loss of civilization. This turns out to be cost effective even if one only cares about the present generation. I am currently working on cost effectiveness from a far future perspective.

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 September 2017 01:25:11AM 2 points [-]

My pretty limited understanding is that this is a fairly standard safety engineering approach.

If you were going to try to make it just a bit more explicit a spreadsheet might be enough. If you want to put serious elbow grease into formal modeling work I think a good keyword to get into the literature might be "fault trees". The technique came out of Bell Labs in the 1960's but I think it really came into its own when it was used to model nuclear safety issues in the 1980's? There's old Nuclear Regulatory Commission work that got pretty deep here I think.

Comment author: denkenberger 19 September 2017 03:50:46PM *  2 points [-]

Yes, here is a fault tree analysis of nuclear war. And here is one for AI.

Comment author: Elo 17 September 2017 10:19:56PM 6 points [-]

I volunteer to contact him and invite him to AMA if there is interest in the idea. Vote or comment to register interest. 10upv will do it. If you see >10upv comment if I have missed it.

Comment author: denkenberger 19 September 2017 12:56:29PM 4 points [-]

I am happy to do an AMA.

View more: Next