I'm writing this article to explain some of the facts that have convinced me that increasing average human intelligence through traditional breeding and genetic manipulation is likelier to reduce existential risks in the short and medium term then studying AI risks, while providing all kinds of side benefits.

Intelligence is useful to achieve goals, including avoiding existential risks. Higher intelligence is associated with many diverse life outcomes improving, from health to wealth. Intelligence may have synergistic effects on economic growth, where average levels of intelligence matter more for wealth then individual levels. Intelligence is a polygenetic trait with strong heritability. Sexual selection in the Netherlands has resulted in extreme increases in average height over the past century: sexual selection for intelligence might do the same. People already select partners for intelligence, and egg donors are advertised by SAT score.

AI research seems to be intelligence constrained. Very few of those capable of making a contribution are aware of the problem, or find it interesting. The Berkeley-MIRI seminar has increased the pool of those aware of the problem, but the total number of AI safety researchers remain small. So far very foundational problems remain to be solved. This is likely to take a very long time: it is not unusual for mathematical fields to take centuries to develop. Furthermore, we can work on both strategies at once and observe spillover from one into the other, as the larger intelligence baseline translates into an increase on the right tail of the distribution.

How could we accomplish this? One idea, invented by Robert Heinlein, as far as I know, is to subsidize marriages between people of higher than usual intelligence and their having children.  This idea has the benefit of being entirely non-coercive. It is however unclear how much these subsidies would need to be to influence behavior, and given the strong returns to intelligence in life outcomes, unclear that they can further influence behavior.

Another idea would be to conduct genetic studies to find genes which influence genetics, and conduct genome modification. This plan suffers from illegality, lack of knowledge of genetic factors of intelligence,  and absence of effective means for genome editing (they tried CRISPR on human embryos: more work is needed). However, the result of this work can be sold for money, thus opening the possibility of using VC money to develop it. Illegality can be dealt with by influencing jurisdictions. However, the impact is likely to be limited due to the cost of these methods which will prevent them from having population-wide influence, instead becoming yet another advantage the affluent attempt to purchase. These techniques are likely to have vastly wider application, and so will be commercially developed anyway.

In conclusion genetic modification of humans to increase intelligence is practical in the near terms, and it may be worth diverting some effort to investigating it further.

It might seem odd to call politics undervalued. But if we want to think about how to improve matters for millions of people, it's clear that effective governance and institutions which promote human flourishing are extremely valuable. One example is the Jin dynasty: in between the end of the Han dynasty and the rise of the Jin, the Chinese population dropped by 4/5ths. The wars immortalized in Romance of the Three Kingdoms ere the deadliest before WWII. The existence of any halfway competent central power would have spared millions of people.

Closer to home housing policies in the Bay Area force the poorest in society to spend vast sums to keep a roof over their head. Poor educational opportunities reduce the ultimate earning potential of millions. In some cases, such as pollution controls, the costs of poor policies are measured in lives.

Many people enter politics, and competition is tough. But many opportunities exist that are frequently underexploited, such as school boards, transportation boards, and down-ticket positions with considerable power. Often these positions are dominated by people without an understanding of the issue, and subject to heavy lobbying from those who are directly involved. Occasionally important policies are made in relative obscurity: who here knew about the raisin price controls before it came before the Supreme Court?

There are many ways in which politics might be affected. One is through political theorizing. Robert Bork's The Antitrust Paradox influence a generation of judges and policymakers, leading to a radically different antitrust policy in the US, which benefited consumers. Milton Friedman was the handmaiden of a major shift in economic policy in the US. On the other end Sayyid Qutb has been blamed for the rise of Islamism, which has made life a great deal less pleasant for many people around the world. However, the returns on political theory are extremely uncertain: many works of political philosophy go ignored.

Another is through political organizing. Here the model is the Social Democratic parties of yore, which had profound effects on the social institutions of the countries in which they operated. To the extent the poorest in Europe are better off because of these parties, this work directly improved people's lives. Unfortunately, there is good reason to suspect this is much less doable today.

A third is through competent leadership. Many municipalities are governed poorly for a variety of factors. Publicly minded citizens with slightly better than average interest should be able to copy good policies into poorly governed cities. Many bad policies are the result of rent-seeking, which can easily be resisted, at the cost of having resources for reelection. 

Politics inherently involves leverage. Decisions about policies affect all those in a jurisdiction where the policy applies, and can have knock-on effects, such as financial regulation in a major finance center, or the impact of California emission standards on automobiles. Furthermore, good institutions can last for centuries.

At its most extreme, decisive political action has changed the fates of millions. At its least extreme an effective mayor can ensure that children are educated, potholes repaired, and new housing built. In between politics may offer the best leverage of any opportunity for altruism.

First off, note that I am not in possession of any of the licenses that entitle me to call myself a financial advisor. However, the approach to investing I will present in this article is endorsed by many economists, Warren Buffet, and Vanguard. I personally follow it, and you can too.

What is the goal of investing? To turn money today into money tomorrow. There are several ways to do this, and people on Wall Street are constantly inventing new ones. What is more, you have professional competition in this activity: people who want to make money today into more money tomorrow then is otherwise possible. You are producing a commodity, and the better you understand this, the better investing decisions you will make.

What are the ways to make money today into money tomorrow? There are many ways. But we want to make money today into money tomorrow in the most efficient way that involves the least amount of worry.  After all, we have specialised in some other area of human activity, and are not good at this area. So we should pick an investment that requires no upkeep, no worry, and good returns. This rules out real estate entirely, and the last criterion rules out letting money sit there.

So how does money today turn into money tomorrow? First you pay taxes on the money today, then give the money today as a loan (called "buying a bond")  to someone who needs it to do something that will be profitable. Or you can purchase a bit of an enterprise that makes money (called "buying stock") and let it make money, and pay you in the form of dividends or appreciation of shares, as the company grows. Then you sell what you have or get payed back and get taxed again.

But what if they don't pay me back or the company fails? Then you are screwed.

So what if I put a little bit of money in each loan and each share? Then the failure of each one won't hurt you that much.

Okay, I'll do that! Got a few million lying around?

Nope. So I can't do that? Nope, you can't. Bonds come in units of $1000 face value, and stocks in lots of 100.

Wait, what if I got a bunch of my friends together, and we pooled our money? That's called a mutual fund, and you can buy them. But the person who manages the fund charges you money, and that comes right out of the money tomorrow, and sometimes out of the money you put in.

So I should try to minimize these charges? Exactly!

Someone promises me higher returns for his fees! He's lying: academic research has shown no evidence of after-fee returns beating the market in general. After all, wouldn't you keep this secret for yourself if it really worked? He gets paid the same even if you lose all your money.

So what is the fund with the lowest fees? Well, the Vanguard Admiral Shares S&P 500 has fees of 0.05% of your money. Check out the prospectuses before you invest: they list out all the things that can go wrong.

But I don't like the risk! Remember bonds? You are more likely to get paid back, but the price is lower returns.

But I want diversification! So buy a bond mutual fund as well. And as usual there are fees you want to avoid.

Do I need anything else? According to CAPM, no. (We can talk about international stocks, but the S&P 500 do business worldwide, and there are lots of details about the costs of diversification etc.)

But how much do I put in each? That's a research question. But there is plenty of advice on this one question, and it doesn't cost you anything.

What about taxes? That's between you and the IRS. But sign up for a 401(k), maximize it, put as much into an IRA as you can, consider carefully the Roth IRA, think about which bonds you want to hold, and don't trade!

Don't trade? Don't trade: remember, you have competition. Trading hurts retail investors: it is expensive and they aren't good at it.

But I have a really good idea! Then work on Wall Street and risk someone else's money. Best part: you get paid either way.

But I want to change which mutual fund I hold to one that got more returns! Don't do it: the high returns don't last. Reversion to the mean is a powerful force.

I want to move to bonds as I get older! Still don't do it: you get taxed on the realized gains. It's easier to buy new then to sell old.

So what should I do? Think of your portfolio as one thing, and think about how to minimize taxes and fees as you go from where you are now to where you want to be. Then do it. But think first! Buying doesn't destroy the basis the way selling does, and overbalancing in tax-deferred accounts cancels out imbalanced non tax-deferred accounts.

------

Sources: http://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/sp20051015.htm, 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576544681577401622.html

Buffet endorsing the index fund http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1996.html

http://johncbogle.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Professor-The-Student-and-the-Index-Fund-9-4-11.pdf

Similar sources exist everywhere. Ask your local economics professor what his investments are, and I will be willing to bet 10:1 odds that they are majority placed in an index fund.