Long-term cost-effectiveness of interventions for loss of electricity/industry compared to artificial general intelligence safety

Abstract

Extreme solar storms, high-altitude electromagnetic pulses, and coordinated cyber attacks could disrupt regional/global electricity. Since electricity basically drives industry, industrial civilization could collapse without it. This could cause anthropological civilization (cities) to collapse, from which humanity might not recover, having long-term consequences. Previous work analyzed technical solutions to save nearly everyone despite industrial loss globally, including transition to animals powering farming and transportation. The present work estimates cost-effectiveness for the long-term future with a Monte Carlo (probabilistic) model. Model 1, partly based on a poll of Effective Altruism conference participants, finds a confidence that industrial loss preparation is more cost-effective than artificial general intelligence safety of ~ 88% and ~ 99+% for the 30 millionth dollar spent on industrial loss interventions and the margin now, respectively. Model 2 populated by one of the authors produces ~ 50% and ~ 99% confidence, respectively. These confidences are likely to be reduced by model and theory uncertainty, but the conclusion of industrial loss interventions being more cost-effective was robust to changing the most important 4–7 variables simultaneously to their pessimistic ends. Both cause areas save expected lives cheaply in the present generation and funding to preparation for industrial loss is particularly urgent.

Deployment of Resilient Foods Can Greatly Reduce Famine in an Abrupt Sunlight Reduction Scenario

“…Finally, transitioning to inherently more resilient food production systems prior to shocks (e.g., closed-environment systems and modular designs) would also be conducive to warding off the impacts of ASRS 15,16 as well as other food system 40 risks. In a similar vein, expanding use of seaweed as a food and feed 41 source could directly draw down CO 2 , and reduce cattle methane emissions, improve food security around the world today by its use as a low-cost food source 42 , and reduce the food security impacts of trade restrictions 40 , pests 40 , ASRS 43 , and a loss of electrical and/or industrial function 44,45 .…”

Assessing natural global catastrophic risks

“…This paper is consistent with the perspective of Manheim ( 2018 ), augmenting its argument with new theoretical discussion and applying it to a wider range of natural GCRs. More generally, this paper contributes to ongoing scholarship on the methodological basis of evaluating GCRs (Tonn and Stiefel 2013 ; Avin et al 2018 ; Liu et al 2018 ; Baum 2020 ; Beard et al 2020 ; Cotton‐Barratt et al 2020 ) and on comparative GCR assessment (Leggett 2006 ; Pamlin and Armstrong 2015 ), especially comparative assessment for catastrophes that do not rapidly result in human extinction (Baum et al 2019 ; Kuhlemann 2019 ; Denkenberger et al 2021 ).…”

Food Security after Nuclear Winter: A Preliminary Agricultural Sector Analysis for Aotearoa New Zealand

“…Other catastrophic scenarios include severe pandemics (such as those arising from engineered bioweapons), or global industry-disabling scenarios such as coronal mass ejections or electromagnetic pulses, 15 that might collapse the global economy and isolate remote nations like Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ).…”

“…5 But some estimates put the overall likelihood of a catastrophic global food shock (of >10% loss of production) at 80% this century. 14 Other catastrophic scenarios include severe pandemics (such as those arising from engineered bioweapons), or global industry-disabling scenarios such as coronal mass ejections or electromagnetic pulses, 15 that might collapse the global economy and isolate remote nations like Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ).…”