While this crisis was a catastrophe and no existential challenge, it’s unclear why that has to be generally the case.
The claim that global catastrophic risk isn’t part of the FLI mission seems strange to me. It’s the thing the Global Priorities Project of CEA focus on (global catastrophic risk is more primarily mentioned on in the Global Priorities Project then X-risk).
FLI does say on it’s website that out of five areas one of them is:
Biotechnology and genetics often inspire as much fear as excitement, as people worry about the possibly negative effects of cloning, gene splicing, gene drives, and a host of other genetics-related advancements. While biotechnology provides incredible opportunity to save and improve lives, it also increases existential risks associated with manufactured pandemics and loss of genetic diversity.
It seems to me like an analysis that treats cloning (and climate change) as an X-risk but not gain of function research is seriously flawed.
It does seem to me that the messed up in a major way and should do the 5 Why’s just like OpenPhil should be required to do it.
Having climate change as X-risk but not gain of function research suggests too much trust in experts and doing what’s politically convienent instead of fighting the battles that are important. This was easy mode and they messed up.
Donors to both donations should request analysis of what went wrong.
While this crisis was a catastrophe and no existential challenge, it’s unclear why that has to be generally the case.
The claim that global catastrophic risk isn’t part of the FLI mission seems strange to me. It’s the thing the Global Priorities Project of CEA focus on (global catastrophic risk is more primarily mentioned on in the Global Priorities Project then X-risk).
FLI does say on it’s website that out of five areas one of them is:
It seems to me like an analysis that treats cloning (and climate change) as an X-risk but not gain of function research is seriously flawed.
It does seem to me that the messed up in a major way and should do the 5 Why’s just like OpenPhil should be required to do it.
Having climate change as X-risk but not gain of function research suggests too much trust in experts and doing what’s politically convienent instead of fighting the battles that are important. This was easy mode and they messed up.
Donors to both donations should request analysis of what went wrong.