80,000 Hours Podcast

By The 80,000 Hours teamTechnology Education

Favorites
290
Followers
Typical duration
80 min
per episode

Based on Podcast App listening data

80,000 Hours Podcast episodes

March 14, 2022#123 – Samuel Charap on why Putin invaded Ukraine, the risk of escalation, and how to prevent disaster
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is devastating the lives of Ukrainians, and so long as it continues there's a risk that the conflict could escalate to include other countries or the use of nuclear weapons. It's essential that NATO, the US, and the EU play their cards right to ideally end the violence, maintain Ukrainian sovereignty, and discourage any similar invasions in the future.
But how? To pull together the most valuable information on how to react to this crisis, we spoke with Samuel Charap — a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, one of the US's foremost experts on Russia's relationship with former Soviet states, and co-author of Everyone Loses: The Ukraine Crisis and the Ruinous Contest for Post-Soviet Eurasia.
Links to learn more, summary and full transcript.
Samuel believes that Putin views the alignment of Ukraine with NATO as an existential threat to Russia — a perhaps unreasonable view, but a sincere one nevertheless. Ukraine has been drifting further into Western Europe's orbit and improving its defensive military capabilities, so Putin has concluded that if Russia wants to put a stop to that, there will never be a better time to act in the future.
Despite early successes holding off the Russian military, Samuel is sceptical that time is on the Ukrainian side. If the war is to end before much of Ukraine is reduced to rubble, it will likely have to be through negotiation, rather than Russian defeat.
The US policy response has so far been largely good, successfully balancing the need to punish Russia to dissuade large nations from bullying small ones in the future, while preventing NATO from being drawn into the war directly — which would pose a horrifying risk of escalation to a full nuclear exchange. The pressure from the general public to 'do something' might eventually cause national leaders to confront Russia more directly, but so far they are sensibly showing no interest in doing so.
However, use of nuclear weapons remains a low but worrying possibility.
Samuel is also worried that Russia may deploy chemical and biological weapons and blame it on the Ukrainians.
Before war broke out, it's possible Russia could have been satisfied if Ukraine followed through on the Minsk agreements and committed not to join the EU and NATO. Or it might not have, if Putin was committed to war, come what may. In any case, most Ukrainians found those terms intolerable.
At this point, the situation is even worse, and it's hard to see how an enduring ceasefire could be agreed upon. On top of the above, Russia is also demanding recognition that Crimea is part of Russia, and acceptance of the independence of the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. These conditions — especially the second — are entirely unacceptable to the Ukrainians. Hence the war continues, and could grind on for months or even years until one side is sufficiently beaten down to compromise on their core demands.
Rob and Samuel discuss all of the above and also:
• The chances that this conflict leads to a nuclear exchange
• The chances of regime change in Russia
• Whether the West should deliver MiG fighter jets to Ukraine
• What are the implications if Sweden and/or Finland decide to join NATO?
• What should NATO do now, and did it make any mistakes in the past?
• What's the most likely situation for us to be looking at in three months' time?
• Can Ukraine effectively win the war?
Chapters:
Rob’s intro (00:00:00)
The interview begins (00:01:40)
Putin's true motive (00:02:29)
What the West could have done differently (00:07:44)
Chances of Ukraine holding out (00:11:40)
Chances of regime change in Russia (00:14:59)
The good and the bad from the West so far (00:17:55)
Should the West deliver MiG fighter jets to Ukraine? (00:19:57)
"No-fly zones" (00:21:32)
Chances that this conflict leads to a nuclear exchange (00:26:06)
What listeners should do (00:36:01)
Chances of biological or chemical weapons use (00:37:59)
Best realistic outcome from here (00:39:29)
Keeping the broader conversation sane (00:49:29)
Why not promise to remove sanctions? (00:51:05)
Pros and cons of Sweden and FInland joining NATO (00:52:53)
The most likely situation in 3 months (00:53:58)
Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore
1 hr
March 09, 2022#122 – Michelle Hutchinson & Habiba Islam on balancing competing priorities and other themes from our 1-on-1 careers advising
One of 80,000 Hours' main services is our free one-on-one careers advising, which we provide to around 1,000 people a year. Today we speak to two of our advisors, who have each spoken to hundreds of people -- including many regular listeners to this show -- about how they might be able to do more good while also having a highly motivating career.
Before joining 80,000 Hours, Michelle Hutchinson completed a PhD in Philosophy at Oxford University and helped launch Oxford's Global Priorities Institute, while Habiba Islam studied politics, philosophy, and economics at Oxford University and qualified as a barrister.
Links to learn more, summary and full transcript.
In this conversation, they cover many topics that recur in their advising calls, and what they've learned from watching advisees’ careers play out:
• What they say when advisees want to help solve overpopulation
• How to balance doing good against other priorities that people have for their lives
• Why it's challenging to motivate yourself to focus on the long-term future of humanity, and how Michelle and Habiba do so nonetheless
• How they use our latest guide to planning your career
• Why you can specialise and take more risk if you're in a group
• Gaps in the effective altruism community it would be really useful for people to fill
• Stories of people who have spoken to 80,000 Hours and changed their career — and whether it went well or not
• Why trying to have impact in multiple different ways can be a mistake
The episode is split into two parts: the first section on The 80,000 Hours Podcast, and the second on our new show 80k After Hours. This is a shameless attempt to encourage listeners to our first show to subscribe to our second feed.
That second part covers:
• Whether just encouraging someone young to aspire to more than they currently are is one of the most impactful ways to spend half an hour
• How much impact the one-on-one team has, the biggest challenges they face as a group, and different paths they could have gone down
• Whether giving general advice is a doomed enterprise
Chapters:
Rob’s intro (00:00:00)
The interview begins (00:02:24)
Cause prioritization (00:09:14)
Unexpected outcomes from 1-1 advice (00:18:10)
Making time for thinking about these things (00:22:28)
Balancing different priorities in life (00:26:54)
Gaps in the effective altruism space (00:32:06)
Plan change vignettes (00:37:49)
How large a role the 1-1 team is playing (00:49:04)
What about when our advice didn’t work out? (00:55:50)
The process of planning a career (00:59:05)
Why longtermism is hard (01:05:49)

Want to get free one-on-one advice from our team? We're here to help.
We’ve helped thousands of people formulate their plans and put them in touch with mentors.
We've expanded our ability to deliver one-on-one meetings so are keen to help more people than ever before. If you're a regular listener to the show we're especially likely to want to speak with you.
Learn about and apply for advising.
Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app.
Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore
1 hr 37 min
March 01, 2022Introducing 80k After Hours
Today we're launching a new podcast called 80k After Hours.

Like this show it’ll mostly still explore the best ways to do good — and some episodes will be even more laser-focused on careers than most original episodes.

But we’re also going to widen our scope, including things like how to solve pressing problems while also living a happy and fulfilling life, as well as releases that are just fun, entertaining or experimental.

It’ll feature:
Conversations between staff on the 80,000 Hours team
More eclectic formats and topics — one episode could be a structured debate about 'human challenge trials', the next a staged reading of a play about the year 2750

Niche content for specific audiences, such as high-school students, or active participants in the effective altruism community
Extras and outtakes from interviews on the original feed
80,000 Hours staff interviewed on other podcasts
Audio versions of our new articles and research
You can find it by searching for 80k After Hours in whatever podcasting app you use, or by going to 80000hours.org/after-hours-podcast.
14 min
February 16, 2022#121 – Matthew Yglesias on avoiding the pundit's fallacy and how much military intervention can be used for good
If you read polls saying that the public supports a carbon tax, should you believe them? According to today's guest — journalist and blogger Matthew Yglesias — it's complicated, but probably not.
Links to learn more, summary and full transcript.
Interpreting opinion polls about specific policies can be a challenge, and it's easy to trick yourself into believing what you want to believe. Matthew invented a term for a particular type of self-delusion called the 'pundit's fallacy': "the belief that what a politician needs to do to improve his or her political standing is do what the pundit wants substantively."
If we want to advocate not just for ideas that would be good if implemented, but ideas that have a real shot at getting implemented, we should do our best to understand public opinion as it really is.
The least trustworthy polls are published by think tanks and advocacy campaigns that would love to make their preferred policy seem popular. These surveys can be designed to nudge respondents toward the desired result — for example, by tinkering with question wording and order or shifting how participants are sampled. And if a poll produces the 'wrong answer', there's no need to publish it at all, so the 'publication bias' with these sorts of surveys is large.
Matthew says polling run by firms or researchers without any particular desired outcome can be taken more seriously. But the results that we ought to give by far the most weight are those from professional political campaigns trying to win votes and get their candidate elected because they have both the expertise to do polling properly, and a very strong incentive to understand what the public really thinks.
The problem is, campaigns run these expensive surveys because they think that having exclusive access to reliable information will give them a competitive advantage. As a result, they often don’t publish the findings, and instead use them to shape what their candidate says and does.
Journalists like Matthew can call up their contacts and get a summary from people they trust. But being unable to publish the polling itself, they're unlikely to be able to persuade sceptics.
When assessing what ideas are winners, one thing Matthew would like everyone to keep in mind is that politics is competitive, and politicians aren't (all) stupid. If advocating for your pet idea were a great way to win elections, someone would try it and win, and others would copy.
One other thing to check that's more reliable than polling is real-world experience. For example, voters may say they like a carbon tax on the phone — but the very liberal Washington State roundly rejected one in ballot initiatives in 2016 and 2018.
Of course you may want to advocate for what you think is best, even if it wouldn't pass a popular vote in the face of organised opposition. The public's ideas can shift, sometimes dramatically and unexpectedly. But at least you'll be going into the debate with your eyes wide open.
In this extensive conversation, host Rob Wiblin and Matthew also cover:
• How should a humanitarian think about US military interventions overseas?
• From an 'effective altruist' perspective, was the US wrong to withdraw from Afghanistan?
• Has NATO ultimately screwed over Ukrainians by misrepresenting the extent of its commitment to their independence?
• What philosopher does Matthew think is underrated?
• How big a risk is ubiquitous surveillance?
• What does Matthew think about wild animal suffering, anti-ageing research, and autonomous weapons?
• And much more
Chapters:
Rob’s intro (00:00:00)
The interview begins (00:02:05)
Autonomous weapons (00:04:42)
India and the US (00:07:25)
Evidence-backed interventions for reducing the harm done by racial prejudices (00:08:38)
Factory farming (00:10:44)
Wild animal suffering (00:12:41)
Vaccine development (00:15:20)
Anti-ageing research (00:16:27)
Should the US develop a semiconductor industry? (00:19:13)
What we should do about various existential risks (00:21:58)
What governments should do to stop the next pandemic (00:24:00)
Comets and supervolcanoes (00:31:30)
Nuclear weapons (00:34:25)
Advances in AI (00:35:46)
Surveillance systems (00:38:45)
How Matt thinks about public opinion research (00:43:22)
Issues with trusting public opinion polls (00:51:18)
The influence of prior beliefs (01:05:53)
Loss aversion (01:12:19)
Matt's take on military adventurism (01:18:54)
How military intervention looks as a humanitarian intervention (01:29:12)
Where Matt does favour military intervention (01:38:27)
Why smart people disagree (01:44:24)
The case for NATO taking an active stance in Ukraine (01:57:34)
One Billion Americans (02:08:02)
Matt’s views on the effective altruism community (02:11:46)
Matt’s views on the longtermist community (02:19:48)
Matt’s struggle to become more of a rationalist (02:22:42)
Megaprojects (02:26:20)
The impact of Matt’s work (02:32:28)
Matt’s philosophical views (02:47:58)
The value of formal education (02:56:59)
Worst thing Matt’s ever advocated for (03:02:25)
Rob’s outro (03:03:22)

Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore
3 hr 5 min
February 02, 2022#120 – Audrey Tang on what we can learn from Taiwan’s experiments with how to do democracy
In 2014 Taiwan was rocked by mass protests against a proposed trade agreement with China that was about to be agreed without the usual Parliamentary hearings. Students invaded and took over the Parliament. But rather than chant slogans, instead they livestreamed their own parliamentary debate over the trade deal, allowing volunteers to speak both in favour and against.
Instead of polarising the country more, this so-called 'Sunflower Student Movement' ultimately led to a bipartisan consensus that Taiwan should open up its government. That process has gradually made it one of the most communicative and interactive administrations anywhere in the world.
Today's guest — programming prodigy Audrey Tang — initially joined the student protests to help get their streaming infrastructure online. After the students got the official hearings they wanted and went home, she was invited to consult for the government. And when the government later changed hands, she was invited to work in the ministry herself.
Links to learn more, summary and full transcript.
During six years as the country's 'Digital Minister' she has been helping Taiwan increase the flow of information between institutions and civil society and launched original experiments trying to make democracy itself work better.
That includes developing new tools to identify points of consensus between groups that mostly disagree, building social media platforms optimised for discussing policy issues, helping volunteers fight disinformation by making their own memes, and allowing the public to build their own alternatives to government websites whenever they don't like how they currently work.
As part of her ministerial role Audrey also sets aside time each week to help online volunteers working on government-related tech projects get the help they need. How does she decide who to help? She doesn't — that decision is made by members of an online community who upvote the projects they think are best.
According to Audrey, a more collaborative mentality among the country's leaders has helped increase public trust in government, and taught bureaucrats that they can (usually) trust the public in return.
Innovations in Taiwan may offer useful lessons to people who want to improve humanity's ability to make decisions and get along in large groups anywhere in the world. We cover:
• Why it makes sense to treat Facebook as a nightclub
• The value of having no reply button, and of getting more specific when you disagree
• Quadratic voting and funding
• Audrey’s experiences with the Sunflower Student Movement
• Technologies Audrey is most excited about
• Conservative anarchism
• What Audrey’s day-to-day work looks like
• Whether it’s ethical to eat oysters
• And much more
Chapters:
Rob’s intro (00:00:00)
The interview begins (00:02:04)
Global crisis of confidence in government (00:07:06)
Treating Facebook as a nightclub (00:10:55)
Polis (00:13:48)
The value of having no reply button (00:24:33)
The value of getting more specific (00:26:13)
Concerns with Polis (00:30:40)
Quadratic voting and funding (00:42:16)
Sunflower Student Movement (00:55:24)
Promising technologies (01:05:44)
Conservative anarchism (01:22:21)
What Audrey’s day-to-day work looks like (01:33:54)
Taiwanese politics (01:46:03)
G0v (01:50:09)
Rob’s outro (02:05:09)
Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore
2 hr 6 min
January 18, 2022 #43 Classic episode - Daniel Ellsberg on the institutional insanity that maintains nuclear doomsday machines
Rebroadcast: this episode was originally released in September 2018.
In Stanley Kubrick’s iconic film Dr. Strangelove, the American president is informed that the Soviet Union has created a secret deterrence system which will automatically wipe out humanity upon detection of a single nuclear explosion in Russia. With US bombs heading towards the USSR and unable to be recalled, Dr Strangelove points out that “the whole point of this Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret – why didn’t you tell the world, eh?” The Soviet ambassador replies that it was to be announced at the Party Congress the following Monday: “The Premier loves surprises”.
Daniel Ellsberg - leaker of the Pentagon Papers which helped end the Vietnam War and Nixon presidency - claims in his book The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner that Dr. Strangelove might as well be a documentary. After attending the film in Washington DC in 1964, he and a colleague wondered how so many details of their nuclear planning had leaked.
Links to learn more, summary and full transcript.
The USSR did in fact develop a doomsday machine, Dead Hand, which probably remains active today.
If the system can’t contact military leaders, it checks for signs of a nuclear strike, and if it detects them, automatically launches all remaining Soviet weapons at targets across the northern hemisphere.
As in the film, the Soviet Union long kept Dead Hand completely secret, eliminating any strategic benefit, and rendering it a pointless menace to humanity.
You might think the United States would have a more sensible nuclear launch policy. You’d be wrong.
As Ellsberg explains, based on first-hand experience as a nuclear war planner in the 50s, that the notion that only the president is able to authorize the use of US nuclear weapons is a carefully cultivated myth.
The authority to launch nuclear weapons is delegated alarmingly far down the chain of command – significantly raising the chance that a lone wolf or communication breakdown could trigger a nuclear catastrophe.
The whole justification for this is to defend against a ‘decapitating attack’, where a first strike on Washington disables the ability of the US hierarchy to retaliate. In a moment of crisis, the Russians might view this as their best hope of survival.
Ostensibly, this delegation removes Russia’s temptation to attempt a decapitating attack – the US can retaliate even if its leadership is destroyed. This strategy only works, though, if the tell the enemy you’ve done it.
Instead, since the 50s this delegation has been one of the United States most closely guarded secrets, eliminating its strategic benefit, and rendering it another pointless menace to humanity.
Strategically, the setup is stupid. Ethically, it is monstrous.
So – how was such a system built? Why does it remain to this day? And how might we shrink our nuclear arsenals to the point they don’t risk the destruction of civilization?
Daniel explores these questions eloquently and urgently in his book. Today we cover:
• Why full disarmament today would be a mistake and the optimal number of nuclear weapons to hold
• How well are secrets kept in the government?
• What was the risk of the first atomic bomb test?
• Do we have a reliable estimate of the magnitude of a ‘nuclear winter’?

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app.
The 80,000 Hours Podcast is produced by Keiran Harris.
2 hr 36 min
January 10, 2022 #35 Classic episode - Tara Mac Aulay on the audacity to fix the world without asking permission
Rebroadcast: this episode was originally released in June 2018.
How broken is the world? How inefficient is a typical organisation? Looking at Tara Mac Aulay’s life, the answer seems to be ‘very’.
At 15 she took her first job - an entry-level position at a chain restaurant. Rather than accept her place, Tara took it on herself to massively improve the store’s shambolic staff scheduling and inventory management. After cutting staff costs 30% she was quickly promoted, and at 16 sent in to overhaul dozens of failing stores in a final effort to save them from closure.
That’s just the first in a startling series of personal stories that take us to a hospital drug dispensary where pharmacists are wasting a third of their time, a chemotherapy ward in Bhutan that’s killing its patients rather than saving lives, and eventually the Centre for Effective Altruism, where Tara becomes CEO and leads it through start-up accelerator Y Combinator.
In this episode Tara shows how the ability to do practical things, avoid major screw-ups, and design systems that scale, is both rare and precious.
Links to learn more, summary and full transcript.
People with an operations mindset spot failures others can't see and fix them before they bring an organisation down. This kind of resourcefulness can transform the world by making possible critical projects that would otherwise fall flat on their face.
But as Tara's experience shows they need to figure out what actually motivates the authorities who often try to block their reforms.
We explore how people with this skillset can do as much good as possible, what 80,000 Hours got wrong in our article 'Why operations management is one of the biggest bottlenecks in effective altruism’, as well as:
• Tara’s biggest mistakes and how to deal with the delicate politics of organizational reform.
• How a student can save a hospital millions with a simple spreadsheet model.
• The sociology of Bhutan and how medicine in the developing world often makes things worse rather than better.
• What most people misunderstand about operations, and how to tell if you have what it takes.
• And finally, operations jobs people should consider applying for.
Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: search for '80,000 Hours' in your podcasting app.
The 80,000 Hours Podcast is produced by Keiran Harris.
1 hr 24 min
January 03, 2022 #67 Classic episode – David Chalmers on the nature and ethics of consciousness
Rebroadcast: this episode was originally released in December 2019.
What is it like to be you right now? You're seeing this text on the screen, smelling the coffee next to you, and feeling the warmth of the cup. There’s a lot going on in your head — your conscious experience.
Now imagine beings that are identical to humans, but for one thing: they lack this conscious experience. If you spill your coffee on them, they’ll jump like anyone else, but inside they'll feel no pain and have no thoughts: the lights are off.
The concept of these so-called 'philosophical zombies' was popularised by today’s guest — celebrated philosophy professor David Chalmers — in order to explore the nature of consciousness. In a forthcoming book he poses a classic 'trolley problem':
"Suppose you have a conscious human on one train track, and five non-conscious humanoid zombies on another. If you do nothing, a trolley will hit and kill the conscious human. If you flip a switch to redirect the trolley, you can save the conscious human, but in so doing kill the five non-conscious humanoid zombies. What should you do?"
Many people think you should divert the trolley, precisely because the lack of conscious experience means the moral status of the zombies is much reduced or absent entirely.
So, which features of consciousness qualify someone for moral consideration? One view is that the only conscious states that matter are those that have a positive or negative quality, like pleasure and suffering. But Dave’s intuitions are quite different.
Links to learn more, summary and full transcript.

Instead of zombies he asks us to consider 'Vulcans', who can see and hear and reflect on the world around them, but are incapable of experiencing pleasure or pain.
Now imagine a further trolley problem: suppose you have a normal human on one track, and five Vulcans on the other. Should you divert the trolley to kill the five Vulcans in order to save the human?
Dave firmly believes the answer is no, and if he's right, pleasure and suffering can’t be the only things required for moral status. The fact that Vulcans are conscious in other ways must matter in itself.
Dave is one of the world's top experts on the philosophy of consciousness. He helped return the question 'what is consciousness?' to the centre stage of philosophy with his 1996 book 'The Conscious Mind', which argued against then-dominant materialist theories of consciousness.
This comprehensive interview, at over four hours long, outlines each contemporary theory of consciousness, what they have going for them, and their likely ethical implications. Those theories span the full range from illusionism, the idea that consciousness is in some sense an 'illusion', to panpsychism, according to which it's a fundamental physical property present in all matter.
These questions are absolutely central for anyone who wants to build a positive future. If insects were conscious our treatment of them could already be an atrocity. If computer simulations of people will one day be conscious, how will we know, and how should we treat them? And what is it about consciousness that matters, if anything?
Dave Chalmers is probably the best person on the planet to ask these questions, and Rob & Arden cover this and much more over the course of what is both our longest ever episode, and our personal favourite so far.
Get this episode by subscribing to our show on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: search for 80,000 Hours in your podcasting app.
The 80,000 Hours Podcast is produced by Keiran Harris.
4 hr 43 min
December 27, 2021 #59 Classic episode - Cass Sunstein on how change happens, and why it's so often abrupt & unpredictable
Rebroadcast: this episode was originally released in June 2019.
It can often feel hopeless to be an activist seeking social change on an obscure issue where most people seem opposed or at best indifferent to you. But according to a new book by Professor Cass Sunstein, they shouldn't despair. Large social changes are often abrupt and unexpected, arising in an environment of seeming public opposition.
The Communist Revolution in Russia spread so swiftly it confounded even Lenin. Seventy years later the Soviet Union collapsed just as quickly and unpredictably.
In the modern era we have gay marriage, #metoo and the Arab Spring, as well as nativism, Euroskepticism and Hindu nationalism.
How can a society that so recently seemed to support the status quo bring about change in years, months, or even weeks?
Sunstein — co-author of Nudge, Obama White House official, and by far the most cited legal scholar of the late 2000s — aims to unravel the mystery and figure out the implications in his new book How Change Happens.
He pulls together three phenomena which social scientists have studied in recent decades: preference falsification, variable thresholds for action, and group polarisation. If Sunstein is to be believed, together these are a cocktail for social shifts that are chaotic and fundamentally unpredictable.
Links to learn more, summary and full transcript.
In brief, people constantly misrepresent their true views, even to close friends and family. They themselves aren't quite sure how socially acceptable their feelings would have to become, before they revealed them, or joined a campaign for social change. And a chance meeting between a few strangers can be the spark that radicalises a handful of people, who then find a message that can spread their views to millions.
According to Sunstein, it's "much, much easier" to create social change when large numbers of people secretly or latently agree with you. But 'preference falsification' is so pervasive that it's no simple matter to figure out when that's the case.
In today's interview, we debate with Sunstein whether this model of cultural change is accurate, and if so, what lessons it has for those who would like to shift the world in a more humane direction. We discuss:
• How much people misrepresent their views in democratic countries.
• Whether the finding that groups with an existing view tend towards a more extreme position would stand up in the replication crisis.
• When is it justified to encourage your own group to polarise?
• Sunstein's difficult experiences as a pioneer of animal rights law.
• Whether activists can do better by spending half their resources on public opinion surveys.
• Should people be more or less outspoken about their true views?
• What might be the next social revolution to take off?
• How can we learn about social movements that failed and disappeared?
• How to find out what people really think.
Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript on our site.
The 80,000 Hours Podcast is produced by Keiran Harris.
1 hr 44 min
December 20, 2021#119 – Andrew Yang on our very long-term future, and other topics most politicians won’t touch
Andrew Yang — past presidential candidate, founder of the Forward Party, and leader of the 'Yang Gang' — is kind of a big deal, but is particularly popular among listeners to The 80,000 Hours Podcast.
Maybe that's because he's willing to embrace topics most politicians stay away from, like universal basic income, term limits for members of Congress, or what might happen when AI replaces whole industries.
Links to learn more, summary and full transcript.
But even those topics are pretty vanilla compared to our usual fare on The 80,000 Hours Podcast. So we thought it’d be fun to throw Andrew some stranger or more niche questions we hadn't heard him comment on before, including:
1. What would your ideal utopia in 500 years look like?
2. Do we need more public optimism today?
3. Is positively influencing the long-term future a key moral priority of our time?
4. Should we invest far more to prevent low-probability risks?
5. Should we think of future generations as an interest group that's disenfranchised by their inability to vote?
6. The folks who worry that advanced AI is going to go off the rails and destroy us all... are they crazy, or a valuable insurance policy?
7. Will people struggle to live fulfilling lives once AI systems remove the economic need to 'work'?
8. Andrew is a huge proponent of ranked-choice voting. But what about 'approval voting' — where basically you just get to say “yea” or “nay” to every candidate that's running — which some experts prefer?
9. What would Andrew do with a billion dollars to keep the US a democracy?
10. What does Andrew think about the effective altruism community?
11. What's one thing we should do to reduce the risk of nuclear war?
12. Will Andrew's new political party get Trump elected by splitting the vote, the same way Nader got Bush elected back in 2000?
As it turns out, Rob and Andrew agree on a lot, so the episode is less a debate than a chat about ideas that aren’t mainstream yet... but might be one day. They also talk about:
• Andrew’s views on alternative meat
• Whether seniors have too much power in American society
• Andrew’s DC lobbying firm on behalf of humanity
• How the rest of the world could support the US
• The merits of 18-year term limits
• What technologies Andrew is most excited about
• How much the US should spend on foreign aid
• Persistence and prevalence of inflation in the US economy
• And plenty more
Chapters:
Rob’s intro (00:00:00)
The interview begins (00:01:38)
Andrew’s hopes for the year 2500 (00:03:10)
Tech over the next century (00:07:03)
Utopia for realists (00:10:41)
Most likely way humanity fails (00:12:43)
What Andrew would do with a billion dollars (00:14:44)
Approval voting vs. ranked-choice voting (00:19:51)
The worry that third party candidates could cause harm (00:21:12)
Investment in existential risk reduction (00:25:18)
Future generations as a disenfranchised interest group (00:30:37)
Humanity Forward (00:32:05)
Best way the rest of the world could support the US (00:37:17)
Recent advances in AI (00:39:56)
Artificial general intelligence (00:46:38)
The Windfall Clause (00:49:39)
The alignment problem (00:53:02)
18-year term limits (00:56:21)
Effective altruism and longtermism (01:00:44)
Persistence and prevalence of inflation in the US economy (01:01:25)
Downsides of policies Andrew advocates for (01:02:08)
What Andrew would have done differently with COVID (01:04:54)
Fighting for attention in the media (01:09:25)
Right ballpark level of foreign aid for the US (01:11:15)
Government science funding (01:11:58)
Nuclear weapons policy (01:15:06)
US-China relationship (01:16:20)
Human challenge trials (01:18:59)
Forecasting accuracy (01:20:17)
Upgrading public schools (01:21:41)
Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore
1 hr 26 min