3 ms·

I don't see any realistic, actionable analysis or solutions in here. > People need to get paid (very!) well for their work on the endeavor Good luck with that

I don't see any realistic, actionable analysis or solutions in here. > People need to get paid (very!) well for their work on the endeavor Good luck with that one. Who, exactly, is going to pay? And if you did somehow pass a bill mandating $500/hour wages, how would the flood of applicants be managed? > Similarly, with climate change, programs to develop ways to transport solar energy could help, if implemented at scale and with vigorous commitment and funding. (It would be fairly easy to produce the solar energy; the challenges are reducing toxicity of manufacturing solar panels and batteries, increasing storage capacity, and figuring out transmission or transportation over long distances) I had the impression that many people already were working on all those. Is he saying that throwing more money at the problem would solve it faster? Finally, Y2K and Ebola are only two examples. How about "nuclear war over Taiwan"? That seems like the ultimate risk, and it's not by any means improbable.

mattzito 4y ago
I agree somewhat that the article seems more structured around “managing risk is important”, rather than talking about concrete actions. But the idea of paying people more to work on issues to mitigate risk is very valid. Lots of people are working on climate change, it’s true, but it’s not hard to imagine a world where we subsidize that sort of work (assuming a reasonable qualification process), and the result is more people working on the solution. To put another way - if fewer people were working on it, would it take less, more, or the same amount of time? Presumably there is some optimal range where enough smart people are working on a problem to speed things up, but not enough to where there’s a lot of wasted make-work. To the last point, there are always going to be risks that we, individually or collectively, can’t do anything about- nuclear war over Taiwan being one of those. Our inability to influence those risks does not obviate the opportunity to mitigate others.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  We can't do anything about the Taiwan risk? I beg to differ. Are our political leaders, who are elected, ignoring it in hopes it'll go away, actively making it worse, or mitigating it?
HWR_14 4y ago
> Who, exactly, is going to pay? Well, he clearly said the government. Who else would pay? Or could pay? > if you did somehow pass a bill mandating $500/hour wages, how would the flood of applicants be managed? We manage people going to work at FAANG and people becoming CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and people becoming actors and sports stars. "More people want this job than are applying" is something that most places that pay above minimum wage deal with. > Is he saying that throwing more money at the problem would solve it faster? Probably. With a lot of these problems more funding leads to faster solutions. Moreover, if you knew that solving those problems was a valid career move, the smartest people would stop aiming towards software and wall street. > How about "nuclear war over Taiwan"? This seems unlikely. Putin using nukes over losing in Ukraine seems far more possible, although if other countries retaliated is an open question. China seems really patient about Taiwan.
- nradov 4y ago
  Where would Putin even use nukes in Ukraine? Tactical nuclear weapons are only really useful against troop concentrations. At this stage of the war, Ukrainian forces are already dispersed and dug in. Many of them are engaged in close combat with Russian forces, so a Russian nuclear strike would end up being an "own goal" to some extent. Putin could use strategic nuclear weapons to destroy Kyiv, or other civilian population centers or infrastructure. But to what end? That wouldn't align with any of his war goals.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    > But to what end? That wouldn't align with any of his war goals. "If I can't have it, no one can". Besides, it looks like Ukraine might be able to retake land Russia has been occupying. If he destroys one city with nukes, the "surrender or I will take out cities one by one" is a valid plan to win a war. If the alternative is losing Crimea (which he was successfully holding) I can see him taking such a step. Also, Ukraine would have fallen (and still might) without constant aid from the West. Using nukes to raise the danger level might be enough to stop the shipments of arms and intelligence.
    - 4y ago

mattzito 4y ago

I agree somewhat that the article seems more structured around “managing risk is important”, rather than talking about concrete actions. But the idea of paying people more to work on issues to mitigate risk is very valid. Lots of people are working on climate change, it’s true, but it’s not hard to imagine a world where we subsidize that sort of work (assuming a reasonable qualification process), and the result is more people working on the solution. To put another way - if fewer people were working on it, would it take less, more, or the same amount of time? Presumably there is some optimal range where enough smart people are working on a problem to speed things up, but not enough to where there’s a lot of wasted make-work. To the last point, there are always going to be risks that we, individually or collectively, can’t do anything about- nuclear war over Taiwan being one of those. Our inability to influence those risks does not obviate the opportunity to mitigate others.

UIUC_06 4y ago
We can't do anything about the Taiwan risk? I beg to differ. Are our political leaders, who are elected, ignoring it in hopes it'll go away, actively making it worse, or mitigating it?

HWR_14 4y ago

> Who, exactly, is going to pay? Well, he clearly said the government. Who else would pay? Or could pay? > if you did somehow pass a bill mandating $500/hour wages, how would the flood of applicants be managed? We manage people going to work at FAANG and people becoming CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and people becoming actors and sports stars. "More people want this job than are applying" is something that most places that pay above minimum wage deal with. > Is he saying that throwing more money at the problem would solve it faster? Probably. With a lot of these problems more funding leads to faster solutions. Moreover, if you knew that solving those problems was a valid career move, the smartest people would stop aiming towards software and wall street. > How about "nuclear war over Taiwan"? This seems unlikely. Putin using nukes over losing in Ukraine seems far more possible, although if other countries retaliated is an open question. China seems really patient about Taiwan.

nradov 4y ago
Where would Putin even use nukes in Ukraine? Tactical nuclear weapons are only really useful against troop concentrations. At this stage of the war, Ukrainian forces are already dispersed and dug in. Many of them are engaged in close combat with Russian forces, so a Russian nuclear strike would end up being an "own goal" to some extent. Putin could use strategic nuclear weapons to destroy Kyiv, or other civilian population centers or infrastructure. But to what end? That wouldn't align with any of his war goals.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > But to what end? That wouldn't align with any of his war goals. "If I can't have it, no one can". Besides, it looks like Ukraine might be able to retake land Russia has been occupying. If he destroys one city with nukes, the "surrender or I will take out cities one by one" is a valid plan to win a war. If the alternative is losing Crimea (which he was successfully holding) I can see him taking such a step. Also, Ukraine would have fallen (and still might) without constant aid from the West. Using nukes to raise the danger level might be enough to stop the shipments of arms and intelligence.
  - 4y ago