I would like to see this discussion re-ignited. I got sick at EAGxBerlin2024, ironically missing a talk on „The economic value of reducing indoor infections“, which argues that UVC-lamps are a very cost-effective measure for indoor gatherings (https://www.d-fine.com/en/news/reducing-indoor-infections/). 

I understand that it is difficult to estimate the effect of indoor air quality improvements to EA events (which include reduced air pollution AND reduced pathogen load), because these events may be different from what has been studied in the past, e.g. there already is existing ventilation, some people wear masks, many are young etc. I still encourage people with more expertise in the area to try to make an estimate (@Dawn Drescher - I could not reach your weblink). 
 
I firmly believe that investing in air purification at EAG(x) is worthwhile, as the associated costs are relatively minor, and Eli_Nathan's  arguments against this, as the former organizer, lack validity.

I list them below: 

1. not sure there’s a way to rent air filtration equipment 
   
   Response: There is (now). The cost of renting 20 industrial-grade air purifiers for one weekend seems to be roughly 2500 pounds. Given the number of attendees at EAG, air purification is certainly cheaper than the shirts. (I just picked the first google response to base my estimate on: https://www.cas-hire.co.uk/air-cleaners/healthcare-bacterial-and-odour-control/)

2. quite logistically challenging 

   Response: How? As I understand it, air filter are directly shipped to the destination, and then shipped back afterwards. My volunteering experience tells me that organizers worry about stuff that I would consider of lesser importance, such as getting the number of toilets on descriptions exactly right. Renting a ton of furniture (as is the case for EAGxBerlin) surely is as logistically challenging, if not more.

3. there are also trade-offs re noise pollution

   Response: What are these? Modern air filters tend to be relatively silent. In my experience, they are barely noticeable, even without anyone talking. Never has a guest at my house noticed the sound of my air filter (and the noise level is much lower than at EAG).

4. at the end of the day there are other marginal improvements to the conference I’m more excited about making

   Response: Since when does it make sense to implement only the „best“ improvements? Is it not sufficient to robustly improve the event? I understand that the organizers do not want unnecessary additional hassle with this, but it does not seem to be more hassle than most other things at such events. 

@Gordon Seidoh Worley also suggested that we bring our home equipment. Whilst I do not think that many are able and willing to do this, my air filter is lightweight and I would have been willing to bring it. If a small share (say 3%) of participants brought their equipment this could suffice as well.

I am tagging an event organizer here just so that this comment gets read by someone, @RobertHarling - the honor is yours.

Thank you so much! This helps me make a decision.

Thanks Ren for this in-depth article. This is pure gold! Btw: I happened to read something related a couple of days ago: why-you-should-publish-your-research-in-academic-fashion. Maybe you should ask the author to link to your post?

Also: You have written "paper" instead of "journal" on the first line of your subsection Open access mega journals.

 

Thanks so much for the review! I would like to add that there is some evidence that simple acupressure mats help alleviate low back pain.

Thank you for writing this blogpost! 

I wondered whether you also specifically looked at population decline in developed countries? I would have thought that the most interesting question would be along the lines: Could demographic collapse in developed countries lead to decreased civilizational resilience? As trammell pointed out: Developed countries seem to be prone to population decline in the next century, particularly if the social trend to have fewer babies continues. I think it is also a bit misleading to talk about changes in total world population when the composition of this population is changing across time too. 

Thank you for writing up a well-researched article. Although I am skeptical that this would meet the effectiveness threshold for top funds, this might be of interest to local funds. I can imagine that local governments are willing to spend significant amounts on such a problem. Yet only if they are confident in alleviating the problem. However, the problem gets increasing attention.  Stray dogs seem to be an issue in other countries such as Romania as well.

I find your conclusion " [...] an economic cost of 3 Billion USD every year. The economic cost of Animal Birth Control to contain a FRD population in a city of 1 million people is around 1 million USD [...]" a bit misleading as you compare costs in different population  sizes. I would update this as either cost per million or per India.

I agree strongly! It would be interesting to research how economists have looked upon the creation of the internet. I guess that there is in fact little research on how the internet would change the world pre-1990. 

Thank you for publishing this post. In which way is this different from what Optimism tries to achieve? Also, what if the public good is difficult to monitor? It is hard to observe reductions in existential risk. How will the protocol pay out if there is large uncertainty regarding the effects of an intervention, even afterwards?

Exactly. Such problems are similar in nature. But it is important to point out that in such cases bilateral or multilateral agreements can be found relatively quickly (and have been in the past - see e.g. Rhine pollution treaty), whereas geoengineering needs a global treaty which is much harder to craft.