Yes, I think so too. The directions of land use are hard to predict from the outside—even just for agriculture there’s a lot of differing thoughts about things like animal welfare (considering most agricultural land is grazing land and intensification will make welfare worse), efficacy of vertical farming, release of demand for increased food variety (my personal pet hypothesis). A lot of these questions depend on how much time we spend around take-off without being post-singularity. I also get the impression that whether land is scarce during takeoff is not a settled question, but I don’t have a strong argument on this.
One of the many worries is that the greatly increased value AI gains from industrial activity would threaten the biosphere, and having lots of conservation land plausibly elevates the importance and urgency of that
Yes, this is true. Unfortunately these lands require active management, so one has to ask where the capital and labor is coming from. This is doubly true for heritage/cultural conservation because it exists so close to people (who are as a general rule expensive).
These lands are being set aside for a purpose but there is no discussion of what that purpose is other than a vague “good for people”. If it’s primarily tourism that’s a very different argument than ecosystem service (e.g. air quality for humans), or existence value, or option value, or whatever. So good to bring up all these topics now rather than later.
I also get the impression that whether land is scarce during takeoff is not a settled question, but I don’t have a strong argument on this.
My expectation is no, at least not until after the point where humans don’t get to make the decisions if AI refuses. Mineral and energy scarcity, sure. Insufficient equipment and infrastructure of various sorts, yes. But I don’t imagine AGI or early ASI needing more than 1% of the planet’s surface on the very high end, probably 1-4 OOMs less, and that’s not enough to make land itself scarce.
Yes, this is true. Unfortunately these lands require active management, so one has to ask where the capital and labor is coming from.
I think the answer is “more AI.” At least in the sense that if AI can’t handle that, then we’re probably not far enough into takeoff that it’s a pressing urgent need.
I do agree on recognizing the different sources of value, and think people stay vague precisely because they all overlap in messy ways and because building a quorum of stakeholders behind conservation efforts has historically required some strange compromises and contortions. Tourism is often an easy sell at local scale. Ecosystem services are big in aggregate but too diffuse in most cases to be compelling to real decision makers. Existence value appeals to appreciation of the sacred if you can credibly claim such social high ground in the face of near-mode counterarguments. I think option value gets underrated because most people don’t have enough imagination and foresight to anticipate future capabilities or challenges and the needs they might generate.
Yes, I think so too. The directions of land use are hard to predict from the outside—even just for agriculture there’s a lot of differing thoughts about things like animal welfare (considering most agricultural land is grazing land and intensification will make welfare worse), efficacy of vertical farming, release of demand for increased food variety (my personal pet hypothesis). A lot of these questions depend on how much time we spend around take-off without being post-singularity. I also get the impression that whether land is scarce during takeoff is not a settled question, but I don’t have a strong argument on this.
Yes, this is true. Unfortunately these lands require active management, so one has to ask where the capital and labor is coming from. This is doubly true for heritage/cultural conservation because it exists so close to people (who are as a general rule expensive).
These lands are being set aside for a purpose but there is no discussion of what that purpose is other than a vague “good for people”. If it’s primarily tourism that’s a very different argument than ecosystem service (e.g. air quality for humans), or existence value, or option value, or whatever. So good to bring up all these topics now rather than later.
My expectation is no, at least not until after the point where humans don’t get to make the decisions if AI refuses. Mineral and energy scarcity, sure. Insufficient equipment and infrastructure of various sorts, yes. But I don’t imagine AGI or early ASI needing more than 1% of the planet’s surface on the very high end, probably 1-4 OOMs less, and that’s not enough to make land itself scarce.
I think the answer is “more AI.” At least in the sense that if AI can’t handle that, then we’re probably not far enough into takeoff that it’s a pressing urgent need.
I do agree on recognizing the different sources of value, and think people stay vague precisely because they all overlap in messy ways and because building a quorum of stakeholders behind conservation efforts has historically required some strange compromises and contortions. Tourism is often an easy sell at local scale. Ecosystem services are big in aggregate but too diffuse in most cases to be compelling to real decision makers. Existence value appeals to appreciation of the sacred if you can credibly claim such social high ground in the face of near-mode counterarguments. I think option value gets underrated because most people don’t have enough imagination and foresight to anticipate future capabilities or challenges and the needs they might generate.