One way such a politician could do good is by helping direct funds to MIRI.
How?
I wonder if a good way to do good as a politician would be to try to be effective and popular during your term, then work as a lobbyist afterwards and lobby for causes you support (like x-risk reduction, prediction market legalization, and whatnot).
I suspect my model of the method used to allocate government funding may be oversimplified/incorrect altogether, but I am under the impression that those serving on the House Science Committee have a significant say in where funds are allocated for scientific research. Given that some members of this committee do not believe in evolution and do not believe in man-made climate change, it seems that the potential social good of becoming a successful politician could be very high.
I suspect my model of the method used to allocate government funding may be oversimplified/incorrect altogether, but I am under the impression that those serving on the House Science Committee have a significant say in where funds are allocated for scientific research.
My impression is that the House Science Committee is too high to aim for. A more plausible scenario would be MIRI convincing someone at the NSF to give them grants.
Alas, I think you are aiming too high. If every politician believed that all basic research had positive net expected-value, that would naturally benefit research of the type that MIRI thinks should be conducted.
Once that is the case, movement towards MIRI as a research grant recipient might be worth the effort of Joe Citizen. Until then, I’m skeptical that advocating for MIRI specifically is likely to be worth the effort, politically.
My question was how you could direct funds to MIRI, not whether there were stupid House Science Committee members. I’m suggesting that directing funds to MIRI in particular might not be politically feasible.
How?
I wonder if a good way to do good as a politician would be to try to be effective and popular during your term, then work as a lobbyist afterwards and lobby for causes you support (like x-risk reduction, prediction market legalization, and whatnot).
I suspect my model of the method used to allocate government funding may be oversimplified/incorrect altogether, but I am under the impression that those serving on the House Science Committee have a significant say in where funds are allocated for scientific research. Given that some members of this committee do not believe in evolution and do not believe in man-made climate change, it seems that the potential social good of becoming a successful politician could be very high.
My impression is that the House Science Committee is too high to aim for. A more plausible scenario would be MIRI convincing someone at the NSF to give them grants.
Alas, I think you are aiming too high. If every politician believed that all basic research had positive net expected-value, that would naturally benefit research of the type that MIRI thinks should be conducted.
Once that is the case, movement towards MIRI as a research grant recipient might be worth the effort of Joe Citizen. Until then, I’m skeptical that advocating for MIRI specifically is likely to be worth the effort, politically.
My question was how you could direct funds to MIRI, not whether there were stupid House Science Committee members. I’m suggesting that directing funds to MIRI in particular might not be politically feasible.
Why do you think MIRI is worse politically than any other basic research in controversial or plausibly-controversial topics?
I ask because lots of controversial areas receive government funded grants.