The quality of the future depends almost entirely on technologies developed in a few high-innovation, high-intelligence places.

(And the standard of living in the bottom half of the world today was improved more by technological advancement than if the entirety of 1850-1950 GDP were funneled into those places.)

It probably won’t win, but it at least seriously engages with the fact that most civilizations collapse, the world gets vastly worse without technological progress, and focusing on “feel-good” areas like “lives saved” if anything just increases scarcity with neutral to negative long-term effects.

Romans sending “charity” to some far-off village probably wouldn’t have staved off the Dark Ages, and nor will anything that doesn’t preserve civilization and progress matter long-term.

@BenWest may i know why you decided to bet "no"? :) Genuinely curious!

@RuthGraceWong I thought it was trading high; I don't remember the exact calculation, but I looked at the base rate (i.e. number of prizes divided by number of submissions) and things which seemed to deviate too far from that base rate I bet against. I don't have particularly useful feedback on the actual idea in this post, unfortunately.

@BenWest Thanks, appreciate your reply!