The central challenge this idea tackles is the role of monopolies—especially in critical sectors like technology, energy, and AI—in amplifying or even creating catastrophic risks. When a handful of entities control essential infrastructure or decision-making, the potential for systemic failures, misuse, or unintended consequences grows. For instance, a single company dominating AI development could inadvertently align systems with harmful goals, while a monopoly over energy grids might create vulnerabilities to cascading blackouts. This intersection of concentrated power and global risks deserves attention, as it’s often overlooked in favor of narrower antitrust or safety discussions.

Investigating the Link Between Monopolies and Catastrophe

One way to explore this issue would involve mapping industries where monopolistic tendencies are emerging or entrenched, such as cloud computing, AI, or genetic engineering. The focus could then shift to understanding how these power imbalances might lead to large-scale failures—whether through stifled safety innovation, centralized points of failure, or unchecked misuse. For example, analyzing how a lack of competition in AI could reduce incentives for robust safety testing, or how a monopolized energy sector might delay adoption of resilient decentralized alternatives.

A layered approach could include:

• Research: Case studies comparing historical monopolies (e.g., Standard Oil’s environmental impact) with modern analogues.
• Policy Proposals: Tailored interventions like antitrust reforms for high-risk sectors or incentives for decentralized designs.
• Engagement: Collaboration with regulators and NGOs to frame solutions as pragmatic risk reduction, not just ideological antitrust enforcement.

Bridging Two Critical Fields

This idea sits at the intersection of antitrust research and existential risk analysis, fields that rarely overlap. Traditional antitrust work (e.g., Open Markets Institute) focuses on economic fairness but seldom ties concentration to global-scale threats. Conversely, risk researchers (e.g., Future of Humanity Institute) study catastrophic scenarios without deeply examining market structures as contributing factors. By connecting these perspectives, the project could offer fresh insights—such as how decentralized markets might inherently mitigate certain risks, or why monopolies require unique safeguards beyond standard regulation.

An MVP might start with a whitepaper examining one high-risk sector (e.g., AI) through this dual lens, then expand into comparative analyses or policy toolkits. Over time, partnerships with advocacy groups could help turn findings into actionable measures—whether through regulatory nudges, industry standards, or public awareness campaigns.

While challenges like data access or defining measurable risks exist, leveraging open-source intelligence and interdisciplinary collaboration could help. The potential payoff? Policy that doesn’t just promote competition, but actively reduces the chances of large-scale disasters.