“These days, my answer is if it's really primarily of interest to a very cosmopolitan philanthropist trying to help the whole future, and there's no one client and it's not frontier advancing, then I think that does make it pretty plausible to me that there's no one doing it.”
In an interview https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/holden-karnofsky-open-philanthropy/ with Robert Wiblin, February 2018; also quoted by Ben Pace in "Extended Quote on the Institution of Academia" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nXZi8efFArfk3u568/extended-quote-on-the-institution-of-academia and by Rob Bensinger in "Karnofsky on forecasting and what science does" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FhmWKE77qCPWJ63Y5/karnofsky-on-forecasting-and-what-science-does
Context: I think it's somewhat of a happy coincidence so far that most breakthroughs have been good. To say, I see a breakthrough on the horizon. Is that good or bad? How can we prepare for it? That's another thing academia is really not set up to do. Academia is set up to get the breakthrough. That is a question I ask myself a lot is here's an intellectual activity. Why can't it be done in academia? These days, my answer is if it's really primarily of interest to a very cosmopolitan philanthropist trying to help the whole future, and there's no one client and it's not frontier advancing, then I think that does make it pretty plausible to me that there's no one doing it. We would love to change that, at least somewhat, by funding what we think is the most important work.
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
Holden Karnofsky 13
American nonprofit executive 1981Related quotes

in a letter to her sister Edma Morisot, 23 April 1869; as cited in The Correspondence of Berthe Morisot, ed. Denis Rouart; Camden, London 1986 / Kinston, R. I. Moyer Bell, 1989, p. 29
1860 - 1870

Source: The Wine of Violence (1981), Chapter 15 (p. 178)

on his 'White Paintings'
1960's, I never thought of it as much of an ability,' (1968)

1940s, Philosophy for Laymen (1946)
Context: There are a number of purely theoretical questions, of perennial and passionate interest, which science is unable to answer, at any rate at present. Do we survive death in any sense, and if so, do we survive for a time or for ever? Can mind dominate matter, or does matter completely dominate mind, or has each, perhaps, a certain limited independence? Has the universe a purpose? Or is it driven by blind necessity? Or is it a mere chaos and jumble, in which the natural laws that we think we find are only a phantasy generated by our own love of order? If there is a cosmic scheme, has life more importance in it than astronomy would lead us to suppose, or is our emphasis upon life mere parochialism and self-importance? I do not know the answer to these questions, and I do not believe that anybody else does, but I think human life would be impoverished if they were forgotten, or if definite answers were accepted without adequate evidence. To keep alive the interest in such questions, and to scrutinize suggested answers, is one of the functions of philosophy.

At an interview with Stephen Colbert at Montclair Kimberley Academy on January 29th, 2010.
2010s

Sherilyn Fenn, quoted in "Fenn & Now", by Dennis Hensley. Movieline (USA). June 1999. p. 54-59.
on starring in Boxing Helena.