Hello!
It seems to me that the EA community leans towards progressive or liberal political ideologies. This feels especially pertinent within animal advocacy, where moral and cultural disagreements often create barriers to broader acceptance. However, I think it’s an analogous problem within EA and so feel free to weigh in even if animals aren’t your primary concern.
If we agree that engaging more conservatives is desirable, how might we achieve this? Here are a few ideas:
1. Highlight conservative-friendly interventions: Focus on initiatives that align with conservative priorities, such as promoting free-market solutions to factory farming (e.g., supporting cultured meat startups) or emphasizing the health benefits of plant-based diets.
2. Engage conservative leaders: Collaborate with conservative thought leaders, policymakers, and organizations to bridge ideological divides and promote EA principles in ways that resonate with their audiences.
3. Encourage open dialogue: Create spaces within EA for conservatives to voice their perspectives without fear of judgment, and ensure these conversations are framed as opportunities for mutual learning.
Open questions
• Do you think the lack of political diversity in EA and animal advocacy is a significant problem? Why or why not?
• Are there risks to actively recruiting conservatives to the movement, such as diluting core values or sparking internal conflicts?
• What strategies have been successful in building coalitions across political divides in other contexts, and could these be applied to EA?
I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. Does engaging more conservatives represent a meaningful opportunity for animals/EA more broadly, or would it be a distraction?
No, I think you would expect EAs to have the mental strength to handle diverse political views, but in practice most of them don't. For example, see this heavily downvoted post about demographic collapse by Malcolm and Simone Collins. Everyone is egregiously misreading it as being racist or maybe just downvoting it because of some vague right-wing connotations they have of the authors.