Thus it was spoken in a recent 80,000 podcast with Lord MacAskill:

Will: ...I think EA can just be quite a stressful place. So like I made this commitment because I wanted to start actually publishing some stuff to write on the forum. I think after my first post, or my first real post which I think was age-weighted voting, I had an anxiety dream every evening. Like every night. Where I would wake up and my dreams would be the most literal anxiety dreams you could imagine, which are like people talking and people being like, “Yeah, we lost all the respect for you after you wrote that post”.

Rob: That’s incredible, wow!

Will: Yeah and I’d wake up and that’s for a whole week.

Rob: That is so dark.

Will: I know. And if this is like how I feel and similarly–

Rob: How does it feel as a new member of this forum if you write something that has a mistake in it.

Will: Exactly.

In his noted talk on Creativity (transcript), Silly Walks Minister John Cleese states:

[Psychologist Donald MacKinnon] showed that the most creative [scientists, architects, engineers] had simply acquired a facility for getting themselves into a particular mood — “a way of operating” — which allowed their natural creativity to function.

In fact, MacKinnon described this particular facility as an ability to play.

Indeed he described the most creative (when in this mood) as being childlike. For they were able to play with ideas… to explore them… not for any immediate practical purpose but just for enjoyment. Play for its own sake.

...

...humor is an essential part of spontaneity, an essential part of playfulness, an essential part of the creativity that we need to solve problems, no matter how ‘serious' they may be.

According to a poll following the most recent papal conclave:

What do you estimate is the probability (in %) that there exists a cause which ought to receive over 20% of EA resources (time, money, etc.), but currently receives little attention?

Of 25 total responses:

Mean: 42.6% probability

Median: 36.5%

Lower quartile: 20%

Upper quartile: 70%

I hope you see what I'm starting to get at by quoting all of these authorities. Note especially the Minister's remarks.

Effective Altruism may be leaving massive world-improving opportunities on the table due to being insufficiently serious.

Two weeks hence, on April Fool's Day, I move we endeavor to fix this grave problem with a Seriousness Tournament. My proposed rules are as follows:

  1. Your post title shall start with "New Top EA Cause:"

  2. Make an edit to mention the seriousness of the day and/or link to this post on April 2, so future readers will know how incredibly serious you were being

  3. More rules forthcoming to disqualify any entry that is not my own

I've retitled last year's post on global poor's dire need for flying cars to conform with the proposed rules.

Seriousness Tournament entries may distinguish themselves on the basis of being

  1. Funny

  2. Ridiculous

  3. Actually a plausible Top EA Cause

Ideally all three at once.

No formal judging process will take place for this event. But remember, this is serious business. Very serious.

Comments14


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Interesting idea but maybe you should ask a question on the April Fool's Day about what new cause areas there should be and other people would write their pitches as answers to that question. I think this would be better for multiple reasons than making many top-level posts because:

  • I'd find it much less scary to post a funny answer or a comment, rather than a top-level post because it feels like taking less space. And my intuition is that you'd get more answers this way.
  • If a newcomer comes to the forum and see the title of one of these posts, they would probably not think much about the EA movement. The moment they see a title like "New Top EA Cause: fair rides for chickens", they might close the page and not come back to the EA forum. Note that they could see one of these posts on google searches or by going to a user profile. I'd not make such a post because I'd be afraid that someone might not take me seriously after seeing the title of such post after visiting my profile.
  • All answers would be in one place and easier to find. Otherwise posts about new cause areas would probably not be promoted to be neither community or frontpage posts, so few people would notice them.
  • It would be easier to navigate the forum to find new information because the forum wouldn't be full of these posts

I'm now thinking that the EA forum is a strange place. It's literally my day job to spend months writing these long articles with hundreds of references. These articles are then reviewed by multiple people and I spend days copy-editing them. But at the same time we do want people to spontaneously post their ideas without spending days researching them in the very same place where me and my colleagues post these long and serious research articles. Maybe this forum is trying to be too many things at once. Or maybe we should post our research articles elsewhere so that people would feel more free to play with new ideas here. The existence of shortform does help to alleviate this problem though.

Please continue to post research articles here! There are plenty of subreddits that contain both deep analysis of quantitative topics and silly memes, and I'd hate for us to limit our ambition for something that Reddit can manage. If people feel intimidated to post, that's the job of our moderation team to help with :-)

There’s the quick takes section currently, for what that’s worth

Makes sense, I'll do that.

I like having it be an answer to a question. If you'd like to write a top-level post, you can always link to it from your answer.

(joke) “New Top EA Cause: Not doing anything and sitting in front of the TV and complaining.” “Too often, Effective Altruism ignores common practices people do to do good. Donating blood, Calling their mom sometimes, and complaining while simultaneously doing absolutely nothing and hope things work out on their own. Clearly, many see this as a new way of having an impact, and it’s worth further investigation.”

this made me more productive for roughly an hour 30 mins

Update: (this is on me) I wasted roughly all of this time waiting for something to load, something that would’ve happened regardless. sorry!

Great idea. Let's do it!

Sure! I'm down to write a new top EA cause on April 1st.

I'm sorry, I've been overwhelmed with things lately, I didn't get round to it. But please do something similar next year!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Does a food carbon tax increase animal deaths and/or the total time of suffering of cows, pigs, chickens, and fish? Theoretically, this is possible, as a carbon tax could lead consumers to substitute, for example, beef with chicken. However, this is not per se the case, as animal products are not perfect substitutes.  I'm presenting the results of my master's thesis in Environmental Economics, which I re-worked and published on SSRN as a pre-print. My thesis develops a model of animal product substitution after a carbon tax, slaughter tax, and a meat tax. When I calibrate[1] this model for the U.S., there is a decrease in animal deaths and duration of suffering following a carbon tax. This suggests that a carbon tax can reduce animal suffering. Key points * Some animal products are carbon-intensive, like beef, but causes relatively few animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are large. Other animal products, like chicken, causes relatively many animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are small, but cause relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. * A carbon tax will make some animal products, like beef, much more expensive. As a result, people may buy more chicken. This would increase animal suffering, assuming that farm animals suffer. However, this is not per se the case. It is also possible that the direct negative effect of a carbon tax on chicken consumption is stronger than the indirect (positive) substitution effect from carbon-intensive products to chicken. * I developed a non-linear market model to predict the consumption of different animal products after a tax, based on own-price and cross-price elasticities. * When calibrated for the United States, this model predicts a decrease in the consumption of all animal products considered (beef, chicken, pork, and farmed fish). Therefore, the modelled carbon tax is actually good for animal welfare, assuming that animals live net-negative lives. * A slaughter tax (a
MarieF🔸
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Summary * After >2 years at Hi-Med, I have decided to step down from my role. * This allows me to complete my medical residency for long-term career resilience, whilst still allowing part-time flexibility for direct charity work. It also allows me to donate more again. * Hi-Med is now looking to appoint its next Executive Director; the application deadline is 26 January 2025. * I will join Hi-Med’s governing board once we have appointed the next Executive Director. Before the role When I graduated from medical school in 2017, I had already started to give 10% of my income to effective charities, but I was unsure as to how I could best use my medical degree to make this world a better place. After dipping my toe into nonprofit fundraising (with Doctors Without Borders) and working in a medical career-related start-up to upskill, a talk given by Dixon Chibanda at EAG London 2018 deeply inspired me. I formed a rough plan to later found an organisation that would teach Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-specific psychotherapeutic techniques to lay people to make evidence-based treatment of PTSD scalable. I started my medical residency in psychosomatic medicine in 2019, working for a specialised clinic for PTSD treatment until 2021, then rotated to child and adolescent psychiatry for a year and was half a year into the continuation of my specialisation training at a third hospital, when Akhil Bansal, whom I met at a recent EAG in London, reached out and encouraged me to apply for the ED position at Hi-Med - an organisation that I knew through my participation in their introductory fellowship (an academic paper about the outcomes of this first cohort can be found here). I seized the opportunity, applied, was offered the position, and started working full-time in November 2022.  During the role I feel truly privileged to have had the opportunity to lead High Impact Medicine for the past two years. My learning curve was steep - there were so many new things to
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I can’t recall the last time I read a book in one sitting, but that’s what happened with Moral Ambition by bestselling author Rutger Bregman. I read the German edition, though it’s also available in Dutch (see James Herbert's Quick Take). An English release is slated for May. The book opens with the statement: “The greatest waste of our times is the waste of talent.” From there, Bregman builds a compelling case for privileged individuals to leave their “bullshit jobs” and tackle the world’s most pressing challenges. He weaves together narratives spanning historical movements like abolitionism, suffrage, and civil rights through to contemporary initiatives such as Against Malaria Foundation, Charity Entrepreneurship, LEEP, and the Shrimp Welfare Project. If you’ve been engaged with EA ideas, much of this will sound familiar, but I initially didn’t expect to enjoy the book as much as I did. However, Bregman’s skill as a storyteller and his knack for balancing theory and narrative make Moral Ambition a fascinating read. He reframes EA concepts in a more accessible way, such as replacing “counterfactuals” with the sports acronym “VORP” (Value Over Replacement Player). His use of stories and examples, paired with over 500 footnotes for details, makes the book approachable without sacrificing depth. I had some initial reservations. The book draws heavily on examples from the EA community but rarely engages directly with the movement, mentioning EA mainly in the context of FTX. The final chapter also promotes Bregman’s own initiative, The School for Moral Ambition. However, the school’s values closely align with core EA principles. The ITN framework and pitches for major EA cause areas are in the book, albeit with varying levels of depth. Having finished the book, I can appreciate its approach. Moral Ambition feels like a more pragmatic, less theory-heavy version of EA. The School for Moral Ambition has attracted better-known figures in Germany, such as the political e
Recent opportunities in Community
31
cescorza
· · 2m read