Comments
More from the author
Curated and popular this week
65
This is a crosspost from the new Animal Welfare Alignment Newsletter by Anima International. You can subscribe on Substack if you are interested in following these efforts. Audio reading also available on Substack.
The goals of this post are to:
1. Raise a question I see as crucially important to the goal of aligning AI to animal welfare...
“How long have you been v*g*n?”
This is one of the most common icebreakers at animal protection events. It’s a baseline assumption, and it mostly holds true: if you’re out advocating for animals not to be tortured or abused, realistically these days you are v**n, or close. And it makes for good conversation. It seems fairly safe to assume when you meet strangers.
But this assumption is hurting the movement in a way which we don’t always notice: someone new comes into the sp...
Summary
Back in November 2023 I posted here to launch Spiro and raise our first $198k. Two and a half years later this is an update and a fundraiser for the next step.
The short version: we've now reached over-5,900 people with TB preventive medicine, including over 3,000 children under five years old. Our early results have held up well an...
Recent opportunities to take action
The very well written Notes on Effective Altruism coheres some thoughts I've had over the years, and makes me think we should potentially drop the "how to do good in the best way possible framing" when introducing EA for the "be more effective when trying to help others" framing. This honestly seems straightforwardly good to me from a number of different angles, and I think we should seriously be thinking about changing our overall branding to this as a tagline instead.
But am I missing something here? Is there a reason the latter is worse than I think? Or some hidden benefits to the former that I'm not weighing?
I think there's a big difference between "more effective" and "most effective", and one of the most important and counterintuitive principles of EA is that trying to find the best option rather than just a good option can make a huge difference to how much good you do -- we have to prioritise between different goods, and this is painful to do (hence easy to avoid) but really important.
Yeah, I think the tension here is between finding a way to put the motivation that can appeal to all people, and watering it down a bit, or putting it fully in such a manner and accepting that you're only ever going to be speaking to a small portion of people.
Taking only the "most effective" path towards doing good, when that looks like working on top causes or donating a significant amount, just isn't open to 90% or more of the population. Is it really wise to focus a movement so narrowly that you rule out most people in the world being able to find a place in it?
Perhaps a compromise is something like the below, where "do more good" is the motto, but with an emphasis on how big that difference can be.
The context might vary and make me reconsider in certain instances, but I generally think it's important to say that there are ways to act that are orders of magnitude more effective than others. So yes, insist on "more" rather than on "the most possible"... But with an emphasis on the fact that there are resources to help you and guide you towards options that are likely to be immensely more impactful than most actions.