I wouldn't assume that the people making large donations to GiveWell charities or TLYCS' members are EAs are dedicated EAs. Equally I wouldn't say there are tens of thousands of people very interested in EA on the basis of unique website views (do the figures you gave refer to visits or visitors?)
I think the survey of EAs from the start of the year picked up a few hundred non-consequentialists. It had a high %age of consequentialists, but emphasized this figure shouldn't be taken as covering all EAs out there.
I wouldn't assume that the people making large donations to GiveWell charities or TLYCS' members are EAs are dedicated EAs. Equally I wouldn't say there are tens of thousands of people very interested in EA on the basis of unique website views (do the figures you gave refer to visits or visitors?)
Neat... so anyone can 'join' .impact by getting involved in EA work and communicating about it with other EA's in the .impact slack?
What are you basing these estimates on? I'd be interested to find out what the best estimates of them that we have are.
How specifically would you try to reach secular people? Eg would you recommend EA's try to get articles into major secular websites and magazines?
What is the ".impact slack" and how do you join it?
I heard TLYCS might be making one, and they seem uniquely well placed to doing so.
I think the survey of EAs from the start of the year picked up a few hundred non-consequentialists. It had a high %age of consequentialists, but emphasized this figure shouldn't be taken as covering all EAs out there.
Any chance of a breakdown? What were the Vox and slatestarcodex articles?
Do EA's generally think we have an obligation to take the action which will do the 'most' good?
Isn't that a common distinction among philosophers? I recall that there's a technical name for it.