I think if EA folks got involved in trying to change the climate change methodology it could go a long way towards minimizing the amount of wasted effort that other people are putting into the climate problem.
I'm not nearly as smart or involved as many people in this community, but quickly after discovering EA (about 4 years ago) I got the impression that climate change and threats to biodiversity were underestimated, and was surprised at how little research and discussion there seems to be.
One point I would like to raise is that this community seems to assume that everyone starts (or should start) from the assumption that human life and our species's continued existence is valued above all else. It's very anthropocentric, which is another thing that may alienate potential effective altruists (like myself).
Personally, I value biodiversity for its own sake, as well as its benefit to humans, since I come from a long-term ecologists' perspective (put simply, I value the continuance of life rather than focusing on one species, and a more diverse biosphere/ecosystem is a healthier and more resilient one). I believe there should be a balance between ecologist and humanist efforts.
I wonder if part of this bias toward humanist efforts is because it's much cleaner and easier to measure costs and benefits in terms of human lives/DALY etc., since there are more data and research done.
Anyway, I would be curious to hear EA's perspective. And if there are convincing reasons I should reprioritize my values, I am open to changing my mind.
I think if EA folks got involved in trying to change the climate change methodology it could go a long way towards minimizing the amount of wasted effort that other people are putting into the climate problem.
I'm not nearly as smart or involved as many people in this community, but quickly after discovering EA (about 4 years ago) I got the impression that climate change and threats to biodiversity were underestimated, and was surprised at how little research and discussion there seems to be.
One point I would like to raise is that this community seems to assume that everyone starts (or should start) from the assumption that human life and our species's continued existence is valued above all else. It's very anthropocentric, which is another thing that may alienate potential effective altruists (like myself).
Personally, I value biodiversity for its own sake, as well as its benefit to humans, since I come from a long-term ecologists' perspective (put simply, I value the continuance of life rather than focusing on one species, and a more diverse biosphere/ecosystem is a healthier and more resilient one). I believe there should be a balance between ecologist and humanist efforts.
I wonder if part of this bias toward humanist efforts is because it's much cleaner and easier to measure costs and benefits in terms of human lives/DALY etc., since there are more data and research done.
Anyway, I would be curious to hear EA's perspective. And if there are convincing reasons I should reprioritize my values, I am open to changing my mind.