I’d add any low hanging fruit in climate advocacy to this list. The costs of carbon emissions in rich countries are disproportionately borne by poorer countries.
Also policies which shift R&D investment towards infectious diseases, where spillovers to poorer countries are likely to be larger.
Vasco has come to a certain conclusion on what the best action is, given a potential trade-off between the impact of global health initiatives and animal welfare.
I think it is reasonable to disagree but I think it is bad for the norms of the forum and unnecessarily combative for us to describe moral views we disagree with as "morally repugnant". I think this is particularly unfair if we do not elaborate on why we either:
a) think this trade-off does not exist, or is very small.
or
b) disagree.
For example, global health advocates could similarly argue that EA pits direct cash transfers against interventions like anti-malaria bednets, which is divisive and counterproductive, and that EA forum posts doing this will create a negative impression of EA on reporters and potential 10% pledgers.
In my view, discussing difficult, morally uncomfortable trade-offs between prioritising different, important causes is a key role of the EA forum - whether within cause areas (should we let children die of cancer to prioritise tackling malaria / should we let cows be abused to prioritise reducing battery cage farming of hens), or across cause areas. We should discuss these questions openly rather than avoiding them to help us make better moral decisions.
I think it would also be bad if we stopped discussing these questions openly for fear of criticism from reporters - this would bias EA towards preserving the world's moral status quo enforced by the media.
Also, traditionally, criticism of "ends justifies the means" reasoning tends to object to arguments which encourage us to actively break deontological rules (like laws) to pursue some aggregate increase in utility, rather than arguments to prioritise one approach to improving utility over the other (which causes harm by omission rather than active harm), eg - prioritising animal welfare over global health, or vice-versa. With a more expansive use of the term, critics could reject GiveWell style charity comparison as "ends justifies the means reasoning" which argues one should let some children die of tetanus to save other children from malaria.
Is there reason to believe that Nigeria's population size is more likely to be exaggerated than other LMICs? (Since I imagine the incentives to exaggerate, and weak safeguards against this, exist in many other contexts too)
RCT-informed interventions focused on the poorest will not increase demand for factory farmed meat - only broad based economic growth will do this. So one solution is to focus on micro interventions targeted at the extreme poor.
Another solution is to support the alternative proteins sector in LMICs, which could enable some degree of “leapfrogging” factory farmed meat and reduce carbon emissions.
Yep, I think credibility and credentials in policy advocacy are very important, especially when you need to build networks sort of from scratch. Perhaps AIM can pay attention to this aspect going forward when founding more policy oriented charities?
I think this is a really important point. My “public sphere” of EA has very little longtermism just because of who I happen to follow / what I happen to read.
I think there is a very strong right-wing case to be made for alt proteins, i.e, “This is an example of how private businesses can solve climate change via capitalism and innovation”, and alt protein advocates should be making this case inside right wing political parties.
Is the impact of falling birth rates expected to be so large that we won't be able to sustain innovation through other means (eg - directing far more resources towards innovation, optimising the innovation process etc)?
How does this differ to citizens assemblies?
I’d add any low hanging fruit in climate advocacy to this list. The costs of carbon emissions in rich countries are disproportionately borne by poorer countries.
Also policies which shift R&D investment towards infectious diseases, where spillovers to poorer countries are likely to be larger.
Vasco has come to a certain conclusion on what the best action is, given a potential trade-off between the impact of global health initiatives and animal welfare.
I think it is reasonable to disagree but I think it is bad for the norms of the forum and unnecessarily combative for us to describe moral views we disagree with as "morally repugnant". I think this is particularly unfair if we do not elaborate on why we either:
a) think this trade-off does not exist, or is very small.
or
b) disagree.
For example, global health advocates could similarly argue that EA pits direct cash transfers against interventions like anti-malaria bednets, which is divisive and counterproductive, and that EA forum posts doing this will create a negative impression of EA on reporters and potential 10% pledgers.
In my view, discussing difficult, morally uncomfortable trade-offs between prioritising different, important causes is a key role of the EA forum - whether within cause areas (should we let children die of cancer to prioritise tackling malaria / should we let cows be abused to prioritise reducing battery cage farming of hens), or across cause areas. We should discuss these questions openly rather than avoiding them to help us make better moral decisions.
I think it would also be bad if we stopped discussing these questions openly for fear of criticism from reporters - this would bias EA towards preserving the world's moral status quo enforced by the media.
Also, traditionally, criticism of "ends justifies the means" reasoning tends to object to arguments which encourage us to actively break deontological rules (like laws) to pursue some aggregate increase in utility, rather than arguments to prioritise one approach to improving utility over the other (which causes harm by omission rather than active harm), eg - prioritising animal welfare over global health, or vice-versa. With a more expansive use of the term, critics could reject GiveWell style charity comparison as "ends justifies the means reasoning" which argues one should let some children die of tetanus to save other children from malaria.
Is there reason to believe that Nigeria's population size is more likely to be exaggerated than other LMICs? (Since I imagine the incentives to exaggerate, and weak safeguards against this, exist in many other contexts too)
RCT-informed interventions focused on the poorest will not increase demand for factory farmed meat - only broad based economic growth will do this. So one solution is to focus on micro interventions targeted at the extreme poor.
Another solution is to support the alternative proteins sector in LMICs, which could enable some degree of “leapfrogging” factory farmed meat and reduce carbon emissions.
In terms of changes in status and what people are doing:
I don’t think the Global Health and Animal Welfare cause areas have changed too much, but probably get a smaller proportion of attention.
Yep, I think credibility and credentials in policy advocacy are very important, especially when you need to build networks sort of from scratch. Perhaps AIM can pay attention to this aspect going forward when founding more policy oriented charities?
I think this is a really important point. My “public sphere” of EA has very little longtermism just because of who I happen to follow / what I happen to read.
I think there is a very strong right-wing case to be made for alt proteins, i.e, “This is an example of how private businesses can solve climate change via capitalism and innovation”, and alt protein advocates should be making this case inside right wing political parties.
Is the impact of falling birth rates expected to be so large that we won't be able to sustain innovation through other means (eg - directing far more resources towards innovation, optimising the innovation process etc)?