Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your input.
Your observation about the perception of EA at UCT and the emphasis on immediate impact versus long-term considerations is an intriguing one. It underscores the adaptability of EA principles to different contexts and highlights the ongoing discussions and critiques within the EA community about focus areas.
The aspiration for Africa to become self-reliant is a point of agreement that many EAs share, we appreciate your mention of this perspective, "Growth and the case against randomista development" as we hadn't heard nor read about it until you mentioned it. We're also grateful for the podcast suggestion and will be sure to check it out.
Your critique about the post potentially perpetuating the idea that EA is solely about existential risks or "crazy ideas" is duly noted. As you said, our experience is our experience. It's important to emphasise that EA encompasses a broad range of cause areas, including global health and development, and it's crucial to recognise the diversity of focus within the movement.
We appreciate your feedback on the credibility of the sources cited and acknowledge that criticisms and debates are ongoing within the EA community.
I understand your perspective, and I agree that there's often a fine balance between prioritising resources for the greatest immediate impact and ensuring equity in resource distribution, especially in the context of international development and poverty alleviation efforts.
You're correct that equity typically involves distributing resources based on need to achieve equal outcomes, and in many cases, this might align with an impact-maximising approach. However, it's also important to consider factors like historical disparities, political stability, and varying levels of capacity in different regions or countries.
For example, some regions or countries might require more initial investment to build the necessary infrastructure and capacity to effectively utilise resources for long-term development. In these cases, it could be argued that equitable distribution might mean temporarily directing more resources to such regions, even if it doesn't yield immediate impact comparable to areas with more established infrastructure.
So, while focusing on the poorest countries is often a sound strategy for immediate impact, it's also essential to take into account the broader context, acknowledge historical inequalities, and ensure that long-term strategies promote equitable development in the region as a whole.
Amazing stuff guys! super exciting :)
so true Heramb! thank you.
thank you Daniel
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your input.
Your observation about the perception of EA at UCT and the emphasis on immediate impact versus long-term considerations is an intriguing one. It underscores the adaptability of EA principles to different contexts and highlights the ongoing discussions and critiques within the EA community about focus areas.
The aspiration for Africa to become self-reliant is a point of agreement that many EAs share, we appreciate your mention of this perspective, "Growth and the case against randomista development" as we hadn't heard nor read about it until you mentioned it. We're also grateful for the podcast suggestion and will be sure to check it out.
Your critique about the post potentially perpetuating the idea that EA is solely about existential risks or "crazy ideas" is duly noted. As you said, our experience is our experience. It's important to emphasise that EA encompasses a broad range of cause areas, including global health and development, and it's crucial to recognise the diversity of focus within the movement.
We appreciate your feedback on the credibility of the sources cited and acknowledge that criticisms and debates are ongoing within the EA community.
I understand your perspective, and I agree that there's often a fine balance between prioritising resources for the greatest immediate impact and ensuring equity in resource distribution, especially in the context of international development and poverty alleviation efforts.
You're correct that equity typically involves distributing resources based on need to achieve equal outcomes, and in many cases, this might align with an impact-maximising approach. However, it's also important to consider factors like historical disparities, political stability, and varying levels of capacity in different regions or countries.
For example, some regions or countries might require more initial investment to build the necessary infrastructure and capacity to effectively utilise resources for long-term development. In these cases, it could be argued that equitable distribution might mean temporarily directing more resources to such regions, even if it doesn't yield immediate impact comparable to areas with more established infrastructure.
So, while focusing on the poorest countries is often a sound strategy for immediate impact, it's also essential to take into account the broader context, acknowledge historical inequalities, and ensure that long-term strategies promote equitable development in the region as a whole.