I'm surprised that the "top 10" doesn't include Denmark, Austria, Belgium, and Germany, since they all have more population-adjusted participants than Ireland, are not English-speaking, are more distant from London, and have lower GDP per capita^[1]

Are we using different data?

In general, I'm a bit sceptical of these analyses, compared to looking at the countries/cities with the most participants in absolute terms. I also expect Claude to make lots of random mistakes.

1. ^{^}

   But of course, Ireland's GDP is very artificial

You can DM a moderator (e.g. me) or ask forum staff via these channels

Usernames can be changed here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/account but only once

Adding Teaching At the Right Level to the list of education interventions that might be interesting to support

feels like we're violently agreeing here or something

Yes, I think this is a great summary. Hopefully not too violently?

I mostly wanted to share my (outsider) understanding of MA and its relationship with EA

In general, I think the article's main point was to promote Moral Ambition, not to be a criticism of EA, so it's not surprising that it's not great as a criticism of EA.

Not really sure how donating ~10% of my income to Global Health and Animal Welfare charities matches that framework tbqh. But yeah 'weaponize' is highly aggressive language here, if you take it out there's not much wrong with it. Maybe Rutger or the interviewer think Capitalism is inherently bad or something?

For what it's worth, Rutger has been donating 10% to effective charities for a while and has advocated for the GWWC pledge many times:

So I don't think he's against that, and lots of people have taken the 10% pledge specifically because of his advocacy.

Is this implying that EA is dead (news to me) or that is in terminal decline (arguable, but knowledge of the future is difficult etc etc)?

I think sadly this is a relatively common view, see e.g. the deaths of effective altruism, good riddance to effective altruism, EA is no longer in ascendancy

I mean, this doesn't sound like an argument against EA or EA ideas?

I think this is also a common criticism of the movement though (e.g. Emmet Shear on why he doesn't sign the 10% pledge)

This just falls victim to classic EA Judo, we win by ippon.

I think this mixes effective altruism ideals/goals (which everyone agrees with) with EA's specific implementation, movement, culture and community. Also, arguments and alternatives are not really about "winning" and "losing"

So where's the EA hate coming from? I think 'EA hate' is too strong and is mostly/actually coming from the interviewer, maybe more than Rutger. Seems Rutger is very disillusioned with the state of EA, but many EAs feel that way too!

Then you probably agree that it's great that they're starting a new movement with similar ideals! Personally, I think it has a huge potential, if nothing else because of this:

If we want millions of people to e.g. give effectively, I think we need to have multiple "movements", "flavours" or "interpretations" of EA projects.

You might also be interested in this previous thread on the difference between EA and Moral Ambition.

After watching Darren's recent talk, I'm more curious to hear what he thinks about GiveWell's analysis of water quality interventions, e.g. Evidence Action's Dispensers for Safe Water program.

How did Beast Philanthropy decide what to focus on for your next water security project?

Is talk about vegan diets being more healthy is mostly just confirmation bias and tribal thinking?

I also think if often is. I find discussions for and against veganism surprisingly divisive and emotionally-charged (see e.g. r/AntiVegan and r/exvegans )

That said, my understanding is that many studies do control for things like socio-economic status, and they mostly find positive results for many diets (including, but not exclusively, plant-based ones). You can see some mentioned in a previous discussion here.

In general, I think it's very reasonable when deciding whether something is "more healthy" to compare it to a "standard". As an extreme example, I would expect a typical chocolate-based diet to be less healthy than the standard American diet. So, while it would be healthier than a cyanide-based diet, it would still be true and useful to say that a chocolate-based diet is unhealthy.

You should be able to change it here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/account
 

Maybe non-moderators can only change it once, to prevent abuse?

If anyone doesn't see that option, just send me a DM and I can change it or ask the admins

The orange line above the circles makes it look like there's a similar number of people at the extreme left and the extreme right, which doesn't seem to be the case

Thanks! Should be fixed now. I think that was mostly built for internal use, so it's not polished or vetted