I think it's obviously inappropriate to ask someone out at a work retreat (and obviously inappropriate for people to date people in their chain of command, etc.). But I don't think that colleagues asking each other out is always unprofessional, if they know each other outside of work and if a "no" is respected. For a reducto ad absurdam, Google employees don't have to avoid dating all 180,000 other Google employees. Clearly, in a smaller organization, asking people out is more fraught and often wise to avoid. But I don't think it's wrong 100% of the time. I have dated work colleagues before without a problem.
(TBC I don't mean to defend Riley's behavior here, which clearly crosses a line.)
I don't understand why you're assuming that biodiversity is bad for wild-animal welfare. Biodiversity and population size are conceptually distinct: you can have a population of a single species that is much larger than the total population of five different species. Indeed, the most biodiverse regions (such as the Amazon) get that way not just because they're very productive but because they have numerous low-population species. Biodiversity loss is disproportionately concentrated among low-population species, as they are the most likely to go extinct.
Similarly, while I haven't been following the field closely for many years, my understanding is that we are certainly reducing arthropod biodiversity, but may or may not be reducing populations-- a 75% reduction in biodiversity is absolutely not the same thing as a 75% reduction in insect populations!
I think (assuming net suffering in nature) biodiversity is probably neutral for animal well-being, and potentially valuable for other reasons such as scientific research.
I have written a couple of times about my feelings about taking the GWWC pledge. (I don't believe I'm signed up on the website, but I in fact have given 10% for my entire working life, except two years that were particularly bad financially.) I think the essence, for me, is a sense of empowerment.
The world is full of enormous problems that I can't do anything about. I often feel weak and powerless and helpless. GWWC says to me that I do have power to positively affect the world, and always will. I don't have to be exceptional: as long as I have money, I can donate to highly effective charities and save lives. I don't have to worry about dying and leaving the world the same as it was when I entered it. Though I will never know their names, there are people who would be dead if not for me, and who are alive. And that means so much.
I tend to believe that SBF committed fraud for the same reasons that ordinary people commit fraud (both individual traits like overconfidence and systematic traits like the lack of controls in crypto to prevent fraud). Effective altruism might have motivated him to put himself in the sort of situation where he'd be tempted to commit fraud, but I really don't see much evidence that SBF's psychology is much different than e.g. Madoff's.
I think that relevant context for backlash against Davis Kingsley's anti-polyamory views is that he is an orthodox Catholic. His anti-polyamory views are part of a set of fairly extreme views about sexuality, including being opposed to homosexuality, masturbation, contraception, premarital sex, and any sexual intercourse other than PIV. He has also expressed the viewpoint that polyamory should be socially stigmatized and people should be pressured into monogamy. I believe that much, perhaps most, of the backlash he has faced is due to the overall set of his beliefs and that it was disingenuous for him not to include this context.
Obviously, I am opposed to sexual harassment and to pressuring people towards any relationship style.
[Note: comment edited to use Davis's preferred terminology for his style of Catholicism. The first sentence originally said "traditional". I'm sorry for using terms for his beliefs that he doesn't identify with.]
The Economist article discusses the practice of widespread polygyny: that is, men who have multiple wives and whose wives are only married to them. As a matter of mathematics, polygyny (without polyandry) means that many men will stay unmarried, which makes them less connected to society and more likely to behave violently. That argument seems true to me.
However, the argument hardly seems applicable to the egalitarian polyamory almost always practiced by effective altruists. Poly female effective altruists can and do date multiple people. Further, many poly effective altruists are in same-gender relationships. If anything, polyamory as practiced by most effective altruists seems to reduce relationship inequality. People who have trouble finding a primary relationship can find a secondary relationship and receive many of the benefits of a romantic relationship. (Although not all, of course-- I don't mean to erase the very real loneliness that comes from having a hard time finding a primary partner, even if you have secondaries you love.)
Further, the article discusses polygyny in cultures where women are literally bought from their families by wealthy men. Both polygamy and monogamy are harmful relationship structures when women are sold by their fathers to strangers three times their age. That doesn't mean that either is harmful when freely chosen by an individual in a society with much better protections for human rights in general and women's rights specifically.
Yes, of course!
This is horrifying, Fran, and I wish I could say I was surprised. Thank you for coming forward.
I think it's obviously inappropriate to ask someone out at a work retreat (and obviously inappropriate for people to date people in their chain of command, etc.). But I don't think that colleagues asking each other out is always unprofessional, if they know each other outside of work and if a "no" is respected. For a reducto ad absurdam, Google employees don't have to avoid dating all 180,000 other Google employees. Clearly, in a smaller organization, asking people out is more fraught and often wise to avoid. But I don't think it's wrong 100% of the time. I have dated work colleagues before without a problem.
(TBC I don't mean to defend Riley's behavior here, which clearly crosses a line.)
I don't understand why you're assuming that biodiversity is bad for wild-animal welfare. Biodiversity and population size are conceptually distinct: you can have a population of a single species that is much larger than the total population of five different species. Indeed, the most biodiverse regions (such as the Amazon) get that way not just because they're very productive but because they have numerous low-population species. Biodiversity loss is disproportionately concentrated among low-population species, as they are the most likely to go extinct.
Similarly, while I haven't been following the field closely for many years, my understanding is that we are certainly reducing arthropod biodiversity, but may or may not be reducing populations-- a 75% reduction in biodiversity is absolutely not the same thing as a 75% reduction in insect populations!
I think (assuming net suffering in nature) biodiversity is probably neutral for animal well-being, and potentially valuable for other reasons such as scientific research.
I have written a couple of times about my feelings about taking the GWWC pledge. (I don't believe I'm signed up on the website, but I in fact have given 10% for my entire working life, except two years that were particularly bad financially.) I think the essence, for me, is a sense of empowerment.
The world is full of enormous problems that I can't do anything about. I often feel weak and powerless and helpless. GWWC says to me that I do have power to positively affect the world, and always will. I don't have to be exceptional: as long as I have money, I can donate to highly effective charities and save lives. I don't have to worry about dying and leaving the world the same as it was when I entered it. Though I will never know their names, there are people who would be dead if not for me, and who are alive. And that means so much.
I tend to believe that SBF committed fraud for the same reasons that ordinary people commit fraud (both individual traits like overconfidence and systematic traits like the lack of controls in crypto to prevent fraud). Effective altruism might have motivated him to put himself in the sort of situation where he'd be tempted to commit fraud, but I really don't see much evidence that SBF's psychology is much different than e.g. Madoff's.
My take was originally in my article but wound up being cut for flow-- I wound up posting it on my blog.
I think that relevant context for backlash against Davis Kingsley's anti-polyamory views is that he is an orthodox Catholic. His anti-polyamory views are part of a set of fairly extreme views about sexuality, including being opposed to homosexuality, masturbation, contraception, premarital sex, and any sexual intercourse other than PIV. He has also expressed the viewpoint that polyamory should be socially stigmatized and people should be pressured into monogamy. I believe that much, perhaps most, of the backlash he has faced is due to the overall set of his beliefs and that it was disingenuous for him not to include this context.
Obviously, I am opposed to sexual harassment and to pressuring people towards any relationship style.
[Note: comment edited to use Davis's preferred terminology for his style of Catholicism. The first sentence originally said "traditional". I'm sorry for using terms for his beliefs that he doesn't identify with.]
The Economist article discusses the practice of widespread polygyny: that is, men who have multiple wives and whose wives are only married to them. As a matter of mathematics, polygyny (without polyandry) means that many men will stay unmarried, which makes them less connected to society and more likely to behave violently. That argument seems true to me.
However, the argument hardly seems applicable to the egalitarian polyamory almost always practiced by effective altruists. Poly female effective altruists can and do date multiple people. Further, many poly effective altruists are in same-gender relationships. If anything, polyamory as practiced by most effective altruists seems to reduce relationship inequality. People who have trouble finding a primary relationship can find a secondary relationship and receive many of the benefits of a romantic relationship. (Although not all, of course-- I don't mean to erase the very real loneliness that comes from having a hard time finding a primary partner, even if you have secondaries you love.)
Further, the article discusses polygyny in cultures where women are literally bought from their families by wealthy men. Both polygamy and monogamy are harmful relationship structures when women are sold by their fathers to strangers three times their age. That doesn't mean that either is harmful when freely chosen by an individual in a society with much better protections for human rights in general and women's rights specifically.
Don't worry, I'm robust to bad comments on the EA Forum. :) Fortunately, this doesn't seem to be a norm anywhere close to being adopted.