I know EA leads to some weird places, but at the same time I think the EA movement is good at not getting too involved in questions of the day where an EA perspective is not needed, and could repel some from the movement. Presumably peace in the Middle East would be very good from an EA perspective, but there is a lot of debate on the Middle East already, no reason to try to inject a formal EA perspective on it. This is not to say that EA-adjacent individuals can't engage in the debate, as a form of personal hobby maybe.
Interesting. Previously this was a major criticism I had of utilitarianism. The fact that the order of summing infinite series matters still seems like a big remaining problem.
Should you hope that you are doing good? Perhaps not. For a number of cause areas you should probably hope that you are achieving nothing, or actually doing harm. Eg, if you are working on x-risk reduction you should hope what you are doing is not neccessary, in which case you are probably doing harm by reducing growth.
Nor in Scandinavia. Driving, or riding trains, you often see cows grazing on pastures. Of course, that is not in the slaughterhouse, or when their young are taken away from them, but I still wonder whether their life on average is worse than mine. (I am also going to die one day, and adjusted for my greater understanding I am not sure mine will be a more pleasant death than a cow's.)
The last I read about Integrated Information Theory was Scott Aaronsson's criticism of it. Has his arguments been addressed, because I found it very compelling?
I would be careful about psycholigical explanations for followers of the EA movement committing fraud. It might be due to ends-justify-the-means thinking, but other possibilities, such as EA alignment being a useful tool to faciliate fraud, are also possible.
At least on Twitter I felt that EA followers gave quite a lot of attention to SBF in particular. It certainly was positive PR for him and his companies, but I think an obvious risk for the movement.
I had no inkling the problems with FTX, but I had was somewhat surprised to see the crypto influence on the EA movement. Even absent fraud crypto currency businesses seemed to be financially risky, and also posing a PR-problem.
I know EA leads to some weird places, but at the same time I think the EA movement is good at not getting too involved in questions of the day where an EA perspective is not needed, and could repel some from the movement. Presumably peace in the Middle East would be very good from an EA perspective, but there is a lot of debate on the Middle East already, no reason to try to inject a formal EA perspective on it. This is not to say that EA-adjacent individuals can't engage in the debate, as a form of personal hobby maybe.
Interesting. Previously this was a major criticism I had of utilitarianism. The fact that the order of summing infinite series matters still seems like a big remaining problem.
Should you hope that you are doing good? Perhaps not. For a number of cause areas you should probably hope that you are achieving nothing, or actually doing harm. Eg, if you are working on x-risk reduction you should hope what you are doing is not neccessary, in which case you are probably doing harm by reducing growth.
Nor in Scandinavia. Driving, or riding trains, you often see cows grazing on pastures. Of course, that is not in the slaughterhouse, or when their young are taken away from them, but I still wonder whether their life on average is worse than mine. (I am also going to die one day, and adjusted for my greater understanding I am not sure mine will be a more pleasant death than a cow's.)
Alternative protein work does not involve a direct focus on welfare, but it equally seems to not involve a direct focus on advocacy.
For PR-reasons, something involving anti-cruelty might be a good term.
The last I read about Integrated Information Theory was Scott Aaronsson's criticism of it. Has his arguments been addressed, because I found it very compelling?
I would be careful about psycholigical explanations for followers of the EA movement committing fraud. It might be due to ends-justify-the-means thinking, but other possibilities, such as EA alignment being a useful tool to faciliate fraud, are also possible.
At least on Twitter I felt that EA followers gave quite a lot of attention to SBF in particular. It certainly was positive PR for him and his companies, but I think an obvious risk for the movement.
I had no inkling the problems with FTX, but I had was somewhat surprised to see the crypto influence on the EA movement. Even absent fraud crypto currency businesses seemed to be financially risky, and also posing a PR-problem.
I wish Giving What We Can's donation page had my credit card number saved. Would remove a slight moment of annoyance each month.